This sort of supports the point I was making. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Muslims are taught that it's fine to do anything to infidels. Despite this, most of the time Muslims don't mistreat infidels. They know in their hearts that certain things are wrong, even when they're taught otherwise.
My point is that people, generally speaking, do agree on the basics of morality. You'll always have the odd exceptions.
But even in the Pakistani case, I think that, in their heart of hearts, they know it's wrong to rape; but they ignore the voice of their conscience out of lust for retribution, or just out of lust.
I'll be replying here to your latest posts in both threads.
Clearly your favorite debate tactic is "argument from silence".
I find it somewhat ironic that you accuse me of arguing from silence, when the very reason you think I'm doing so is that you've accepted a doctrine that is based on an argument from silence. Briefly, you're saying that if I assert something, and if that assertion isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, then I am arguing from silence. According to you, the Bible is the only source of religious knowledge we have. However, this position of yours is self-contradictory, as the Bible itself never teaches this. The Bible never says that all religious truth is to be found in the Bible. So the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, since the Bible never teaches it, and so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by its own criteria, declares itself to be unBiblical and thus false.
The Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. It teaches that the Apostles passed down the Gospel to future generations, all the way down to the present day, either in writing (the Bible) or through oral teaching:
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.
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.
So there are some things that the Church teaches that were passed down to us through the oral teachings of the Apostles, and the Bible acknowledges that this is the case. For me to say that these teachings are true is not to argue from silence, since the Apostles did actually teach these things, and the Church has continued to teach them, generation after generation, since then.
Since you have a very strong bias to prove the Roman Catholic Church position, you force that interpretation on scripture wherever you find it, regardless of the plain meaning that one gets from just reading scripture.
Again, I find it ironic that you say this, since you do this sort of thing yourself. For instance, I don't think you believe that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ. And yet, Jesus states that it is:
Mark 14:22-24 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Paul also says that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, and that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are committing a mortal sin, since they are not showing proper respect to the Lord's body present in 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.
Such as your interpretation of the thief on the cross. The plain reading of the Bible is that the thief is saved merely by confessing faith in Jesus as Lord.
Actually, I don't think we're that far apart on how the Good Thief got saved. However, I believe my explanation is more complete than yours. F
Not quite. It was a warning that communism's enemies in the west (the democracies) could easily make themselves into what they fought.
I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with what the parent post had said, i.e. that communism had conquered the world. If what you're saying is that in "1984" the West had become communist, but not through military conquest, then it seems to me that you're right. Here's a little excerpt from chapter 5, which clearly describes the West (Oceania) as being communist:
'Comrades!' cried an eager youthful voice [speaking on behalf of the Ministry of Plenty]. 'Attention, comrades! We have glorious news for you. We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year. All over Oceania this morning there were irrepressible spontaneous demonstrations when workers marched out of factories and offices and paraded through the streets with banners voicing their gratitude to Big Brother for the new, happy life which his wise leadership has bestowed upon us. Here are some of the completed figures. Foodstuffs-'
So that change in pronouns is clearly only favorable to the RCC, and is now officially a matter of doctrine.
What the Pope is talking about in the protoevangelium, Genesis 3:15, has nothing to do with the pronoun I mentioned. Here's the verse in question:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)
In the context of what the Pope is talking about, the woman in question is Mary, and the woman's seed is Christ.
Now, the Pope says, "the Virgin Mary..., although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe." The Bible says that there is "enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed". So far so good: the woman and her seed struggle against the serpent and its seed.
Then the Pope says that the "struggle against the infernal foe..., as foretold in the protoevangelium [Genesis 3:15], would finally result in that most complete victory over the sin and death." The Bible says that the serpent's head will be "bruised", which symbolizes "that most complete victory over the sin and death". The Pope never says that it is the woman who gains the victory over the serpent. What he says is that the struggle, in which both the woman and her seed participate, will end with the defeat of "sin and death" (the serpent).
So what the Pope said has nothing to do with whose heel (in Genesis 3:15) bruises the serpent.
Or are you a priest that can absolve yourself?
Priests can't absolve themselves.
And while we're on the topic of Mary, the idea of her perpetual virginity (another "infallible" declaration of the papacy) is another heresy of the RCC. In Matthew 1:25; 12:47; Luke 2:7; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14 it is clear that she and Joseph had a family after Jesus was born.
Matthew 1:25
"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." Luke 2:7 "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."
That Jesus was firstborn doesn't mean there were other children after Him, it means there were none before Him. Here's the Biblical definition of the firstborn:
Exodus 13:2 "Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine."
Matthew 12:47
"Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." John 2:12 "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days." Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."
The use of the word "brethren" doesn't prove anything. For the Jews, the word "brother" was used to refer to just about any close relative. Here are some examples:
Abraham was Lot's uncle:
Genesis 11:26 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
But here, Lot is called Abraham's "brother":
Genesis 14:12,14 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
In the following, cousins are called "brethren":
1 Chronicles 23:21-22 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.
The topic here about the age of Methusaleh had to do with the purity of a manuscript; the Septuagint is corrupt, one evidence being the concept of someone surviving the flood without shelter given by God. You claim that's a typo; manuscripts that have typos like that are not the preserved Word of God, they are just man's corruptions thereof.
I see. So, in that case, the Textus Receptus is not the preserved Word of God either, as it too contains errors.
Then you get back into that "act of perfect contrition" bit. We talked about that with regard to the thief on the cross; what act of perfect contrition did he perform while nailed to a cross and hours (at most) away from death?
Again, we don't know whether or not he was in a state of mortal sin when he was on the cross. He may have had his sins forgiven earlier.
But assuming that he was in a state of sin, and assuming that he had at some point in the past been in a state of grace (i.e. saved), then he could make an act of contrition, which basically is to feel perfectly sorry for your sins, without reservation. He does seem to regret his sins, based on what he says.
On the other hand, if he had never been saved before, then he would have to make an act of perfect charity which is to love God perfectly (in addition to the act of contrition).
Next you deny the papal legate ordered a slaughter at Beziers. Unfortunately for you (and even more so for the innocents who suffered at the orders of Innocent III's legate) Arnaud Amalric said when asked how to know heretics from loyal Catholics, "Kill them all. For God will know those who are his" on July 21 of 1209.
"It is not true that the leaders of the Crusade shouted: 'Kill them all; God will know his own.'" Joseph Strayer, "Albigensian Crusades," p. 62
There is no comparison; no emperor of Rome came close to killing as many Christians as the RCC has. Only the RCC qualifies as "drunk on the blood of the saints".
Really? How about the Protestants? They not only killed Catholics, but also each other.
In any case, though, it's pretty clear that John is referring to Jerusalem, and the irony that the Israelites would attack their own Messiah and His followers. Jesus talks about the fact that this sort of thing happened a lot in Jewish history, and was still going on in His day, since Herod intended to kill Him:
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, "Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee." And he said unto them, "Go ye, and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!' " (Luke 13:31-34)
Then you twist scripture some more by saying that "the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her" somehow are predictive of the gnashing of teeth in their future? I think God's word is pretty clear here - the kings "shall bewail her, and lament for her". They are not depicted in any way as bewailing for their own future destiny. They are lamenting the fall of Babylon, and no one outside Jews and Christians cared a whit about Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And notice the future tense - this is not about something previous to John's writing, it is in the future.
Concerning the future tense, that's part of what suggested to me the lamentation was partly over their own future destruction. It would make sense that the Bible would try to warn people to turn away from sin, in this case by having people contemplate their eventual fate. As for
If Tyndale was burned at the stake for, as you put it, making a translation " with errors that changed the meaning of the text in order to support heresy", then why wasn't the team that put together the Douay-Rheims burned at the stake for their doctrinal pro-Mary-as-divine change in Genesis 3?
It is never even implied that Mary is divine. The change in pronoun here was due to an innocent copyist's error, not due to a knowing change of the Bible.
Could it be because Tyndale's "heresy" was anti-papal, and Douay-Rheims was pro-Catholic?
There's no such thing as a pro-Catholic heresy. But apparently Tyndale's translation had a very great number of errors.
Your claim about Jerusalem being Babylon has been dealt with already
And my reply is here. But read the article I linked to (or its Google cache), it actually makes a lot of sense.
Then you get going with the unfortunately common RCC anti-Semitic view, characterized here with your interpretation that Jesus called people out of Judaism into Christianity.
It's not anti-Semitic to say that Jesus wanted the Jews to become Christians, Christianity being the fulfillment of Judaism.
Paul, a former Pharisee, never called Jews out of Judaism, he simply called sinners to Christ.
And abandon Jewish things like circumcision, etc.
When Christ was walking the hills of Judea, he did not call people to leave Judaism, but to recognize Him as Saviour.
The Jewish people still had a chance to accept Him as a people at that time. But in the end they (or their leaders, at least), rejected Him. So some Jews became Christians, and others didn't.
Peter preached in the Temple, and at places other than the court of the Gentiles, so he was using a status of being a Jew.
Sure, Peter preached to the Jews (and Paul preached to the Gentiles). Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and fulfills various Jewish prophecies. Why not try to reach out to them in light of this?
Your attempts to say that when Stephen said "Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken" that he was calling someone "Father" is patently absurd. The command against calling someone Father or Rabbi (Matthew 23:9) is about referring to someone as being positionally above you in a hierarchy, not about a familial relational concept.
Aren't the "fathers" there religious leaders? In any case, Paul calls himself a "father" in the spiritual sense that the Church uses:
1 Corinthians 4:14-15 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children...
Philemon 1:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds...
In the middle ages the catholic church was too busy killing people (inquisition, albigensian crusades) in europe to do any science other than how to torture people who didn't buy into their heresies.
The Church did not kill people. It was the various states in question that did so, because heretics were considered a threat to the state. This is especially true in the case of the Albigensians.
Amazingly, you see no doctrinal issues with a Bible altered to state that Methusaleh survived the flood.
Okay, I see what you mean now. But this would clearly fall into the "typo" category, and not a corruption of the Bible that introduces false doctrine. I doubt many people would add up the ages and realize that there were a contradiction in Methuselah surviving the flood. But even if someone did, all they'd have to do is look at the context, including what Peter wrote on the Flood, to realize that Methuselah's age was a copyist's error, since he wasn't in the Ark. Or they might guess that one of the other ages was wrongly transcribed, etc., but in the end it would probably be assumed that some sort of copying error was involved, one way or another.
that would mean that one can survive God's coming judgment without Christ. I realize the RCC teaches this
The Catholic Church does not teach this. Anyone who is saved is saved through Christ. Without Christ's sacrifice, we would all be damned.
If you don't know that, the RCC teaches this ; the current pope on December 6 of 2000, said "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom".
The thing to keep in mind is that we are saved by accepting God's free gift of grace. Ideally, we would learn about Christianity and accept it, and be baptized and thus saved. But some people never hear the gospel. Are they automatically damned? No. God offers his grace to everyone. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32) Anyone who accepts that grace is accepting Christ, whether they know it or not. Paul himself said that one can worship God without even hearing of Him (Acts 17:22-31). Also, the people in the Old Testament never explicitly heard of Jesus either, and yet if any of them were saved, they were saved through Christ.
Of course, if someone knowingly and culpably rejects the Gospel, then that person can't be saved until he or she has a change of heart.
However, even it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved, it is more difficult than for a Christian. For one thing, even if someone were to be saved without explicitly knowing Christ, it would be easier for that person to lose their salvation because they don't necessarily know what is a mortal sin and what isn't, because they haven't been taught and thus they could inadvertently fall into a state of sin more easily than a Christian for that reason. Also, the sacraments make it easier to be saved and remain saved, due to the grace they give us. Someone who is willingly baptized is automatically saved through the justifying grace they receive. On the other hand, for a non-Christian to be saved, without baptism, he'd have to make an act of perfect charity, or pure love for God, which may be difficult since we sinners are prone to hold back a little in our love for God. In a similar way, Catholics are automatically forgiven our sins if we make a good confession. However, Protestants don't have the sacrament of confession, and so the only way for them to get their mortal sins forgiven is to make an act of perfect contrition, which again is difficult because it requires a perfect rejection of sins.
Revelation 17:9 states "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Can you find a single source that says Jerusalem was known at the time John wrote Revelation (90-95 A.D.) as a "city on seven hills"?
It is not the harlot who has seven heads, but rather the beast she rides. The harlot is Jerusalem, and the beast is the Roman Empire (based in Rome). Jerusalem used Roman power to persecute Christians.
For example, if a nebula/dwarf was found that exploded at 1 AD, would be proof that a star supernova'ed. However, Chinese records show no unnatural phemonon in the sky. Nor do most other cultures who kept star charts.
The star of Bethlehem was miraculous in nature, I think, some sort of moving light, and not an ordinary celestial body as you suggest. The star pointed out a particular building to the Magi, which an ordinary star or celestial body would not.
Catholics put sciences back by 500 or so years by demanding that obsolete views were the chrchs sanctioned and ONLY views.
That's not true. First of all, the Church kept European civilization alive in the West after the fall of the Roman Empire. Second, the Church preserved much ancient knowledge that would otherwise have been lost (sort of like in "A Canticle for Leibowitz"), and even organized it into a more useful form. Third, many scientists were Catholic clergymen, so in this sense the Catholic leadership sped up scientific progress (for example, the Big Bang idea came from a French priest, I think). Fourth, the only example of what you suggest that I can think of is Galileo, and he had no conclusive proof of what he claimed. His theory had already been suggested by others, but he got in trouble for insisting that it be accepted as a fact when in was still only hypothetical at that time. It was only about two hundred years later that parallax showed that the earth moved in its orbit against the background of stars. Once there was proof, heliocentricity was accepted.
You're quite the Catholic apologist, but you are inaccurate when you claim the Catholics were not upset by vernacular translations. Otherwise why was Tyndale burned at the stake - all he did was translate the bible into English that a common person could understand.
No, it wasn't for being a vernacular translation, but for being a bad translation, with errors that changed the meaning of the text in order to support heresy.
The Roman Catholic Church is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" as it says in Revelation 17:6.
This passage is speaking of Jerusalem, not the Church that Christ founded.
As the bible says in Revelation 18:4-5 "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities".
In other words, leave Judaism and become Christians.
stop violating our Lord Jesus Christ's commandment in Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven".
Jesus called people Father (Luke 16:24). And Paul (Acts 22:1), Stephen (Acts 7:2), and John (1 John 2:13) called people "father" too. The Bible explicitly says just before Stephen spoke that he was "full of faith and power" (Acts 6:8), and that he spoke by "the Spirit" (Acts 6:10). If what Stephen said was spoken by the Spirit, then there can't be anything wrong with it.
In any case, what Jesus was talking about when he said "call no man Father" was that we should be humble, and not filled with pride like the scribes and Pharisees. In the same passage (Matthew 23:8-12), Jesus also said that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be called "teacher" either, but Protestants seem to ignore this "commandment"... The fact is that Jesus was using exaggeration here, just as He did when He said we should hate our family (Luke 14:26). He didn't really mean we should hate our family, but rather that we should love God more than our family. In the same way, if we are a father or a teacher, we should not let this go to our head; we should keep in mind how lowly we are in comparison to God.
Typographical errors are one thing; scriptural and translational errors that make bad doctrine are another.
So let's look at the example you provided of "errors that make bad doctrine": you wrote earlier that "the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong." What bad doctrine does this lead to?
I noticed your claim there that the RCC is a church founded by Jesus;
It's not a church founded by Jesus, it's the Church founded by Him. "I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18) Note that "church" is singular; Christ only founded one Church.
you need to read Revelation 17&18 and see what He things of the RCC "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".
As is evident by now, we hold that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in Revelation points to the reality that John is interested in the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, not in pagan Rome (much less in prognostications about the Catholic Church) as the "Whore of Babylon". We argue that the identification of Rome, rather than Jerusalem, with the "great harlot" of Revelation 17 can only be accomplished by systematically ignoring the Old Testament background of Revelation. For as we have already seen, Revelation 11:8 specifically identifies the "great city" as the place "where their Lord was crucified." In calling Jerusalem a "harlot" Revelation continues a tradition with deep roots in the prophets of the Old Testament. And so, Isaiah 1:10-23, Jeremiah 3, Ezekiel 16, Hosea and other prophets all identify one city as the "harlot city": Jerusalem.
John gives us other clues to this identification as well. The woman is seated on a "scarlet beast" with "seven heads and ten horns" (17:3). She is described as "drunk with the blood of the saints and blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (17:6). We would argue that this represents the Jerusalem which persecuted the early Church, riding on the back of Rome (a city on seven hills which had had ten emperors by 70 AD) in order to accomplish that persecution. Such a picture dovetails with the verdict of Jesus in Matthew 23:35, who tells Jerusalem that upon her will come "all the righteous blood shed on earth." It also dovetails with the general New Testament picture of Jewish persecution of the early Church, which tended to try to make use of Roman power wherever possible in order to more effectively harass and suppress the church, beginning with the crucifixion of Jesus himself and continuing through the persecution of Paul and even the persecutions of Nero. The length to which these first century Jewish persecutors were willing to go is shown by the shocking reply of the chief priests to Pilate's question, "Shall I crucify your King?" Their answer: "We have no King but Caesar." Such an answer commits the corrupt power elite in Jerusalem, both political and religious, to a prostituted relationship with Rome against the young Church. As both Luke and Acts note, one of the strange realities of the dawn of the gospel was that former enemies become "friends" in their unlikely coalition against the Lamb. And so Acts 4:26-28 records that the Church noticed a fulfillment of Psalm 2: "'The kings of the earth set themselves in array, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'-for truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place." In a seemingly unlikely yet strangely logical joining of power politics and false religion, two otherwise bitterly opposed foes, the Harlot and Beast, "make war on the Lamb" (17:14).
Claiming copyist errors shows you align with the textual critics. Sorry, I believe God, not you on that one. He promised to preserve His word, and therefore only the corrupt manuscripts will have corruptions in them.
I don't think God ever meant to say that He would never allow typographical errors to enter into Biblical texts. There probably isn't any version of the Bible in existence without a few typos here and there (but even so, most Biblical versions are extremely close to each other in content). And even if there were a perfectly "non-corrupt" Bible version, how would we know which one it was? If, for instance, there were a perfect copy of the Bible preserved somewhere in the sands of the Middle East, that would (technically) satisfy your interpretation of God preserving His Word, but it wouldn't do anyone much good. It seems pretty clear to me that the Word of God is the Word that is preached to us - in New Testament times, by the Church. Remember that Jesus told the Apostles that He'd be with them until the end of the world. It is in that sense that the Word of God is preserved. He founded a Church that preserves and preaches His Word until the end of the world.
Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31) But on the other hand, John writes, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25) Clearly many things that Jesus did are not recorded anywhere. And, similarly, many things that He said, many of His words, have passed away from our knowledge (especially most of what He said up to the age of thirty or so). So how should we understand Mark 13:31? It seems to me that what Jesus meant by "my words" is His doctrine, the content of His teaching. This has not passed away, even if we no longer know what specific words He might have used to teach His teachings.
Actually, it's pretty much universally acknowledged.
But notice in scripture that anything originating in Egypt is considered to be on the negative side. So Alexandrian anything is suspect.
That's a bit silly. You can't say that everything having to do with Egypt is automatically bad. For instance, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod.
And as I said, the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong.
You'll find little copyists errors like that in just about any hand-copied manuscript. In itself it doesn't make the text "corrupt".
The Septuagint is called the LXX frequently; an odd name for something supposed produced outside the influence of the Roman Empire...
The very word "Septuagint" is Latin, meaning "seventy". "LXX" is just a Latin abbreviation for a Latin word, just as "&" is a quick way of writing the Latin word "et", "etc." is short for "et cetera", and so on. The reason they'd call it by a Latin name is that people in Europe have been using the Latin language for a long time. We call the Dead Sea Scrolls the "Dead Sea Scrolls", but that doesn't imply that English speakers were involved in producing them.
And if Origen produced it, of course it would look like there were quotes in the NT from it; he had the NT to work from, and could easily work his "translation" to fit perfectly into the NT text.
Of course, we could also imagine that, say, Joseph Stalin produced the Septuagint, and come to the same conclusion. But making up theories like this that contradict history won't do us any good.
The Septuagint is a corrupt translation; observe that it has Methuselah living after the flood. There is strong evidence that it was created by the heretic Origen.
The Septuagint predates Christianity, so Origen couldn't have created it. It was actually translated by about seventy Jewish scholars living in Alexandria, around 200 BC.
It was, in fact, the Greek translation used by the Evangelists. Direct quotes from it appear in the New Testament.
I already replied to this, but I just remembered something. The Gutenberg Bible wasn't a vernacular version of the Bible, but rather a Latin (and Catholic) edition.
Here's a page on the Gutenberg Bible, including an image of one of the pages, in which you can see it's in Latin.
Nor is it at all true that the Catholic Church was opposed to the printing and distribution of Bible translations in vernacular languages (it did oppose some Protestant translations which it felt were inaccurate). For instance, between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517 at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German...
The situation was no different in other European countries. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than forty Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions starting in 1478 with the full approval of the Spanish Inquisition. A total of 626 editions appeared, of which 198 were in the vernacular languages, with the sanction of the Catholic Church, before any Protestant version saw the light of day.
Well, since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, I don't see what you're trying to prove with this. The Bible never teaches Sola Scriptura, or that everything we do must be contained in the Bible. Does your church use electrical lights? That's not in the Bible.
In fact, the Bible often denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
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. [This is precisely how Catholic Tradition works, by the way.]
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.
Anyway, as to the points you listed:
# Jesus talked about Hell frequently. Mark down every time he mentions purgatory as clearly as He mentions Hell.
Jesus didn't talk very often about the Trinity either. So does that mean the doctrine of the Trinity is false?
Infant baptism.
Acts 2:38-39 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 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." And she constrained us.
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Baptism by sprinkling.
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:25-27)
Auricular confession.
John 20:22-23 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Celibate priests.
Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33 But I would have you without carefulness. 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.
A clergy ruling over a laity.
1 Timothy 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
# A strong religious governing system.
In New Testament times, the Apostles and clergy governed the Church.
Denominational governance.
I don't know what you mean here. If you mean the division of Christians into denominations, we don't support this. All Christians are to belong to the flock of
Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura? Perhaps the most important illustration for you as a Catholic is 1 Cor 4:6 "...that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another". In other words, do not take the word of men above the Word of God.
This doesn't say anything about Sola Scriptura. Paul is saying that people should not exceed the guidelines he had just provided (including quotes from the Old Testament). However, nowhere does he say that only what is in the Bible should be believed. Keep in mind that just a few chapters later, Paul would write: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2) Here, Paul is praising the Corinthians for heeding his oral teaching, and not the Scriptures alone.
Some other places that are relevant to sola scriptura: our Lord issued very severe rebukes to the Pharisees (calling them hypocrites in Mark 7:6) in Mark 7:7-8 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men". And a few verses later in 13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye".
And Matthew 15:3 "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". And Matthew 15:6-9 "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."
And Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Jesus said that they were "laying aside the commandment of God" and replacing it with their own traditions that they made up themselves, for their own benefit. That's why Jesus calls them hypocrites: they say they're holy because they follow rules, but the rules they made are self-serving. Jesus gave an example of what He was getting at in Mark 7:9-13.
And he said unto them, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, 'Honour thy father and thy mother'; and, 'Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death': but ye say, 'If a man shall say to his father or mother, it is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.' And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (Mark 7:9-13)
So instead of their rules being in harmony with what God wants, and thus leading to holiness, they're used as an excuse to avoid their duty (and thus go against God's will).
In any case, this says nothing about whether all religious truth is to be explicitly found in the Bible.
By the way, Catholic Tradition comes from the Apostles. Some of it came in written form (the Bible), and some of it in oral form (everything else). Christians must keep it all, and not reject one or the other. Imagine if the early Christians ignored all that the Apostles told them unless it was written down first. That's more or less what you'd have them do, apparently.
A widely expressed doctrine.
Then perhaps you might be able to find one place in the Bible where it is expressed.
And as for adding or removing things in the Bible, well, there is Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unt
You claim there's no evidence of Baptists prior to the reformation? What do you call the anabaptists who were in the Coliseum? The "Trail of Blood" is a brief history of Baptists.
Those weren't Baptists. They believed in doctrines that were totally different from those of the Baptists; some of them were actually pretty close to Catholicism.
Carroll identifies many divergent groups throughout history, claiming them as baptistic. These groups are a montage of unrelated sects and heretics, including the Albigenses, Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more. The Cathari and Albigenses taught that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. Since the Catholic Church took the New Testament literally was seen as corrupted and doing the work of the devil. They also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell.
The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and Gnostics. Other groups rejected the government of the Catholic Church but not her dogma. What linked many of the groups was not a denial of Catholic dogma but a common concern for rigorous spirituality, a demand for the return to apostolic poverty, the refusal to take oaths, criticism of lax clergy, etc. many believed in the Real Presence, the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin, regenerational baptism and the rest of Catholic dogma. The Waldenses, started by Peter Waldo (c. 1150-1218) are an example of a group Baptist successionists would consider baptistic, maintaining "Baptist churches" in the midst of persecution during the medieval period. Edward T. Hiscox, author of the classic Baptist handbook, Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1980) claims the Waldenses and the above mentioned groups held to the principle points "which Baptists have always emphasized". Hiscox, however, doesn't inform his readers that the Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness of the sacraments, infant baptism, that "the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ", that good deeds of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. That Baptist successionists can claim the Waldenses as their ancestors-sharing a common belief and practice-is quite untenable, if not disingenuous.
I know the RCC trashes it, as they do anything that makes them look bad.
Baptist James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history at Cedarville College, summarizes the situation well. "Perhaps no other major body of professing Christians has had as much difficulty in discerning it historical roots as have the Baptists. A survey of conflicting opinions might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists suffer from an identity crisis. . . . Many Baptists object vehemently and argue that their history can be traced across the centuries to New Testament times. Some Baptist deny categorically that they are Protestants and that the history of their churches is related to the success of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Those who reject the Protestant character and Reformation origins of the Baptists usually maintain a view of church history sometimes called 'Baptist Successionism' . . . enhanced enormously by a booklet entitled The
Protestants and the RCC both allegorize the book of Revelation, whereas independent evangelicals and baptists believe it as written.
I'm not sure what you mean by "allegorize". For instance, when you say that you "believe it as written", do you mean that there will literally be a woman riding a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns? (Rev. 17:3)
The point of disagreement is that we believe Jesus when he said "It is finished"; the RCC teaches that his finished work on the cross was not sufficient.
This isn't true. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to save all mankind.
The RCC teaches that penance and such are necessary,
Not for salvation as such, but to cleanse us in preparation for going to heaven. If our sins are forgiven but we die without doing penance, we'll still go to heaven, although perhaps first undergoing the cleansing of Purgatory.
that Christ must suffer again each time there is a eucharist,
No, this isn't true. The Eucharist makes present to us the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.
and that any who doubt transubstantiation are anathema.
We believe what Jesus said:
"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." (Matthew 26:26)
And it has the utterly unscriptural invention of purgatory.
"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." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)
If you really believe that, and apparently you do, how do you explain Acts 15 where James is the head of the church, when Paul went to dispute versus Peter for a ruling on circumcision for Gentile Christians. James rendered judgment in that case, clearly he was the authority, Peter was not.
James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (as the local bishop), but not the Church as a whole. In any case, the Bible shows us that Jesus did place the Church under Peter's authority, and He never did that for James.
You are trying to say the thief had somehow been forgiven, yet he knew that he was being justly executed, so he did not believe he was forgiven.
Let's say you murdered someone, and then you received forgiveness from God for the murder you committed. So if the police arrest you, you are brought to trial, and sent to prison (or executed) for your crime, would you consider that you are being unfairly treated by the government? Does having your sins forgiven somehow mean that you are suffering an injustice by being punished for your crime?
The only reason given in our holy bible that the thief was to be in paradise with our Lord that day is that the thief expressed faith in the Lord. Nothing else.
Actually, the thief does show repentance for his sins. "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." (Luke 23:41)
Salvation and Justification by faith alone (sola fide).
Strictly speaking, what the Bible teaches is that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism. Of course, when
I agree. It's not just a fairy tale, it's a ridiculous fairy tale. First of all, the shape of the mitre changed over the years, so any present resemblance to anything is coincidental. Secondly, the mitre began to be used around the year 1000, and by that time no one knew anything at all about Dagon, so to say that people were worshipping Dagon doesn't make sense.
Thirdly, even if the Pope's hat had the word "mystery" on it, and I don't know that this was the case, so what? Assuming that you're referring here to Revelation 17:5, the Bible says that the harlot has more that just "mystery" on her forehead. The full name written is "Mytery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth". So the word "mystery" in itself doesn't fulfill what the Bible says.
But my guess is that the whole "mystery on the mitre" thing is a fabrication anyway.
Aaron's mitre did not resemble a fish
How do you know this?
BTW have you read any of Hislop yet, or are you only willing to look in Catholic-approved books?
"Hislop's research is as shoddy as a tabloid. For instance, Hislop claims that Semiramis was the mother of Nimrod, although Nimrod was the grandson of Noah, and Semiramis did not rule in Babylon until three centuries after Moses."
Slashdot Mirror
This sort of supports the point I was making. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Muslims are taught that it's fine to do anything to infidels. Despite this, most of the time Muslims don't mistreat infidels. They know in their hearts that certain things are wrong, even when they're taught otherwise.
My point is that people, generally speaking, do agree on the basics of morality. You'll always have the odd exceptions.
But even in the Pakistani case, I think that, in their heart of hearts, they know it's wrong to rape; but they ignore the voice of their conscience out of lust for retribution, or just out of lust.
You're absolutely right. For example, if someone were to murder you in cold blood, or rape you, who's to say if that's right or wrong?
Seriously, though, the basics of morality are accepted by pretty much everyone all around the world.
Clearly your favorite debate tactic is "argument from silence".
I find it somewhat ironic that you accuse me of arguing from silence, when the very reason you think I'm doing so is that you've accepted a doctrine that is based on an argument from silence. Briefly, you're saying that if I assert something, and if that assertion isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, then I am arguing from silence. According to you, the Bible is the only source of religious knowledge we have. However, this position of yours is self-contradictory, as the Bible itself never teaches this. The Bible never says that all religious truth is to be found in the Bible. So the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, since the Bible never teaches it, and so the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, by its own criteria, declares itself to be unBiblical and thus false.
The Bible doesn't teach Sola Scriptura. It teaches that the Apostles passed down the Gospel to future generations, all the way down to the present day, either in writing (the Bible) or through oral teaching:
So there are some things that the Church teaches that were passed down to us through the oral teachings of the Apostles, and the Bible acknowledges that this is the case. For me to say that these teachings are true is not to argue from silence, since the Apostles did actually teach these things, and the Church has continued to teach them, generation after generation, since then.
Since you have a very strong bias to prove the Roman Catholic Church position, you force that interpretation on scripture wherever you find it, regardless of the plain meaning that one gets from just reading scripture.
Again, I find it ironic that you say this, since you do this sort of thing yourself. For instance, I don't think you believe that the Eucharist is really the body and blood of Christ. And yet, Jesus states that it is:
Paul also says that the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ, and that those who receive the Eucharist unworthily are committing a mortal sin, since they are not showing proper respect to the Lord's body present in the Eucharist:
Such as your interpretation of the thief on the cross. The plain reading of the Bible is that the thief is saved merely by confessing faith in Jesus as Lord.
Actually, I don't think we're that far apart on how the Good Thief got saved. However, I believe my explanation is more complete than yours. F
...the HTML version of the article can be found here.
I'm not sure if you're actually disagreeing with what the parent post had said, i.e. that communism had conquered the world. If what you're saying is that in "1984" the West had become communist, but not through military conquest, then it seems to me that you're right. Here's a little excerpt from chapter 5, which clearly describes the West (Oceania) as being communist:
What the Pope is talking about in the protoevangelium, Genesis 3:15, has nothing to do with the pronoun I mentioned. Here's the verse in question:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15)
In the context of what the Pope is talking about, the woman in question is Mary, and the woman's seed is Christ.
Now, the Pope says, "the Virgin Mary..., although subject to the new Adam, is most intimately associated with him in that struggle against the infernal foe." The Bible says that there is "enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed". So far so good: the woman and her seed struggle against the serpent and its seed.
Then the Pope says that the "struggle against the infernal foe
So what the Pope said has nothing to do with whose heel (in Genesis 3:15) bruises the serpent.
Or are you a priest that can absolve yourself?
Priests can't absolve themselves.
And while we're on the topic of Mary, the idea of her perpetual virginity (another "infallible" declaration of the papacy) is another heresy of the RCC. In Matthew 1:25; 12:47; Luke 2:7; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14 it is clear that she and Joseph had a family after Jesus was born.
That Jesus was firstborn doesn't mean there were other children after Him, it means there were none before Him. Here's the Biblical definition of the firstborn:
Exodus 13:2
"Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine."
The use of the word "brethren" doesn't prove anything. For the Jews, the word "brother" was used to refer to just about any close relative. Here are some examples:
Abraham was Lot's uncle:
Genesis 11:26
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
But here, Lot is called Abraham's "brother":
Genesis 14:12,14
And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
In the following, cousins are called "brethren":
1 Chronicles 23:21-22
The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them.
I see. So, in that case, the Textus Receptus is not the preserved Word of God either, as it too contains errors.
Then you get back into that "act of perfect contrition" bit. We talked about that with regard to the thief on the cross; what act of perfect contrition did he perform while nailed to a cross and hours (at most) away from death?
Again, we don't know whether or not he was in a state of mortal sin when he was on the cross. He may have had his sins forgiven earlier.
But assuming that he was in a state of sin, and assuming that he had at some point in the past been in a state of grace (i.e. saved), then he could make an act of contrition, which basically is to feel perfectly sorry for your sins, without reservation. He does seem to regret his sins, based on what he says.
On the other hand, if he had never been saved before, then he would have to make an act of perfect charity which is to love God perfectly (in addition to the act of contrition).
Next you deny the papal legate ordered a slaughter at Beziers. Unfortunately for you (and even more so for the innocents who suffered at the orders of Innocent III's legate) Arnaud Amalric said when asked how to know heretics from loyal Catholics, "Kill them all. For God will know those who are his" on July 21 of 1209.
"It is not true that the leaders of the Crusade shouted: 'Kill them all; God will know his own.'" Joseph Strayer, "Albigensian Crusades," p. 62
There is no comparison; no emperor of Rome came close to killing as many Christians as the RCC has. Only the RCC qualifies as "drunk on the blood of the saints".
Really? How about the Protestants? They not only killed Catholics, but also each other.
In any case, though, it's pretty clear that John is referring to Jerusalem, and the irony that the Israelites would attack their own Messiah and His followers. Jesus talks about the fact that this sort of thing happened a lot in Jewish history, and was still going on in His day, since Herod intended to kill Him:
Then you twist scripture some more by saying that "the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her" somehow are predictive of the gnashing of teeth in their future? I think God's word is pretty clear here - the kings "shall bewail her, and lament for her". They are not depicted in any way as bewailing for their own future destiny. They are lamenting the fall of Babylon, and no one outside Jews and Christians cared a whit about Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And notice the future tense - this is not about something previous to John's writing, it is in the future.
Concerning the future tense, that's part of what suggested to me the lamentation was partly over their own future destruction. It would make sense that the Bible would try to warn people to turn away from sin, in this case by having people contemplate their eventual fate. As for
If Tyndale was burned at the stake for, as you put it, making a translation " with errors that changed the meaning of the text in order to support heresy", then why wasn't the team that put together the Douay-Rheims burned at the stake for their doctrinal pro-Mary-as-divine change in Genesis 3?
It is never even implied that Mary is divine. The change in pronoun here was due to an innocent copyist's error, not due to a knowing change of the Bible.
Could it be because Tyndale's "heresy" was anti-papal, and Douay-Rheims was pro-Catholic?
There's no such thing as a pro-Catholic heresy. But apparently Tyndale's translation had a very great number of errors.
Your claim about Jerusalem being Babylon has been dealt with already
And my reply is here. But read the article I linked to (or its Google cache), it actually makes a lot of sense.
Then you get going with the unfortunately common RCC anti-Semitic view, characterized here with your interpretation that Jesus called people out of Judaism into Christianity.
It's not anti-Semitic to say that Jesus wanted the Jews to become Christians, Christianity being the fulfillment of Judaism.
Paul, a former Pharisee, never called Jews out of Judaism, he simply called sinners to Christ.
And abandon Jewish things like circumcision, etc.
When Christ was walking the hills of Judea, he did not call people to leave Judaism, but to recognize Him as Saviour.
The Jewish people still had a chance to accept Him as a people at that time. But in the end they (or their leaders, at least), rejected Him. So some Jews became Christians, and others didn't.
Peter preached in the Temple, and at places other than the court of the Gentiles, so he was using a status of being a Jew.
Sure, Peter preached to the Jews (and Paul preached to the Gentiles). Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, and fulfills various Jewish prophecies. Why not try to reach out to them in light of this?
Your attempts to say that when Stephen said "Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken" that he was calling someone "Father" is patently absurd. The command against calling someone Father or Rabbi (Matthew 23:9) is about referring to someone as being positionally above you in a hierarchy, not about a familial relational concept.
Aren't the "fathers" there religious leaders? In any case, Paul calls himself a "father" in the spiritual sense that the Church uses:
1 Corinthians 4:14-15
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
1 Thessalonians 2:11
As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children...
Philemon 1:10
I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds...
In the middle ages the catholic church was too busy killing people (inquisition, albigensian crusades) in europe to do any science other than how to torture people who didn't buy into their heresies.
The Church did not kill people. It was the various states in question that did so, because heretics were considered a threat to the state. This is especially true in the case of the Albigensians.
Amazingly, you see no doctrinal issues with a Bible altered to state that Methusaleh survived the flood.
Okay, I see what you mean now. But this would clearly fall into the "typo" category, and not a corruption of the Bible that introduces false doctrine. I doubt many people would add up the ages and realize that there were a contradiction in Methuselah surviving the flood. But even if someone did, all they'd have to do is look at the context, including what Peter wrote on the Flood, to realize that Methuselah's age was a copyist's error, since he wasn't in the Ark. Or they might guess that one of the other ages was wrongly transcribed, etc., but in the end it would probably be assumed that some sort of copying error was involved, one way or another.
that would mean that one can survive God's coming judgment without Christ. I realize the RCC teaches this
The Catholic Church does not teach this. Anyone who is saved is saved through Christ. Without Christ's sacrifice, we would all be damned.
If you don't know that, the RCC teaches this ; the current pope on December 6 of 2000, said "The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the beatitudes: the poor in spirit; the pure in heart; those who will lovingly [endure] the sufferings of life; will enter God's kingdom. All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and His Church, contribute under the influence of grace, to the building of this kingdom".
The thing to keep in mind is that we are saved by accepting God's free gift of grace. Ideally, we would learn about Christianity and accept it, and be baptized and thus saved. But some people never hear the gospel. Are they automatically damned? No. God offers his grace to everyone. "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32) Anyone who accepts that grace is accepting Christ, whether they know it or not. Paul himself said that one can worship God without even hearing of Him (Acts 17:22-31). Also, the people in the Old Testament never explicitly heard of Jesus either, and yet if any of them were saved, they were saved through Christ.
Of course, if someone knowingly and culpably rejects the Gospel, then that person can't be saved until he or she has a change of heart.
However, even it is possible for a non-Christian to be saved, it is more difficult than for a Christian. For one thing, even if someone were to be saved without explicitly knowing Christ, it would be easier for that person to lose their salvation because they don't necessarily know what is a mortal sin and what isn't, because they haven't been taught and thus they could inadvertently fall into a state of sin more easily than a Christian for that reason. Also, the sacraments make it easier to be saved and remain saved, due to the grace they give us. Someone who is willingly baptized is automatically saved through the justifying grace they receive. On the other hand, for a non-Christian to be saved, without baptism, he'd have to make an act of perfect charity, or pure love for God, which may be difficult since we sinners are prone to hold back a little in our love for God. In a similar way, Catholics are automatically forgiven our sins if we make a good confession. However, Protestants don't have the sacrament of confession, and so the only way for them to get their mortal sins forgiven is to make an act of perfect contrition, which again is difficult because it requires a perfect rejection of sins.
Revelation 17:9 states "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Can you find a single source that says Jerusalem was known at the time John wrote Revelation (90-95 A.D.) as a "city on seven hills"?
It is not the harlot who has seven heads, but rather the beast she rides. The harlot is Jerusalem, and the beast is the Roman Empire (based in Rome). Jerusalem used Roman power to persecute Christians.
For example, if a nebula/dwarf was found that exploded at 1 AD, would be proof that a star supernova'ed. However, Chinese records show no unnatural phemonon in the sky. Nor do most other cultures who kept star charts.
The star of Bethlehem was miraculous in nature, I think, some sort of moving light, and not an ordinary celestial body as you suggest. The star pointed out a particular building to the Magi, which an ordinary star or celestial body would not.
Catholics put sciences back by 500 or so years by demanding that obsolete views were the chrchs sanctioned and ONLY views.
That's not true. First of all, the Church kept European civilization alive in the West after the fall of the Roman Empire. Second, the Church preserved much ancient knowledge that would otherwise have been lost (sort of like in "A Canticle for Leibowitz"), and even organized it into a more useful form. Third, many scientists were Catholic clergymen, so in this sense the Catholic leadership sped up scientific progress (for example, the Big Bang idea came from a French priest, I think). Fourth, the only example of what you suggest that I can think of is Galileo, and he had no conclusive proof of what he claimed. His theory had already been suggested by others, but he got in trouble for insisting that it be accepted as a fact when in was still only hypothetical at that time. It was only about two hundred years later that parallax showed that the earth moved in its orbit against the background of stars. Once there was proof, heliocentricity was accepted.
You're quite the Catholic apologist, but you are inaccurate when you claim the Catholics were not upset by vernacular translations. Otherwise why was Tyndale burned at the stake - all he did was translate the bible into English that a common person could understand.
No, it wasn't for being a vernacular translation, but for being a bad translation, with errors that changed the meaning of the text in order to support heresy.
The Roman Catholic Church is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" as it says in Revelation 17:6.
This passage is speaking of Jerusalem, not the Church that Christ founded.
As the bible says in Revelation 18:4-5 "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities".
In other words, leave Judaism and become Christians.
stop violating our Lord Jesus Christ's commandment in Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven".
Jesus called people Father (Luke 16:24). And Paul (Acts 22:1), Stephen (Acts 7:2), and John (1 John 2:13) called people "father" too. The Bible explicitly says just before Stephen spoke that he was "full of faith and power" (Acts 6:8), and that he spoke by "the Spirit" (Acts 6:10). If what Stephen said was spoken by the Spirit, then there can't be anything wrong with it.
In any case, what Jesus was talking about when he said "call no man Father" was that we should be humble, and not filled with pride like the scribes and Pharisees. In the same passage (Matthew 23:8-12), Jesus also said that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be called "teacher" either, but Protestants seem to ignore this "commandment"... The fact is that Jesus was using exaggeration here, just as He did when He said we should hate our family (Luke 14:26). He didn't really mean we should hate our family, but rather that we should love God more than our family. In the same way, if we are a father or a teacher, we should not let this go to our head; we should keep in mind how lowly we are in comparison to God.
So let's look at the example you provided of "errors that make bad doctrine": you wrote earlier that "the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong." What bad doctrine does this lead to?
I noticed your claim there that the RCC is a church founded by Jesus;
It's not a church founded by Jesus, it's the Church founded by Him. "I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18) Note that "church" is singular; Christ only founded one Church.
you need to read Revelation 17&18 and see what He things of the RCC "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues".
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. Babylon is Jerusalem:
Claiming copyist errors shows you align with the textual critics. Sorry, I believe God, not you on that one. He promised to preserve His word, and therefore only the corrupt manuscripts will have corruptions in them.
I don't think God ever meant to say that He would never allow typographical errors to enter into Biblical texts. There probably isn't any version of the Bible in existence without a few typos here and there (but even so, most Biblical versions are extremely close to each other in content). And even if there were a perfectly "non-corrupt" Bible version, how would we know which one it was? If, for instance, there were a perfect copy of the Bible preserved somewhere in the sands of the Middle East, that would (technically) satisfy your interpretation of God preserving His Word, but it wouldn't do anyone much good. It seems pretty clear to me that the Word of God is the Word that is preached to us - in New Testament times, by the Church. Remember that Jesus told the Apostles that He'd be with them until the end of the world. It is in that sense that the Word of God is preserved. He founded a Church that preserves and preaches His Word until the end of the world.
Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31) But on the other hand, John writes, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (John 21:25) Clearly many things that Jesus did are not recorded anywhere. And, similarly, many things that He said, many of His words, have passed away from our knowledge (especially most of what He said up to the age of thirty or so). So how should we understand Mark 13:31? It seems to me that what Jesus meant by "my words" is His doctrine, the content of His teaching. This has not passed away, even if we no longer know what specific words He might have used to teach His teachings.
That's a common misconception.
Actually, it's pretty much universally acknowledged.
But notice in scripture that anything originating in Egypt is considered to be on the negative side. So Alexandrian anything is suspect.
That's a bit silly. You can't say that everything having to do with Egypt is automatically bad. For instance, Joseph and Mary took Jesus to Egypt to escape Herod.
And as I said, the corruptness of it is clear in that it gets things like Methusaleh's age wrong.
You'll find little copyists errors like that in just about any hand-copied manuscript. In itself it doesn't make the text "corrupt".
The Septuagint is called the LXX frequently; an odd name for something supposed produced outside the influence of the Roman Empire...
The very word "Septuagint" is Latin, meaning "seventy". "LXX" is just a Latin abbreviation for a Latin word, just as "&" is a quick way of writing the Latin word "et", "etc." is short for "et cetera", and so on. The reason they'd call it by a Latin name is that people in Europe have been using the Latin language for a long time. We call the Dead Sea Scrolls the "Dead Sea Scrolls", but that doesn't imply that English speakers were involved in producing them.
And if Origen produced it, of course it would look like there were quotes in the NT from it; he had the NT to work from, and could easily work his "translation" to fit perfectly into the NT text.
Of course, we could also imagine that, say, Joseph Stalin produced the Septuagint, and come to the same conclusion. But making up theories like this that contradict history won't do us any good.
The Septuagint is a corrupt translation; observe that it has Methuselah living after the flood. There is strong evidence that it was created by the heretic Origen.
The Septuagint predates Christianity, so Origen couldn't have created it. It was actually translated by about seventy Jewish scholars living in Alexandria, around 200 BC.
It was, in fact, the Greek translation used by the Evangelists. Direct quotes from it appear in the New Testament.
I already replied to this, but I just remembered something. The Gutenberg Bible wasn't a vernacular version of the Bible, but rather a Latin (and Catholic) edition.
Here's a page on the Gutenberg Bible, including an image of one of the pages, in which you can see it's in Latin.
No, it's not true. The problem was with bad translations of the Bible, but vernacular versions as such were not a problem.
Catholic Reverence for the Bible
See this post.
Well, since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is false, I don't see what you're trying to prove with this. The Bible never teaches Sola Scriptura, or that everything we do must be contained in the Bible. Does your church use electrical lights? That's not in the Bible.
In fact, the Bible often denies the doctrine of Sola Scriptura:
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. [This is precisely how Catholic Tradition works, by the way.]
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.
Anyway, as to the points you listed:
# Jesus talked about Hell frequently. Mark down every time he mentions purgatory as clearly as He mentions Hell.
Jesus didn't talk very often about the Trinity either. So does that mean the doctrine of the Trinity is false?
Infant baptism.
Acts 2:38-39
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 16:15
And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, "If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there." And she constrained us.
Acts 16:33
And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
1 Corinthians 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Baptism by sprinkling.
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezekiel 36:25-27)
Auricular confession.
John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Celibate priests.
Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
1 Corinthians 7:32-33
But I would have you without carefulness. 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.
A clergy ruling over a laity.
1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
# A strong religious governing system.
In New Testament times, the Apostles and clergy governed the Church.
Denominational governance.
I don't know what you mean here. If you mean the division of Christians into denominations, we don't support this. All Christians are to belong to the flock of
This doesn't say anything about Sola Scriptura. Paul is saying that people should not exceed the guidelines he had just provided (including quotes from the Old Testament). However, nowhere does he say that only what is in the Bible should be believed. Keep in mind that just a few chapters later, Paul would write: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2) Here, Paul is praising the Corinthians for heeding his oral teaching, and not the Scriptures alone.
Some other places that are relevant to sola scriptura: our Lord issued very severe rebukes to the Pharisees (calling them hypocrites in Mark 7:6) in Mark 7:7-8 "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men". And a few verses later in 13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye".
And Matthew 15:3 "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?". And Matthew 15:6-9 "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."
And Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
What does this have to do with Sola Scriptura? Jesus said that they were "laying aside the commandment of God" and replacing it with their own traditions that they made up themselves, for their own benefit. That's why Jesus calls them hypocrites: they say they're holy because they follow rules, but the rules they made are self-serving. Jesus gave an example of what He was getting at in Mark 7:9-13.
So instead of their rules being in harmony with what God wants, and thus leading to holiness, they're used as an excuse to avoid their duty (and thus go against God's will).
In any case, this says nothing about whether all religious truth is to be explicitly found in the Bible.
By the way, Catholic Tradition comes from the Apostles. Some of it came in written form (the Bible), and some of it in oral form (everything else). Christians must keep it all, and not reject one or the other. Imagine if the early Christians ignored all that the Apostles told them unless it was written down first. That's more or less what you'd have them do, apparently.
A widely expressed doctrine.
Then perhaps you might be able to find one place in the Bible where it is expressed.
And as for adding or removing things in the Bible, well, there is Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unt
Those weren't Baptists. They believed in doctrines that were totally different from those of the Baptists; some of them were actually pretty close to Catholicism.
On some of the sects mentioned in the "Trail of Blood":
I know the RCC trashes it, as they do anything that makes them look bad.
Here's what a Baptist says:
You assume I'm protestant; I'm not, I'm a baptist. Baptists existed from the beginning of the church
Baptists came out of the Protestant movement. There's no evidence that they existed before then.
whereas the RCC was started by Constantine
Have a look at this site. You'll see that the early Christians believed in the same things that Catholics do. For instance, the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Protestants and the RCC both allegorize the book of Revelation, whereas independent evangelicals and baptists believe it as written.
I'm not sure what you mean by "allegorize". For instance, when you say that you "believe it as written", do you mean that there will literally be a woman riding a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns? (Rev. 17:3)
The point of disagreement is that we believe Jesus when he said "It is finished"; the RCC teaches that his finished work on the cross was not sufficient.
This isn't true. Christ's sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to save all mankind.
The RCC teaches that penance and such are necessary,
Not for salvation as such, but to cleanse us in preparation for going to heaven. If our sins are forgiven but we die without doing penance, we'll still go to heaven, although perhaps first undergoing the cleansing of Purgatory.
that Christ must suffer again each time there is a eucharist,
No, this isn't true. The Eucharist makes present to us the one sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.
and that any who doubt transubstantiation are anathema.
We believe what Jesus said:
"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." (Matthew 26:26)
And it has the utterly unscriptural invention of purgatory.
"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." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15)
If you really believe that, and apparently you do, how do you explain Acts 15 where James is the head of the church, when Paul went to dispute versus Peter for a ruling on circumcision for Gentile Christians. James rendered judgment in that case, clearly he was the authority, Peter was not.
James was the head of the church in Jerusalem (as the local bishop), but not the Church as a whole. In any case, the Bible shows us that Jesus did place the Church under Peter's authority, and He never did that for James.
You are trying to say the thief had somehow been forgiven, yet he knew that he was being justly executed, so he did not believe he was forgiven.
Let's say you murdered someone, and then you received forgiveness from God for the murder you committed. So if the police arrest you, you are brought to trial, and sent to prison (or executed) for your crime, would you consider that you are being unfairly treated by the government? Does having your sins forgiven somehow mean that you are suffering an injustice by being punished for your crime?
The only reason given in our holy bible that the thief was to be in paradise with our Lord that day is that the thief expressed faith in the Lord. Nothing else.
Actually, the thief does show repentance for his sins. "And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds." (Luke 23:41)
Salvation and Justification by faith alone (sola fide).
Strictly speaking, what the Bible teaches is that we are saved through the sacrament of baptism. Of course, when
'Fraid it's not just a fairy tale.
I agree. It's not just a fairy tale, it's a ridiculous fairy tale. First of all, the shape of the mitre changed over the years, so any present resemblance to anything is coincidental. Secondly, the mitre began to be used around the year 1000, and by that time no one knew anything at all about Dagon, so to say that people were worshipping Dagon doesn't make sense.
Thirdly, even if the Pope's hat had the word "mystery" on it, and I don't know that this was the case, so what? Assuming that you're referring here to Revelation 17:5, the Bible says that the harlot has more that just "mystery" on her forehead. The full name written is "Mytery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth". So the word "mystery" in itself doesn't fulfill what the Bible says.
But my guess is that the whole "mystery on the mitre" thing is a fabrication anyway.
Aaron's mitre did not resemble a fish
How do you know this?
BTW have you read any of Hislop yet, or are you only willing to look in Catholic-approved books?
"Hislop's research is as shoddy as a tabloid. For instance, Hislop claims that Semiramis was the mother of Nimrod, although Nimrod was the grandson of Noah, and Semiramis did not rule in Babylon until three centuries after Moses."