Jesus Christ taught Mary about his Fathers business "greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread
Greetings: I had a joyful day because Jesus answerd my prayers, he gives me such peace and joy, I mean at work I talk to him. God is good in saving us through faith in Jesus.Faith in Jesus alone will get you to heaven.
Let us see what Gods word says about Jesus and how Mary had no idea what he was doing when he was just a boy. Luke 3:48-50 "Son, why have you you treated us like this? your father and I have been anxiously searching for you"? "Why were you searching for me?" he asked. " Didn't you know I had to be about my Fathers business?" but they did not understand what he was saying to them.
I if Mary played any part in our standing with God how is that she did't know what Jesus was talking about? Do you accoring to the scriptures, blessed are they that cam see.
Listen to him and do what ever he tells you. whatever he, whatever he tells you- Amen whatever Jesus tells us Mary knew that Jesus had something to say that led souls to eternity.
Why didnt Jesus ever say to talk to Mary she can save you? Why is Marys name never mentioned the the epistels? Who died for our sins and rose again on the third day? Why not read Gods word talk to Jesus and stop trusting men who dont have Gods Spirit to teach you.
Its Gods word that allows us to understand God, where does Gods word ever mention Catholic--preach the gospil Jesus died for our sins over and over Gods word tells us that Jesus alone saves us. Mary is an idol in the eyes of God and he cammandes men everywhere to repent and be saved by grace i n Jesus. These men set aside Gods word as if they have a knowledge that is greater the Gods word.
-- Alex Ruiz follower of Jesus the only way to God (Jesusislife@christianemail.com), January 19, 2001
Without question, the things you are describing are dangerous when they occur as you are describing them. Because you have heard it five thousand times by now, I can safely assume that my next words will be met with little surprise and even less acceptance, but I shall utter them nonetheless. The way you are describing such things are not the way they occur in the Church.
Consider the following: Jesus entrusted the teaching and perpetuation of the faith to the Apostles. He had to, for nothing would be written down for twenty or thirty years. Now consider what *has* been written. The Gospels are concerned with telling people about the life of Jesus. The Epistles are concerned with questions and problems in the early Church. Devotion to (NOT "worship of," mind you) Mary was never a question, and so it didn't make its way into a letter. Other things like Purgatory *do* have scriptural basis, but in books cut from the Bible (consider carefully the implication of those last four words) by protestant "reformers" after 1200 years (ever since the books of the Bible were compiled as a single volume).
The third posting in Church Doctrine Developing is mine. Please read it. The other post I mention there is towards the end of Reformation and the True Church. Please take a look at that, too, expecially the end of it.
I do have one other question for you. Why be so sharp-tongued with the mother of your saviour? I doubt you would treat the mother of one of your friends the same way.
I took the time to read what you had to say. I hope you will extend
-- anthony (email@example.com), January 19, 2001.
Thanks, Anthony; You try to treat Alex in a charitable, friendly way. He isn't very serious yet, about the love of God.
Alex is concerned at this stage of his life in the enormous importance of his own words. He gets a thrill out of denouncing the Catholic Church, because he's a young gunfighter. He wants to beat up on an old gunfighter, so he can claim the title of ''Alex Jr., No. 1 Gun''.
If only Alex knew the great suffering and tears our Catholic ancestors from ancient times accepted and overcame, to bring Christ into our lives. We know Christ as Saviour because our ancestors died by the thousands in Roman circuses, devoured by wild beasts. Christ is glorified in His heavenly kingdom by the willing sacrifices and martyrdom of His Catholic children.
He is the Lord of our ancestors of Roman times, and modern times. Our Holy Church survived the worst evils and darkest days of the last 2,000 years. Now, Alex and his born-again ministers want to step up and take over Jesus Christ's faithful flock. They think because they bought a $15 Bible at the protestant book store they are ordained to save sinners! "Get out of here, Rome! We are serving Jesus Christ from now on!"
If it wasn't so funny, it would be sad!
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
yes, but there's something that sets mr. alex apart from the others to which I have responded: he hasn't disabled notification of responses. That tells me that at the very least he is serious about trying to convince us of something, instead of the usual hit-and-run throw-enough-mud-on-the-wall-and-some-of-it-is-bound-to-stick method of similar post
-- anthony (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
Goodness anthony !!!! How Many Times do I have to repeat myself!!! All the feedback that I recieve is telling me nothing but, how many screws i have loose,or how I should jump in a lake, or somthing to that effect! When are you guys going to get in the Word and Take Your Resources from what The WORD (Jesus) Says instead of what you have learned!! Lean not to your own understanding..
Well,.. I havnt seen one of you guys tell me where Jesus every called mary "mother".. hmmm maybe, its cause you believe that the pope can change the word and come up with babel doctrines like "mary the mother of god".... How can God have a mother!! God is a Spirit!! Where was mary when God spoke, and stars appeared, and the earth was void!! mary only played a role of the Carrier of the seed! she was a channel, used by God to give birth to the body of Jesus, she didnt have anything to do with CREATING the body of Jesus!!... thats how the pharises missed his 1st coming!, it was to humble for them to accept!
When you say "Mother of God".. you are actually putting her ABOVE God!! a mother is a guide of her onw child.. right!!! but yet she Denied the supernatual Birth in front of those preist, when hunting Jesus at the passover by saying " me and your father (joseph) have sought you with tears many days" and Jesus said "I Have Been about my Fathers about business" The Word Corrected The Error. AMEN!!!
I hope you guys dont think iam trying to change your way of believing,, i just want to you to consider what iam saying, and search your bible and prove to me that what iam say is not true!...Well,.. sometimes i feel as tho iam casting Pearls before Swine, cause you guys always do nothing but Lecture!! Iam Not Here to hear Lecture from the catholic church , Iam here to speak about what the Bible says! futhermore, iam not going to even read your little petty kindergarden replies of "Conseptional Thoughts" Unless you Have Scripture to back up what you are saying!! Otherwise, your wasting your breathe, cause Without the Word Backing you up, then your wrong!!
Thanks to Alex, and Matt for there stand upon what Jesus Taught!! Remeber John & eugene,.. If Any man Adds one Word, or Takes one word from this Book (Bible) His part will be taking from the book of life... your adding to the Bible more than what Jesus said...
-- Dr.TaiChi (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
Let me start by just saying that I didn't mean my last post as an insult. Actually quite the opposite. I find your conviction admirable and your willingness to stand up for your beliefs in the face of such adversity corageous.
The problem is that you and I will both look at the *exact same words* and see different things. The question shouldn't be, "what scripture do you use to back that up?" because we both already know eachother's answers to that one, but rather, "who's understanding of those words is correct?" I assert that the understanding that existed from AD33 to the reformation and on to the present day is the only *possible* correct one, and that all other's must be later (and most *very* recent) creations. If this is not the case, then Christianity had 1500 years of taint and could not then have served as a decent foundation for any later "reforms" in theology. So either the Church was correct in its theology from 33-1515, or we all might as well pack it in because none of us can be sure of anything (not even the words in the Book, because if the Church was out to do a dirty business for 1500 years than they would have tainted that, too).
A question for you, that I am honestly asking, and would like a serious answer because it is something I have never quite understood. Your closing comments reminided me of this. If your Bible (the one on your desk or wherever you keep it) is missing any of the books included when the Bible was first compiled as such, are you not then supporting men who have taken *many* words from "this Book?" How do people who insist that all truth is to be found in a simple reading of scripture and nowhere else then use an incomp
-- anthony (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
There you go again, taking one particular passage of Scripture and ignoring the rest of this Holy Book! Could it be the reason Mary and Joseph did not understand what Jesus was telling them at “Finding in the Temple” was because they figured the time for Jesus, at 12 yrs. old (approx.) had not yet come. If you read on, which you conveniently failed to do, you will see that Jesus “went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient unto them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” (Luke 2:51-52). Did you catch the drift of the next few words following the quote you selected Alex? “His mother kept all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.” Alex, it’s very difficult to be guided further by the Holy Spirit in interpreting the Bible when you close the Book. I am so glad you selected this passage, and not me, for it is another excellent passage CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY outlining Mary’s role in salvation history. Jesus returned to Nazareth with Mary and Joseph to Nazareth and He increased in wisdom and stature. His time had not yet come! Could Mary possibly have known this? Mary's days of raising Jesus as man had not yet been fulfilled. You guys are making our job easy here. With every new passage you quote, you select another excellent example outlining the role Mary played in interceding in the life of Jesus and in our lives. Read it with eyes wide open Alex. It is a beautiful Book! The second point you make I would like to address is your comment: “Why didn’t Jesus ever say to talk to Mary she can save you?” I agree that Jesus would never say that Mary could save anyone nor would anyone in this forum who claimed to be Catholic say He said it either, for we all realize that Mary's role in salvation is merely that of intercessor and not redeemer. If however, you meant to pose the question, “Why didn’t Jesus ever say to talk to Mary, she can help you with salvation?” then my answer to that question would be: how do you know Jesus didn’t say that to his disciples? Is your entire faith found between the covers of a Book where, when the possible words of Jesus were not immortalized in print then it never was, that Jesus could never have said it, that it cannot be? Is it not clear to you how the apostles revered and respected Our Holy Mother? Clearly, they took her for their own mother! Read the whole Book Alex, with eyes wide open, it’s amazing what you will discover!
-- Ed Lauzon (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
What Alex and Dr.Ching didn't see in the ''Finding in the temple'' passages is the reason these even appear for us to read in Holy Scripture. It's the same reason most of the infancy narrative of Saint Luke is undoubtedly part of the Word of God. Why indeed would the Holy Apostles keep these words for posterity ?
The Early Fathers didn't reach for a copy of God's Word out of a bookshelf, and determine it was inspired by the Holy Ghost. It was necessary for them to gather in councils and invoke the power of the Spirit, so many spurious ''gospels'' did not enter the Canon. In fact, we can be sure the Books in our Bible have the infallible seal of authority which only the Holy Spirit can give!
One of them is the Gospel of Luke. Every early church of the disciples of Jesus Christ agreed that Luke's Gospel was received directly from that holy source that could never lie, or deceive them. That source for the gospel was Mary herself!
Every time Alex reads any passage about Jesus' birth, infancy, the flight into Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, Our Lord's childhood, --he is reading words that Mary spoke and Luke recorded for the Holy Scriptures. Luke 2: 19--Luke 3:51, ''But Mary kept in mind all these things, pondering them in her heart.'' Now, Mary may not be very important to Alex, or Dr. TChing-- but her importance to the gospel of St. Luke is indisputable. Her words have been immortalised in the Holy Bible, and these self-ordained preachers of the ''Word'' have Mary to thank for that!
And the incredible challenge of our great evangelizer, TaiChing, ''Show me (EGO)<-- where Jesus ever called Mary ''Mother.'' --As if that meant anything whatsoever about Our Saviour's respect or love for Mary! Talk about a foolish non-sequitor!
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
I would like to venture some "quickie" [I hope] responses to some statements made by Alex and Dr. TaiChi.
Let's start with Alex Ruiz's comments:
(1) "Faith in Jesus alone will get you to heaven."
....... This is based on the "sola fide" [faith alone] fallacy.
Faith in someone other than Jesus won't get you to heaven, but it takes more than just faith in Jesus to get you there. One can have faith in him and then deliberately commit deadly sin, destroy one's justification, and make a new choice for hell. We must have a "faith working in love" (Galatians 5:6) and we must exercise the "obedience of faith" (Romans 1 and Romans 16).
(2) "Why didn't Jesus ever say to 'talk to Mary, [because] she can save you?"
....... This question is based on ignorance of what Catholics do.
Jesus did not say that, because Mary cannot save. We Catholics never said that she can save! What our separated brethren must show, however, is where Jesus said that we should not talk to Mary. They cannot show this. Since it is not forbidden, we can do it.
(3) "Why not read God's word, talk to Jesus, and stop trusting men who don't have God's Spirit to teach you?
....... This question is based on ignorance of what Catholics do.
We do read God's word. We do talk to Jesus. OK. We will take Alex's advice. We will not trust men who don't have the authority (a gift of God's spirit) to teach us -- especially not Alex and Doc. [Sorry. Couldn't resist that. (_8^D)]
(4) "Where does God's word ever mention 'Catholic'?"
....... This question is based on the "sola scriptura" fallacy.
Where does God's word say that it must mention the word, "Catholic," in order to allow us to use it? Nowhere. Even so, I will mention these facts ...
The earliest text containing the phrase "Catholic Church" that has survived the ravages of time is from a martyred bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was writing in about 108 A.D.. Since he used the phrase, it was probably already known -- possibly for decades. The word "Catholic" comes from two Greek words, transliterated as "kata" and "holos" ("according to the whole" -- or "universal"). I mention this because we can see the a "premonition" of the term in Acts 15 -- at the Catholic Church's first council (in Jerusalem). The text reads: "Then it seemed good to the apostles and elders, with the whole Church ... ."
In the Greek, the word "holos" (part of "Catholic") appears in that phrase, meaning "whole." The use of the term "whole/universal" (Catholic) Church could not logically have been used immediately after Christ's death, but only after a period of missionary activity in which various "local churches" (dioceses) had been planted around the Mediterranean and eastward toward India.
(5) "Mary is an idol in the eyes of God ..."
....... This comment is based on ignorance or bigotry.
Mary is not an idol. I have been a Catholic for almost 50 years, and I have never once heard of anyone thinking of her as a "god" or "adoring" her.
Now I will turn to the comments of "Dr. TaiChi." Notice that I put his "name" in quotation marks. I think that it may be an interesting pseudonym. You see, "tai chi" is a sort of "martial arts" form that is tied to the pagan Taoist religion of China. I understand that Taoist monks of the first millennium developed "tai chi." Why a Christian would want to use such a pseudonym, I could not say. I also find interesting the "uxor" in Doc's e-mail address (firstname.lastname@example.org). In Latin, "uxor" means "wife."
(1) "When are you guys going to get in the Word and Take Your Resources from what The WORD (Jesus) Says instead of what you have learned!! Lean not to your own understanding."
....... This comment is based on ignorance of what Catholics do.
I say this because "what [we] have learned" (and eaten) is the Word, who has given us "understanding." Now it's Doc's turn to do the same, for he has "learned" the written Word very little and has never eaten the Incarnate Word. ["If you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood, you do not have life in you." (John 6)]
(2) "... you believe that the pope can change the word and come up with babel doctrines like 'mary the mother of god'.... How can God have a mother!! God is a Spirit!! Where was mary when God spoke, and stars appeared, and the earth was void!! mary only played a role of the Carrier of the seed! she was a channel, used by God to give birth to the body of Jesus, she didnt have anything to do with CREATING the body of Jesus!!... thats how the pharises missed his 1st coming!, it was to humble for them to accept! When you say 'Mother of God'.. you are actually putting her ABOVE God!!"
....... This comment is based on ignorance of the scripture, ignorance of Church history, and inability to reason logically.
First, the title, "Mother of God," comes almost word-for-word from the Bible. St. Elizabeth told Our Lady, "Who am I that the 'Mother of my Lord' should come to me?" A pious Jew like St. Elizabeth would say "my Lord" in place of "Yahweh" or "God." So the meaning is exactly the same.
Second, we do not believe that the pope can "change the Word." The use of the title, "Mother of God," goes back to the earliest years of Christianity. It was used by almost everyone for more than 1000 years before there ever was a single Protestant. [The only folks who did not use the title denied the divinity of Jesus! Now Doc joins those heretics.]
Third, we know that it is entirely appropriate to use the title, "Mother of God." Doc's logic on this is badly flawed. Here is the explanation:
God is the Supreme Being. There is only one God -- in three Persons who have a divine nature.
The second Person of the Trinity (from all eternity) is Jesus. Thus Jesus is a Person who is divine.
Through the power of the Holy Spirit (third Person of the Trinity), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary.
That was a true conception, involving an ovum of Our Lady. [Otherwise, the Word would not have used the term "conceive" (Isaiah 7, Luke 1]. God did not "implant" an "extraneous" man in Mary, as though she were a "surrogate mother." Jesus took on his flesh, his human nature, from Mary. That makes her his true mother. That's why the Holy Spirit called her Jesus's "mother" repeatedly in Matthew 1 and 2, four times in John 2, and so forth.
Now, as mentioned earlier, Jesus was/is a Person. The term "person" speaks of "who" someone is.
We know that Jesus had both human and divine natures. A nature tells us about a person's "properties."
A woman cannot be the mother of a nature. A woman can only be the mother of a person.
Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. That Person is God.
THEREFORE ... Mary is the "Mother of God."
In no way does this put Mary "above God," as Doc accused. Because he did not understand the logic in this, Doc mistakenly thought that we were calling Mary the "Mother of the Father" and "Mother of the Holy Spirit." We would never do such a foolish thing.
(3) "...she Denied the supernatual Birth in front of those preist, when hunting Jesus at the passover by saying 'me and your father (joseph) have sought you with tears many days' and Jesus said 'I Have Been about my Fathers business' The Word Corrected The Error."
....... This comment shows lack of common sense, and is also based on ignorance of Jewish practice.
The Holy Family were practicing Jews. Even if St. Joseph had openly adopted a child (through marriage or otherwise) that was known not to be his, he would have been called the "father" of that child by the Jewish people, by the mother, and by the child himself. And, in this case, everyone outside the family believed St. Joseph to be Jesus's biological father -- obviously calling for the use of the title, "father." Nevertheless, in his illogical way, Doc seems to expect Mary to tell Jesus, "Your 'foster father' and I have sought you ... ." A little common sense would tell anyone that Jesus honored his protector and teacher, St. Joseph, by calling him, "father," without forgetting or offending his heavenly Father.
(4) "I hope you guys don't think i am trying to change your way of believing."
....... What? Doc trying to change our way of believing? How could we even dream such a thing! No. We know that he wants us to stay "ignorant." He's just telling us all this stuff do get in a little keyboard practice, right?
(5) "i just want to you to consider what i am saying, and search your bible and prove to me that what i am say is not true!"
....... OK. Consider it done! It has been proved false. [What Doc really wants is to humiliate Catholics and get them to practice his unique brand of fundamentalism (currently a congregation of one).]
(5) "sometimes i feel as tho i am casting Pearls before Swine, cause you guys always do nothing but Lecture!!"
....... Yeah, guys. Come on, now. We "swine" should be more like Pope TaiChi. He never "lectures" us -- does he? Let us silently kneel at his pontifical feet and pick up his "pearls" of wisdom!
(6) "I am Not Here to hear Lecture from the catholic church, I am here to speak about what the Bible says!"
....... Wrong. This is a clearly labeled "CATHOLIC" forum. Therefore, Pope TaiChi is indeed here to learn what Catholics believe and why we believe it [both of which he does not know]. Contrary to what he claimed, he is not "here to speak about what the Bible says," but rather to speak about his private (and often flawed) interpretation of what the Bible says.
(7) "futhermore, i am not going to even read your little petty kindergarden replies of 'Conseptional Thoughts' unless you Have Scripture to back up what you are saying!! Otherwise, your wasting your breathe, cause Without the Word Backing you up, then your wrong!!"
....... Yes. Compared to God's thoughts, our replies are indeed "little petty kindergarten" words. But then it follows logically that Pope TaiChi's words are nothing but nursery gurglings and flatulence by comparison.
(8) "Remeber John & eugene,.. If Any man Adds one Word, or Takes one word from this Book (Bible) His part will be taking from the book of life... your adding to the Bible more than what Jesus said."
....... This comment is based on ignorance of the "history" of the Bible.
The word "Bible" comes from the Latin/Greek word, "biblia," which means "books." This reflects the fact that each segment of what we now call "Bible" was a separate "book" in its own right. [The 73 "books" of the Bible were not all gathered together "under one cover" until that was accomplished by Catholic bishops in Northern Africa around 390 A.D.. (The bishops decided which ancient Hebrew and Greek books were inspired by God, thus assembling the Old and New Testament "canons.")] Clearly, Revelation (Apocalypse) was a "book." So, when the author, St. John warns against anyone modifying the Book of Revelation, he means that he does not want his text altered in the course of its being copied or read aloud. What he says has nothing to do with physically altering any other "book." And what he says has nothing to do with the Church (orally) teaching Christian truths that were not written down in scripture. An honest person reading these words of St. John can easily see that they pertain only to the Book of Revelation: " I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Therefore, contrary to the words of our deeply troubled accuser, the Catholic Church never engages in any kind of prohibited "adding to the Bible."
God bless you. Please pray for me.
PS: Sorry that my comments did not turn out to be such "quickies" after all.
-- J. F. Gecik (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
You are so eager to instruct a Church that has been actively winning souls for Jesus Christ for two millennia; that you attack what you think is a false teaching. --That Mary is Mother of God. If it is false, you've won the whole argument.
Start from the beginning: Is she the mother of the Holy One of Israel,known to the Jews as Messiah? Do you think ''carrying the seed'' is fine, but not motherhood? Cast a pearl at this swine, tell me is thereany mother that ''creates'' the infant in her womb? Why should Mary be expected to create Jesus? Isn't her role of bearing Him in the womb, with her own blood circulating through Him, and bringing Him forth to the world; at least a KIND of motherhood?
Was your own good mother just a ''channel'' that gave you life, and nourished you from her breasts? Or did she create you--?
Dr Chung, tell me, is Jesus Christ God? Is He Divine, and was He born a Divine being? His heavenly Father is Divine, and we believe Jesus is His Eternal Son; with no beginning and no end. Before Mary came to exist, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity IS. (I AM, said God to Moses). But in His humanity, Jesus had a beginning in time, without leaving His Divinity in heaven. He walked the earth as True God and True Man. His earthly mother is the Holy Virgin Mary. Her son is according to God's Word, the same Second Person of the Trinity that is God. His Divine nature and His human nature are inseparable. And-- He could die once, as Man, but live eternally, without beginning or end.
Mary is most certainly the mother of the Messiah, Jesus Christ-- the Son of God. In a mystery of God's Will; Mary has become, in historical time the Mother of God, the only begotten, Second Person of the Trinity, Who in Himself is eternal (above time). I do not know the explanation. I do not know how God is three Persons in One God.
But I believe it because He has revealed it. I believe Mary is the Mother of God, because that is exactly what He teaches me, in the Holy Bible, as well as in the Tradition of His Church.
Jesus(God)--is not only Spirit, but True man, in the Second person. We accept this truth because God has revealed it! If you doubt it you are outside the Church; go ahead and cast your ''pearls''.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
I think you have missed the several points Dr Taichi and Alex were trying to make and also you have once again resorted to petty name calling.
Just because scripture says that ''But Mary kept in mind all these things, pondering them in her heart'' doesn't mean absolutely that she was the one who relayed such information to Luke. The Holy Spirit may of well done that.
With regard to the question Dr Taichi asks about spelling mother with a capital 'M' when referring to Mary as 'in mother of Mary', I have yet to see a logical sensible reply. I suspect that you cannot give one because it is straight out blasphemy.
One can see that the responses by many Catholics to non-Catholics in this forum are tinged with bitterness and intolerance. Also it is patently obvious why Catholicsm is termed 'the cult of Mary'. You guys seem absolutely obsessed with her.
It is no wonder Catholics are leaving the church in droves and turning to the truth as taught in Bible believing Christian churches across the world, even in the poorer nations of the world where they have been held captive by Roman Catholicsm for so long. I have no doubt it is part of God's plan for mankind as I'm sure the 'reformation' was.
The Catholic religion preaches a gospel different from the one found in the Bible and Paul says:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
-- Alan Darton (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
Dr TaiChi and Alex,
It looks as though you have really stirred up the demons in our devout Catholic this time.
-- Alan Darton (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
Dr Ching? what sort of juvenile insulting behavior is that? You can see the mans name is Dr TaiChi, and you think the Holy Spirit dwells in you.
-- Alan Darton (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
If Dr TaiChi chooses to use a nom de plume what is that to do with you? It may very well be his real name but if not so what?
-- Alan Darton (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
Alan, a couple of things
1) ...held these things in her heart - the belief that Mary passed these things on was held by her contemporaries. We can't second guess the eyewitnesses to the times.
2) cult of Mary...obsessed - we didn't bring it up. we are simply discussing (and if need be, defending, as you would) our beliefs, which is pretty much the purpose of this board, if you get right down to it. Alex brought it up (and others have brought up the subject in other posts.
3) ...droves - I don't know where you read that, but quite the opposite is true. We are currently in the time of one of the greatest influxes to the Church, and especially young
-- anthony (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
Once again we see your errors posted here. First, the title, "Mother of God," comes almost word-for-word from the Bible. St. Elizabeth told Our Lady, "Who am I that the 'Mother of my Lord' should come to me?"
The Bible (KJV) does not spell mother with a capital 'M'. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit who gave her revelation of who the baby really was. Please note the use of lower case for 'm' for the word mother.
-- Alan Darton (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
I didn't miss any points. I forgot for the moment (truly) the TaiChi name; it was not intentional to say Ching. I recalled that as his last name. Throughout our discussion, I've called him Doctor-- only because he says he is one. That isn't an insignificant concession. So, I haven't acted bitter or juvenile, Sir.
He found it necessary to say that he was ''casting pearls before swine.'' I'm very familiar with the biblical origin of that phrase; and I came back with my objection, in the oblique way.
But I won't bother with me. --Skip that. I do sincerely believe in all that the Catholic Church teaches. For that much I'm not apologetic in the least; to either the Doctor or YOU. The burden of disproving all theteachings of the Church is on you, I have no wish to argue how your church has entered into false doctrine. But-- I do feel the slights against Our Lady are reprehensible, and whether you or he don't like it-- I'm able and willing to match arguments with the two of you. If that sounds like bitterness, intolerance-- you've made a mistake.
About your salient objections to 1.) Capital M in Mother of God; A person that is truly and actually THAT deserves thedistinction. I always write Our Saviour, God Almighty, etc., --If Mary is the real mother of a Divine being-- albeit she's not divine herself-- Then Mother of God is clearly not blasphemy.
2.)''Obsessed'', with Mary? No-- I have no need to bring up Mary at all, in a discussion of any other matter in our forum. Anti-Catholics are the ones that are obsessed, I guess. They center on her repeatedly; for the reason that they expect to slam-dunk their accusation of error-- in their protests against the Church-- Only, when I or anyone else that understands her true significance in the gospels comes to her defense, you accuse us of Mary worship! Come on, Alan; return to the beginnings of these threads. See who it is, that deserves the blame.
One last thing, and I'm dismissed: All of Luke's gospel is not out of Mary's testimony, perhaps. But the infancy narratives most certainly are. You can't believe the mother of Jesus Christ would have been disqualified by the evangelist from testifying in all the truths of the Annunciation? If an angel appeared to Mary-- to tell her she was to be the mother of the Son of God-- she had no say in the narration? How about the flight into Egypt? Wasn't she clearly there ? Does the Word have to come to Luke from someone else, even the Holy Spirit? Again-- you are surpassing yourself in obstinacy. So does the Doctor. He said she was no Mother. Just a ''seed carrier''. It's clear to any unbiased witness, you are intolerant and bitter, not I.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 20, 2001.
Welcome, Alan, even if you are another adversary! At least you seem to be willing to try to reason things out (though not very hard yet). Your biggest remaining obstacle seems to be some misinformation you have received. I thank Anthony for helping you shed some of that.
Not only has it been passed down through the ages that St. Luke learned from Our Lady, as Anthony said, but we ought never to imagine that the Holy Spirit would have "fed" an evangelist numerous lengthy narratives. God respected the human autonomy and free will of the sacred authors. They were not simply forced "secretaries" to whom God "dictated" the content of the Bible, whispering each word in their ears. Nor was St. Luke a robot, watching as his pen "automatically" jotted down stories that he had never heard from a human being.
Again Anthony is right is saying that we have no "Marian cult" and no obsession with Mary. The only "obsession" involving Mary is the one exhibited by fundamentalists who constantly bring up her name, in conjunction with condemnations of us! [Perhaps it shows their guilt over ignoring her despite her statement that "all generations [would] call [her] blessed." These fundamentalists either insult her or ignore her, but few ever call her blessed.] Alan, if you were to go to the list of threads at this forum that go back to January of 1998, you would observe very long periods in which Mary is not even mentioned. Also, if you were to attend a Catholic worship service (called the Mass or Divine Liturgy), you would hear countless references to the three Persons of God and only a few references (very appropriate ones) to our fellow creature, Mary.
Again Anthony is right to correct your erroneous comment about Catholic leaving the Church in droves. As I just stated on another thread that you have not yet read, there were somewhat less than 900,000,000 Catholics about 15 years ago. Now there are over 1,000,000,000 [that is, one "billion" American style / one "thousand million" British]. The numbers are rising rapidly especially in Africa and eastern Asia. No other religious body is anywhere near 1,000,000,000 except for Islam.
What is called "Protestantism" dominates the numbers in the U.S. (about 65%), with Catholics numbering about 25%. But the single largest religious group in the U.S. are the Catholics, because those 65% Protestants are splintered into hundreds (perhaps thousands) of denominations. I saw a chart, about 15 years ago, that showed the top ten Christian religious groups in the U.S.. After the Catholics (at the top) came nine denominations whose numbers did not even add up to the total of Catholics, since Protestantism is so shredded. And if anyone is leaving anything in significant numbers, it is people leaving "mainline" Protestant denominations. (They are also slowly aborting and contracepting themselves toward oblivion.) Finally, your reference to people being held "captive" as Catholics in poor nations is yet another example of the ludicrous misinformation that has been funneled to you.
Alan, I am shocked that you are upset about the use of a capital "m" in "mother." It is a warning sign of potential anti-Marian obsession growing within you that you would refer to this as "straight out blasphemy." People (including you) use capital letters as signs of respect or in honorary titles all the time, without it seeming to be blasphemous ("Mrs.", "Your Honor," "Reverend," "Washington, Father of Our Country," etc.). Get over it!
Alan, you refer to "responses by many Catholics to non-Catholics in this forum" being "tinged with bitterness and intolerance." You happen to have visited here during a period in which we Catholics are being inundated with a huge number of anti-Catholic people -- people who are here to attack and proselytize. It is they who have brought "intolerance" of us, along with their false doctrines. Few human beings alive could have gotten through this horrendous patch without some "bitter" words being spoken, so please cease your criticisms. Again, if you were to study lots of old threads here, you would see that respectful non-Catholics who try to argue logically are treated with respect. As I recently said elsewhere, this forum is a Catholic forum, a "home away from home for Catholics," who sometimes are the only ones in conversation here for long stretches. Since this is our "home," we welcome guests who are on their good behavior, but we have a right to expect "reform" or departure from clowns who outstay their welcome.
Alan, you are "sure the 'reformation' was" "part of God's plan for mankind." Yes -- the true reformation that took place within the Catholic Church in the MID-1500s was something he desired. But the rebelliousness, violence, and disobedience ... the adoption of heretical doctrines ... the rejection of true doctrines ... the dropping of books of the Bible, and all other manifestations of Protestantism in the early 1500s were actually part of satan's "plan for mankind" -- not God's. They were no "reformation" -- but rather a "deformation" of a segment of Christianity. And that is why it was so amazingly weird that you would actually quote Galatians 1:8-9. St. Paul was speaking of having preached the Catholic faith to the people -- the faith that Enrique, Eugene, Ed, I, and others here still hold. That faith was held all over the world for 1500 years, until heretics who broke from Catholicism became those "accursed" ones who went to "preach another gospel," deceiving themselves and many poor souls of northern Europe.
Alan, I was amazed that you told TaiChi and Alex, "It looks as though you have really stirred up the demons in our devout Catholics this time." You should have known that it was rather some demons that seem to have stirred up the two of them and sent them here.
Finally, you need to read my comments more carefully. You criticized me by saying, "If Dr TaiChi chooses to use a nom de plume what is that to do with you? It may very well be his real name but if not so what?" Take another look. I never told him not to use that "name." I even called it (and his/her) e-mail address "interesting." It appears that you are so frustrated by our ability to counteract errors that you are lashing out blindly, even when the situation does not call for any comment.
I look forward to much better things from you in the future, Alan.
God bless you.
John PS: Just before getting ready to post the above, I noticed that you had added something, Alan. You are getting more and more disappointing, instead of better, my friend. You went capital-letter-cuckoo again! Rather than touch on something substantive [apparently because our comments are now irrefutable] you went after something cosmetic, my capital "M" in "Mother of my Lord." Great Scott, man. Can't you see that I was highlighting that phrase -- setting it off with quotation marks and capital letters -- just for emphasis. Under ordinary circumstances, I would have used no quotation marks and a small "m." But you made yet another serious mistake in referring to "The Bible (KJV)." Apparently, you do not know that few Catholics ever look at the KJV, most editions of which are missing seven Old Testament books (and small parts of two others), have archaic (1611) and easily misunderstood language, and have many translation errors. The passage in Luke was written in Greek, without ANY capital letters. When the old Hebrew and Greek are translated into English, various editors choose which letters to put in upper case. There are no God-given "rules" about this. I'm really not interested in someone trying to change my capitalization, especially through the use of a deficient version of the Bible. [Of course, you already read (above) my original defense of the use of capital letters in personal titles and honorary terms, so that case was already closed.]
-- J. F. Gecik (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 20, 2001.
eugene: you state! >>Why should Mary be expected to create Jesus? Isn't her role of bearing Him in the womb, with her own blood circulating through Him, <<
How Can You Say That Was Marys Blood Flowing Thought Jesus!!! O Please Brothers!! your lack of Gods plan of redemption is far from truth!!
If That was Marys Blood was In Jesus, then were ALL Lost,... That was the the ""Blood Of God"" That was in Jesus,.. Mary was borned by Sex, therefore she is part of the FALL that happen in Eden,... Thats why Jesus had to be borned by a VIRGIN Birth.....He was borned like adam was,.. He was CREATED in marys womb... If Mary was so holy in the sense that her blood was in Jesus, Why Didnt She Die for my sins???? Why do we need the blood of Jesus if HER blood was in Jesus... Understand! Mary and Jesus are 2 seprate persons, JESUS Died to Save Mary from her sins to!... think about it friend, an quit writing long books .. haha you guys need to get to the point!
-- Dr. TaiChi (email@example.com), January 23, 2001.
J. F. Gecik:
Tis me again!
from me reading all the info you guys paste, takes me a little time to repley... This forum must be some of your jobs! wow.. i could never write that long.. haha,.. anyways, thanks to J. F. Gecik for answering my statements in a profound and disassembling way! ... I will use Dr. Oizo, if the TaiChi affends you, and my email doesnt relate to Latin, altho, that is intresting! hmmm,.. hpux is actually a Hewlett Packard platform of UniX, in which we use here at work at a world wide telecommunication company the OR is for Organization Research... so knowing that uxor = wife from latin is pretty niffty!haha... are they any chat rooms that you guys get into.....
-- Dr. Oizo (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 23, 2001.
My Dear Doctor,
Mary the Virgin, absolutely is the true Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Christ the Son of God. You are in grievous error, God did not create Jesus-- in her womb, in a seed, or anywhere. You are pitiful proof of the hopelessness of personal private interpretation of Scripture. Let's forget we ever discussed it. You may yet go to heaven, but it will only be because of your invincible ignorance.
Peace be yours, and may God someday bring you out of darkness, through His Divine Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Hail, Immaculate Heart of Mary; Saint James, pray for us! Amen.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 23, 2001.
you say God didnt create Jesus???
Matt 1:20 is my repley, please read it carfully, and *not it says " That Which Is Concived In Her Is of The Holy Ghost" The Key word here is "Concived" = Created,... Is not the Holy Spirit God in Spirit form??? does not it take an seed and egg to produce a body!! thats the common law of reproduction, that every seed shall bring forth of its on kind!.. only this time, this seed was created by God! .. its simple as 1, 2 , 3
Maybe the lack of understanding the Godhead could cause your undesrstanding to confilct with what God has done, and Who God really is. As far as justifing that Mary said " I and your father (Joseph have sought you with tears" in a sence that joseph was Jesus biological father cause of what other people thought of Jesus was borned of fornication..etc well, that does sound resaonable, but still and yet, mary should have said " I and Joseph have sought the with tears". cause reamember,...... Jesus said to mary " I am about my Fathers Bussiness"... Jesus corrected mary, to show that Joseph had no part of Jesus being there teaching the Word...
And as we know! Jesus went on in his ministry and said that " I and My Father are One" and backed that up with " I come in my father Name".. Not in Marys nor Josephs name, but in the Father name.. showing that theres 1 God manifested in 3 offices, ... consider it with an open mind......
-- Dr. Oizo (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 23, 2001.
I think you just talked yourself into a corner. Whose egg was used? Remember, Jesus was both fully divine *and* fully human. That is what made his sacrifice work. Not only was Jesus God, but Jesus was also a sinless man, whose sacrifice payed for the sins of all of us sinful men. Jesus was here to show that it was possible to do it, to live sinlessly and as God intended.
What was meant was not that God didn't create Jesus, but that God didn't just *pouf* create Jesus and used Mary simply as a carrier. If that was His intent, why not create Jesus just as Adam had been created and cut out the middleman (or, in this case, middlewoman) al
-- anthony (email@example.com), January 23, 2001.
I would rather have dropped this discussion with Taichi or Ouiso, and shortly I shall do that. Jesus Christ, according to all Revealed Truth as taught us infallibly in His Church, is NOT a created being. He is the Etenal Son of the Father, Second Person of the Holy Trinity, with the Third Person the Holy Spirit. Three distinct Divine Persons in One God. God has NO beginning and He has NO end. Jesus, as God the Son had no beginning.
He was not a creature, because He is Divine. His earthly body had a beginning in time. He took flesh from the Holy Virgin Mary and ''BECAME MAN.'' God did not ''create a body for Jesus. His human existence springs from the body of His mother. She was a descendant of David, and a human like any other-- except her soul was preserved from the taint of Adam's Original Sin --Plus, she never fell into sin at all in her life. If she ever suffered temptation, we don't know. It isn't improbable. But sin must be evil, serious and voluntary. She did avoid it through God's grace.
Her own human body, her gene-pool (descended from the greatest anointed King of Israel) is the sole source of Jesus' Humanity. He is God's only-begotten Son- His Father is God, and His Divine nature exists in His Person. True God and True Man.
These are Divinely revealed Truths. All faithful Catholics are bound to believe them, under pain of sin. But Christ cannot be called ''created'', He was begotten, by God the Father, as the Bible clearly teaches. Jesus very obviously KNEW His Father was God. He says so repeatedly in the New Testament Scripture. And, clearly He knew who his own mother was.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 23, 2001.
Amen, Eugene! I just want to add one thought to your beautiful post about the Trinity. I love the Nicene Creed, which we say in Mass, and how it explains the eternal presence Jesus and the Holy Spirit: "...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through Him all things were made...We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets...." This part of the Creed shows that the Trinity was always, is, and ever shall be. It always overwhelms me.
Mother Mary, dear St. James, please pray for us.
-- Hannah (email@example.com), January 23, 2001.
I concern myself with it because I was asked. We didn't bring this up (take a look at the recent Mary-related threads), but when questioned (or, occasionally, attacked) we will respond. I'll thank you, though, to kindly post anything you wish to say to me to the board, instead of emailing me directly. I have always posted my statements for all to see.
-- anthony (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 23, 2001.
Greetings:I respect your request, my friend I have Jesus who two years ago saved me from the broad road of sin and death, thankfully I can read the sriptures wich Jesus always spoke. thoughts of mans traditions will only lead people away from the one true God. The tactics of man dont work because God is greater, I expect men who dont truly know Jesus to oppose his word and his servants. Be strong Dr, dont be tricked by the threats and deceptions of demons. Please Alan these men are trying to get you to follow and side with them, Jesus wants you to follow him. Think about why there being really nice with you, Gods word talks about that. To love someone is warn them as Jesus did. I pray for you and those who desire to see. Jesus is the teacher,ask him and you will be led into truth away from error . Mary listend to Jesus why not you?
-- Alex is saved (Jesusislife@christianemail.com), January 23, 2001.
If ''Birds of a feather,
Flock together-- Just think, Alan. Think, Dr.Taichi /
Your fate is tied to Alex Jr. --That's right!
Need I say more?
Mother Mary, your holy intercession in time of need we pray. James, Holy Apostle, pray for us this day! Amen.
I made poetry! Ha! When we meet in Heaven, I must remind our Lady and Saint James. Good night, friends!
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 24, 2001.
Now your starting to see a little of the light,.. Does not the bible say that Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God! His Body had a beginning!! that was my point!... but! Jesus himself concerning him in spirit form never did have a beginning, "In the Beginning was the WORD, the WORD was with God, The WORD was God and teh WORD became Flesh.....
Now i have a Question for eugene: ((smile)) you say >>-- except her soul was preserved from the taint of Adam's Original Sin <<
What was the orginal sin? can you explain what happen in the garden? if you can, then expand on it please...
-- Dr. Oizo (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 24, 2001.
My Dear Doc,
I have a good idea. My explanation in lay terms of the concept known as Original Sin is orthodox Catholicism, but not fundamentalist. I have that answer in mind, and I can give it to you. But I want to hear YOU tell me what it is, and please expand on it.
When you've done so. I'll grade your ''answer,'' like an exam. You are being tested, so,
Go back and look at the question, which you yourself asked. Then do your best to answer it for the forum. I really hope you score highly. Shall we say, on a scale of one to one hundred.
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 24, 2001.
eugene we can take this to the orginal sin topic, i didnt see this repley until now! i will answer that a little later,.. i dont consider myself a fundalmentilist, and of course i approach everthing i say by quoting scripture, yet you guys cant except that,.. so i think i know what your grade is already! (smile)
-- Dr. Oizo (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 25, 2001.
Dr. O --Is ditching class. Fine; he's not really a drop-out, being neither Catholic nor Protestant. Neither fish nor fowl. But he presumes to be our teacher in this Catholic site. You want my opinions on Original Sin, Dr? Hate to be rude, or judgemental. But all clues up to now are, you are still in Original Sin. Unless you were baptised once, and don't know it. But actual sin; I won't be your judge. There is a Just Judge for all of us, myself included. He must decide. Thanks for the charming smiles!
Mary Immaculate, James Holy Apostle of Christ-- be with us, and Pray for Doctor Oizo! Amen /
-- eugene c. chavez (email@example.com), January 25, 2001.
I LOVE OUR LORD WITH ALL MY HEART AND I BELIEVE WE ARE ALL TRYING TO DO HIS WILL. I RECALL IN ACTS PAUL WAS PASSIONATE FOR GOD. HE WAS PERSECUTING FOLLOWERS OF JESUS AND THOUGHT HE WAS DOING GOD A FAVOR. JESUS APPEARED TO HIM AND SAID,"SAUL, SAUL, WHY DO YOU PERSECUTE ME." HE SHOWED HIM THE TRUTH AND PAUL FOLLOWED HIM PASSIONATELY TILL HE WAS BEHEADED MANY YEARS LATER. MAY GOD SHINE HIS TRUTH ON OUR CONVERSATION AND MAY OUR HEARTS BE CONVICTED, NOT LOVING OUR OWN WAYS MORE THAN GODS TRUTH. AS I READ THE COMMENTS I SEE VERY PASSIONATE HEARTS. I SEE PEOPLE TRYING TO DO GOOD FOR THIER GOD AND IF POSSIBLE WIN SOULS. ONE IN PARTICULAR, ANTHONY, SEEMS TO HAVE A PRECIOUS HEART FOR THE LORD THAT I REALLY ADMIRE. I'M SURE YOUR HEART IS BEAUTIFUL TO OUR LORD AS IT SEEMS YOU ARE OF THE FEW WHO REALLY SEEK TRUTH WHOLE-HEARTEDLY.
I BELIEVE WE SHOULD RESPECT MARY AND EVEN TRY TO BE LIKE HER. SHE FOUND FAVOR IN THE EYES OF GOD FOR HER AMAZING HUMILITY AND OBEDIANCE. ALL THROUGH SCRIPTURE GOD FINDS FAVOR AND USES THE HUMBLE NOT THE PROUD. I AM INTRESTED IN EVERYONE'S INTERPETATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING SCRIPTURES: 1. LUKE 1:46-47 MARY SAID"MY SOUL GLORIFIES THE LORD AND MY SPIRIT REJOICES IN GOD MY SAVOIR FOR HE HAS BEEN MINDFUL OF THE HUMBLE STATE OF HIS SERVANT"
2. 1 TIMOTHY 2:5 FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MAN THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.(IF SIN IS WHAT SEPERATES US FROM GOD, AND JESUS DIED ONCE AND FOE ALL FOR ALL SIN, AND I HAVE ACCEPTED HIM AS LORD OF MY LIFE AND REPENT OF MY SINS, WHY DO I NEED ANOTHER INTERCESSOR, ESPECIALLY ONE WHO HAS SINNED?MARY, OTHER SAINTS, OR PRIESTS. JESUS IS ALSO CALLED THE HIGH PRIEST OF THE NEW COVENANT IN HEBREWS. )
3)ALSO WE MUST BELIEVE ALL SCRIPTURE WAS GIVEN BY GOD. MANY BOOKS BEGIN OR END WITH "THUS SAYS THE LORD" OR SOMETHING OF THAT AFFECT. IF WE ACCEPT OTHER LITERATURE, OR DOCTRINE THAT CONTRADICTS SCRIPTURE WE OPEN OURSELVES UP TO MORMAN, JEHOVAH WTNESS, MUSLIM, AND OTHER CULT LITATURE AND EXTENSIONS OF THE BIBLE. GOD KNOWS EVERYTHING AND HE KNEW WHICH SCRIPTURES WE WOULD HAVE. IF SOMETHING BESIDES ACCEPTING HIS SON AS YOUR SAVOIR WAS NEEDED FOR SALVATION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED EVERYWHERE HE TALKS ABOUT SALVATION. MY LAST POINT, IS SOME PEOPLE ASSUME THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS THE CHURCH AFTER THE RESURRECTION AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AROSE A FEW HUNDRED YEARS AGO. THIS IS NOT SO. THE CHURCH AFTER THE RESSURECTION WAS JUST FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST (WHICH IS WHAT CHRISTIAN MEANS). AS THE CHURCH GOT BIGGER MANY LIES AND FALSE DOCTRINE ENTERED IN WHICH HAD TO BE CORRECTED(THE EPISTLES ARE MOSTLY LETTERS TO THE CHURCHES FOR THIS REASON). AS MORE TIME WENT ON A UNIVERSAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION BEGAN TO TRY AND KEEP OUT FALSE TEACHINGS IN THE DIFFERENT CHURCHES. THIS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AS TIME WENT ON AND COMITEES MET TO DISCUSS DOCTRINE AND THEOLOGY,(ISSUES AS STUPED AS WHETHER WOMEN HAVE SOULS,) FALSE TEACHINGS BECAME MORE PREVALENT, POLITICS ALSO ENTERED THE CHURCH, AND GREED OF MONEY, AND THE SIMPLE MESSAGE OF SALVATION THROUGH FOLLOWING JESUS GOT COMPLICATED AND CHANGED IN A LOT OF CHURCHES. THIS IS WHEN ONES LIKE MARTIN LUTHER PROTESTED AND THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH BRANCHED OFF. NOW THERE ARE 100 SECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. THERE IS A GREAT REFERENCE BOOK, I BELIEVE JUST CALLED CHURCH HISTORY THAT SPEAKS OF THE EVIL THINGS THAT ENTERED THE CHURCH AND HOW THE CHURCH OVERCAME THEM YEAR BY YEAR. ALL THE MARTYERS BY THE CHURCH ITSELF(BURNED, SKINNED ALIVE,ETC.) JUST BECAUSE THE CHE CHURCH DIDIN'T WANT THE PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH SO THEY COULD UNDERSTAND AND INTERPET FOR THEMSELVES. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON. I WOULD LOVE ANY FEEDBACK. MY SINCERE LOVE GOES OUT TO ALL OF YOU SERVING OUR LORD. GOD BLESS YOU ALL AND FEEL FREE TO E-MAIL ME ANY QUESTIONS OR PRAYER REQUESTS.
-- April (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 13, 2002.
April, your ignorance of your keyboard [see that thingy called "Caps Lock"?] is exceeded only by your ignorance of Christian truth.
Stick around, lurk, and learn. Don't try to teach us, sweetie. That's not why the forum exists.
-- I (Hate@Upper.Case), November 14, 2002.
Just so you are aware, nothing in the Catholic Church's beliefs contradict Scripture.
By the way, mixed case is preferred, but if you have trouble hitting the Shift key, then please type in all lower case. Upper case is considered SHOUTING. Thanks.
-- Glenn (email@example.com), November 15, 2002.
Your ancestors are in heaven because they were followers of Jesus Christ. Your own Catholic ancestors!
You have swallowed the typical lies told by anticatholics about the Church. Please learn what you're talking about. If you don't KNOW, ask. We can help you here.
-- eugene c. chavez (firstname.lastname@example.org), November 15, 2002.
I agree that the Marian doctrines of the catholic "cult" are man- made "doctrines of devils" and should be looked at as such, in the context of II Tim chapter 4.
This "Roman" church is steeped in tradition and the Lord spoke to it in Matt 15:7-9
They (the Roman Cath Cultists) are truly the Pharisees of today. The fact that they continue the idolatry of the Israleites in worshipping the "queen of heaven" should surprise no one.
The "natural" man does not receive the things of the Spirit. This false christian church (Roman Cath.) is obviously run by the lusts of the flesh, as it is full of superstition and carnal practices.
It is, no doubt, the stronghold of Satan, and will play a major role in the end time scenerio. It will help the "one world church" to form, and will be in power within Romes jurisdiction.
Could the marian "doctrine of devils" be an important key in the ecumenical gathering of the so called "chruches"? Who knows. I know this, the so called "apparitions" of Mary are increasing more and more. Could one of them be so great that it "gathers" the multitudes, and causes them to "beleive a lie", no doubt, we are already part of the way there.
In Christ Jesus (no VOODOO or necromancy),
-- Jay Gentile (email@example.com), April 08, 2003.
"I agree that the Marian doctrines of the catholic "cult" are man- made "doctrines of devils" and should be looked at as such"
A: Keep in mind that "the Catholic cult" is otherwise known as "the only Christian Church which existed for the first 1,000 years of Christianity". All versions of Christianity, even the incomplete human traditions of denominational religion, are offshoots of Catholicism. If your church is an offshoot of a satanic cult, there isn't much hope for you. On the other hand, if your church is an offshoot of the one true Church established by Jesus Christ for all mankind - which it is - then you have at least some claim to the truth, or at least to that portion of the truth that your human founders didn't reject.
"This "Roman" church is steeped in tradition and the Lord spoke to it in Matt 15:7-9"
A: Yes, the true Church of Christ has a rich and holy Tradition reaching back to the Apostles and to Jesus Himself. This great gift of God has been all but abandoned by simplistic, watered-down semi-Christian churches of human origin. "Neglecting the commandment of God, they hold to the traditions of men." (Mark 7:8) - traditions like sola scriptura and sola fide, which no Christian on earth ever heard of before the 16th century. Traditions like personal interpretation of scripture, which is plainly forbidden in scripture itself, and which is responsible for the ungodly state of doctrinal chaos seen in Protestantism today. The Catholic Church holds fast to Apostolic Tradition as the Word of God, just as the Bible commands us to. "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2) ... "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us". (2 Thessalonians 2:15) (Note the equal treatment of oral tradition and written tradition in this passage) ... "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us". (2 Thessalonians 3:6)
"They (the Roman Cath Cultists) are truly the Pharisees of today. The fact that they continue the idolatry of the Israleites in worshipping the "queen of heaven" should surprise no one"
A: Well, it would certainly surprise Catholics, since it is strictly forbidden by Catholic teaching to worship or adore anyone or anything but the One True God who founded our Holy Church.
"The "natural" man does not receive the things of the Spirit. This false christian church (Roman Cath.) is obviously run by the lusts of the flesh, as it is full of superstition and carnal practices"
A: Such as?? Seems to me it was superstitious Protestants who hung and burned hundreds of innocent women as witches.
"It will help the "one world church" to form, and will be in power within Romes jurisdiction"
A: Hopefully that is so! Jesus clearly intended "one world Church", not a collection of thousands of conflicting manmade churches. That's why He prayed "Father, that they all may be ONE". That is also why He directly commanded his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church to go forth and make disciples of ALL people. The Protestant revolution introduced a tradition which seeks to divide and fragmentize the Church of God, rather than pursuing His holy will to bring all men into His one Church. Truth cannot conflict with truth. Truth can exist only in unity - unity of belief as found in the Holy Catholic Church, and it alone.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 08, 2003.
Jay, the Gentile:
I think you should look up the word "necromancy" before you start accusing people of this wretched sin on this forum.
Necromancy, according to Webster's is "seeking to the know the future by way of communicating with dead spirits." That is strictly prohibited by the Catholic Catechism, as is worship of anyone (including Mary) other than God.
Catholics seek the intercession of all saints, both here and heavenward. Catholics such as St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Clement, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas e. Kempis, and on and on, also believed it advantageous to seek the prayers of those closest to God, i.e., our dearly departed brothers and sisters, who ARE closest to God. I mention these great Catholics because their works are often cited and esteemed by most Protestants.
When you need prayer partners, don't you look for those whom you feel are closest to God?
Please stop slandering the Church. Find out what we believe before you repeat age-old accusations that are false and slanderous. Satan is the Great Slanderer, and you are working hand in hand with him when you repeat his lies.
-- Gail (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 08, 2003.
Of course this silly charge of necromancy which crops up now and then is the result not only of ignorance concerning the actual meaning of the word, but also insistence that the saints are "dead" people, in direct contradiction of the words of Our Lord and Savior, recorded in John 11:26 ... "everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 08, 2003.
I would be interested in discussing some of the topics having that I have seen on this website, but only in a polite, loving manner. I think that we would all agree that snapping back and forth would not (is not) accomplishing much.
I don't know a ton about the Catholic church, but I do know that I can look at the church in scripture and look at the catholic church and see a whole lot of difference. Here are some of the differences that I am aware of; once again, please forgive my ignorance in any of these topics where I do not know all of the details.
Let me preface my remarks by saying that in light of the absence of evidence of the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit since the early second/late first century, the only link that we have to God's specific Will is through the Bible. If something specific can be proved outside of the Bible, using another source, then it is not acceptable; only the Bible is God's inspired word.
Sorry if that sounded like a mission statement, I thought that it would help in any discussion.
Here are some of my scriptural objections:
1. I do not see any church organization in scripture other than
apostles, deacons, and elders. The apostles are past; the
miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit has past. That would leave
only elders and deacons to be scripturally authorized
authorities in the church. The council at Jerusalem was
acceptable because the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit was
able to guide the men present. It was unique in the fact that
it was dealing with accepting all Gentiles, which occurred for
the first time in world history as planned by God.
2. I am not 100% on this one, but is the Pope supposed to be God
on earth? If this is true, where is the scriptural basis for
3. It seems from earlier discussion that catholics pray to Mary. I believe that one person said that because it is not forbidden in the Bible, then it is acceptable. Some things that are not
mentioned in the Bible are acceptable, but silence needs to be
interpreted in light of any command dealing with the topic. We
are instructed to pray to God in the Lord's prayer: "Pray then,
in this way. Our Father,". Simply because we are commanded not
to do something does not make it acceptable. Otherwise, what
would prevent us from praying to Paul, James, John, Peter, etc?
How is Mary any different than any other human (except Jesus)
that has ever lived? Imperfect, and sanctified only through
obedience to God's word and by way of Jesus blood? How could
she answer prayer? Once again, I apologize if I get to excited,
and I am not in any way trying to be insulting.
4. Is infant baptism still practised in the catholic church? I can
comment on this in another post, and I will wait because I do
not know all of the facts.
This is a really long post. I will leave off here. Please be polite in answering, and we can continue in a civil discussion that maybe will shed some light on some of our differences. Also, feel free to email me if you have any questions.
-- Jared Morgan (email@example.com), April 25, 2003.
First, in response to your preface ... The Holy Spirit is the life of the Church. He is the voice of God in the Church. He is Jesus's way of communicating His divine will to the Church. The Bible says no-one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "I will be with you until the end of time". He is no longer physically walking the earth. He is with us through the Holy Spirit. So, it is incorrect to say that the gift of the Holy Spirit is no longer with us. If the Holy Spirit were not guiding the Church, the Church would cease to exist, or at least would cease to exist in unity and truth.
Truth is truth. If something can be proven from ANY source, and it does not contradict divine revelation, then it has been proven, and should be accepted, though obviously not on the same level of authority as revelation itself. It makes no sense at all to say that the Bible alone is God's inspired word, since everything that is in the Bible was given to the Church first - by means of oral tradition. It was God's word the moment Jesus spoke it, for He is God. It did not become God's word 30 to 60 years later, when an apostle finally wrote it down, or 300 years after that, when the Church decided to gather some of its writings into a book. Therefore, what is in the Bible is there because the Church defined it as God's word. It is not God's words because it is in the Bible. Your tradition started many centuries after Christianity started. Your founders rejected the authority Christ had given to His Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth", and that rejection left them with nothing but the Bible. Therefore I understand why you insist on looking to the Bible alone. You have nothing else left. However, the early Church did not look to the Bible, because the Bible didn't exist yet. And individual Christians throughout most of the history of Christianity didn't seek the truth in the Bible, because there were no Bibles available before the printing press was invented, and besides most people were illiterate. They got the truth from the Church, which is where Jesus placed the truth, and which is the only place the fullness of truth can be found. It is painfully obvious that attepting to find truth in the Bible alone doesn't work. Otherwise we would not have thousands of conflicting Protestant sects. It doesn't work because the Church is the foundation of the truth, and once you remove the foundation, the structure collapses.
1. The Bible clearly reveals the basic structure of the Church as having bishops (elders), presbyters (priests), and deacons. It also clearly reveals that one bishop was given headship over the other bishops, with full authority (the Keys to the Kingdom) to act as the human representative (Vicar) of Christ, overseeing the Church by Christ's own delegated authority. This is exactly the same structure we still see in that same Church - bishops, priests, deacons, and one bishop (the Pope) overseeing the rest.
2. No, the Pope is not God, on earth or anywhere else. He is a man and a sinner like the rest of us. But He is the man to whom God said "I give unto you the Keys to my Kingdom"; "Whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"; "Upon this Rock I will build my Church". The Pope is the divinely appointed representative of Jesus Christ on earth. He guides, teaches, and administrates Christ's Church by Christ's own authority. But He is not divine, any more than you or I am.
3. Yes, we do pray (talk) to Mary and the other saints. After all, they are us, just regular Christian people who have gone on to their eternal reward. They are not a different species. Christians have always asked other Christians for intercession (to pray for one another). Mary and the other saints are Christian people, however they are in a far better place for speaking to God then we are capable of here. It only makes sense to continue to ask them to pray for us, just as people did when they were in the earthly stage of their Christian lives. Nothing prevents us from asking Paul, James, John, Peter, etc. to pray for us. We should do so! We do not ask them to "answer prayer". We ask them to OFFER prayer on our behalf. That's what intercession is. Asking others to pray for me doesn't take anything away from God. Rather, it multiplies my prayers to God, Who is the final recipient of all prayer.
4. Yes, infant baptism is still practiced in the Church, as it always has been. Children need to be saved, and the Bible tells us that no-one is saved unless he is born of water and the spirit. In fact, sometimes when new converts enter the Church, their whole family is baptized with them, just as it was done in the early Church, as recorded in several biblical accounts. And, adults are still instructed that they must become "as little children", if they too wish to be worthy of baptism, just as iot was done in the early Church.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 25, 2003.
Let me clarify. The miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit is no longer with us. Charlatans such as Benny Hen and other would have us believe that faith healing is a fact of life. The healing seen in the Bible, along with the miracles, were all empirically proven. The person that the miracle was performed by did it by the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit; although hard to prove, I think that even Jesus' power was received by the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. The miracle was performed to further the church. The person that the miracle was performed on many times did not even know Jesus or was a member of the church, but once the miracle was performed, that was proof that God's kingdom had come with power(Mark 9:1).
This ability to perform miracles today is not present. Not one person on this planet can emirically prove that a miracle has occurred. No one has been able to since the early second or late first century. The Holy Spirit has continued to intercede for us through providence, in a way that can not be empirically proven. Many times it seems like just coincidence; those who have faith know where the coincidence comes from.
The reason that this has quit taking place is because we now have the tool that the Holy Spirit uses, the Bible. I agree that the Bible came from the early church's oral tradition. However, the early church had the guidance of the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit.
My tradition has nothing to do with any organized church. All that I am trying to do is look at the Bible, look at a snapshot of the early church as it is supposed to be, and try to emulate that as much as possible.
I am trying to not be offensive. If the Catholic Church is infallible and perfect, and church tradition is as perfect as the word of God in written form, then why has the Catholic church changed so much over the years? At one time, we are all aware that indulgences were a part of the perfect tradition; at one time, baptism was only acceptable in the form of immersion; at one time, babies were not baptised. If the tradition has changed in any way, it is not the same tradition that gave us the Bible. The Bible, however, has not changed significantly. We have found more accurate manuscripts that let us know close to exactly what the Holy Spirit said, but it has been the same from the beginning. Catholic Church tradition has not.
Most of the splits that occurred in the protestant faith came from people trying to justify views by finding supporting truths in the Bible. I am only trying to find what the Bible is saying.
If the pope performed a miracle that was broadcast on live TV, and was empirically proven, then I would accept his word as God's. In that case, the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit would be proven, and the Bible would take a less active place to the "living and abiding voice", as Papias, an early church father, put it.
The keys to the kingdom, as referenced in Matt 16:15-19, are a different story. Here is the scripture:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."
The rock that Christ would build his church on was not Peter; how could a man be the basis of the church? Man is imperfect. Jesus is the rock, the chief cornerstone (Isa. 28:16, Mat. 21:42), the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), that the church was built on.
Peter used the keys to the kingdom on the day of Pentecost; he gave instruction the 3,000 to be baptised, and in doing so unlocked the way into the kingdom of Heaven, which is the church. Further, because the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he had God's authority to bind and unbind. However, the correct translation of that in the original greek should say 'shall have been bound in Heaven' and 'shall have been loosed in Heaven.' An imperfect man was never given the power to rule the church. Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23).
What scripture references presbyters? I could not find one.
How can you pray to dead people? There is absolutely nothing in the NT that would indicate that this is acceptable in God's eyes. Also, how can people who have died and gone to paradise, not Heaven (or Abrahams' bosom, Luke 16:18), be any closer to God than we are? How can they hear us? Jesus is also in Heaven (Mat. 26:64), not in Paradise. This seems to be something that has no Biblical basis.
How can infants know they are sinners, believe (John 8:24), repent of sin (Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38), confess (Rom. 10:9), and mimick the Gospel of Jesus Christ to die to self, be buried in baptism, and be raised to walk in newness of life (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 6:1-10)? Babies are not sinners, unless you believe that we are all sinners from birth; that is another discussion.
All of the biblical accounts of children being baptised are assumptions that you make when it says "and all their household." We do not even know if they had small children.
Thank you for your time in answering my previous post, and I hope that we can continue our discussion. Whew! That was a long post! I am sorry.
-- Jared Morgan (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 26, 2003.
I fully agree that there are charlatans (and Benny Hinn is a prime example) who resort to trickery, and fake spiritual realities for their personal gain. However, the fact that fakes exist cannot be offered as evidence that the reality does not exist. There are counterfeiters, and there is also genuine currency. I know for a fact that genuine manifestations of the healing power of the Holy Spirit do occur, since I have personally witnessed a fair number of them. And unlike the miracles of Apostolic times, many modern miracles CAN be empirically confirmed, as we now have the scientific/medical means of doing so. Miracles are a fact of the Christian life, not only in the form of physical healings, but in providing for the needs of the people of God in many ways. There is only one Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit who worked among and through the Apostles is the same Holy Spirit who continues to work in and through the Church of the Apostles today. The Holy Spirit was not a gift to the Apostles alone. He was and is a gift to the Church. I strongly suspect that the reason you have not experienced or observed any such works of the Holy Spirit is the fact that you have separated yourself from the Church ("My tradition has nothing to do with any organized church"), which is where the Holy Spirit works in power.
Yes, we do have the Bible today, and the Holy Spirit does indeed work through it, by guiding His Church to accurate interpretation. However, this particular work of the Holy Spirit does not eliminate all of the other ways He works in the Church. Reading the Bible doesn't cure cancer. But the Holy Spirit sometimes does.
You say: "All that I am trying to do is look at the Bible, look at a snapshot of the early church as it is supposed to be, and try to emulate that as much as possible". And then in the next breath, you are saying which aspects of the early church no longer apply today! To emulate the early church is to live in the Holy Spirit, under His inspiration, knowledge, wisdom, guidance, healing, and every other gift which was given to the Church through Him. The Church today is still made up of people, and as such still has the same needs the early Church had. Therefore the same gifts are available to the Church until the end of time, when the Church itself will cease to exist.
You ask: "If the Catholic Church is infallible and perfect, and church tradition is as perfect as the word of God in written form, then why has the Catholic church changed so much over the years?" No- one claims that the Church is perfect, or that "Church tradition" is perfect. The Church is made up of imperfect human beings who live as part of imperfect societies which change over time, and therefore the Church - its traditions, disciplines, rites, physical organization, etc. - MUST change over time, to continuously meet the changing needs of a changing population. However, the Church is also infallible. The charism of infallibility applies ONLY to the official doctrinal teaching of the Church, which is why the Catholic Church's doctrine, unlike the doctrine of other churches, does NOT change over time. Neither does it change in response to the current ideas and values of society. The Church continues to teach the fullness of truth, and will do so until the end of time.
You say: "At one time, we are all aware that indulgences were a part of the perfect tradition; at one time, baptism was only acceptable in the form of immersion; at one time, babies were not baptized." You are misinformed here. Indulgences are a matter of doctrine, not tradition, and they are still a part of the Church's doctrinal teaching. Doctrine does not change. Certain administrative abuses which became connected with the doctrine of indulgences in the 16th century have been corrected, but the doctrine itself remains the same. There was never a time in the Christian church when baptism was restricted to immersion, or was withheld from babies. These two traditions come from modern fundamentalist Protestant groups. Of course, the Church could restrict baptism to immersion, since this is a matter of protocol, not doctrine - but it has never done so. It allows baptism by either immersion, or by pouring of water, the latter being the usual method employed by the early church.
You say: "If the tradition has changed in any way, it is not the same tradition that gave us the Bible. The Bible, however, has not changed significantly". The Church distinguishes between "Apostolic Tradition" (note the capital letters), and mere "traditions". Apostolic Tradition is the teaching given to the Apostles by Christ. It was given to the Catholic Church alone, and is of divine origin, infallible and unchanging. This is the "Tradition" which gave us the Bible. Ordinary "traditions" on the other hand are simply ways of doing things. Every church has them, in fact every organized human group of any kind has them - even individual families. They serve various purposes, are manmade and therefore changeable. And no, the Bible was not born of such traditions.
You state: "Most of the splits that occurred in the Protestant faith came from people trying to justify views by finding supporting truths in the Bible. I am only trying to find what the Bible is saying." I agree with your assessment of the causes of Protestant fragmentation. However, I don't see you doing anything different. You are part of that very fragmentation, and are using the same means to separate yourself from them, which they use to separate themselves from one another. Every Protestant sect will tell you that their beliefs come "straight out of the Bible", even though the beliefs of one denomination conflict strongly with the beliefs of another. You tell me you are taking your beliefs right out of the Bible, even though your beliefs conflict strongly, not only with the beliefs of the original Church founded by Christ, but also with the beliefs of thousands of other protestant groups, each of which claims to be getting their beliefs exactly the same way you claim to be getting yours. You are in fact another denomination, albeit a denomination of one.
Your interpretation of Matt 16:15-19 (which you obviously offer in an effort in to support a specific personal belief), simply doesn't do justice to the plain sense of the passage. First, let me ask you - are you aware that "Peter" literally means "Rock"? And are you aware that the Apostle's only name was Simon, not Peter, until this very moment? Note that in verse 17, Jesus addresses him as "Simon Barjona". Later in time Jesus will address him as "Peter" - "Peter, do you love me?". But on this occasion Jesus addresses the Apostle as "Simon", because that is his only name. In the very next verse (18), Jesus, looking directly at the Apostle Simon, says "THOU ART ROCK", or "You are Peter", which means exactly the same thing. What makes this scene so profoundly significant is that Jesus Himself is identified elsewhere in the scriptures as "The Rock" of our salvation. This is the only place where Jesus ever used the same term to describe another human being. The fact that Jesus tells Simon "YOU are Rock", leaves no possible doubt as to the identification of the Rock. Jesus doesn't say "I am Rock". He doesn't say "your profession of faith is Rock". He says "YOU, Simon, ARE ROCK". Then, in the very same sentence, Jesus goes on to reveal the significance of this name change. He tells Simon, now know as Simon Peter - Simon the Rock - that he will be the foundation of the Church Christ Himself will build. It makes perfect sense. Christ would not build His Church on something other than solid Rock, and so before He tells Simon that he is to be the foundation of the Church, He renames him "Rock". If Jesus' second mention of "Rock" in this one sentence meant something different from His first mention of "Rock", then His renaming of Simon would have been a senseless, meaningless gesture, certain to cause confusion to anyone who read about the incident - which is exactly what happens when people try to interpret away the obvious meaning of the text.
You claim: "An imperfect man was never given the power to rule the church. Christ is the head of the church". Well of course Christ is the head of the Church! A Vicar is one who is authorized by the Head to minister the authority of the head during His absence. This is a well-documented aspect of early Jewish life, which is why Jesus used it here as an analogy. The Master of a household would often have a few servants, or perhaps many servants if he was wealthy. But there would always be one servant who oversaw all the others, and who reported directly to the Master. This servant was known as the Chief Steward. In the physical absence of the Master of the House, this one man assumed the role of Vicar, acting with the full authority of the Master, and any disobedience to him would be regarded upon the Master's return as disobedience to the Master Himself. Before leaving, the Master would pass to the Chief Steward the keys to the household, which in his role as Vicar he would use to carry on the business of the household, and which he would wear on his shoulder, as a symbol of his full authority and delegated headship. Jesus of course knew all this, and so did the Apostles. Therefore His remarks to Simon were immediately taken by the Apostles just as Jesus meant them to be taken. Simon would be the one in charge. He alone would hold the keys to the kingdom. He would exercise not his own authority, but the delegated authority of the Master, during his physical absence.
You ask: "What scripture references presbyters?" A: 1 Tim 4:14 Many translations use "presbytery" in this passage. A few use "priesthood". In any case, "presbyter" is the Old English word from which the word "priest" was derived. More telling though is the original Greek, in which "presbuteroi" is used about 30 times. The term used however is not as important as the fact that Jesus personally bestowed upon the Apostles the essential priestly functions - the consecration of the Eucharist, and the forgiveness of men's sins.
You ask: "How can you pray to dead people? There is absolutely nothing in the NT that would indicate that this is acceptable in God's eyes. Also, how can people who have died and gone to Paradise, not Heaven (or Abraham's bosom, Luke 16:18), be any closer to God than we are? How can they hear us? Jesus is also in Heaven (Mat. 26:64), not in Paradise. This seems to be something that has no Biblical basis." Actually, the idea that Paradise and Heaven are two different places has no Biblical basis. There are only two places of eternal existence that God has revealed - Heaven and Hell. Each of these is referred to in scripture by several different terms. In the story of the rich man and the poor beggar, the beggar "died and was carried away by angels to Abraham's bosom". The rich man died and went to "Hades" (Hell), a place of great suffering. The great, impassable divide described in this story is between Heaven and Hell. No other interpretation is compatible with true Christian teaching. As for "praying to dead people", I'd have to agree, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. However, when we pray to the Saints in Heaven, we are not praying to "dead people". The Bible clearly states that the saints are alive. (John 11:26). Also, Rev 5:8 not only tells us that the saints before the throne of God are alive, but that they bring our prayers before the throne of God, and present them to Him.
You ask: "How can infants know they are sinners, believe (John 8:24), repent of sin (Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38), confess (Rom. 10:9), and mimick the Gospel of Jesus Christ to die to self, be buried in baptism, and be raised to walk in newness of life (1 Cor. 15:1-4, Rom. 6:1-10)?" This is really an irrelevant question, since Jesus didn't address any of these instructions to children. He addressed them to sinners! Obviously, if one is a sinner, one must repent, believe, and confess before one can be forgiven and enter into the kingdom. That has nothing to do with small children however, for precisely the reason you indicated. They are not sinners. They have nothing to repent of. Therefore they are READY for the kingdom. Remember, Jesus said that if we wish to enter the Kingdom, we must become LIKE CHILDREN (Matt 18:13). Therefore it is immediately obvious that one who is already like a small child is not in need of repentance, and does not have to take the steps mandated for adult sinners who need to become like children. And who is more like a little child than a little child?
You say: "All of the biblical accounts of children being baptized are assumptions that you make when it says "and all their household." We do not even know if they had small children."
A: Such passages reveal that it was the common practice of the early Church to baptize the whole households of new converts. Sometimes it still happens today. I happen to be godfather to a man and his six children, who were all baptized on the same occasion. It is true that we cannot know for certain whether the three separate "whole household" baptisms that are described in the Bible included small children. They certainly did include children, or the term "whole household" would not have been used. However, this was the common practice of the early Church. Undoubtedly hundreds of families were baptized in this way, and it is not possible that none of them included small children. Besides, Jesus said that no-one can enter the kingdom unless he be born of water and the Spirit. On another occasion, He said, speaking of babies and small children gathered around Him, "to such as these belongs the kingdom of God". This is recorded in Matt, Mark, and Luke. Jesus regarded the children as possessing the kingdom, or at least eligible to possess it. Therefore they must have experienced, or at least be eligible to experience, that which Jesus said was necessary to enter the Kingdom - Baptism.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 26, 2003.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply. These posts are getting longer and longer! I know that you are really looking to see God's will. If you weren't, you would not be spending as much time as you have replying to my posts.
I would like to examine the Holy Spirit disagreement first. The empirically provable miracles that the early church dealt with were amazing, undeniable, and proof of God's will on earth. Jesus used miracles to establish his authority, he gave that authority through the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit to the apostles (Acts 1), and the apostles bestowed that miraculous gift by the laying on of hands. However, no one other than the apostles could bestow that gift by the laying on of hands.
This is seen in Acts 8, with Philip in Samaria. Here is the scripture:
5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and began proclaiming Christ to them.
6 The crowds with one accord were giving attention to what was said by Philip, as they heard and saw the signs which he was performing.
7 For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they were coming out of them shouting with a loud voice; and many who had been paralyzed and lame were healed.
8 So there was much rejoicing in that city.
9 Now there was a man named Simon, who formerly was practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria, claiming to be someone great;
10 and they all, from smallest to greatest, were giving attention to him, saying, "This man is what is called the Great Power of God."
11 And they were giving him attention because he had for a long time astonished them with his magic arts.
12 But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.
13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.
14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
The thing is, no one else in scripture, other than apostles chosen by Jesus, is recorded as passing on the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit. Also, the passing on is only done by the laying on of hands. Paul grants the miraculous gift of the HS to some men in Acts 19; this is the scripture:
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.
No where in scripture is there any account of the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit being passed except by the apostles; thus, the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit would have passed a little while after the last apostle died, whom tradition tells us is John. Those whom John laid his hands on would have lived on with the miraculous gift of the HS, but they could not pass it on. When they died, probably in the early second century, the miraculous gift of the HS passed from this earth.
No where in scripture is the laying on of hands to pass the miraculous gift of the HS (man that is wordy) shown to be done by anyone else. In light of this, how can the HS be active miraculously in the church today?
As I said in the last post, I believe that the HS indwells in us today, recieved when we are baptised into the gospel of Christ. That Holy Spirit is the same one that the apostles had, the same one that Jesus had; however, the authority of God is not embued in that gift. If it were, all of us could use that gift to speak with the authority of God, and there would be no need for the Bible.
I will agree that some of the things that the early church did do not apply to us today; all of them deal with the miraculous gift of the HS. If the HS is still in His miraculous form, then what are your worship services like? Do they conform to 1 Corinthians 12? Is there prophecy and speaking in tongues? This seems to be prevalent in the NT, and if the MGOTHS has not passed, it should still be prevalent today.
You said, "The charism of infallibility applies ONLY to the official doctrinal teaching of the Church, which is why the Catholic Church's doctrine, unlike the doctrine of other churches, does NOT change over time."
If I show one way in which the doctrine of the Catholic Church has changed at any time in its history, then the infallibility of the Catholic Church is broken. I will research this and get back to you.
Your discussion on Apostolic Tradition is interesting. Why would there be a Bible and other tradition? Why not just the Bible? Is the Apostolic Tradition written down? If so, is that inspired? It seems to allow for no other interpretation than the Catholic Church's. Once again, this assumes that the Catholic Church has not changed its mind about any doctrine. If that is the case, then your argument is strong; otherwise, there is no argument.
For the sake of post length, I think that I will wait to reply to everything else but infant baptism. Here is the scripture you referenced:
13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, "Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. "
The kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these; children are innocents. They have no knowledge of good or evil, and until that knowledge is realized, in no way are they accountable for themselves. We as christians are to be innocent as children are innocent, and are to be children to God our father. The analogy is a great one and can be expounded upon quite a bit.
In another post later we can get into some of the other stuff; I am prepared to do so. However, my wife needs the computer, so I will sign off for now.
Thank you again for replying, I have already learned quite a bit about the Catholic Church that I did not know before.
-- Jared Morgan (email@example.com), April 28, 2003.