I did not make it . . . did you?

Have you ever looked at something that seemed remarkable, like a house, a car, a piece of art, a computer and P1wonder who made it, how it was made?  Isn’t it remarkable when we find out the answers, it is always someone and somebody who made it?  

Yet, when we get up in the morning and we look into the mirror, I wonder if we wonder who made that, how was it made? The wild part, nobody has the answer, nobody can show you how that face came about. They can tell you it was from the copulation between a man and a woman.  Which of course leads to even more questions.  How did all of this get created, who did it.  I just cannot believe we expect an answer about the art, the computer, but accept the concept that we, nature just was there, it just is. 


But we know about the cycle of life, we know the amount of air is limited, the water we drink is limited, we are not masters of the universe, for we cannot even make what already is.   We can make only from what we have been given.  I love this joke between God and Satan.  They are having a contest to create mankind.  God reaches down and scoops up a handful of dirt and bP3reathes life into it.  Satan, unimpressed reaches down and starts to scoop up some dirt, God interrupts him and says: “Get your own dirt”  This is how I feel about us who expect an answer to who made what, but think we cannot accept the fact that actually someone, somebody made us and the earth, the universe


P4We look at these creations and don’t wonder how?  Some wonder about a computer but don’t demand an answer to the brain.  Even today, we don’t know all the areas of the brain, we don’t know how it does what it does.  Its see’s, it hears, it remembers, it controls our muscles, it controls everything about us, yet who created it? 


 I wonder about how we cannot wonder how we became to be.  I wonder, about how we don’t wonder about how everything seems to circle and be balanced.  So, I wonder how we don’t wonder about ourselves, yet there is still the world around us, like the wonders of the world. 


I don’t believe any of us, who know these things, just by looking at them, know there is a human creator behind each.  Yet, when we look at our world, the incredibly complex, balanced world we live in, we accept that there is no creator.TechCollage

Yet, an answer has been given to us.  We know it both inherently and with His written word in the Bible.  Yet, with this revelation, many people still believe someone created everything but themselves and the world they live in.  I find this illogical.



Miracles . . .



Michael Phelps:

Mark Spitz:




** I copied the table into another application which had images, the images did not copy over, so it inserted the alt-text.

Michael Phelps, without a doubt is an amazing swimmer.  Not only did he equal Mark Spitz record of 7 Gold and 7 World records, he went one more and won 8 Gold Medals in one Olympics.  In most comparisons of Mark Spitz and Phelps, they list his achievement as greater than Mark Spitz, and it is overall except for one critical difference.  Mark Spitz is the only one to win all the events he entered into, all in Gold and all in World Records. Michael Phelps fell short achieving world records for all his events.  I think this is critical, to be a 100% of success is slightly different than not.  This does not take away of his incredible achievement, but I think Mark Spitz still deserves the recognition for having Won Gold and world records for all the events he entered.


Another comparison:  Michael Phelps has held more world records, 37 to 33, however, his swimming career was over 5 Olympics and 16 years. Where Mark Spitz was over 2 Olympics and only 8 years. 

Again, I am not diminishing Phelps achievements; however, I do feel that his achievements don’t completely erase the achievements of Mark Spitz.  When one really looks at the achievements of both, incredible, in-human almost, but even though Spitz record of 7 Gold was beaten, that is the only record that was beaten, he sill holds the records for greatest achievement within the short span of his career compared to others.


God Bless these talented folks, I hope you enjoyed this trivia.

In a single Olympic

         participated in 8 Events

won 8 Gold

        7 World Records

Participated in 5 Olympics spanning 16 years From age 15 – 31

– won 8 gold medals in a single Olympics game

– has won a total of 14 Olympic gold medals

– as of 2009 he has beaten 37 world records

 Olympics Participated


2000 Sydney Olympics

Phelps’ rapid improvement culminated when he qualified for the 2000 Summer Olympics at the age of 15, as became the youngest male (since Ralph Flanagan in 1932) to make a U.S. Olympic swim team in 68 years.[29]While he did not win a medal, he did make the finals and finished fifth in the 200-meter butterfly.[30]



2004 Summer Olympics

Events: 8

WR: 1

Gold: 6

2004 Summer Olympics

Gold medal – first place

100 m butterfly

51.25 (OR)

Gold medal – first place

200 m butterfly

1:54.04 (OR)

Gold medal – first place

200 m medley

1:57.14 (OR)

Gold medal – first place

400 m medley

4:08.26 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle

7:07.33 (NR)

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley

3:30.68 (WR) (Phelps swam in heats only)

Bronze medal – third place

200 m freestyle

1:45.32 (NR)

Bronze medal – third place

4×100 m freestyle



2008 Summer Olympics

Events: 8

WR: 7

Gold 8

2008 Summer Olympics

Gold medal – first place

200 m freestyle

1:42.96 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

100 m butterfly

50.58 (OR)

Gold medal – first place

200 m butterfly

1:52.03 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

200 m medley

1:54.23 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

400 m medley

4:03.84 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m freestyle

3:08.24 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle

6:58.56 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley

3:29.34 (WR)


2012 Summer Olympics

2012 Summer Olympics

Gold medal – first place

100 m butterfly


Gold medal – first place

200 m medley


Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle


Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley


Silver medal – second place

200 m butterfly


Silver medal – second place

4×100 m freestyle



2016 Summer Olympics

2016 Summer Olympics

Gold medal – first place

200 m butterfly


Gold medal – first place

200 m medley


Gold medal – first place

4×100 m freestyle


Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle


Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley

3:27.95 (OR)

Silver medal – second place

100 m butterfly



(only the events they had in common)

– 100m butterfly ~ 50.58, OR (Olympic Record)

– 200m butterfly ~ 1:52.03, WR (World Record)

– 200m Freestyle ~ 1:42.96, WR

– 4x100m Freestyle relay ~ 3:08.24, WR

– 4x200m Freestyle relay ~ 6:58.56, WR

– 4x100m Medley relay ~ 3:29.34, WR

In a single Olympics

      participated in 7 events,

      won 7 Gold

      set 7 World Records

Participated in 2 Olympics’

spanning 8 years from age 18 – 22

– has won a total of 9 Olympic gold medals

– as of 1972 he beat 33 world records



 Olympics Participated

1968 Olympics

Events: 4

WR: 0

Gold: 2

Medal record

1968 Mexico City

Representing the USA

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley relay


Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle relay


Silver medal – second place

100 m butterfly


Bronze medal – third place

100 m freestyle



1972 Olympics

Events: 7

WR: 7

Gold 7


Medal record

1972 Munich

Representing the USA

Gold medal – first place

200 m butterfly

2:00.70 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m freestyle relay

3:26.42 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

200 m freestyle

1:52.78 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

100 m butterfly

54.27 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×200 m freestyle relay

7:35.78 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

100 m freestyle

51.22 (WR)

Gold medal – first place

4×100 m medley relay

3:48.16 (WR)


(only the events they had in common)

– 100m Butterfly ~ 54.27, WR (World Record)

– 200m Butterfly ~ 2:00.70, WR

– 200m Freestyle ~ 1:52.78, WR

– 4x100m Freestyle relay ~ 3:26.42, WR

– 4x200m Freestyle relay ~ 7:35.78, WR

– 4x100m Medley relay ~ 3:48.16, WR






Butts . . . but really

You come over to my house, you love candy, the individually wrapped kind.  You pull do-not-throw-cigarette-butts-on-the-groundinto my driveway and you have a wrapper in your hand.  You get out of your car and you decide, you don’t want the trash in your car, so you figure it’s better in my driveway, so you throw the wrapper down on my driveway.

As you approach the door, you pop another candy into your mouth and yes, you’ve got that nasty wrapper again, not sure what to do because you don’t want to bring in the trash with you, so you toss it aside into the flowerbed.

20190425_165104As you are driving home, you pop another candy into your mouth and realizing again, you don’t want to dirty your car with this wrapper, so you decided the best solution is to throw it out the window. You do and to your amusement, you watch it hit the car behind you and bounce over the top of their car.  No harm, they did not even notice.

DogsSmoking.jpgMost of us, right away would say what the person doing above is wrong, it is littering, it is against the law.  In fact, if we saw someone throwing trash out of their car, we might even report them.  However, how did the cigarette smoker get exempt?

None of us would throw our candy wrapper into our neighbors yard, but smokers don’t have a second thought about leaving their cigarette butts wherever they are.

throwing-your-cigaretteThey throw them out of their car while driving, they throw them down on the ground when they get out of their car, they throw them down on the ground before the enter an establishment without ever a thought they are littering.

Here is a study I just found about smoking:  A overwhelming number of smokers believe cigarette butts to be litter, yet it has not stopped them from doing it.

Do you consider cigarette butts to be litter?

















From <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3397372/table/ijerph-09-02189-t002/?report=objectonly>

I don’t understand how cigarettes got the windfall as ok to litter.  Even though it is considered littering, it does not stop them, even from doing it right in front of you.  It’s almost like they have the right.  Hey, I am smoking, so I have the right to litter!  Really, I am hungry, so I will throw the wrapper to my hamburger out my window when I am done with it.  Hate to have that wrapper in my car.

throw_cigarette_butt_driving_littering_nea_lta_singapore_0The logic of throwing it out of the car just eludes me.  The smoker spends a bunch of money on the cigarettes, the smoker lights it and smokes it in their car.  They put all that tar and nicotine into their body, but for some reason cannot contain the trash of there delight until they get to a proper trash can? don't be a butthead

Like drinking alcohol, this seems to be an accepted sin.  With the seemingly anti smoking campaigns around, the smokers, I would think, would want to make this habit less intrusive by picking up after themselves.  Maybe some do, regardless, too many still seem to believe someone else should pick up after they have spent the last few minutes poisoning and killing themselves, since they made such a sacrifice.

I am truly not upset or angry, just very confused about how this behavior is so accepted.  God Bless!





The complete 95 Theses can be found: Martin Luther: Great Translators of the Bible

APRIL 7, 2017 SAM

Marin Luther is known today as one of the icons of Reformation. This clergyman and avid theologist, born in 1483 in Germany, was among the first few ones to see the deception of the practices held by the Catholic church and spoke against it. The matter in question was the sale of „indulgences”, certificates which were said to have the power of absolution of sins for both the living sinners and their loved ones whose souls were in purgatory. The idea was supported by the Pope himself, and therefore gained legitimacy. Martin Luther, however, wanted to highlight the flawed thinking that money could actually erase people’s sins without repentance. This is why he went on to present his 95 Theses, which eventually led to Reformation of the Catholic Church. Here are some facts about this particular event.

  1. The Theses were originally meant to be a spark for academic debate.

Apparently, contrary to what one might think of it, hammering documents to doors of public buildings was quite an ordinary practice in the times of Martin Luther. Such events were usually staged to commence an academic debate on a given subject. As a scholar, Martin Luther felt free to express his opinion on the matters of the conduct of the Church and wanted to encourage his fellow clergymen to look into the issue. The first few lines of the original document, nailed to the door of the Church of All Saints in Wittenberg, most probably around October 1517, even mentioned the doctors and scholars to whom the Theses were addressed.

  1. Martin Luther entered into the clergy at a very young age.

His parents, Hans and Margaretta had big plans for Martin since the day he was born. At the age of 5, he already was taking lessons in reading, writing and Latin at a local school and then at 13 he was sent to a school owned by the Brethren of the Common Life in Magdeburg. The school’s curriculum combined academic teachings with an introduction into monastery and from then on Luther became interested in joining the Church. But his parents saw him rather becoming a lawyer instead. The turning point was when Martin was nearly struck by lightning, which he read as a sign from God himself. From then on, he convinced his parents of his true calling.

  1. The Theses were ordered according to the subject they mentioned.

The Theses’ order was far from random. They were put together in sections. For example, the first five opening theses discuss the nature of repentance, which according to Luther is more a spiritual resolution than an external system of confession. The next theses, from 5 to 7 talk about the limited jurisdiction of the Pope over releasing people from sin or guilt. Further on, in the theses 14-24, Luther talks about the nature and function of the purgatory as stated in the Bible, and he finishes his treaty with the theses encouraging Christians to imitate Christ, i.e. not fleeing from suffering, if it’s the way for their salvation.

  1. Martin Luther was not the first one to criticize the Church for „indulgences”.

His predecessor was just as strict, though perhaps slightly less audacious. And he went by the name John Wycliffe. John was an English intellectual, who just like Luther participated both in the clerical and academic life. He was a scholastic philosopher and theologian, in addition to being a successful Biblical translator and seminary professor at Oxford University. He took a stand against the Church’s trespassings in the 14th century. Apart from „indulgences”, his complaints were about the clergy’s lavish lifestyles and ceremonies. He also spoke against Papacy.

  1. Another of his predecessors was Jan Hus.

Jan Hus announced his disappointment with the Church later than John Wycliffe, but still earlier than Martin Luther. He was a Czech priest, born in 1372 in Husinec, a small town in the Bohemia – an Imperial State in the Holy Roman Empire. Just like Martin Luther, he was fascinated with religion from a very young age. As a child he sang and served in churches in Prague. He attacked the Church teachings on On 24 June 1405 from the comfort of his own pulpit during sermon. However, news spread quickly and Jan Hus was executed in 1415. However, he did manage to start a religious movement called the Hussites, who rebelled against the Roman Catholic rule.

  1. The 95 Theses were also distributed as a paper afterwards.

On 31 October 1517, Luther sent a letter to Archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, the person in charge of the distribution of „indulgences”. He then placed the Theses on the door of the aforementioned Church. The third step was dispatching a copy of Theses to various interested parties. The text of the Thesis, printed in Latin, covered an area of a four-page pamphlet. These were distributed all throughout Basel, and in Leipzig and Nuremberg, placards were published instead. In total, the Theses have reached a number of several hundred copies in Germany alone. Soon they were also available in translation and sent on request.

  1. Martin Luther was subsequently called a heretic.

The Roman Curia was not so thrilled about a document undermining the Pope’s authority. The recipient of the 95 Theses, Albert of Brandenburg, soon discussed the controversial matter with experts on theology at the University of Mainz and they soon reached the conclusion, that Luther should be banned from preaching against the „indulgences”. Johann Tetzel, a fellow clergyman, wanted Luther burnt at the stake, and had a man called Konrad Wimpina publish 106 theses contradicting Luther’s work. On 15 June 1520, Pope Leo X issued a papal bull, Exsurge Domine (“Arise, O Lord”). The document basically stated that Luther was wrong and that „indulgences” were fairly legit in the light of the Bible and teachings of the Church.

  1. The Wittenberg Theses started the Reformation movement.

October 1521 saw the chapel at Wittenberg resigning from private Masses. The whole city of Wittenberg was now more inclined towards conducting Lutheran services instead of Masses. Even with the threats of excommunication by the Church, Martin Luther was still very popular with the German people, who believed his Theses to be true. His followers set foundation for a new religious movement, called Lutheranism. The Lutherans placed much weight on reading into ancient Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and declined the well-established Roman Catholic doctrines. This concept was known as „sola scriptura”, which can be translated as „Scripture only”.

  1. Martin Luther was given 60 days to repent.

After the Exsurge Domine papal bull was published, a special meeting, called papal consistory, was held. The aim of the meeting was to establish whether Luther’s teachings were true or false. Surprisingly enough, a few of the teachings were found to be true, but the vast majority was deemed false. Therefore, on behalf of the Papal authority, Luther was given 60 days to admit to the error of his ways. Luther’s response was straightforward and very unpredictable. He said that the bull „was the work of Antichrist, whatever its true origin may be” and quickly put together a publication with a telling title: „Adversus Execrabile Antichristi Bullam” (Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist). And the feud went on.

  1. Martin Luther did not stop with one response to the Papal bull.

In November 1520, Martin Luther issued „Assertion of All the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull”, a work which was an emphasis on his Theses, strengthening the former arguments to new heights. To give you the general idea, phrases like: ‘the pious defrauding of the faithful.’ were substituted with shrewd ‘Indulgences are the most pious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontiffs, by which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the faithful.’ And to further annoy the Church and condemn its doings, Luther published „On the Freedom of a Christian” the same month. It earned him just as many foes as friends, asserting his position as the leader of the Reformation movement.

Original story found at: http://history-lists.com/10-interesting-facts-about-the-95-theses-of-martin-luther/




Martin Luther: Great Translators of the Bible

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.


In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.


Martin Luther was not merely protesting. He was issuing a general challenge to a public discussion with the 95 theses as the topic of discussion. The reason that it was possible to invite the public to a discussion of ninety-five topics is because Luther had really only covered one topic. He had 95 arguments, or almost 95 arguments, against indulgences, but indulgences were his one topic.

The 95 Theses Explained

Martin Luther, the great Reformer

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite [“Repent”], willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

Poenitentiam agite is a quote from Matthew 3:2 and 4:17 in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Modern English translations have “repent,” though poenitentiam agite literally means “do penance.” Martin Luther begins his arguments against indulgences by saying that we should be living lives of repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

Luther argues that Jesus’ command to “do penance” cannot be interpreted to mean the penance prescribed by priests after confession. (Today, this would usually be something like “say five Hail Mary’s, three Our Father’s, and one Act of Contrition.” At least, that’s what I experienced growing up Roman Catholic. It may have been very much different in Luther’s time.)


The attempt here is to divorce the penalty of sin from any penance prescribed by a priest. In the arguments that follow, he will tie the penalty of sin to repentance and hatred of self rather than to a penance that the Church can prescribe are take away.

In what would become the Protestant motto, Luther does exalt the command of Jesus over the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, though it becomes clear as we progress through his theses that he expects the pope to agree with him on these things. He is trying to oppose Johann Tetzel and to stop his extortion of the German people, not to oppose the pope or the Church.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.

Luther argues that all inward repentance will, by its very nature, produce “divers mortifications of the flesh.” In other words, true repentance will put the flesh to death in some outward way.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

Luther reference “the penalty” because that is what an indulgence is supposed to remit. He ties the penalty of sin to hatred of self that should never end rather than a temporary penance issued by the Church.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

Here Luther begins to make use of what he has asserted in the first four theses. The repentance that matters, he has said, is what Jesus has commanded.


That repentance never goes away, and it is not a penance prescribed by a priest. So here he follows those assertions up by stating that the only penalties that the pope can remit are those that he has imposed himself by his own authority or on the basis of established ecclesiastical rules (canons).

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

The pope can only remit guilt if God has remitted it. There are areas reserved to his judgment that only he can remit.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

When God remits guilt, he also humbles the repentant person, and he requires of penitent that he be subject to God’s representative, the priest. The point here is that this type of remission cannot be gained by putting money into Johann Tetzel’s money box because that does not produce humility nor bring about subjection to the priest.


Note that Martin Luther is still a good Catholic and priest at this point. He has much to say, even in his later Protestant writings, about submission to the pastor. Here, he is promoting a better route to remission. In confession, penance is assigned to humble the penitent person and this penance is done in submission to the priest as God’s representative.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

Penitential canons were rules about the prescribing of penance after confession. The penance included things like prolonged fasts or banishment from the communion table for periods that could last for over a decade.


Penitential canons were rules about the prescribing of penance after confession. The penance included things like prolonged fasts or banishment from the communion table for periods that could last for over a decade.


Martin Luther points out that the canons that the church is allowed to prescribe all have to do with things that concern the living. They do not include purgatory. This is an obvious foundation for the argument that the Church cannot limit the length of purgatory, but can only remove penalties that it has imposed.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

Through the Church and through the pope, the Holy Spirit is kind to us because the penitential canons, the penalties the church is allowed to impose, do not include death. I am not sure what Martin Luther means by “necessity.” (If any reader can help with this, please email me using the “contact me” button on the Navbar.)

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

If a priest receives a confession from a dying person, then issues him a penance that will be performed in purgatory, then that priest is ignorant and wicked.


He is ignorant because the penitential canons allow no such thing, and he is wicked because even a dying person should be granted full cleansing of the soul before departing this life.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

This habit of prescribing penalties to be paid in purgatory is compared to the sowing of tares by an enemy in Jesus’ parable in Matthew 23:34-40.


The references to the bishops sleeping might be a harmless reference to the parable, but it is more likely a jab, an early display of Martin Luther’s acerbic wit.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

The prescribing of penalties by a priest was for the purpose of testing true sorrow, true repentance. Once those penalties were performed, only then was the penitent absolved of his sin.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.

Since the penitential canons apply to this life only, and priests are only to administer penalties that can be performed in this life, then the death of a Christian frees him from all such penalties. They cannot be performed by those who have passed on, and so they are released.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

Luther now leaves the discussion of penalties in this life versus penalties in purgatory. His new subject concerns the fear and despair of the dying. The less love that the dying person has shown in his or her life, the greater is their fear as they face death.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

This fear of death, especially in those that have not loved much, serves as the penalty of purgatory because it is so full of despair. (This could be interpreted to mean that Martin Luther finds purgatory unnecessary, but he shows us in the next few theses this is not true.)

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

I don’t think this needs explanation in light of the explanation of theses 14 and 15.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

Purgatory is supposed to “purge” the sinner whose sins are not so great that he should go to hell. Hence the name “Purgatory.” As the sinner finds his conscience purged in purgatory, his fear and despair should grow less, and his love should increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

This, like so many other theses in Martin Luther’s treatise, is just a buildup for the following theses. Here he says that no one has proven that those in purgatory cannot receive merit in the way of increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

Still setting a foundation for following theses, Luther points out that no one has proven that all of the people in purgatory are certain that they will leave purgatory for heaven.


Nonetheless, for some reason I do not understand, he says we may be quite certain it is true that all those in purgatory have an assurance that they will arrive at blessedness.

20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

Since some penalties are remitted in purgatory to the benefit, in growing love and lessening fear, of the resident there, the pope cannot offer to remit all penalties, but only those that he himself has imposed.


Here, once again, Luther concludes that the only penalties for sin that the pope can remove are the ones that he himself has prescribed.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

This would have been a claim of Johann Tetzel, and probably others. Luther denies it based on his previous points.

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

Luther is explaining his conclusion of thesis 21, so he repeats some of his earlier points. Here he says that when the preachers of indulgences promise to remit penalties in purgatory, they are outside their bounds because any penalty being paid in purgatory does not belong to this life.


Luther has shown earlier that the pope can only remit penalties that can be carried out in this life because those are the only ones he is allowed to impose by the canons.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

Even if it were possible to grant someone the remission of all penalties for the sins they have committed, this would surely be true to very few people, those who have lived the most perfect lives.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.

Therefore, since, at best, only a rare few could have all their penalties remitted by an indulgence, then the majority of people are being deceived by the claims of the indulgence preachers.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

The pope’s power over purgatory can be compared to a bishop’s authority over his own diocese and parish.


Statements like these are confusing as you read through the 95 theses unless you realize that they are foundations for later arguments. Reading a statement like this is like reading the start of a sentence.


Read on and Martin Luther will tell you where he is going.

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

The parentheses belong to Martin Luther. However, at this point in his life, Martin Luther would not have denied to the pope the power of the keys of the kingdom (Matt. 16:18-19). Therefore this is mistranslated. Another translation reads: “(which he cannot exercise for them).”


Such a translation fits in with everything Luther has been saying. The pope cannot use the keys of the kingdom, which he does possess, to help people in purgatory. He can only help those who have penalties that belong to this life, penalties which the pope, either personally or through the local priest, has imposed himself.


Therefore, it is a good thing, Luther argues, if the pope prays for people in purgatory to have their penalties remitted, but he cannot remove penalties to souls in purgatory by the power of his office.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

Johann Tetzel had a famous jingle as a sales pitch. In German it rhymed:

So wie das Geld im Kasten klingt

Die Seele aus dem Fegfeuer springt


In English, this is “As soon as the money jingles in the box, the soul leaps out of Purgatory.”


Luther says that those who say this are preaching the doctrines of men.

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

Luther turns their jingle around and says that it is gain and avarice that can be increased by pennies jingling in money-boxes. The intercession of the Church produces the power of God, not money.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and Paschal.

Luther moves on in a surprising direction. What if there are souls that do not wish to have their time in Purgatory shortened? He references Saint Severinus of Noricum, a fifth-century Christian, and Pope Paschal I, who are supposed to have offered to go to Purgatory and bear its pains on behalf of other faithful believers.


It is very hard to track down this legend! So far all I have been able to find is rumor. I will keep looking to see where it came from. There is a Vita Severinus, a life of Severinus, written by Eugippius. I’ll see what I can find in it.


Pope Paschal I was pope from 817 to 824, and Severinus belongs to the mid-fourth century. He was the mentor of the famous desert hermit Anthony.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

I am sure that this would have been considered an undeniable truth in Luther’s time. It would not be a popular teaching in our own. You can be sure, however, that if Luther presents this statement without evidence, then he was confident it would be accepted as true without argument.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

Martin Luther does not oppose indulgences in general. He opposes the improper use of them, and these 95 Theses are an explanation of what Luther sees as improper usage.


The proposed public discussion probably never occurred in the format Luther was expecting. Instead, the discussion occurred without his supervision all over Germany after these theses were printed and reprinted by others.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.

Luther asserts that those who assure themselves of their salvation because of a letter of pardon, which is what an indulgence is, will be eternally condemned.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

In other words, beware of those preachers of indulgences who tell you that they will reconcile a man to God.


The purpose of an indulgence is to remove some earthly penalty imposed by the church, such as temporary banishment from communion or a period of self-affliction. Reconciliation to God is not the purpose of an indulgence, and we should beware of those who say they are.

34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

Luther gives us a new phrase here: “sacramental satisfaction.” That is what we have been describing. Indulgences can free you from penalties that are prescribed by priests, but not from penalties bestowed by God after this life.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

Be assured that every Roman Catholic with any theological training and sincerity in their faith, even in the sixteenth century, would have agreed with Martin Luther on this ones.


However, the hawkers of indulgences had stooped so low that they were promising instant release from purgatory as soon as a coin fell in the money box. There was no contrition necessary from the one who paid the money for they were not paying for penalties that were their own, and there was no way to know if contrition existed in a soul that is in purgatory.


So the indulgence preachers said it was not necessary. This was not Roman Catholic theology, it was greed and evil sales methods by salesmen with corrupt souls.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only  relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St.  Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art, contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God–this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

82. To wit: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”

83. Again: “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

84. Again: “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

85. Again: “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

86. Again: “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

87. Again: “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”

88. Again: “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”

89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

Uncertainty . . . is OK

This is my last post on this subject, I hope forever.  I have two previous posts: 1) Only the Only Version? And KJV Only . . .

I don’t know why, but I truly got addicted to learning more about the KJV onlyKJVOnlyOnly perspective.  In a way, I was looking for something others have missed, but on inspection, the K JV only and their only claim was on their emotions, but not on facts.

As I said before, I am ok with you someone wanting to have a version Bible as their preferred version.  I am not ok though with you marketing your version as the best version and all others as somehow inferior.

As I was thinking about your (The KJV Only) perspective and was thinking about the following two parallel perspectives.  1) There are Pastors that are calling out other Pastors which don’t seem to be preaching the Gospel, even though these Pastors are very, very popular.  We, Christians, also believe our belief, faith, love and the following of Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. FalseTeachers_better

So from this standpoint, I truly understand how one can feel that their perspective is the only one.  When people point out issues with the Christian faith, we have all sorts of explanations.  Most of the time they seem reasonable, sometimes they are not, yet we go on believing.  Why?

Because we believe we live in a universe, a world where we simply don’t have all the


answers.  In addition, even though we may have some holes in our facts, that is it, only holes, nobody else has presented something else that explains our existence in this world better.  So, just showing some logic issues, does not refute the fundamental facts.

The difference however, at least with the believing in God and the following of Jesus, there has not been fundamental facts presented which refute Christianity, at best it questions some of the facts, but no replacement.  The issue with the preachers, I don’t care if they are false preachers in Christ’s name, I don’t know their heart, but what I have chosen to do is to follow Jesus, not a man preacher.

KJV_NIV Deleted VerseHowever, there is no facts that sustain the perspective the KJV Bible is superior, if anything when the facts are uncovered, the KJV is more questionable than the moder versions, such as the NASB, ESV and NIV.  Also in fact, the difference between the KJV and modern versions is truly very little and none question the deity of God.

The main issue I have with those who claim the KJV Bible only is the best is they state how many verses were removed or how many less times God or Jesus or another word is mentioned.  However, they make this claim not against the original Hebrew or Greek, but as compared to the KJV.  That’s like the NASB comparing itself to the ESV and them against the NIV, but never going back to the original text. NIVBiblenasbbibleesvsbhbk

As I discovered the complexity of translating, the issue has to do with context than almost anything else.  Word for word often does not translate directly, so even in the word-for-word translations, there is still the need to have a dynamic translation.

We need people to challenge us, we become stronger in our faith when we get challenged.  Those that state KJV only are good for us, because maybe you do what I’ve done and learned more about the translating process than I ever thought I would know.  We need people like Bart Erhman that challenges those things we don’t question. BartErhman

If any of those challenges we face, knocks off our faith completely, then maybe we were looking for that reason If we do find ourselves questioning our faith, then it could be and should be a motivation to seek more truth.  In those times, we maybe cannot find the whole truth, we can ask God directly through prayer.