Purgatory again. Even though it's an ancient pagan practice adopted by your church, you keep defending it.
In what sense is purgatory a "practice"?
Anyway, if what you're saying is that there were similar beliefs among pagans, I don't see how that automatically makes it wrong. The idea of a god who dies and comes back to life existed among various pagan religions, so would you say that this means that the Resurrection is a pagan idea adopted by the Church?
Anyway, in 1 Corinthians 3, you take verse 13 ("Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.") and claim that the work being tried by fire is everything that we could be judged about, and that therefore a purging in purgatory is necessary to burn away our unforgiven sins
I never said anything about unforgiven sins; I'm talking about the temporal punishment for sins. Even after a sin is forgiven, a punishment can remain. For instance, in 2 Samuel 12, David is punished even though his sin was already forgiven:
2 Samuel 12:13-14
And David said unto Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said unto David, "The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."
It is blatantly obvious that the works being discussed throughout chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians are in the context of the Corinthians being divisive about whether they followed Paul, or Apollos, or another.
Sure. But Paul goes on to talk about what happens on Judgment Day, based on what we do in this life, and this is applicable to anyone even though he's speaking about particular people here. "Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God."
Then Paul notes that he was tasked by God with being the masterbuilder who constructs the foundation for churches. Then he warns to build upon that foundation with care; that only building upon Christ is right, not building on one teacher or another.
Well, he says that there is only one foundation that can be laid: Christ. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." It's not teachers who are being built on, it's teachers who are doing the building. And it is based on how well they build that they will be judged: "But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."
Building with gems, gold, etc. is not proper.
Building with gold, silver, precious stones is proper. What is improper is building with wood, hay, and stubble. The first group of building materials are high-quality materials, and they will survive the fire; but the second group won't survive. "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." This last part describes purgatory, here with respect to the teachers, but it also applies to any Christian, since we will all be judged, not just the teachers. Once we are saved, we are temples of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). Our foundation, as Christians, is Christ. We work with God in building up the temple. If we do a good job, we go to heaven. If we do a bad job, our work will be purified of whatever was bad, but we will ultimately go to heaven. On the other hand, if we defile the temple, losing the grace of justification, then we will go to hell: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy."
And one more point; of course Jesus is and was sinless because He is God; tha
The passage from 1 Corinthians 11 is only interpretable if you put it in context. Look at verses 24 and 25; see that the Lord commands to do this "in remembrance of me". Humans can remember things, and do things in remembrance of, without engaging in the "mystery of the eucharist".
Well, Jesus explicitly told us to "do this". Now, what is Jesus talking about here? What is it we are supposed to do in remembrance of him? Well, we're supposed to do what He did, that is, change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Then we're supposed to take it and eat it.
Sure your catechism says that it's efficacious, but God's word contradicts that. An unbloody sacrifice is useless; spin words all you want, the Bible is against you.
The sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as that of Calvary. Have a look once again at that talk by Scott Hahn that I posted here. It shows pretty clearly that Calvary and the Last Supper are all part of the same Passover sacrifice, with Christ as our Lamb.
Yes the jailer was baptized, it's a commandment. But when he asked Paul and Barnabas what was necessary, they were quite explicit, clear, and distinct:
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Acts 16:30-32, emphasis added)
And if you believe in Jesus, you also believe what He taught, such as the fact that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5). So saying that one must believe to be saved implies that one accepts the necessity of baptism.
Besides, you're ignoring some of the other occasions on which people asked about what was needed for salvation:
Matthew 19:16-19
And, behold, one came and said unto him, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?" And he said unto him, "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." He saith unto him, "Which?" Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Acts 2:37-39 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Then Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call."
Acts 16:30-31 And brought them out, and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
Note carefully, since after this verse is the one about them being baptized, that all his house had the word preached to them; following that, they were baptized. Talking to an infant is useless, so clearly his entire household was able to reason.
Infants are open to receiving the grace of justification through baptism. They can't reject that grace as an adult can, which is why an adult must believe in order to be baptized; an adult must choose whether or not to accept the grace of justification.
Besides, the Bible says that young children can be believers. For instance:
Luke 1:41-44
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of t
Of course I don't think Jesus is a pagan god; how absurd a thought.
Then maybe you shouldn't call Him one.
In this bit of scripture:
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. [...] You claim that says that Paul was a bishop because he "ordained" Timothy. Yet scripture does not say that he ordained anyone, merely that he put his hands on Timothy and thereby gave Timothy a gift of God which is power, love, and a sound mind.
Why would this gift be incompatible with ordination? It is the grace given so that Timothy might worthily carry out his sacred ministry.
Timothy apparently needed encouragement in his ministry, and here Paul is trying to give him some encouragement and to get him to make use of the grace given to him. Paul does the same sort of thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, which explicitly mentions ordination:
1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Paul is talking about the same gift in both cases, so he was talking about ordination in both cases.
The bible quotes Paul as saying that he is appointed "a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles". Paul does not describe himself as a bishop.
The Bible says that the office of an apostle is that of a bishop:
Acts 1:16-17,20
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.... For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
Independent Baptists tend not to be protestants, we were around (much as the RCC is desperately denying this) long before Martin Luther.
The RCC says, in its catechims, that the eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice.
Actually, no. What the Catechism says is that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as that of Calvary, but offered in an unbloody manner. The Catechism says:
1367
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
By the way, how do you interpret this passage concerning the Eucharist?
1 Corinthians 11:26-29
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
And your statements that baptism is necessary for salvation are easily refuted in God's holy word. See the story about the jailer (Acts 16), the thief on the cross (Luke 23), etc.
The jailer was baptized (Acts 16:33). If baptism wasn't considered necessary, then why did he and his family all get baptized immediately, in the middle of the night?
Have a look at all the conversions mentioned in the book of Acts, and see how many involve baptism and how many don't.
The fact is that the Bible explicitly tells us that baptism is the means through which we are saved:
1 Peter 3:20-21
...in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.
As for the thief, he didn't really have much opportunity to get baptized, given that he was attached to a cross. God wouldn't hold something that was beyond the thief's control against him. God knows what our intentions are and acts accordingly.
Nice trolling, but I don't worship idols, I don't make statues or icons.
I didn't say you did. It's just that you seemed to be implying that a crucifix is a pagan idol, which would only make sense if you believed that Jesus is a pagan god. If I misinterpreted what you said, please let me know.
Then you try to get "must be the husband of one wife" as a requirement for being a bishop to be disclaimed because Paul was not married. Bzzzzzzt. Nowhere in scripture is Paul labelled as a bishop. Only Timothy and Titus are so labelled.
In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul says that he had ordained Timothy. Thus Paul was a bishop.
And you continue to claim indulgences were not sold. If that were true, Martin Luther would not have gained the following he did so rapidly. The sale of indulgences was repugnant to anyone who read and believed scripture, that's why he got such a huge response - all the true believers were offended by the actions of the RCC.
Actually, Protestantism gained the following it did only because it was supported by the local rulers. See Section VIII of this page, the section in question being entitled "The Largely Political Basis of the Protestant Revolt". It includes quotes from Luther admitting that without government support for Protestantism, most people would have rejected it.
You claim that the fact that Jesus is recorded in scripture frequently talking about heaven and hell yet never mentioning "purgatory" is unimportant. Nice try, but if He had not been recorded as mentioning demons and fasting to drive them out, we would have lost a hugely significant teaching.
So what you're saying is that only the Gospels are important? If, for instance, a teaching appears only in the epistles of Paul, you believe that we should ignore it, because the Bible doesn't record it as something Jesus said?
And purgatory is would be more important since otherwise we would think salvation had failed if we wound up burning after death.
Well, Paul tells us about Purgatory, so Christians would know about it. Besides, I think one would know one weren't in hell. See, for instance, Isaiah 6:1-7.
Then you claim that Jesus saying "I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also (John 14:3)" does not mean that He will be with us constantly. If He says that He will receive me unto Himself, so that where He is, I may be also, then if I go to purgatory, He would be there too.
First of all, Purgatory is not a place, it's a state of purification. Using my previous example, we could both be in the same place, at the entrance to my house, and yet only you would wipe your shoes clean if you were the only one with dirty shoes.
Now to the closing apostasy in your post, where you claim young children are sinless.
I said that they don't sin. They do have the stain of Original Sin, which is why they're baptized. But they don't commit any sins themselves.
You apparently miss the point about why Jesus had to be born as the "seed of the woman": Adam's seed carried Adam's sin.
No, Jesus was sinless because He is God. His sinlessness has nothing to do with Adam's seed.
there was only one sinless birth, as scripture records.
Where does Scripture record that there was only one sinless birth?
Even the RCC says an infant has to be baptized; what about one that dies during delivery then?
Children are conceived with the stain of Original Sin, so they lack justifying grace. This is why they are baptized: baptism gives them the grace of justification, saving them. Without baptism, it is possible that infants go to hell, although we can hope that God would save the child despite the lack of justifying grace. But it is better to baptize children in order to ensure that they have the grace of justification.
Now, purgatory cleanses us of the temporal punishment for sin. An infant, baptized or not, has never done anything to merit a temporal punishment, and so, because he has nothing to cleanse, he wouldn't go to purgatory.
the RCC says the eucharist is an "unbloody sacrifice".
The Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary, made present in an unbloody manner. Jesus did indeed shed His blood on Calvary.
And claiming that the eucharist and the cross are the same sacrifice, well, that's just plain silly.
I don't know if you read the article I posted last time, but you should have a look at it.
To claim that a wafer is to be worshipped is offensive.
Paul would disagree with you.
1 Corinthians 11:26-29
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
Then there's the point that our Lord followed and fulfilled the law perfectly. One of the principle teachings of the law was never to drink blood. Yet by RCC reckoning that is carried out not only in the last supper but daily around the world.
Actually, Jesus said that we can eat anything, despite what the Mosaic Law said:
Mark 7:15
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Can't you see that there is no way that Jesus would force His disciples to consume blood, that it had to be a symbolic presentation?
It seems to me that if it were sinful literally, it would be sinful symbolically. For instance, would it be okay for Jesus to encourage the Apostles to symbolically murder someone?
As in John 10 where He says that He is a door, why doesn't the RCC teach that He has hinges?
Jesus is a door in that we go through Him to go to heaven. But Jesus never said, "This particular door is me." He did take some bread and say, "This is my body," and I believe Him.
If you hold to John 6:51-53 teaching the eucharist, then no one can be saved without it. Yet we have the jailer, the eunuch, the thief on the cross, etc. all told that they are saved
The Eucharist is to our spiritual life what food is to our physical life, just as baptism is to our spiritual life what birth is to our physical life. In order to live, you don't need to be constantly eating. But if you don't eat for long enough, you will die. In the same way, if you are in a state of grace, you can get by for a while without the Eucharist and the grace it gives you. But if you don't receive the Eucharist for long enough, you will eventually fall into sin, because we rely on God's grace to avoid sin.
Someone who has been baptized, such as the jailer or the eunuch, is saved; that person has received justifying grace. If that person were to suddenly die right after his baptism, without having received the Eucharist, then he would go to heaven, because one is in a state of grace immediately after baptism. However, the longer he goes without receiving the Eucharist, the more likely it is that he will fall into sin and lose his salvation, since he isn't receiving the grace that would help him to remain in a state of grace. In the same way, a child that is just born doesn't need to immediately eat in order to be alive. But if he doesn't eat for a long time, he will eventually die.
Additionally, since John 6:51-53 says that baptism is not necessary for salvation
Really? Where does it say that? I do know that a few chapters before this, it is stated that baptism is necessary:
John 3:5
I tell you solemnly, unless a man is born through water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Unbelievable, you're comparing commandments of the Lord God to build Him a sanctuary and an Ark to the pagan idols of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no recorded commandment to build gem-encrusted golden crucifixes in the Bible
So you consider Jesus to be a pagan god?
yet you're trying to compare the Ark of the Covenant with them.
The point is that the Bible supports the use of gold and gems in religious objects, such as the Ark, the candlesticks, the garments of Aaron, etc.
And equally absurd is your claim that "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:2)" has the "must" not governing the entire "husband of one wife" clause but only the numeric portion thereof.
Paul could have simply said that a bishop had to be married, if that's what he meant, but instead he used the expression "husband of one wife". When we look at 1 Timothy 5:9, we see that it would be redundant to use this sort of expression there if it means what you say it means, since by definition a widow has been married. So Paul uses this to disqualify people with more than one spouse.
One problem with your interpretation of the phrase is that if Paul made marriage mandatory, then he'd be disqualifying himself.
Second, Paul considered marriage to be a distraction from serving God, so it wouldn't make much sense for him to go out of his way to burden those who were dedicating themselves to the service of God with such a distraction.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Third, Paul is listing qualifications that would prevent having a blameworthy bishop. There's no blame in having no wife (Paul says that this is actually to be preferred), while there is blame in having more than one wife.
Then again you claim indulgences were not for sale. Yet see:
"In corruption," says Symonds, " he [Innocent VIII] advanced a step even beyond Sixtus, by establishing a bank at Rome for the sale of pardons. Each sin had its price, which might be paid at the convenience of the criminal: one hundred and fifty ducats of the tax were poured into the Papal coffers; the surplus fell to Franceschetto, the Pope's son." Foote and Wheeler, Crimes of Christianity, Progressive Publishing Company, London, 1887, Volume I, p. 338
All you've shown here is that some nineteenth-century atheists have the same misunderstanding of indulgences as you do.
Or more to your taste, from a Catholic source [newadvent.org], see:
For this payment, which smacked of simony, the pope would allow an indemnity, which in this case took the form of an indulgence. By this ignoble business arrangement with Rome, a financial transaction unworthy of both pope and archbishop, the revenue should be partitioned in equal halves to each, besides a bonus of 10,000 gold ducats, which should fall to the share of Rome.
The only bad thing I see here concerning indulgences is that there appears to have been a misappropriation of the money given as alms. But nowhere does it say anything about indulgences being sold.
Interesting, you say "Genesis was meant to be a historical work, while Revelation is a book of prophecy". Do you then ignore all the prophecy in Genesis?
No, I'm talking about the styles of the books in general. For instance, the beginning of the book of Revelation is "historical" in style, but most of the book is composed of prophecy.
You then state that, in relation to the RCC calling the eucharist "an unbloody sacrifice" that "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary". So now you're saying that Calvary was an unbloody sacrifice as well, that it was therefore useless against sin?
No, it's the same sacrifice in both cases. In the Eucharist, its form is unbloody, since Christ isn't being killed a second time.
Jesus bled on the cross; His blood washes believers in Him from sin. He completed His work on the cross, the reenactment of it by priests is simple apostasy. Calvary was a bloody sacrifice, therefore efficacious. The eucharist, as stated by the RCC, is an unbloody sacrifice. Therefore, according to scripture, it is useless against sin.
No, it's the same sacrifice, as I said. Scott Hahn had a interesting talk about the Eucharist and Calvary, which shows that they are the same sacrifice. It's long, but I'll try to shorten his argument a little bit:
Luke 22, verse 15, our Lord says, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you." So we are assured that the Last Supper in the Upper Room was a Passover meal. In Mark 14, verses 22 through 26, we hear the words of institution, "And as they were eating He took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, 'Take, this is my body.' And He took a cup and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them and they drank all of it and He said to them, 'This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'"
And I thought, "Huh, I never noticed those words before, 'I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'" Elsewhere you have the same idea expressed in the gospels where Jesus says, "I won't drink of the fruit of the vine until," you know, I'm being glorified. And I thought, "Well, wait a second, when he said, 'It is finished,' he had just taken some sour wine." I wanted to work on that connection a little more.
And then I noticed the next phrase, "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the night." I had been studying the ancient Jewish Passover liturgy for some time and I knew the four cups of the Passover liturgy represent essentially the basic liturgical structure of this meal. The first cup is the blessing of the festival day, it's the kiddush cup. The second cup of wine occurs really at the beginning of the Passover liturgy itself, and that involves the singing of psalm 113. And then there's the third cup, the cup of blessing which involves the actual meal, the unleavened bread and so on. And then, before the fourth cup, you sing the great hillel psalms: 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118. And having sung those psalms you proceed to the fourth cup which for all practical purposes is the climax of the Passover.
Now what's the problem? The problem is that gospel account says something like this: after the third cup is drunk Jesus says, "I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God." And it says, "Then they sang the psalms." Every Jew who knows the liturgy would expect: 'and then they went ahead and said the grace and the blessing and had the fourth cup which climaxed and consummated the Passover.' But no, the gospel account say they sang the psalms and went out into the night.
Jesus did this deliberately. He interrupted the Passover liturgy right at its climactic moment. For what purpose? Well, in Mark 14, verse 32, it goes on to read, "And they went to a
Further, the Lord never mentioned purgatory when He was here, or scripture would have it recorded.
Oh really? How do you know this? John specifically says at the end of his gospel that only a small fraction of what Jesus did on earth is recorded.
He mentioned Heaven, and He mentioned Hell. But never purgatory. If it were to exist, that would have been a significant missing piece.
Purgatory isn't necessarily a place, but rather a purification that prepares us for heaven.
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. (John 14:2-4)
So that means you are teaching that Jesus has to go to purgatory too, so that He will be where you will be.
Why would Jesus have to go to purgatory? Let's say I were to invite you to my house, where I've prepared a room for you. Now, I go and pick you up in my car, and take you to my house. If your shoes are dirty when we get to my house, you should wipe them before entering. But if my shoes are clean, I don't need to wipe them.
Paul taught in many places that to die is to be with Christ. Nothing intermediate.
Not exactly, because first there's judgment: "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27) And Paul says concerning purgatory:
1 Corinthians 3:13-15
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Similarly, praying for "souls in purgatory" is also major-league unscriptural. See 2 Samuel 12:21-23, where David ceased praying for his son when the son died. Clearly David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote as he did because he knew his son was then in heaven. No record of baptism is put down, as would be necessary to convey the RCC "saved by baptism" doctrine. So by RCC reckoning, David's son would have been condemned. David's son was in heaven, not purgatory.
Young children don't go to Purgatory, since they've never committed any sin.
You claim Peter ruled the church, yet in Acts 15 James issues a ruling at a meeting where Peter is present. Just curious, is there a case where a pope accepted a ruling binding on him from a local bishop? I doubt it, since popes are supposed to be supreme. And Acts 15 shows that James had power over Peter.
Where does it say that what James said was binding on Peter? The Greek word which the KJV translates as "sentence" is krino, which is usually translated as "judge", such as in the sense of "to be of the opinion that..." So this isn't much evidence for James being the head of the Church, especially since the Bible makes it clear elsewhere that it was Peter who was the head.
In any case, the Bible itself says that the decision was made by the council as a whole (Acts 15:28, Acts 16:4).
Revelation is full of literal predictions. The moving of all mountains is talking about a geophysical catastrophe.
Is that so? As I said, the previous verse, Revelation 6:13, says that the stars fall to the earth. Since this is, according to you, to be taken literally, the earth has been boiled away into space by the heat of the stars by the time verse 14 predicts the mountains and islands moving.
If you are going to allegorize that judgment, do you also allegorize the flood in Genesis 7-8?
There was indeed a flood, but then again Genesis was meant to be a historical work, while Revelation is a book of prophecy.
You also again try to say that Babylon is not Rome. Yet even one of the most respected and well-known Catholic apologists, Karl Keating, clearly states that Babylon is a word for Rome
So what? Have a look at what the Bible says:
"The woman which thou sawest is that great city." (Revelation 17:18) The Bible tells us that "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," is "where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8) So, in other words, the woman in Revelation is Jerusalem.
Even your church admits Babylon in Revelation is Rome; why do you fight against your church?
I'm not aware that the Church has defined this either way.
Are you showing signs of independent thought, of interpreting the Bible for yourself?
Independent thought and interpreting the Bible for yourself is fine as long as you don't deny any of the teachings of the Church.
You say you receive the eucharist weekly. The eucharist is one of the most heinous inventions of the Catholic Church.
Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
1 Corinthians 11:26-29 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
The RCC claims that the wine becomes blood, and the bread becomes flesh. Yet even the most docile Catholic notices that it still tastes like a slice of bland dough and cheap wine.
Christians claim that Jesus was both man and God. Yet even the most docile Christian would notice that Jesus looked like an ordinary man.
Therefore the RCC came up with the doctrine of "transubstantiation". The mechanism for this is based on the work of Aristotle, as applied by "saint" Thomas Aquinas.
No, transubstantiation was always believed. All Aquinas did was to describe it using Aristotelian terms. The belief
When Paul taught the Bereans, they were lauded and celebrated because they checked everything he said, all the words he used, directly against scripture (Acts 17:11). They did not check it against other oral teachings or against tradition. They are praised in the Bible for checking all teachings against the Bible.
No, they were praised for checking the prophecies that Paul was using to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. If they were checking Christian teachings against the Old Testament, I imagine they would have rejected Christianity. For instance, in Mark 7:18-19, Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws concerning clean and unclean food. So if they had looked this up in the Old Testament, they would have seen that it contradicts what the Old Testament says, and rejected it as unBiblical.
What the Bereans checked in the Old Testament was whether Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah. If He was the Messiah, then He would have the authority to change Old Testament Law; and if not, then not. So checking the teachings themselves would be beside the point, since whether or not they can be changed is dependent on the question of Jesus' authority.
In any case, if you believe that all teachings must be checked against the Bible, then you must accept oral tradition, since the Bible teaches it:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
You say the RCC does not forbid marriage.
That's right, it doesn't. Are you an advocate of forced marriage, since you say marriage is required for bishops? If marriage is "forbidden" in one case, then it is "forced" in the other.
You say that "must be the husband of one wife" does not mean marriage. Fascinating, to back that up let's see a dictionary meaning of "must" that encompasses your claim.
The important word is not "must", but "one". Paul didn't say a bishop "must be married", but that he "must be the husband of one wife", including the word "one" in what he said. He's rejecting people with more than one wife.
Compare this to 1 Timothy 5:9, where Paul says, "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man." The expression "the wife of one man" can't be the equivalent of the word "married", because it would be redundant to say that a widow had to have been married in the past. When Paul uses this phrase, he means "the wife of no more than one man". The same is true in the case of bishops: he is rejecting those with more than one wife.
He is not requiring bishops to have a wife, because that would mean that Paul himself would need to be married, which he wasn't.
Pope Sixtus IV, in a Bull in 1476, extended the right of use of excess good works done by saints, and "extended this privilege to souls in purgatory, provided that their living relatives purchased indulgences for them (emphasis added)". That's one clear, direct, incontrovertible proof that you're wrong.
No, Pope Sixtus IV, in "Cum Praeexcelsa" (1476), granted an indulgence for assisting at the Divine Office (a liturgical celebration) for a certain day. In other words, the indulgence was granted for participating in prayer. Money was not involved.
Leo X commissioned Friar Johann Tetzel to sell indulgences.
No, he didn't. As I said, you can't sell an indulgence. The Pope had commissioned Tetzel to promote a certain ind
The selection of verses you quoted simply teach that Christians are not to sit back and sin away, but instead to strive to be more Christ-like. Not that we get anything for it but rewards in heaven.
Okay, let's take a look at them one by one, and see if they can be interpreted in this way.
Philippians 3:11-14
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will "attain unto the resurrection of the dead". So your interpretation doesn't fit.
1 Corinthians 9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will be a "castaway", rejected by God. So your interpretation doesn't fit.
1 Corinthians 10:12
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Have a look at what comes before this.
1 Corinthians 10:1-6 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ["Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness." (Numbers 14:16)] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
So these things are an example for us, showing that those who are saved can spiritually die; just as the Israelites sinned and thus died. They had been saved from slavery, and were supposed to go to the Promised Land, but they didn't because they had sinned.
1 Corinthians 10:7-11 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
These are more examples for us, showing that sin results in spiritual death. So now we have finally come to the verse I had quoted earlier: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Paul's whole point here is that we can lose our salvation if we sin. This danger is always there, which is why we must "take heed" lest we fall.
Romans 11:22
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Here is the context of the above verse:
Romans 11:16-24 If the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but
You still claim, now in two posts, that "Jesus Christ" is not needed for salvation
No, I did not. We are saved only through Jesus Christ.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12, emphasis added)
And I wrote that we are saved through baptism. We are baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) In baptism, we are united to Christ's death and resurrection.
Colossians 2:12
Ye are... buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Once the dispensation of the Church started, we can ONLY be saved by Jesus Christ.
Actually, even in Old Testament times, we could only be saved by Jesus. Only through Jesus can we be saved.
Since the RCC does say, as I quoted a few posts back upstream, that salvation does not require the name of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church therefore goes against the Bible.
Don't you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as He is called in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19?
And once again, here's the content of a Catholic prayer card describing how to obtain salvation: [...] That does not once mention the Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name alone we can be saved.
Again, the people addressed in that card have already been saved in the name of Jesus.
It does mention a lot of works that must be done to earn salvation, hence it advocates works salvation, something strongly counter to Paul's teachings.
No, works salvation is the idea that we can earn the grace of justification. The people for whom that card was written have already received the grace of justification as a free gift from God. We do, however, have to persevere in the state of grace if we are to go to heaven when we die, and this is what the card addresses. Here are some Biblical verses on this, which I hope you will accept as the truth:
Philippians 3:11-14
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
Galatians 6:9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.
Hebrews 3:12-14 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end.
James 1:12,15-16 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.... Sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.
The topic of simplicity of salvation is seen from the verses quoted
No, the verse you quoted talks about the simplicity of Christians, not the simplicity of salvation:
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2Co 11:3-4, emphasis added).
The word "simplicity" here describes Christians, not salvation.
You also claimed that Strong's number 572 does not mean simplicity.
When did I say this?
In fact it is translated as simplicity more times than it's translated any other way. And the definition from Thayers is
1) singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty
1a) the virtue of one who is free from pretence and hypocrisy
2) not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generousity
Right, this is what I had said. The word "simplicity" describes people, not doctrines. A simple Christian is someone who is sincere, mentally honest, etc.
the complexity from an RCC document.
That document is speaking to people who are already saved through baptism, and who have to deal with the many ways we can fall into sin. The document could have simply said "remain in the state of grace", but practically speaking, it makes sense to exhort us to do particular things, and to warn us to avoid particular sins.
The Bible does the same sort of thing. For instance:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Are you going to complain now that Bible isn't simple enough?
While independent Baptists and Evangelicals know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, the point was that the RCC document does not mention Him at all.
Sure it does. Catholics believe that Jesus is God.
I can't see how you got the interpretation that I thought Jesus is not necessary
I didn't say that you think Jesus is not necessary. I was asking you whether you believe that Jesus is God. You seem to be implying that "God" can't refer to Jesus.
I challenge you to find an independent Baptist that explains salvation without mentioning Jesus as the RCC has in that document. Perhaps you meant to dodge the bullet by saying that the name of God is identical to the name of Jesus. Yet the Bible says they are distinct, and that only through the name of Jesus can we be saved
Again, that document was addressing people who have already been saved through baptism, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) They have already been saved in the name of Jesus.
As to why "savior" and "Saviour" are different, the word was always spelled with a "u" until HPB made her "god" and "savior" intentionally different by dropping the "u". So "savior" was coined to refer to Maitreya or Lucifer or Satan, while "Saviour" was coined to refer to our Lord Jesus Christ. Also note that "Saviour" has seven letters, while "savior" has six. Biblically that's significant. Prior to very recent times, dictionaries defined "savior" as one who saves, while "Saviour" is defined as "Jesus Christ, by way of distinction".
No offense, but this is silly. The KJV uses the "-our" ending because it uses British spelling. It's like armour vs. armor, colour vs. color, etc.
By the way, "Christ" has six letters, while "Messiah" has seven. Is this Biblically sig
Clearly Paul taught verbally before he wrote all of his letters. Therefore to those recipients of the letters which he had verbally taught, he made the statements you quote.
Precisely. And he says that his oral teachings are the Word of God, just as Scripture is.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.
But there is no parallel for oral tradition to the clear statement for scripture:
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(2Timothy 3:13-17)
Well, Paul saying that his oral teachings are the word of God is pretty clear. And in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, oral teachings and written teachings are placed on the same level.
You may claim, as you have previously, the our Lord said to obey his words. Yet there is nothing which shows that He meant anything for us beyond that recorded in scripture.
What makes you say that? Is it written in the Bible somewhere? The fact is that the Bible tells us that Christian teaching is transmitted both orally and in written form. Otherwise, in 2 Timothy 2:2, why did Paul say, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also"? Why didn't he just say, "Pass my letters around"?
From the history of the manuscripts, it's clear that written transmission is of a far higher fidelity than verbal (think about the game of "telephone").
Unlike the game of telephone, the transmission of the faith from one generation to another is protected by the Holy Spirit.
The RCC has clearly made regulations against God's will, such as forbidding their priests to marry. You claim that this is a voluntary act of a priest / nun / monk, yet the simple fact is that the RCC forbids marriage.
The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. Some people voluntarily choose to make a vow to remain celibate: not only priests, but also monks, nuns, and other laypeople. It is up to the individual to choose whether or not to make such a vow to God.
Yes there have been exceptions, just as the RCC has sold indulgences to gain forgiveness of sins
No, the Church has never sold indulgences, because an indulgence can't be sold. There are different types of indulgences, and one type involved giving alms, which some people misinterpreted as "buying" an indulgence. But the indulgence is received only if you're in a state of grace, if you reject sin with all your heart, etc. Giving money, by itself, would not get you anything as far as the indulgence was concerned.
Secondly, an indulgence does not gain anyone the forgiveness of their sins. That happens at confession. An indulgence forgives you the temporal punishment for sin (whether on earth or in purgatory). But to obtain an indulgence, you already have to be in a state of grace, with no mortal sins on your soul.
In fact the RCC doctrine of forbidding marriage is clearly labelled in scripture:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them
Okay, back to the original point of this thread, the key point that the RCC is not only non-biblical, it's anti-biblical. Let's focus on the key doctrine of salvation. What does the Bible teach it takes to be saved? Here are some examples of how simple it is to be saved:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:15-16)
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:37)
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Lukr 23:42-43)
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Acts 16:30-31)
You left out a few important passages, which I will get to below.
From the Mother of the Savior[sic] Seminary
Why "[sic]"? It's spelled correctly.
Now let's contrast by seeing what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is the requirement for salvation: [...] prayer card on how to be saved:
Things necessary for salvation: Believing in God; Hoping in God; Loving God; Being sorry for offending God; Adoring God; Aspiring after God; Thanking God; Calling upon God; Being led, restrained, comforted and defended by God; Consecrating all thoughts, words, actions and sufferings to God; Referring all actions to God's Glory; Suffering whatever God appoints; Desiring God's will; Having understanding enlightened, will inflamed, body purified and soul sanctified; Expiating offences, overcoming temptations, subduing passions, acquiring virtues; Loving God's goodness, hating my faults, loving my neighbor, having contempt for the world; Being submissive to superiors, courteous to inferiors, faithful to friends, and charitable to enemies; Overcoming sensuality, avarice, anger and tepidity; Being prudent, courageous, patient and humble; Being attentive at prayer; temperate at meals; diligent in employment, constant in resolutions; Having a pure conscience, being modest, letting conversation be edifying, and deportment regular; Laboring to overcome nature, working with God's Grace, keeping His commandments and working out my salvation; Seeing the nothingness of this world, the greatness of heaven, the shortness of time and the length of eternity; Preparing for death, fearing God's judgments, thereby to escape hell and in the end obtain salvation.
This list isn't, for the most part, about things that are absolutely necessary for salvation. Some things are necessary, such as believing in God, hoping in God, loving God (faith, hope, and charity), while many things are merely good advice about avoiding sin and living a good life. This is directed to people who have already been saved, so it deals with how to persevere in the state of grace. Only if you are saved and then remain in the state of grace will you go to heaven.
As for those who haven't yet received salvation, here's a pretty good explanation of what one needs to be saved:
Q: What would you tell someone who asks, 'How can I be saved'?
A: "Repent, believe, and be baptized."
That's all you need for the basic question. You can go into more detail on what each of the terms means (just as you can with the different Protestant models of what one needs to do to be saved), but the concept itself is simplicity itself. Even the most rustic can learn it.
And unlike the different Protestant models, it takes into account all the elements Jesus, Peter, and Paul lay out on the three occasions when someone asks this question.
Your passage from Isaiah 22 clearly is talking of a very specific case of a regent (Eliakim) to rule Jerusalem and Judah
The point is what keys represent: the king's authority. The steward wasn't the king, but governed in the king's place. The same is true for the Pope. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, so Peter ruled in Christ's place after Christ's ascension into heaven, as Christ's steward.
(about five miles up in this discussion, see the points about James running the church, not Peter).
It was to Peter that Christ gave the keys, not James. It was for Peter that Christ prayed (Luke 22:32), not James.
Your claim for when Laodicea was destroyed make for a hard problem in Revelation. Since clearly those seven churches had been under Paul's control until his death, John would have to take a few years to get control after that.
Who says that John couldn't write a letter to these towns, even if they were under Paul's control?
And if we take for the sake of discussion your dating for Revelation, and your interpretation of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as being what the seals, trumpets, and bowl judgments are about, then how do you deal with passages like Revelation 6:14 "every mountain and island were moved out of their places"? Last time it was checked, even Mount Moriah where Jerusalem is has not moved out of its place, much less every mountain and island. You have to allegorize scripture to get your interpretation in there.
I see, so you believe that there will literally be a woman riding a multi-headed beast? Besides, the verse before the one you mention above says that the stars fall to earth. If that were to happen literally, there would be no mountains or islands left.
Note that in Revelation 9 the judgment is not talking about Jews refusing to accept Christ, but sinners engaging in idolatry... 70 AD, which was a political revolution against Rome.
The plague of stinging locusts is allowed to torture those without the seal for "five months." What does this period signify? Many scholars believe this refers to the opening acts of the Jewish rebellion against Rome in 66 AD. Gessius Florus, the procurator of Judea, deliberately slaughtered 3600 innocent citizens of Jerusalem in May 66 in order to incite a revolt by the citizens of Jerusalem whom he despised. And it worked. For the next five months, a vicious war broke out against the Roman power in Judea. On the heels of the outbreak, the Roman army under the command of Cestius invaded Palestine with troops who were garrisoned near the Euphrates. Then, after ravaging the countryside for five months, they moved to attack the city of Jerusalem. However, right around the Feast of Trumpets (in September 66), Cestius suddenly and inexplicably broke off the attack and withdrew his forces. Encouraged by this, the rebelling Jews pursued the fleeing army and inflicted heavy casualties. This victory was taken by the Jews as a sign of divine deliverance and transformed the revolt against Rome into a real war. In its wake, the Jewish populace threw its enthusiasm headlong into the suicidal attempt to defeat the full might of Rome. And this, in turn, brought down upon Judea the legions of Titus and Vespasian who four years later would besiege Jerusalem and destroy the Temple.
Revelation, of course, sees in these events not merely a geopolitical dimension, but most importantly a spiritual one. The attacking army is headed, not by Cestius or Caesar, but by a destroying angel called Abaddon or Apollyon (9:11). Likewise, the "locust" of the invading Roman army are described, not in literal terms, but in terms which mix the imagery of the biblical plagues and the imagery describing the ancient Assyrian and Babylonian invaders. What brings on this destructive onslaught is not, for John, the wrongheaded p
If you maintain as you seem to that the traditions of man (as in the RCC teachings)
Catholic teachings are not "traditions of man". Catholic Tradition consists of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, handed down from generation to generation until the end of the world. Part of it the Apostles passed down to us in the form of the New Testament, and part of it they passed down orally:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
you have to reconcile that with the Lord Jesus Christ's teachings in Matthew 15:3, 15:6; Mark 7:8-9, 7:13.
Jesus was not condemning His own teachings and those of his Apostles. Here's the passage from Matthew 15 (Mark 7 is similar):
Matthew 15:1-9
Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread."
But he answered and said unto them, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honour thy father and mother': and, 'He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.' But ye say, 'Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, "It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me"; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
"Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 'This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.'"
Jesus' point is that the Pharisees were using their own regulations to avoid obeying God's commandments, as in the example Jesus gives here. Jesus said elsewhere that the Pharisees and scribes had the authority to make laws, so He's not condemning them for doing so; rather, He condemns them for making regulations that are not in harmony with God's will. The regulations of the scribes and Pharisees could have been good ones, but instead they were self-serving.
So what Jesus says in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 does not contradict what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Timothy 2:2.
By agreeing to definition 1, you agree now that "more readily" or "with preference" that simple believers in Christ are more blessed than Mary,
No, not at all. Mary was a believer in Christ, so she was blessed in this sense too, just as in the following, Christ both died and rose again:
Romans 8:34
It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again...
Jesus was saying that yes, His mother was blessed for being His mother, but she was even more blessed for hearing the word of the Lord and keeping it.
who at the time quite likely was not a believer
That's an odd thing to say. An angel appeared to her telling her that Jesus was the Messiah. Not only that, but she knew better than anyone that Jesus had been conceived without a human father! That sort of evidence is hard to ignore.
(as shown by her attempts to dissuade Christ from his preaching, as in Mark 3 and Matthew 12).
Mary did not attempt to dissuade Christ from preaching.
First of all, the people who said Jesus was "beside himself" were Jesus' friends:
Mark 3:21
And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, "He is beside himself."
But why did they say this about Jesus? The above verse tells us that they said this because they "heard of it". What did they hear? The previous verse says:
Mark 3:20
And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.
In other words, Jesus' friends were worried about Him, since He was in the middle of a crowd so great that He couldn't eat properly.
Anyway, Mary isn't mentioned in the above. She is mentioned later on in the chapter, though:
Mark 3:31-32
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, "Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee."
All that this says about Mary is that she was with some of Jesus' relatives, and that they wanted to talk to him. Wanting to talk to Jesus doesn't imply anything bad about Mary. Even if we were to assume that the "friends" in Mark 3:21 are the same as the "brethren" in Mark 3:31-32, all that this would mean is that Jesus' friends and family were worried that Jesus wasn't eating enough. Such a reaction was to be expected, especially in Mary's case, as it had been her job to take care of Jesus' well-being.
You also claim that "If you were perfectly humble, you wouldn't think of yourself as holy". Fascinating, your statement claims that Christ, who was perfectly humble, did not think of Himself as holy.
I didn't say that one would think of oneself as unholy, as you seem to suggest. I'm saying that humble people don't concentrate on the fact that they're holy. It is pride that leads one to compare oneself with others and say, "I am holy." Humble people, on the other hand, tend to dismiss suggestions that they are holy.
Philippians 2:3
In lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
So someone who was truly holy and who thus zealous followed what Paul says here would think other people to be better than himself, due to humility. This isn't false modesty, that's just the way humble people are.
Jesus, of course, is God, so He knows that, by definition, no one is better than Him. But humble people (who are solely human beings) would tend to follow what Paul says, and thus not think of themselves as particularly holy.
Your extraction of a bit of Romans 8:34 shows yet again the pattern of quoting out of context.
I don't see what the context has to do with it; I'm talking about the meaning of the expression "yea rather":
There you go again, claiming that Christ was using oral tradition when simple history is the point. One possibility is that Berechiah and Jehoida have identical meanings if you look up the words, and the use of synonyms for Jewish names is well established throughout scripture.
Berechiah means "God blesses". Jehoiada means "God knows". These aren't synonymous...
In any case, what we were originally talking about was Christian oral Tradition, not Jewish oral tradition. And as I've already shown, the Bible does support what the Catholic Church teaches about the Tradition of the Apostles:
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Again for the Johannine comma I refer you to the books previously mentioned, and to this quotation from Jerome's prologue to the canonical epistles when referring to the Johannine comma: "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices."
So, in other words, Jerome says that the Johannine Comma didn't appear in Greek manuscripts of the Bible. No Greek Fathers mention it, even when they were trying to convert the Arians, who didn't believe in the Trinity. They weren't aware of the existence of the Comma, because if they were, they certainly would have used it.
The Johannine Comma is in the 2nd Century Old Latin Bible
Yes indeed, that's where it was first added as a comment in the margin.
Yes it's not Greek
And the Johannine Comma doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript for over a thousand years.
Cyprian writes of it in 250, as did Tertullian in 200.
These are Latin writers, reading the Old Latin Bible.
Further on the grammatical evidence
I believe I've replied to this grammatical issue in my previous post.
In Matthew 23, Jesus is railing against the scribes and Pharisees, see verse 13.
That's right, and it helps to emphasize that the scribes and Pharisees have an authentic authority that must be obeyed, and that their moral failings don't take anything away from this.
If that's your example of Jesus mentioning oral tradition, it is clearly when put in context, a case of Him strongly condemning it.
Not at all. If He were condemning oral tradition, Jesus would have told people to ignore the commands of the scribes and Pharisees. But He doesn't do this. Jesus agrees with oral tradition, and says that the scribes and Pharisees do have Moses' authority.
The site you gave as an example is awfully weak, it calls citing an historic fact a citation of oral tradition.
It is a historical fact that the scribes and Pharisees made laws, but that's not what the oral tradition was talking about. The oral tradition says that the scribes and Pharisees made those laws with the authority of Moses. This is not a historical fact, but a religious one. In order to accept what Jesus said, people had to believe that Moses' authority had to be obeyed, and that the scribes and Pharisees possessed Moses' authority.
By the way, the site I mentioned provides another example of Jesus using oral tradition:
Matthew 23:35
Upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
In 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, the Bible tells us that Zechariah was stoned to death in the courtyard of the temple. But the Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chronicles was the son of Jehoiada, not Berachiah. Zechariah son of Berachiah was the author of the biblical book of the same name, and the Bible doesn't say anything about how he died. According to Protestant author Gleason L. Archer,
[Jesus] knew what He was talking about. If so, then we discover that the Zechariah He was referring to was indeed the son of Berachiah (not Jehoiada), and that he was indeed the last of the Old Testament martyrs mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. In other words, Christ is recalling to His audience the circumstances of the death of the prophet Zechariah, son of Berachiah (Zech. 1:1) . . . [I]t may very well have been that sometime between 580 and 570 Zechariah the prophet was martyred by a mob in much the same way Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was some three centuries earlier. . . . In the absence of any other information as to how the prophet Zechariah died, we may as well conclude that Jesus has given us a true account of it.
In other words, Jesus was referring to an oral tradition regarding the death of Zechariah. We can safely assume that this was common knowledge because He made this statement in the middle of a withering condemnation of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. After Jesus rebuked them, they 'began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.' If Jesus were presenting new information, these men would have pounced on that in order to undermine His credibility. The fact that they did not do so shows that this was not new information to them. Obviously, Jesus was relying on an oral Tradition that was well known to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.
Your claim that Luke 1:34 shows that Mary intended to remain celibate is, well, absurd. What she said was "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?". Had she said "seeing I will never know a man" you would have a point. But her statement there was clearly describing her present condition (seeing I know not), not her perpetual condition.
Since she was about to be married, it shouldn't have been much of a mystery to her how she could conceive a child (if she was planning to have a normal marriage, that is). But it was a mystery to her, so it follows that she intended to remain celibate even in marriage. She intended her present condition to be a permanent one.
Consider this case. You are in college, and your class schedule shows you will learn calculus and QM in a year. You are then told that you will, in three months, explain the HUP and PEP to a classroom. Your response could be "How shall this be, seeing I know not an integral?" This would communicate that you do not presently have what it normally takes to accomplish the task you have just been told you will do.
Your analogy doesn't fit because Mary was never told when she would conceive a child, but only that she would conceive a child at some unspecified time in the future. The time of her betrothal would soon be coming to an end, so someone expecting to have a normal marriage would naturally assume that the conception would take place after that. If she were planning to have sex during her marriage, she would have expected to soon "know a man", and so there would be no reason for her to wonder how she was to conceive a child.
Here's a better analogy, based on yours:
You are in college, and you're a Fine Arts major. You are told that you will eventually have to explain the HUP and PEP to a classroom. Your response could be "How shall this be, seeing I know not an integral?" This would communicate that you do not presently have what it normally takes to accomplish the task you have just been told you will do, and that, furthermore, you have no intention of ever learning it.
Then you claim that Mary wouldn't think she was holy. But she would know she was sinless, and false humility == pride, so she would know she was holy.
If you were perfectly humble, you wouldn't think of yourself as holy. The thought wouldn't even occur to you. Someone who is humble doesn't think about his or her own greatness.
You claim the meaning of prophecies aren't always clear until fulfilled, true enough in many cases. However we know that Anna and Simeon had both worked it out,
The Bible doesn't say that either Anna or Simeon had worked out what the prophecies meant. Simeon was explicitly told by God that he wouldn't die before seeing the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit told him to go to the Temple on the day Jesus was there (Luke 2:27); and Anna seems to have said what she did due to inspiration by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:38) - she was a prophetess, not a Bible scholar.
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. (Luk 19:41-44)
We see that the Lord held Jerusalem in general responsible to have known the time of the visitation, and they did not. For the judgment to fall that He utters here, it was a mighty sin. Yet Mary knew not the time either; how can that be???
Jesus wasn't condemning them for not figuring out prophecies. Jesus expected them to believe in Him because of His teachings, and failing that, because of His miracles. Despite all the pro
If you have the necessary documentation, then use it to provide the proof for your assertion that various Popes ordered crusaders to kill Jews they encountered along the way. Do so or apologize.
[sspxasia.com] - and that's a Catholic site!
No, the SSPX are not Catholics, they're a denomination that broke away from the Church a few decades ago.
And how about claims like pope Leo "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." -- Pope Leo XIII
That is clear, outright, unadulterated blasphemy; the Jews crucified Christ for saying He was God. Yet He is God, they had it wrong. Now the Catholic Church has popes who have claimed to be God
Pope Leo wasn't saying that he is God, but rather that he (as Pope) is God's representative on earth. That's what is indicated by the keys that Jesus said he would give Peter in Matthew 16:19. Have a look at the following passage from Isaiah:
Isaiah 22:21-22
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
This is analogous to Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In this passage from Isaiah, Eliakim is being made steward over the house of David. He is not the king, but only a steward, governing in the king's place (using his keys) while the king is away. That's exactly what the Pope does: Christ ascended into heaven, but He left the Church in the care of the Pope, His visible representative on earth.
Here are some Biblical quotes about people acting in Christ's place:
John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
And I have no opinion about equality of sins in the tenth (RCC 9th and 10th) commandment(s) - you're drawing your own conclusions about that.
There's clearly a lot of difference between coveting your neighbor's wife and coveting your neighbor's goods.
Try reading the ten commandments in Exodus 20; see how the RCC has excised the inconvenient bit. Editing God's word by taking out bits you don't like is not a good idea...
Nothing has been excised, the part about not worshipping false gods belongs to the first commandment. It's just like when you say the tenth commandment is "Thou shalt not covet", without actually listing all the things the Bible lists, such as donkeys, oxen, etc. By doing so, you're not saying that coveting donkeys and oxen is allowed.
And check out here [pilgrimtours.com] which talks about the stadium built there in 79AD,
The same page also says "It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius." Marcus Aurelius ruled around 150 AD or so. As for the stadium, it says that it was built on the same plateau as the town, not that it was part of the town.
and note that Tacitus, an historian at the time, wrote about the great quake happening in 61, whereupon it was rebuilt.
The fact is that the Johannine comma doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript of the first millennium.
You are very selective in the points that you answer; I see you ignored the strongest by far argument for the Johannine comma, in fact you (in the quote above) utterly denied their existence.
Actually, I did respond to this, but I'll go into more detail below.
So once again:
The current edition of the UBSNT (critical text) shows 6 (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) with the Johannine Comma. There are at least twenty more MSS with the Johannine Comma in them, some of those are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. Two lectionaries also have it (60 and 173).
As I said, there are no Greek manuscripts from the first millennium with the Johannine Comma. The manuscripts you mentioned are relatively recent ones. I found the following dates on this page:
61, Codex Monfortianus 16th cent. (Metzger), C.1250 (Adam Clarke) 88mg, (margins) Codex Regius of Naples, 12th Century 429mg, (margins) Codex Wolfenbuettel, 14th Century 629, Codex Ottobonianus, 14th or 15th cent. 636mg, (margins) Naples, a variant reading, 16th century, 918, Escorial, 16th century, omega 110, Codex Ravianus (also called Berolinensis), 16th Century. 221, (margins) - Bodleian Library, Oxford, a 10th century manuscript with a variant reading dated to the 15th or 16th Century 2318. (margins) A Bucharest manuscript, thought to have been influenced by the Clementine Vulgate. Dated to the eighteenth-century, though I did come across a date of 1592. 60 (lectionary) (AD 1021)
In many of these, the Comma appears only in the margins of the Bible, and not in the actual text.
It is also mentioned by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome.
Again, these are Latin writers, and so they would have been able to read Latin manuscripts that contained the Comma. The Comma did not appear in early Greek manuscripts.
About the sources you keep demanding for the information about "Innocent" III; again, see the Catholic source I provided you.
So if you have this proof that Innocent III ordered the killing at Beziers, why don't you actually provide it? Either do so, or apologize.
You claim that there are quotes from the sepuagint; my point here is that the greek text of the LXX would have been very easy to align with the extant Greek manuscripts of the NT, making it appear to later generations that the order was LXX first, NT second instead of the other way around. The fact that they have identical wording only proves that one was taken from the other, not the order in which that was done.
The Septuagint is about 300 years older than the New Testament. Manuscripts of the Septuagint dating from before Christ have been found in Qumran.
You keep twisting points to try to defend tradition, yet while the Lord quoted often from the OT, can you show once that he quoted from tradition
Nice try, but the verses I provided are sufficient to show that Catholic oral Tradition (the passing down of the teachings of the Apostles by word) is mentioned in the Bible.
However, since you ask, this page mentions a few cases of Jewish oral tradition in the New Testament, including an example of Jewish oral tradition used by Jesus (Matthew 23:2-3).
(other than the times he chastised the religious hierarchy for tradition)?
He chastised them for their manmade traditions, not for passing down authentic teachings.
Slashdot Mirror
In what sense is purgatory a "practice"?
Anyway, if what you're saying is that there were similar beliefs among pagans, I don't see how that automatically makes it wrong. The idea of a god who dies and comes back to life existed among various pagan religions, so would you say that this means that the Resurrection is a pagan idea adopted by the Church?
Anyway, in 1 Corinthians 3, you take verse 13 ("Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.") and claim that the work being tried by fire is everything that we could be judged about, and that therefore a purging in purgatory is necessary to burn away our unforgiven sins
I never said anything about unforgiven sins; I'm talking about the temporal punishment for sins. Even after a sin is forgiven, a punishment can remain. For instance, in 2 Samuel 12, David is punished even though his sin was already forgiven:
It is blatantly obvious that the works being discussed throughout chapter 3 of 1 Corinthians are in the context of the Corinthians being divisive about whether they followed Paul, or Apollos, or another.
Sure. But Paul goes on to talk about what happens on Judgment Day, based on what we do in this life, and this is applicable to anyone even though he's speaking about particular people here. "Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God."
Then Paul notes that he was tasked by God with being the masterbuilder who constructs the foundation for churches. Then he warns to build upon that foundation with care; that only building upon Christ is right, not building on one teacher or another.
Well, he says that there is only one foundation that can be laid: Christ. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." It's not teachers who are being built on, it's teachers who are doing the building. And it is based on how well they build that they will be judged: "But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon."
Building with gems, gold, etc. is not proper.
Building with gold, silver, precious stones is proper. What is improper is building with wood, hay, and stubble. The first group of building materials are high-quality materials, and they will survive the fire; but the second group won't survive. "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." This last part describes purgatory, here with respect to the teachers, but it also applies to any Christian, since we will all be judged, not just the teachers. Once we are saved, we are temples of God (1 Corinthians 6:19). Our foundation, as Christians, is Christ. We work with God in building up the temple. If we do a good job, we go to heaven. If we do a bad job, our work will be purified of whatever was bad, but we will ultimately go to heaven. On the other hand, if we defile the temple, losing the grace of justification, then we will go to hell: "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy."
And one more point; of course Jesus is and was sinless because He is God; tha
Well, Jesus explicitly told us to "do this". Now, what is Jesus talking about here? What is it we are supposed to do in remembrance of him? Well, we're supposed to do what He did, that is, change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Then we're supposed to take it and eat it.
Sure your catechism says that it's efficacious, but God's word contradicts that. An unbloody sacrifice is useless; spin words all you want, the Bible is against you.
The sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as that of Calvary. Have a look once again at that talk by Scott Hahn that I posted here. It shows pretty clearly that Calvary and the Last Supper are all part of the same Passover sacrifice, with Christ as our Lamb.
Yes the jailer was baptized, it's a commandment. But when he asked Paul and Barnabas what was necessary, they were quite explicit, clear, and distinct:
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. (Acts 16:30-32, emphasis added)
And if you believe in Jesus, you also believe what He taught, such as the fact that baptism is necessary for salvation (John 3:5). So saying that one must believe to be saved implies that one accepts the necessity of baptism.
Besides, you're ignoring some of the other occasions on which people asked about what was needed for salvation:
Note carefully, since after this verse is the one about them being baptized, that all his house had the word preached to them; following that, they were baptized. Talking to an infant is useless, so clearly his entire household was able to reason.
Infants are open to receiving the grace of justification through baptism. They can't reject that grace as an adult can, which is why an adult must believe in order to be baptized; an adult must choose whether or not to accept the grace of justification.
Besides, the Bible says that young children can be believers. For instance:
Then maybe you shouldn't call Him one.
In this bit of scripture:
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
[...]
You claim that says that Paul was a bishop because he "ordained" Timothy. Yet scripture does not say that he ordained anyone, merely that he put his hands on Timothy and thereby gave Timothy a gift of God which is power, love, and a sound mind.
Why would this gift be incompatible with ordination? It is the grace given so that Timothy might worthily carry out his sacred ministry.
Timothy apparently needed encouragement in his ministry, and here Paul is trying to give him some encouragement and to get him to make use of the grace given to him. Paul does the same sort of thing in 1 Timothy 4:14, which explicitly mentions ordination:
Paul is talking about the same gift in both cases, so he was talking about ordination in both cases.
The bible quotes Paul as saying that he is appointed "a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles". Paul does not describe himself as a bishop.
The Bible says that the office of an apostle is that of a bishop:
Independent Baptists tend not to be protestants, we were around (much as the RCC is desperately denying this) long before Martin Luther.
Really? Do you have any proof for this assertion?
Actually, no. What the Catechism says is that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is the same as that of Calvary, but offered in an unbloody manner. The Catechism says:
By the way, how do you interpret this passage concerning the Eucharist?
And your statements that baptism is necessary for salvation are easily refuted in God's holy word. See the story about the jailer (Acts 16), the thief on the cross (Luke 23), etc.
The jailer was baptized (Acts 16:33). If baptism wasn't considered necessary, then why did he and his family all get baptized immediately, in the middle of the night?
Have a look at all the conversions mentioned in the book of Acts, and see how many involve baptism and how many don't.
The fact is that the Bible explicitly tells us that baptism is the means through which we are saved:
As for the thief, he didn't really have much opportunity to get baptized, given that he was attached to a cross. God wouldn't hold something that was beyond the thief's control against him. God knows what our intentions are and acts accordingly.
Nice trolling, but I don't worship idols, I don't make statues or icons.
I didn't say you did. It's just that you seemed to be implying that a crucifix is a pagan idol, which would only make sense if you believed that Jesus is a pagan god. If I misinterpreted what you said, please let me know.
Then you try to get "must be the husband of one wife" as a requirement for being a bishop to be disclaimed because Paul was not married. Bzzzzzzt. Nowhere in scripture is Paul labelled as a bishop. Only Timothy and Titus are so labelled.
In 2 Timothy 1:6, Paul says that he had ordained Timothy. Thus Paul was a bishop.
And you continue to claim indulgences were not sold. If that were true, Martin Luther would not have gained the following he did so rapidly. The sale of indulgences was repugnant to anyone who read and believed scripture, that's why he got such a huge response - all the true believers were offended by the actions of the RCC.
Actually, Protestantism gained the following it did only because it was supported by the local rulers. See Section VIII of this page, the section in question being entitled "The Largely Political Basis of the Protestant Revolt". It includes quotes from Luther admitting that without government support for Protestantism, most people would have rejected it.
You claim that the fact that Jesus is recorded in scripture frequently talking about heaven and hell yet never mentioning "purgatory" is unimportant. Nice try, but if He had not been recorded as mentioning demons and fasting to drive them out, we would have lost a hugely significant teaching.
So what you're saying is that only the Gospels are important? If, for instance, a teaching appears only in the epistles of Paul, you believe that we should ignore it, because the Bible doesn't record it as something Jesus said?
And purgatory is would be more important since otherwise we would think salvation had failed if we wound up burning after death.
Well, Paul tells us about Purgatory, so Christians would know about it. Besides, I think one would know one weren't in hell. See, for instance, Isaiah 6:1-7.
Then you claim that Jesus saying "I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also (John 14:3)" does not mean that He will be with us constantly. If He says that He will receive me unto Himself, so that where He is, I may be also, then if I go to purgatory, He would be there too.
First of all, Purgatory is not a place, it's a state of purification. Using my previous example, we could both be in the same place, at the entrance to my house, and yet only you would wipe your shoes clean if you were the only one with dirty shoes.
Now to the closing apostasy in your post, where you claim young children are sinless.
I said that they don't sin. They do have the stain of Original Sin, which is why they're baptized. But they don't commit any sins themselves.
You apparently miss the point about why Jesus had to be born as the "seed of the woman": Adam's seed carried Adam's sin.
No, Jesus was sinless because He is God. His sinlessness has nothing to do with Adam's seed.
there was only one sinless birth, as scripture records.
Where does Scripture record that there was only one sinless birth?
Even the RCC says an infant has to be baptized; what about one that dies during delivery then?
Children are conceived with the stain of Original Sin, so they lack justifying grace. This is why they are baptized: baptism gives them the grace of justification, saving them. Without baptism, it is possible that infants go to hell, although we can hope that God would save the child despite the lack of justifying grace. But it is better to baptize children in order to ensure that they have the grace of justification.
Now, purgatory cleanses us of the temporal punishment for sin. An infant, baptized or not, has never done anything to merit a temporal punishment, and so, because he has nothing to cleanse, he wouldn't go to purgatory.
The Eucharist is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary, made present in an unbloody manner. Jesus did indeed shed His blood on Calvary.
And claiming that the eucharist and the cross are the same sacrifice, well, that's just plain silly.
I don't know if you read the article I posted last time, but you should have a look at it.
To claim that a wafer is to be worshipped is offensive.
Paul would disagree with you.
Then there's the point that our Lord followed and fulfilled the law perfectly. One of the principle teachings of the law was never to drink blood. Yet by RCC reckoning that is carried out not only in the last supper but daily around the world.
Actually, Jesus said that we can eat anything, despite what the Mosaic Law said:
Can't you see that there is no way that Jesus would force His disciples to consume blood, that it had to be a symbolic presentation?
It seems to me that if it were sinful literally, it would be sinful symbolically. For instance, would it be okay for Jesus to encourage the Apostles to symbolically murder someone?
As in John 10 where He says that He is a door, why doesn't the RCC teach that He has hinges?
Jesus is a door in that we go through Him to go to heaven. But Jesus never said, "This particular door is me." He did take some bread and say, "This is my body," and I believe Him.
If you hold to John 6:51-53 teaching the eucharist, then no one can be saved without it. Yet we have the jailer, the eunuch, the thief on the cross, etc. all told that they are saved
The Eucharist is to our spiritual life what food is to our physical life, just as baptism is to our spiritual life what birth is to our physical life. In order to live, you don't need to be constantly eating. But if you don't eat for long enough, you will die. In the same way, if you are in a state of grace, you can get by for a while without the Eucharist and the grace it gives you. But if you don't receive the Eucharist for long enough, you will eventually fall into sin, because we rely on God's grace to avoid sin.
Someone who has been baptized, such as the jailer or the eunuch, is saved; that person has received justifying grace. If that person were to suddenly die right after his baptism, without having received the Eucharist, then he would go to heaven, because one is in a state of grace immediately after baptism. However, the longer he goes without receiving the Eucharist, the more likely it is that he will fall into sin and lose his salvation, since he isn't receiving the grace that would help him to remain in a state of grace. In the same way, a child that is just born doesn't need to immediately eat in order to be alive. But if he doesn't eat for a long time, he will eventually die.
Additionally, since John 6:51-53 says that baptism is not necessary for salvation
Really? Where does it say that? I do know that a few chapters before this, it is stated that baptism is necessary:
So you consider Jesus to be a pagan god?
yet you're trying to compare the Ark of the Covenant with them.
The point is that the Bible supports the use of gold and gems in religious objects, such as the Ark, the candlesticks, the garments of Aaron, etc.
And equally absurd is your claim that "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:2)" has the "must" not governing the entire "husband of one wife" clause but only the numeric portion thereof.
Paul could have simply said that a bishop had to be married, if that's what he meant, but instead he used the expression "husband of one wife". When we look at 1 Timothy 5:9, we see that it would be redundant to use this sort of expression there if it means what you say it means, since by definition a widow has been married. So Paul uses this to disqualify people with more than one spouse.
One problem with your interpretation of the phrase is that if Paul made marriage mandatory, then he'd be disqualifying himself.
Second, Paul considered marriage to be a distraction from serving God, so it wouldn't make much sense for him to go out of his way to burden those who were dedicating themselves to the service of God with such a distraction.
Third, Paul is listing qualifications that would prevent having a blameworthy bishop. There's no blame in having no wife (Paul says that this is actually to be preferred), while there is blame in having more than one wife.
Then again you claim indulgences were not for sale. Yet see:
"In corruption," says Symonds, " he [Innocent VIII] advanced a step even beyond Sixtus, by establishing a bank at Rome for the sale of pardons. Each sin had its price, which might be paid at the convenience of the criminal: one hundred and fifty ducats of the tax were poured into the Papal coffers; the surplus fell to Franceschetto, the Pope's son." Foote and Wheeler, Crimes of Christianity, Progressive Publishing Company, London, 1887, Volume I, p. 338
All you've shown here is that some nineteenth-century atheists have the same misunderstanding of indulgences as you do.
Or more to your taste, from a Catholic source [newadvent.org], see:
For this payment, which smacked of simony, the pope would allow an indemnity, which in this case took the form of an indulgence. By this ignoble business arrangement with Rome, a financial transaction unworthy of both pope and archbishop, the revenue should be partitioned in equal halves to each, besides a bonus of 10,000 gold ducats, which should fall to the share of Rome.
The only bad thing I see here concerning indulgences is that there appears to have been a misappropriation of the money given as alms. But nowhere does it say anything about indulgences being sold.
No, I'm talking about the styles of the books in general. For instance, the beginning of the book of Revelation is "historical" in style, but most of the book is composed of prophecy.
You then state that, in relation to the RCC calling the eucharist "an unbloody sacrifice" that "The sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary". So now you're saying that Calvary was an unbloody sacrifice as well, that it was therefore useless against sin?
No, it's the same sacrifice in both cases. In the Eucharist, its form is unbloody, since Christ isn't being killed a second time.
Jesus bled on the cross; His blood washes believers in Him from sin. He completed His work on the cross, the reenactment of it by priests is simple apostasy. Calvary was a bloody sacrifice, therefore efficacious. The eucharist, as stated by the RCC, is an unbloody sacrifice. Therefore, according to scripture, it is useless against sin.
No, it's the same sacrifice, as I said. Scott Hahn had a interesting talk about the Eucharist and Calvary, which shows that they are the same sacrifice. It's long, but I'll try to shorten his argument a little bit:
Oh really? How do you know this? John specifically says at the end of his gospel that only a small fraction of what Jesus did on earth is recorded.
He mentioned Heaven, and He mentioned Hell. But never purgatory. If it were to exist, that would have been a significant missing piece.
Purgatory isn't necessarily a place, but rather a purification that prepares us for heaven.
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. (John 14:2-4)
So that means you are teaching that Jesus has to go to purgatory too, so that He will be where you will be.
Why would Jesus have to go to purgatory? Let's say I were to invite you to my house, where I've prepared a room for you. Now, I go and pick you up in my car, and take you to my house. If your shoes are dirty when we get to my house, you should wipe them before entering. But if my shoes are clean, I don't need to wipe them.
Paul taught in many places that to die is to be with Christ. Nothing intermediate.
Not exactly, because first there's judgment: "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." (Hebrews 9:27) And Paul says concerning purgatory:
Similarly, praying for "souls in purgatory" is also major-league unscriptural. See 2 Samuel 12:21-23, where David ceased praying for his son when the son died. Clearly David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote as he did because he knew his son was then in heaven. No record of baptism is put down, as would be necessary to convey the RCC "saved by baptism" doctrine. So by RCC reckoning, David's son would have been condemned. David's son was in heaven, not purgatory.
Young children don't go to Purgatory, since they've never committed any sin.
You claim Peter ruled the church, yet in Acts 15 James issues a ruling at a meeting where Peter is present. Just curious, is there a case where a pope accepted a ruling binding on him from a local bishop? I doubt it, since popes are supposed to be supreme. And Acts 15 shows that James had power over Peter.
Where does it say that what James said was binding on Peter? The Greek word which the KJV translates as "sentence" is krino, which is usually translated as "judge", such as in the sense of "to be of the opinion that..." So this isn't much evidence for James being the head of the Church, especially since the Bible makes it clear elsewhere that it was Peter who was the head.
In any case, the Bible itself says that the decision was made by the council as a whole (Acts 15:28, Acts 16:4).
Revelation is full of literal predictions. The moving of all mountains is talking about a geophysical catastrophe.
Is that so? As I said, the previous verse, Revelation 6:13, says that the stars fall to the earth. Since this is, according to you, to be taken literally, the earth has been boiled away into space by the heat of the stars by the time verse 14 predicts the mountains and islands moving.
If you are going to allegorize that judgment, do you also allegorize the flood in Genesis 7-8?
There was indeed a flood, but then again Genesis was meant to be a historical work, while Revelation is a book of prophecy.
You also again try to say that Babylon is not Rome. Yet even one of the most respected and well-known Catholic apologists, Karl Keating, clearly states that Babylon is a word for Rome
So what? Have a look at what the Bible says:
"The woman which thou sawest is that great city." (Revelation 17:18) The Bible tells us that "the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt," is "where also our Lord was crucified." (Revelation 11:8) So, in other words, the woman in Revelation is Jerusalem.
Even your church admits Babylon in Revelation is Rome; why do you fight against your church?
I'm not aware that the Church has defined this either way.
Are you showing signs of independent thought, of interpreting the Bible for yourself?
Independent thought and interpreting the Bible for yourself is fine as long as you don't deny any of the teachings of the Church.
You say you receive the eucharist weekly. The eucharist is one of the most heinous inventions of the Catholic Church.
Matthew 26:26-28
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
1 Corinthians 11:26-29
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
The RCC claims that the wine becomes blood, and the bread becomes flesh. Yet even the most docile Catholic notices that it still tastes like a slice of bland dough and cheap wine.
Christians claim that Jesus was both man and God. Yet even the most docile Christian would notice that Jesus looked like an ordinary man.
Therefore the RCC came up with the doctrine of "transubstantiation". The mechanism for this is based on the work of Aristotle, as applied by "saint" Thomas Aquinas.
No, transubstantiation was always believed. All Aquinas did was to describe it using Aristotelian terms. The belief
No, they were praised for checking the prophecies that Paul was using to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. If they were checking Christian teachings against the Old Testament, I imagine they would have rejected Christianity. For instance, in Mark 7:18-19, Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws concerning clean and unclean food. So if they had looked this up in the Old Testament, they would have seen that it contradicts what the Old Testament says, and rejected it as unBiblical.
What the Bereans checked in the Old Testament was whether Jesus fulfilled the prophecies concerning the Messiah. If He was the Messiah, then He would have the authority to change Old Testament Law; and if not, then not. So checking the teachings themselves would be beside the point, since whether or not they can be changed is dependent on the question of Jesus' authority.
In any case, if you believe that all teachings must be checked against the Bible, then you must accept oral tradition, since the Bible teaches it:
You say the RCC does not forbid marriage.
That's right, it doesn't. Are you an advocate of forced marriage, since you say marriage is required for bishops? If marriage is "forbidden" in one case, then it is "forced" in the other.
You say that "must be the husband of one wife" does not mean marriage. Fascinating, to back that up let's see a dictionary meaning of "must" that encompasses your claim.
The important word is not "must", but "one". Paul didn't say a bishop "must be married", but that he "must be the husband of one wife", including the word "one" in what he said. He's rejecting people with more than one wife.
Compare this to 1 Timothy 5:9, where Paul says, "Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man." The expression "the wife of one man" can't be the equivalent of the word "married", because it would be redundant to say that a widow had to have been married in the past. When Paul uses this phrase, he means "the wife of no more than one man". The same is true in the case of bishops: he is rejecting those with more than one wife.
He is not requiring bishops to have a wife, because that would mean that Paul himself would need to be married, which he wasn't.
Pope Sixtus IV, in a Bull in 1476, extended the right of use of excess good works done by saints, and "extended this privilege to souls in purgatory, provided that their living relatives purchased indulgences for them (emphasis added)". That's one clear, direct, incontrovertible proof that you're wrong.
No, Pope Sixtus IV, in "Cum Praeexcelsa" (1476), granted an indulgence for assisting at the Divine Office (a liturgical celebration) for a certain day. In other words, the indulgence was granted for participating in prayer. Money was not involved.
Leo X commissioned Friar Johann Tetzel to sell indulgences.
No, he didn't. As I said, you can't sell an indulgence. The Pope had commissioned Tetzel to promote a certain ind
Okay, let's take a look at them one by one, and see if they can be interpreted in this way.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will "attain unto the resurrection of the dead". So your interpretation doesn't fit.
Here he's talking about whether or not he will be a "castaway", rejected by God. So your interpretation doesn't fit.
Have a look at what comes before this.
1 Corinthians 10:1-6
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. ["Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness." (Numbers 14:16)] Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
So these things are an example for us, showing that those who are saved can spiritually die; just as the Israelites sinned and thus died. They had been saved from slavery, and were supposed to go to the Promised Land, but they didn't because they had sinned.
1 Corinthians 10:7-11
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, "The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
These are more examples for us, showing that sin results in spiritual death. So now we have finally come to the verse I had quoted earlier: "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." Paul's whole point here is that we can lose our salvation if we sin. This danger is always there, which is why we must "take heed" lest we fall.
Here is the context of the above verse:
Romans 11:16-24
If the root be holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but
No, I did not. We are saved only through Jesus Christ.
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12, emphasis added)
And I wrote that we are saved through baptism. We are baptized "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) In baptism, we are united to Christ's death and resurrection.
Once the dispensation of the Church started, we can ONLY be saved by Jesus Christ.
Actually, even in Old Testament times, we could only be saved by Jesus. Only through Jesus can we be saved.
Since the RCC does say, as I quoted a few posts back upstream, that salvation does not require the name of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church therefore goes against the Bible.
Don't you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, as He is called in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19?
And once again, here's the content of a Catholic prayer card describing how to obtain salvation:
[...]
That does not once mention the Lord Jesus Christ, in whose name alone we can be saved.
Again, the people addressed in that card have already been saved in the name of Jesus.
It does mention a lot of works that must be done to earn salvation, hence it advocates works salvation, something strongly counter to Paul's teachings.
No, works salvation is the idea that we can earn the grace of justification. The people for whom that card was written have already received the grace of justification as a free gift from God. We do, however, have to persevere in the state of grace if we are to go to heaven when we die, and this is what the card addresses. Here are some Biblical verses on this, which I hope you will accept as the truth:
No, the verse you quoted talks about the simplicity of Christians, not the simplicity of salvation:
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2Co 11:3-4, emphasis added).
The word "simplicity" here describes Christians, not salvation.
You also claimed that Strong's number 572 does not mean simplicity.
When did I say this?
In fact it is translated as simplicity more times than it's translated any other way. And the definition from Thayers is
1) singleness, simplicity, sincerity, mental honesty
1a) the virtue of one who is free from pretence and hypocrisy
2) not self seeking, openness of heart manifesting itself by generousity
Right, this is what I had said. The word "simplicity" describes people, not doctrines. A simple Christian is someone who is sincere, mentally honest, etc.
the complexity from an RCC document.
That document is speaking to people who are already saved through baptism, and who have to deal with the many ways we can fall into sin. The document could have simply said "remain in the state of grace", but practically speaking, it makes sense to exhort us to do particular things, and to warn us to avoid particular sins.
The Bible does the same sort of thing. For instance:
Are you going to complain now that Bible isn't simple enough?
While independent Baptists and Evangelicals know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, the point was that the RCC document does not mention Him at all.
Sure it does. Catholics believe that Jesus is God.
I can't see how you got the interpretation that I thought Jesus is not necessary
I didn't say that you think Jesus is not necessary. I was asking you whether you believe that Jesus is God. You seem to be implying that "God" can't refer to Jesus.
I challenge you to find an independent Baptist that explains salvation without mentioning Jesus as the RCC has in that document. Perhaps you meant to dodge the bullet by saying that the name of God is identical to the name of Jesus. Yet the Bible says they are distinct, and that only through the name of Jesus can we be saved
Again, that document was addressing people who have already been saved through baptism, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matthew 28:19) They have already been saved in the name of Jesus.
As to why "savior" and "Saviour" are different, the word was always spelled with a "u" until HPB made her "god" and "savior" intentionally different by dropping the "u". So "savior" was coined to refer to Maitreya or Lucifer or Satan, while "Saviour" was coined to refer to our Lord Jesus Christ. Also note that "Saviour" has seven letters, while "savior" has six. Biblically that's significant. Prior to very recent times, dictionaries defined "savior" as one who saves, while "Saviour" is defined as "Jesus Christ, by way of distinction".
No offense, but this is silly. The KJV uses the "-our" ending because it uses British spelling. It's like armour vs. armor, colour vs. color, etc.
By the way, "Christ" has six letters, while "Messiah" has seven. Is this Biblically sig
Precisely. And he says that his oral teachings are the Word of God, just as Scripture is.
But there is no parallel for oral tradition to the clear statement for scripture:
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(2Timothy 3:13-17)
Well, Paul saying that his oral teachings are the word of God is pretty clear. And in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, oral teachings and written teachings are placed on the same level.
You may claim, as you have previously, the our Lord said to obey his words. Yet there is nothing which shows that He meant anything for us beyond that recorded in scripture.
What makes you say that? Is it written in the Bible somewhere? The fact is that the Bible tells us that Christian teaching is transmitted both orally and in written form. Otherwise, in 2 Timothy 2:2, why did Paul say, "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also"? Why didn't he just say, "Pass my letters around"?
From the history of the manuscripts, it's clear that written transmission is of a far higher fidelity than verbal (think about the game of "telephone").
Unlike the game of telephone, the transmission of the faith from one generation to another is protected by the Holy Spirit.
The RCC has clearly made regulations against God's will, such as forbidding their priests to marry. You claim that this is a voluntary act of a priest / nun / monk, yet the simple fact is that the RCC forbids marriage.
The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. Some people voluntarily choose to make a vow to remain celibate: not only priests, but also monks, nuns, and other laypeople. It is up to the individual to choose whether or not to make such a vow to God.
Yes there have been exceptions, just as the RCC has sold indulgences to gain forgiveness of sins
No, the Church has never sold indulgences, because an indulgence can't be sold. There are different types of indulgences, and one type involved giving alms, which some people misinterpreted as "buying" an indulgence. But the indulgence is received only if you're in a state of grace, if you reject sin with all your heart, etc. Giving money, by itself, would not get you anything as far as the indulgence was concerned.
Secondly, an indulgence does not gain anyone the forgiveness of their sins. That happens at confession. An indulgence forgives you the temporal punishment for sin (whether on earth or in purgatory). But to obtain an indulgence, you already have to be in a state of grace, with no mortal sins on your soul.
In fact the RCC doctrine of forbidding marriage is clearly labelled in scripture:
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:15-16)
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (Acts 8:37)
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Lukr 23:42-43)
And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. (Acts 16:30-31)
You left out a few important passages, which I will get to below.
From the Mother of the Savior[sic] Seminary
Why "[sic]"? It's spelled correctly.
Now let's contrast by seeing what the Roman Catholic Church teaches is the requirement for salvation: [...] prayer card on how to be saved:
Things necessary for salvation: Believing in God; Hoping in God; Loving God; Being sorry for offending God; Adoring God; Aspiring after God; Thanking God; Calling upon God; Being led, restrained, comforted and defended by God; Consecrating all thoughts, words, actions and sufferings to God; Referring all actions to God's Glory; Suffering whatever God appoints; Desiring God's will; Having understanding enlightened, will inflamed, body purified and soul sanctified; Expiating offences, overcoming temptations, subduing passions, acquiring virtues; Loving God's goodness, hating my faults, loving my neighbor, having contempt for the world; Being submissive to superiors, courteous to inferiors, faithful to friends, and charitable to enemies; Overcoming sensuality, avarice, anger and tepidity; Being prudent, courageous, patient and humble; Being attentive at prayer; temperate at meals; diligent in employment, constant in resolutions; Having a pure conscience, being modest, letting conversation be edifying, and deportment regular; Laboring to overcome nature, working with God's Grace, keeping His commandments and working out my salvation; Seeing the nothingness of this world, the greatness of heaven, the shortness of time and the length of eternity; Preparing for death, fearing God's judgments, thereby to escape hell and in the end obtain salvation.
This list isn't, for the most part, about things that are absolutely necessary for salvation. Some things are necessary, such as believing in God, hoping in God, loving God (faith, hope, and charity), while many things are merely good advice about avoiding sin and living a good life. This is directed to people who have already been saved, so it deals with how to persevere in the state of grace. Only if you are saved and then remain in the state of grace will you go to heaven.
As for those who haven't yet received salvation, here's a pretty good explanation of what one needs to be saved:
The point is what keys represent: the king's authority. The steward wasn't the king, but governed in the king's place. The same is true for the Pope. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, so Peter ruled in Christ's place after Christ's ascension into heaven, as Christ's steward.
(about five miles up in this discussion, see the points about James running the church, not Peter).
It was to Peter that Christ gave the keys, not James. It was for Peter that Christ prayed (Luke 22:32), not James.
Your claim for when Laodicea was destroyed make for a hard problem in Revelation. Since clearly those seven churches had been under Paul's control until his death, John would have to take a few years to get control after that.
Who says that John couldn't write a letter to these towns, even if they were under Paul's control?
And if we take for the sake of discussion your dating for Revelation, and your interpretation of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as being what the seals, trumpets, and bowl judgments are about, then how do you deal with passages like Revelation 6:14 "every mountain and island were moved out of their places"? Last time it was checked, even Mount Moriah where Jerusalem is has not moved out of its place, much less every mountain and island. You have to allegorize scripture to get your interpretation in there.
I see, so you believe that there will literally be a woman riding a multi-headed beast? Besides, the verse before the one you mention above says that the stars fall to earth. If that were to happen literally, there would be no mountains or islands left.
Note that in Revelation 9 the judgment is not talking about Jews refusing to accept Christ, but sinners engaging in idolatry... 70 AD, which was a political revolution against Rome.
From the Scripture study I've cited earlier:
Catholic teachings are not "traditions of man". Catholic Tradition consists of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, handed down from generation to generation until the end of the world. Part of it the Apostles passed down to us in the form of the New Testament, and part of it they passed down orally:
you have to reconcile that with the Lord Jesus Christ's teachings in Matthew 15:3, 15:6; Mark 7:8-9, 7:13.
Jesus was not condemning His own teachings and those of his Apostles. Here's the passage from Matthew 15 (Mark 7 is similar):
Jesus' point is that the Pharisees were using their own regulations to avoid obeying God's commandments, as in the example Jesus gives here. Jesus said elsewhere that the Pharisees and scribes had the authority to make laws, so He's not condemning them for doing so; rather, He condemns them for making regulations that are not in harmony with God's will. The regulations of the scribes and Pharisees could have been good ones, but instead they were self-serving.
So what Jesus says in Matthew 15 and Mark 7 does not contradict what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and 2 Timothy 2:2.
No, not at all. Mary was a believer in Christ, so she was blessed in this sense too, just as in the following, Christ both died and rose again:
Jesus was saying that yes, His mother was blessed for being His mother, but she was even more blessed for hearing the word of the Lord and keeping it.
who at the time quite likely was not a believer
That's an odd thing to say. An angel appeared to her telling her that Jesus was the Messiah. Not only that, but she knew better than anyone that Jesus had been conceived without a human father! That sort of evidence is hard to ignore.
(as shown by her attempts to dissuade Christ from his preaching, as in Mark 3 and Matthew 12).
Mary did not attempt to dissuade Christ from preaching.
First of all, the people who said Jesus was "beside himself" were Jesus' friends:
But why did they say this about Jesus? The above verse tells us that they said this because they "heard of it". What did they hear? The previous verse says:
In other words, Jesus' friends were worried about Him, since He was in the middle of a crowd so great that He couldn't eat properly.
Anyway, Mary isn't mentioned in the above. She is mentioned later on in the chapter, though:
All that this says about Mary is that she was with some of Jesus' relatives, and that they wanted to talk to him. Wanting to talk to Jesus doesn't imply anything bad about Mary. Even if we were to assume that the "friends" in Mark 3:21 are the same as the "brethren" in Mark 3:31-32, all that this would mean is that Jesus' friends and family were worried that Jesus wasn't eating enough. Such a reaction was to be expected, especially in Mary's case, as it had been her job to take care of Jesus' well-being.
You also claim that "If you were perfectly humble, you wouldn't think of yourself as holy". Fascinating, your statement claims that Christ, who was perfectly humble, did not think of Himself as holy.
I didn't say that one would think of oneself as unholy, as you seem to suggest. I'm saying that humble people don't concentrate on the fact that they're holy. It is pride that leads one to compare oneself with others and say, "I am holy." Humble people, on the other hand, tend to dismiss suggestions that they are holy.
So someone who was truly holy and who thus zealous followed what Paul says here would think other people to be better than himself, due to humility. This isn't false modesty, that's just the way humble people are.
Jesus, of course, is God, so He knows that, by definition, no one is better than Him. But humble people (who are solely human beings) would tend to follow what Paul says, and thus not think of themselves as particularly holy.
Your extraction of a bit of Romans 8:34 shows yet again the pattern of quoting out of context.
I don't see what the context has to do with it; I'm talking about the meaning of the expression "yea rather":
Berechiah means "God blesses".
Jehoiada means "God knows".
These aren't synonymous...
In any case, what we were originally talking about was Christian oral Tradition, not Jewish oral tradition. And as I've already shown, the Bible does support what the Catholic Church teaches about the Tradition of the Apostles:
Again for the Johannine comma I refer you to the books previously mentioned, and to this quotation from Jerome's prologue to the canonical epistles when referring to the Johannine comma: "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices."
So, in other words, Jerome says that the Johannine Comma didn't appear in Greek manuscripts of the Bible. No Greek Fathers mention it, even when they were trying to convert the Arians, who didn't believe in the Trinity. They weren't aware of the existence of the Comma, because if they were, they certainly would have used it.
Yes indeed, that's where it was first added as a comment in the margin.
Yes it's not Greek
And the Johannine Comma doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript for over a thousand years.
Cyprian writes of it in 250, as did Tertullian in 200.
These are Latin writers, reading the Old Latin Bible.
Further on the grammatical evidence
I believe I've replied to this grammatical issue in my previous post.
In Matthew 23, Jesus is railing against the scribes and Pharisees, see verse 13.
That's right, and it helps to emphasize that the scribes and Pharisees have an authentic authority that must be obeyed, and that their moral failings don't take anything away from this.
If that's your example of Jesus mentioning oral tradition, it is clearly when put in context, a case of Him strongly condemning it.
Not at all. If He were condemning oral tradition, Jesus would have told people to ignore the commands of the scribes and Pharisees. But He doesn't do this. Jesus agrees with oral tradition, and says that the scribes and Pharisees do have Moses' authority.
The site you gave as an example is awfully weak, it calls citing an historic fact a citation of oral tradition.
It is a historical fact that the scribes and Pharisees made laws, but that's not what the oral tradition was talking about. The oral tradition says that the scribes and Pharisees made those laws with the authority of Moses. This is not a historical fact, but a religious one. In order to accept what Jesus said, people had to believe that Moses' authority had to be obeyed, and that the scribes and Pharisees possessed Moses' authority.
By the way, the site I mentioned provides another example of Jesus using oral tradition:
Your claim that Luke 1:34 shows that Mary intended to remain celibate is, well, absurd. What she said was "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?". Had she said "seeing I will never know a man" you would have a point. But her statement there was clearly describing her present condition (seeing I know not), not her perpetual condition.
Since she was about to be married, it shouldn't have been much of a mystery to her how she could conceive a child (if she was planning to have a normal marriage, that is). But it was a mystery to her, so it follows that she intended to remain celibate even in marriage. She intended her present condition to be a permanent one.
Consider this case. You are in college, and your class schedule shows you will learn calculus and QM in a year. You are then told that you will, in three months, explain the HUP and PEP to a classroom. Your response could be "How shall this be, seeing I know not an integral?" This would communicate that you do not presently have what it normally takes to accomplish the task you have just been told you will do.
Your analogy doesn't fit because Mary was never told when she would conceive a child, but only that she would conceive a child at some unspecified time in the future. The time of her betrothal would soon be coming to an end, so someone expecting to have a normal marriage would naturally assume that the conception would take place after that. If she were planning to have sex during her marriage, she would have expected to soon "know a man", and so there would be no reason for her to wonder how she was to conceive a child.
Here's a better analogy, based on yours:
You are in college, and you're a Fine Arts major. You are told that you will eventually have to explain the HUP and PEP to a classroom. Your response could be "How shall this be, seeing I know not an integral?" This would communicate that you do not presently have what it normally takes to accomplish the task you have just been told you will do, and that, furthermore, you have no intention of ever learning it.
Then you claim that Mary wouldn't think she was holy. But she would know she was sinless, and false humility == pride, so she would know she was holy.
If you were perfectly humble, you wouldn't think of yourself as holy. The thought wouldn't even occur to you. Someone who is humble doesn't think about his or her own greatness.
You claim the meaning of prophecies aren't always clear until fulfilled, true enough in many cases. However we know that Anna and Simeon had both worked it out,
The Bible doesn't say that either Anna or Simeon had worked out what the prophecies meant. Simeon was explicitly told by God that he wouldn't die before seeing the Messiah, and the Holy Spirit told him to go to the Temple on the day Jesus was there (Luke 2:27); and Anna seems to have said what she did due to inspiration by the Holy Spirit (Luke 2:38) - she was a prophetess, not a Bible scholar.
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation. (Luk 19:41-44)
We see that the Lord held Jerusalem in general responsible to have known the time of the visitation, and they did not. For the judgment to fall that He utters here, it was a mighty sin. Yet Mary knew not the time either; how can that be???
Jesus wasn't condemning them for not figuring out prophecies. Jesus expected them to believe in Him because of His teachings, and failing that, because of His miracles. Despite all the pro
If you have the necessary documentation, then use it to provide the proof for your assertion that various Popes ordered crusaders to kill Jews they encountered along the way. Do so or apologize.
[sspxasia.com] - and that's a Catholic site!
No, the SSPX are not Catholics, they're a denomination that broke away from the Church a few decades ago.
And how about claims like pope Leo "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." -- Pope Leo XIII
That is clear, outright, unadulterated blasphemy; the Jews crucified Christ for saying He was God. Yet He is God, they had it wrong. Now the Catholic Church has popes who have claimed to be God
Pope Leo wasn't saying that he is God, but rather that he (as Pope) is God's representative on earth. That's what is indicated by the keys that Jesus said he would give Peter in Matthew 16:19. Have a look at the following passage from Isaiah:
This is analogous to Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In this passage from Isaiah, Eliakim is being made steward over the house of David. He is not the king, but only a steward, governing in the king's place (using his keys) while the king is away. That's exactly what the Pope does: Christ ascended into heaven, but He left the Church in the care of the Pope, His visible representative on earth.
Here are some Biblical quotes about people acting in Christ's place:
And I have no opinion about equality of sins in the tenth (RCC 9th and 10th) commandment(s) - you're drawing your own conclusions about that.
There's clearly a lot of difference between coveting your neighbor's wife and coveting your neighbor's goods.
Try reading the ten commandments in Exodus 20; see how the RCC has excised the inconvenient bit. Editing God's word by taking out bits you don't like is not a good idea...
Nothing has been excised, the part about not worshipping false gods belongs to the first commandment. It's just like when you say the tenth commandment is "Thou shalt not covet", without actually listing all the things the Bible lists, such as donkeys, oxen, etc. By doing so, you're not saying that coveting donkeys and oxen is allowed.
And check out here [pilgrimtours.com] which talks about the stadium built there in 79AD,
The same page also says "It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius." Marcus Aurelius ruled around 150 AD or so. As for the stadium, it says that it was built on the same plateau as the town, not that it was part of the town.
and note that Tacitus, an historian at the time, wrote about the great quake happening in 61, whereupon it was rebuilt.
Sure, and then there was another earthquake.
You state
The fact is that the Johannine comma doesn't appear in any Greek manuscript of the first millennium.
You are very selective in the points that you answer; I see you ignored the strongest by far argument for the Johannine comma, in fact you (in the quote above) utterly denied their existence.
Actually, I did respond to this, but I'll go into more detail below.
So once again:
The current edition of the UBSNT (critical text) shows 6 (61, 88mg, 429mg, 629, 636mg, and 918) with the Johannine Comma. There are at least twenty more MSS with the Johannine Comma in them, some of those are 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. Two lectionaries also have it (60 and 173).
As I said, there are no Greek manuscripts from the first millennium with the Johannine Comma. The manuscripts you mentioned are relatively recent ones. I found the following dates on this page:
61, Codex Monfortianus 16th cent. (Metzger), C.1250 (Adam Clarke)
88mg, (margins) Codex Regius of Naples, 12th Century
429mg, (margins) Codex Wolfenbuettel, 14th Century
629, Codex Ottobonianus, 14th or 15th cent.
636mg, (margins) Naples, a variant reading, 16th century,
918, Escorial, 16th century,
omega 110, Codex Ravianus (also called Berolinensis), 16th Century.
221, (margins) - Bodleian Library, Oxford, a 10th century manuscript with a variant reading dated to the 15th or 16th Century
2318. (margins) A Bucharest manuscript, thought to have been influenced by the Clementine Vulgate. Dated to the eighteenth-century, though I did come across a date of 1592.
60 (lectionary) (AD 1021)
In many of these, the Comma appears only in the margins of the Bible, and not in the actual text.
It is also mentioned by Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome.
Again, these are Latin writers, and so they would have been able to read Latin manuscripts that contained the Comma. The Comma did not appear in early Greek manuscripts.
About the sources you keep demanding for the information about "Innocent" III; again, see the Catholic source I provided you.
So if you have this proof that Innocent III ordered the killing at Beziers, why don't you actually provide it? Either do so, or apologize.
You claim that there are quotes from the sepuagint; my point here is that the greek text of the LXX would have been very easy to align with the extant Greek manuscripts of the NT, making it appear to later generations that the order was LXX first, NT second instead of the other way around. The fact that they have identical wording only proves that one was taken from the other, not the order in which that was done.
The Septuagint is about 300 years older than the New Testament. Manuscripts of the Septuagint dating from before Christ have been found in Qumran.
You keep twisting points to try to defend tradition, yet while the Lord quoted often from the OT, can you show once that he quoted from tradition
Nice try, but the verses I provided are sufficient to show that Catholic oral Tradition (the passing down of the teachings of the Apostles by word) is mentioned in the Bible.
However, since you ask, this page mentions a few cases of Jewish oral tradition in the New Testament, including an example of Jewish oral tradition used by Jesus (Matthew 23:2-3).
(other than the times he chastised the religious hierarchy for tradition)?
He chastised them for their manmade traditions, not for passing down authentic teachings.