Did the Early Church Fathers believe in Transubstantiation?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Transubstantiation"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour,having been made flesh and blood for our salvation,so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word,and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr,First Apology,66(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:185
"He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood,from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body,from which he gives increase to our bodies." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,V:2,2(c.A.D. 200),in NE,119
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, 'This is my body,' that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that bread should have been crucified! But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed 'in His blood,' affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, 'He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes'--in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." Tertullian,Against Marcion,40(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:418-419
"He once in Cana of Galilee, turned the water into wine, akin to blood, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?" Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:4(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152
"Having learn these things, and been fully assured that the seeming bread is not bread, though sensible to taste, but the Body of Christ; and that the seeming wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine." " Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXII:8(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:152
"Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,XXIII:7(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:154
"Let us then in everything believe God, and gainsay Him in nothing, though what is said seem to be contrary to our thoughts and senses, but let His word be of higher authority than both reasonings and sight. Thus let us do in the mysteries also, not looking at the things set before us, but keeping in mind His sayings. For His word cannot deceive, but our senses are easily beguiled. That hath never failed, but this in most things goeth wrong. Since then the word saith, 'This is my body,' let us both be persuaded and believe, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ hath given nothing sensible, but though in things sensible yet all to be perceived by the mind. So also in baptism, the gift is bestowed by a sensible thing, that is, by water; but that which is done is perceived by the mind, the birth, I mean, and the renewal. For if thou hadst been incorporeal, He would have delivered thee the incorporeal gifts bare; but because the soul hath been locked up in a body, He delivers thee the things that the mind perceives, in things sensible. How many now say, I would wish to see His form, the mark, His clothes, His shoes. Lo! thou seest Him, Thou touchest Him, thou eatest Him. And thou indeed desirest to see His clothes, but He giveth Himself to thee not to see only, but also to touch and eat and receive within thee." John Chrysostom,Gospel of Matthew,Homily 82(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:495
"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made,it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ....When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius,Sermon to the Newly Baptized,PG 26,1325(ante A.D. 373),in ECD,442
"If the subsistence of every body depends on nourishment, and this is eating and drinking, and in the case of our eating there is bread and in the case of our drinking water sweetened with wine, and if, as was explained at the beginning, the Word of God, Who is both God and the Word, coalesced with man's nature, and when He came in a body such as ours did not innovate on man's physical constitution so as to make it other than it was, but secured continuance for His own body by the customary and proper means, and controlled its subsistence by meat and drink, the former of which was bread,--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body. For that which is peculiar to all flesh is acknowledged also in the case of that flesh, namely, that that Body too was maintained by bread; which Body also by the indwelling of God the Word was transmuted to the dignity of Godhead. Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle, 'is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer'; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, 'This is My Body.' Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist(for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing." Gregory of Nyssa,The Great Catechism,37(post A.D. 383),in NPNF2,V:505-506
"Then He added: 'For My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].' Thou hearest Him speak of His Flesh and of His Blood, thou perceivest the sacred pledges, [conveying to us the merits and power] of the Lord's death, and thou dishonourest His Godhead. Hear His own words: 'A spirit hath not flesh and bones.' Now we, as often as we receive the Sacramental Elements, which by the mysterous efficacy of holy prayer are transformed into the Flesh and the Blood, "do show the Lord's Death.'" Ambrose,On the Christian Faith,4,10:125(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,X:278
"Perhaps you will say, 'I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?' And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed...The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims: 'This is My Body.' Before the blessing of the heavenly words another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks." Ambrose,On the Mysteries,9:50(A.D. 390-391),in NPNF2,X:324-325
" 'And was carried in His Own Hands:' how 'carried in His Own Hands'? Because when He commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, 'This is My Body.' " Augustine,On the Psalms,33:1,10(A.D. 392-418),in NPNF1,VIII:73
"He did not say,'This is the symbol of My Body, and this, of My Blood,' but, what is set before us, but that it is transformed by means of the Eucharistic action into Flesh and Blood." Theodore of Mopsuestia,Commentary on Matthew 26:26(ante A.D. 428),in JUR,II:81
"Eran.--You have opportunely introduced the subject of the divine mysteries for from it I shall be able to show you the change of the Lord's body into another nature. Answer now to my questions. Orth.--I will answer. Eran.--What do you call the gift which is offered before the priestly invocation? Orth.--It were wrong to say openly; perhaps some uninitiated are present. Eran.--Let your answer be put enigmatically. Orth.--Food of grain of such a sort. Eran.--And how name we the other symbol? Orth.--This name too is common, signifying species of drink. Eran.--And after the consecration how do you name these? Orth.--Christ's body and Christ's blood. Eran.--And do yon believe that you partake of Christ's body and blood? Orth.--I do." Theodoret of Cyrus,Eranistes,2(A.D. 451),in NPNF1,III:200
"Dearly-beloved, utter this confession with all your heart and reject the wicked lies of heretics, that your fasting and almsgiving may not be polluted by any contagion with error: for then is our offering of the sacrifice clean and oar gifts of mercy holy, when those who perform them understand that which they do. For when the Lord says, "unless ye have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man, and drunk His blood, ye will not have life in you,' you ought so to be partakers at the Holy Table, as to have no doubt whatever concerning the reality of Christ's Body and Blood. For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amend who dispute that which is taken." Pope Leo the Great,Sermon, 91:3(ante A.D. 461),NPNF2,XII:202
"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood. But if you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as the Lord took on Himself flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit. And we know nothing further save that the Word of God is true and energises and is omnipotent, but the manner of this cannot be searched out. But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. Wherefore to those who partake worthily with faith, it is for the remission of sins and for life everlasting and for the safeguarding of soul and body; but to those who partake unworthily without faith, it is for chastisement and punishment, just as also the death of the Lord became to those who believe life and incorruption for the enjoyment of eternal blessedness, while to those who do not believe and to the murderers of the Lord it is for everlasting chastisement and punishment. The bread and the wine are not merely figures of the body and blood of Christ (God forbid!) but the deified body of the Lord itself: for the Lord has said, 'This is My body,' not, this is a figure of My body: and 'My blood,' not, a figure of My blood. And on a previous occasion He had said to the Jews, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. For My flesh is meat indeed and My blood is drink indeed. And again, He that eateth Me, shall live." John of Damascus,Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,4:13(A.D. 743),in NPNF2,IX:83
Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved.
Tim, even Luther believed in transubstantiation and broke with his fellows over the issue.
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 19, 2002
Gail,Thanks for this thread. I enjoyed reading it.
-- David (David@excite.com), November 19, 2002.
Angel breeders ascend about age 35.
After America bred 2,000,000 mutants of lesbian and bisexuals, she is now required to teach the truth about breeding and angels. Do not dwell on the children's story.
When you tell only the children's story, the reality of the ascending angel is lost. This leads to breedable white women who don't understand who angels are, and racism ensues.
The WHO is going to show America what happens to the brown people that nobody wants. They make mutants if they try to breed their own flock. Bad things happen to people who have no home, and nobody who wants them.
Religion is about breeding, religion that ignores breeding is racist. When I parted The Hague, I established Pre-Tridentine Catholicism, in order to fight the racism. We will create a wave of non-racism that will cancel the world's engine of racism.
Sincerely,
Rita Hill von Habsburg, Princess/Knight of the Golden Fleece, angel of the second race
-- Rita Hill of Earth (leouna@yahoo.com), November 20, 2002.
First off, who or what is this Rita person and what wagon have they fallen off of?...Gail,
Thanks for the information, but let's examine it for a few minutes...
----------
..."He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: 'I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaugther, and I knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,' which means, of course, the cross upon His body." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212), in ANF, III: 418-419
-- What? Let's get the correct translation of that verse.
Jeremiah 11:19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.
It can be clearly seen in the verse above there is no mention of Christ's body being called bread or Him carring the cross. The people wanted to destroy the tree [Christ].
----------
..."In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, 'Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments dyed in red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full inepress?' The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine juice, like men stained in blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212), in ANF, III: 418-419
-- What? Did this guy even read the Bible. This has nothing to do with the blood of Jesus Christ, but of the people that disobey Him. Maybe I misunderstand him. Note the Scripture...
Isaiah 63:1-4 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
----------
..."Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes' -- in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 40 (A.D. 212), in ANF, III: 418-419
-- What? Let's continue the Scripture:
Genesis 49:11-12 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.
So his eyes will be filled with blood? Why not bless the milk to eat his teeth? [sorry, but the same thought is made here]
----------
..."from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165), in ANF, I:185
-- He claims the bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ.
--:--
..."And bread strengtheneth man's heart, to make his face to shine with oil, 'strengthen thou thine heart,' by partaking thereof as spiritual, and "make the face of thy soul to shine."" Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XXII: 8 (c. A.D. 350), in NPNF2, VII:152
-- What? Justin Martyr says it is literal and Cyril says it is spiritual?
--:--
-- Then Cyril claims it is the literal body and blood by the changing done by the Holy Ghost.
..."that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has touched, is surely sanctified and changed." Cyril of Jerusalem, Cathechetical Lectures, XXIII: 7 (c. A.D. 350), in NPNF2, VII:154
----------
"You will see the Levites bring the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ..."
-- What are the "great and wonderous prayers"? Show me it in Scripture. I believe it just says He blessed them.
"When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373), in ECD, 442
-- What? Cyril says the Holy Ghost does it.
----------
..."--just, then, as in the case of ourselves, as has been repeatedly said already, if a person sees bread he also, in a kind of way, looks on a human body, for by the bread being within it the bread becomes it, so also, in that other case, the body into which God entered, by partaking of the nourishment of bread, was, in a certain measure, the same with it; that nourishment, as we have said, changing itself into the nature of the body."
-- Basically he is saying that Chrit was bread because he ate bread - and the bread was Christ, because the bread turns into the body of the eater - so let's take this tought further...
..."For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now."
..."He disseminates Himself in every believer throuh that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himelf with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption." Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, 37 (post A.D. 383), in NPNF2, V:505-506
-- What?
--:-- He first says the bread is transformed into the body of the eater.
--:-- God was the same as bread, because He was in a body which partakes in it.
--:-- The bread was transformed into the Divine potency, because God entered it.
--:-- Therefore, we may conclude [by this reasoning] that when you eat the literal body and blood of Christ [which is the bread and wine] He becomes you? And you are sinful flesh. That is exactly what is being said by saying the bread becomes the individual eating it. - So, by these words - do you become Christ or does he become you? The bread is transformed to the eater, so I guess Christ is transformed to you??? I don't think so!
----------
Don't believe me that is what they are saying?
"The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth body united with divinity, not that the body which was received up into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into God's body and blood."
-- Athanaius said "the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." - So, who is a liar? Athanaius or John of Damascus?
-- If not the body of Christ, what body? Does Christ have more than one body?
..."But one can put it well thus, that just as in nature the bread by the eating and the wine and the water by the drinking are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker, and do not become a different body from the former one, so the bread of the table and the wine and water are supernaturally changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Christ, and are not two but one and the same. John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:13 (A.D. 743), in NPNF2, IX:83
-- Let's break it down by the numbers...
1. By eating the bread, wine, and water - they are changed into the body and blood of the eater and drinker.
2. They do not become a different body than what they were [bread, wine, water]
3. [If] the bread and wine are supernaturally changed into the body and blood of Christ, they are the same.
4. Therefore, we conclude - when a person eats the bread and wine [which is the body and blood of Christ]:
---A. The bread and wine changed into the body of the eater and drinker
---B. So, Christ [supernatually in the bread and wine] was turn into the person eating it.
That is crazy!
Gail, have you read through this stuff carefully and see what they are writing.
One says the Holy Ghost changes the bread and wine into the body of Jesus Christ.
One says the Word [Jesus Christ] descends to change the bread and wine into His body.
One says that Jesus does not descend to change the bread and wine into His body.
These few people in the quotes you gave me can't even agree.
Read it Gail, and examine it...
God Bless!!!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 20, 2002.
Gail, Tim, something's kinda funny. I did a search on the "casting a tree on his bread". While Tim is correct in that the several internet Bibles (I don't have my Bible with me right now) have his translation, I found a few sites, in which Saints have used Gails translation.THIS is by St. Athanasius.
It's long, but you can do a page search for (Tree) and you should find the exact same statment that Tertullian used.
Maybe this was an earlier translation? Or maybe there is another verse which repeats Jeremiah 11:19 but differently (you know how there are Several repeat verses in Scripture)?
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 20, 2002.
Tim:
No amount of care or deliberation is going to please you. You are wiser than all the Early Fathers, you read the Bible. They probably had none; but-- they were in the Church. It was by faith and the soul's response to grace they accepted the teachings of the apostles. I marvel at your reaction: That is crazy!You will call Jesus Christ crazy, and mean it. Because your aim isn't truth, but self- congratulation. You haven't the faith to believe the plain words of Jesus, ''This is my body-- and this is my blood.''
It is faith above everything Christ cried out for when He stated: ''If you have faith as in this little mustard seed, you will say to that mountain, cast yourself into the sea; and the mountain shall rise and be cast into the sea.'' In all those early lessons to the people, and particularly His owm followers, the response He most demanded was faith.
And we now know why. He would eventually require that those who truly love Him accept some tremendous challenges to their incredulity. He knew that only by unwavering faith were we going to look upon the Blessed Sacrament; saying, after the words of consecration, ''A hundred thousand welcomes, O Delight of my soul!-- as we see His Body under the appearance of bread. And, ''My Jesus; Mercy!'' acknowledging His Precious Blood under what to the other appears only wine.
Those with unwavering faith can see. Others, having eyes, see not-- and with ears, hear not.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2002.
Tim, the question is whether the early church believed in transubstantiation! They obviously, completely and wholeheartedly DID! There are more quotes I could have brought forth from Ignatius, Clement, the Didache. But what good would that do?How you can mock Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athanasius, Ireneus, MEN TO WHOM even Protestants revere, is quite beyond me! Augustine wrote literally volumes on the doctrine of the trinity! And is respected and revered by MANY theologians of our day!
You are not looking for truth. You have the answer before you even look at the evidence. Then you simply weed back through the evidence to build your case. That is called "Intellectual Dishonesty."
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 20, 2002.
Hey Jake, I forgot to thank you for doing that research on translations. I suppose, since they didn't have the King James yet, they were forced to read original manuscripts. Dang the luck!Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 20, 2002.
"Tim, the question is whether the early church believed in transubstantiation! They obviously, completely and wholeheartedly DID!"Gail, I understand what you are saying, but obvisously you posted it here [directed for me] to convince me that it is true because other people in the past have believed it.
Just because people believe it doesn't make it true. Whether or not I or you believe something does not make it true or false. The Truth is true regardless of me and you.
I say, I do not know it all and never have claimed to, but I hold dearly to the Word of God [my KJV]. When I see something that I can not find in Scripture, I can not believe it - this does not necessarily make it true or false, but if it is true, I believe the Spirit of Truth will show it to me - maybe not today, but as long as I continue to pray and search for Truth with an open mind to Christ [this is also true for you or anyone else]. Unless the Spirit of Truth reveals it to me that it is Truth, I must reject it. It isn't because you said it, someone else said it, or the Catholics said it - it is because I just don't see it in the Scriptures.
We are to find comfort in the Words of God [Scripture] for they are Truth. And to believe something that I can not find to be true in Scripture is to denie my belief in Scripture and cleave to that belief. Understand my claim?
I would like to leave you with one last set of Scriptures concerning this issue. It is Jesus talking about meat, which isn't literal meat.
Joh 4:31-34 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.
Was he eating God? No, it was the will of God that was spiritually feeding him.
The meat of Christ was to do the will of God, just as: Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
"How you can mock Justin Martyr, Augustine, Athanasius, Ireneus, MEN TO WHOM even Protestants revere, is quite beyond me!"
I do not mock these men nor you. They are men, not God. So, I can not take their word over the Scripture. Just because they believe it doesn't make it true. You could take 1000 people that believe the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it so... :)
You must take note that I am not an Athiest, but a Bible Believer and put my trust in that God has preserved His Words in English through the King James Bible. You may not agree, but this is my belief. As I must note that you have put your faith in that you believe the Catholic Church and their doctrines are true.
But let us ALL always remember the Devil is our enemy and not each other.
And Eugene,
I have faith [not as much as I should I'm sure - because honestly I believe that verse literally, so that just proves how much faith I and most Christians don't have]. I just put my faith that God has preserved His Word [Scripture] over Tradition, so I find it very hard to believe tradition when I am unable to find it in Scripture.
God Bless!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 21, 2002.
Good Morning Gentlemen:Tim, would you consider a few things in light of the centuries of constant teaching on transubstantiation, please?
In the book of Acts we see the communion table being taken very seriously! We also know that the people were dying and getting sick from taking the communion in an unworthy manner. It was a very solemn, holy occasion, to be sure. I'm sure you would agree with that. We are to examine our hearts to see if there is sin before receiving the Lord's supper. Christ words ring in our ears: "This is my body . . . He who does not eat my flesh has no part in me".
The result of taking the communion ONLY symbolically post-Reformation has been a cavalier taking of the Lord's Supper, and a slow deterioration of its value. Some churches rarely if ever take communion. I had attended an evangelical church for 4 years, during which time, they took communion once a month. Now, that church takes communion once every three months. You see what I'm getting at? That's why "holding fast to tradition" is a GOOD thing! We pass an unchanging faith down to our children, and they have the security of knowing this tradition will hold its own throughout the ages.
Lastly, the men quoted above certainly did have the word of God. They had the GREEK septuagint. And then, of course, the letters of the apostles and church leaders were copied and circulated amongst the churches and read at Sunday mass. That is how they were preserved and that's why you have your Bible today. Jerome, scholar that he was, translated the GREEK septuagint into Latin. Was that translation inspired? No. The originals were inspired, and God inspired Jerome to the tedious task of translation.
Why do you think your KJ translation is inspired, and not the Douay- Rheims? Jesus didn't speak English, nor did any of the other apostles. The ORIGINAL manuscripts were inspired. God moved people to translate His holy word throughout the ages according to the needs of the people.
It is interesting that you pointed out these men above were quoting from a Bible that is DIFFERENT from your's, yet you assume your's is correct, when in fact, logic would dictate that their's is MORE correct -- they were closer to the ORIGINALS!
Gotta go to work. God Bless you Tim, and may the Spirit of Truth show you all things! Amen!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 21, 2002.
Tim, the quote you gave on "meat" is quite different than John 6.Here's your quote:
"Joh 4:31-34 In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work."
You should notice in this passage that Jesus specifically describes the analogy he is making. "My meat is to do the will of him that sent me." We understand this to mean that he is sustained and nourished by doing the will of His Father. This goes right along with "man does not live on bread alone..."
However, when we look to John 6. Jesus doesn't state that eating his Body is a metaphor for anything. In fact MANY of his disciples left and didn't hang out with him anymore! Please, Tim, explain how if it was meant as a metaphor for something else why Jesus didn't stop those leaving and explain it to them. In fact, Jesus even asks his 12 closest friends if they would leave too!
Now, it is apparent that you aren't being open to the Scripture. Gail, wasn't trying to convince you based on the Church Fathers statements. Gail was showing you that even the Church Fathers, those that read Scripture and studied it far more than you and I, believed in the Transubstantiation. So, you see? It isn't the mere fact that they believed and wrote about it. It is that they found their truth IN the Holy Scripture!
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 21, 2002.
"First off, who or what is this Rita person"
Pay attention, because I reallyy hate repeating my biography everywhere.
I was born March 10, 1956 in Seattle, WA, a test tube Habsburg baby,
a racially puire angel, I was ascended of angel leprosy by UN order in 1963,
As Richard Sethre, I invented the concept for XML, and was a vested employee of America, fired by racists who admitted racism.
acended by transsexuality on the day that Desert Storm began,
as Rita Hill, I solved the conspiracy that led to "October Surprise", which was a faithless attempt to ignore the concept of breeding, and enslave my race. I was named best of the flock.
I came to Yods on March 25, 2001, witnessed by the UN.
I parted the flocks on the UN in The Hague, and am a citizen of Earth, and I breed EVERYWHERE.
I am a righteously triple-ascended archangel breeder, female, who willl marry a woman and raise children that I make with a woman.
-- Rita Hill of Earth (leouna@yahoo.com), November 21, 2002.
Tim: This is what I meant by bibliolatry: --We are to find comfort in the Words of God [Scripture] for they are Truth. And to believe something that I can not find to be true in Scripture is to deny my belief in Scripture and cleave to that belief. Understand my claim?Belief in Scripture is conditional on who interprets, Tim. To cleave to your own private interpretation-- Or insist a truth wouldn't be true if Scripture was silent about it, is bibliolatry. The word of God is Truth. We must ALL love His Word.
But we must have all His Truth; as Christ told His apostles: ''[Teach] them to observe ALL that I have commanded you. (Matt 28 :20)-- If a dispute about scripture arises, only the apostles are given the key. You and I have a dispute? The Church must settle it. Not who loves the scriptures most.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 21, 2002.
"Some churches rarely if ever take communion." - Gail1co 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.
He never gave us a certain amount of times or a certain time to do it.
--
"If a dispute about scripture arises, only the apostles are given the key. You and I have a dispute? The Church must settle it. Not who loves the scriptures most." - Eugene
You guys want to believe that the Roman Catholic Church has been the only "true" people serving God since His death on the cross [and probably before then]. Where do you get this? There has always been people around - outside of the Catholic Church following the Scripture. I have NEVER seen ANY proof that Peter was even in Rome at all. He was never there when the other Apostles were there with Paul. When was he there?
--
"That is how they were preserved and that's why you have your Bible today. Jerome, scholar that he was, translated the GREEK septuagint into Latin."
CORRECTION: The King James Bible did not come from the Greek Septuagint or Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
The claim is always "The oldest and best manuscripts". But was this always the claim? It used to be "The majority of the manuscripts" before 1765.
The KJV [based on the Textus Receptus] is made of 95% or more of all of the documents found, but the rest of the bibles are either based on the other 5% or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. (maybe misspelled)
Where did the Greek Septuagint come from? Egypt. What does Scripture say about that?
Isa 30:1-2 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin: That walk to go down into Egypt, and have not asked at my mouth; to strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt!
Isa 31:1 Woe to them that go down to Egypt for help; and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many; and in horsemen, because they are very strong; but they look not unto the Holy One of Israel, neither seek the LORD!
Maybe these verses are just "out of context", but I do believe that Moses [with the aid of God] delivered the people out of where? Egypt. So, why should we trust manuscripts from there.
Where did the Greek Septuagint come from? The 5th column of Origen's Hexapla.
"they were closer to the ORIGINALS!" Are you so sure about that? For someone to say the "best manuscripts" means the best shape or kept up. Well, we all know that if you use something it fades and wears out, so why weren't these wore out? Maybe they weren't being read, like the Sinaiticus found in a waste basket?
Let me tell you a story,
- There once lived a man in 325 which was in a battle for the throne at Millvine Bridge. His wife was a Christian and he told her that if he won the battle he would claim Christianity the real religion. He saw a vision [a cross with the Latin words "in this sign conquer"] which he put on all the shields and armor of his men. He won the battle and claimed Christianity was the real religion. He got the priest [which were not Christian before this] to baptize all his soldiers [which were not Christian before this] by standing in the trees and slinging water over them as they road by.
I don't think that this is what Jesus commanded when he said to Repent and be baptized.
I am presently studing about my KJV and the history of bible versions in my courses I am taking. If any of this evidence I provide is wrong, please show me documentation on it and I will read it too.
I honestly want and need to know the truth. But, if [as by Eugene] I practice bibliolatry, so be it. Yes, I put my faith 100% in God that the KJV is His exact words as He wants them in English. As He himself has put His Word above Himself.
Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
I do not believe the Book is pure in and of itself, because it has been written [by hand] by man - but my faith is that God lead the mind of everyone of the translators as He did the original writers to give us [his Church - the Body of Believers] the inerrant Word of God in English.
It is apparent [Eugene] that you fault me in trusting in the Scriptures as you trust more so in the Catholic Church - or you therefore a worshipper of Catholic-ology?
In Defense, God Bless!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 21, 2002.
JmjTim, you write as though you know everything -- that everyone else is always wrong and you are always right. It amazes me.
Sorry to have to tell you, but you are (factually) wrong frequently in the threads to which you are contributing. Of course, your errors have been pointed out by many people at various times, but I don't seem to recall your saying, "Oops! Thanks for that correction" and "I blew it that time!", etc..
The worst error you make, of course, is not to be a Catholic, joining the Church Jesus founded.
Then there is the error of actually "placing faith" in a 400-year-old, non-Catholic texts in an incomplete Bible (which contains numerous translation errors) -- the King James (Partial) Version.
Then there is the whopper found on this thread -- namely, that the Septuagint should not be trusted [nasty old Egypt, you see]. You must not have heard about the fact that the bulk of the Old Testament verses quoted in the New Testament Greek are taken right from the Septuagint. This was an Old Testament version that Jesus, the Apostles, and other NT writers knew was dependable -- AND it had the beautiful OT books that the KJV lacks in its list of divinely inspired books. You seem to be just making junk up as you go along, Tim, grasping at any old weak thing, in hopes that it may fool us into believing that Catholicism is discredited. Or is it that you are getting this stuff from anti-Catholic Internet sites or books/tracts by ignorant bigots (Chik/Alamo/Boettner/White/etc.)Gail/Jake-H/Tim, a bit more on the verse from Jeremiah (11:19) that you discussed earlier. Obviously, Mr. Tertullian (writing before 300) and St. Athanasius (writing before 400) both had copies of Jeremiah [perhaps very early Latin and Greek] in which the Hebrew had been translated as "Let us cast the tree upon His bread." But you, Tim, much wiser than those old-timers (because you have your trusty KJV?) boldly said, "Let's get the correct translation of that verse. ... 'Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof' ... It can be clearly seen in the verse above there is no mention of Christ's body being called bread or Him carrying the cross."
You would not have said that it "can be clearly seen," Tim, if you had done a little research. The earliest Christian Latin translation, as well as St. Jerome's Vulgate (from around 400) had the words, "lignum in panem eius" -- "the tree on his body" -- while you insist on "the tree with the fruit thereof." Well, it turns out that this is one of the many O.T. verses in which the Hebrew is ambiguous. It contains a word (transliterated as "lechem") that can mean either "bread" or "fruit"! In fact, Strong's concordance shows that "lechem" is translated as "bread" over 230 times in KJV, but as "fruit" just once (in this Jeremiah verse)!!!
Anyway, Tim, I think that you need to learn the lesson of approaching all these discussions without your customary cocksureness. You have a lot to learn. (We all do.)
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
Tim,You grossly misused quotes from Isaiah to forbid the usage of the Greek Septuigint. When you mutilate scripture it is an OFFENSE to the Lord and His holy word. A person can support ABSOLUTELY ANY GOOFY notion they want to by taking scripture out of context, twisting, hammering and perverting! That is why there are so many heretics in the Protestant church today, on television, on the radio, spreading their errors without correction and leading millions of people astray. But yet, they 'seem' to prove their doctrines with scripture.
Coine Greek was the language of Jesus' day, so naturally, the Greek Septuigint was in response to that need. The original publishes of the KJV DID have the apochrypha and they were phased out over several hundred years of printing.
I don't know where you are getting your information, but you are being taught incorrectly. Unfortunately, because of your willingness to blatantly misuse scripture, you have proved, at least to me, that you are willing to go to any length whatsoever -- even to go so far as to pervert the very words of the Word you so feverishly defend, to WIN a debate!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 24, 2002.
John"you write as though you know everything -- that everyone else is always wrong and you are always right."
What? I believe I said "I am presently studing about my KJV and the history of bible versions in my courses I am taking."
If I thought I knew everything, why would I be studing and taking courses? It seems you are speaking out of frustration.
Just because I disagree and support my KJV over the Catholic bible does not mean I know everthing. It is just my stance on what I have read and believe. Notice I did write, If any of this evidence I provide is wrong, please show me documentation on it and I will read it too."" - so relax.
I believe the only time that I claimed that something was wrong was that the reason I have Scripture was because of Jerome.
Let's face it - what you consider an error and what I consider an error is different - because of what we believe. So, if I don't believe that something is true [do to Scripture] I am still supposed to submit to you and claim I am in error? I don't think so. Until the Spirit of Truth or Scripture shows me where I am wrong, my stance shall remain grounded. I know, you don't believe the Spirit is showing me anything - that is fine - that is your opinioin. I do listen to people [even the people here] and consider the things spoken, but if I don't believe that is what the Scriptures are saying, then I clearly can not except them - if you think I am just going to read what someone writes and believe it - you're crazy. I don't expect you or anyone to believe me. You can take what I say and try it with Scripture. I want everyone to put their faith in Jesus Christ and the Spirit to lead them - not in Tim [me].
And I have told people I was wrong and thanks for the rebuke, so apparently you haven't read ALL my posts.
"Gail/Jake-H/Tim, a bit more on the verse from Jeremiah (11:19) that you discussed earlier."
Okay, let's replace 'fruit' with 'bread'.
Jer 11:19 But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised devices against me, saying, Let us destroy the tree with the bread[fruit] thereof, and let us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remembered.
What since does that make? Again, only if we take the other verse does it make any connection that you want it to. What exactly does the bible you are using today say for that verse?
-------
Gail
"The original publishes of the KJV DID have the apochrypha and they were phased out over several hundred years of printing."
It was in the middle - NOT considered OLD or NEW Testament. Doesn't the Catholic Church consider it Old Testament? [I am asking.] Yes, I believe it was the Puritans that got it removed totally, but it was never considered Scripture - well maybe for the Catholics.
"even to go so far as to pervert the very words of the Word you so feverishly defend, to WIN a debate!"
Is that what it is all about? I know it isn't. :)
It isn't me that pulls documents from people of the past that believe what I believe to prove a point that isn't covered in Scripture.
Gail, using Scripture with Scripture is the best way to understand it. Not matching Scripture with what people believe.
Again - don't trust in me [of course, I know no one here would] - just take what I say and match it with the Scriptures [not with the people that say this or that, but with Scripture]. Isn't this what you want me to do for you? You want me to trust that what the men have said from the past is correct, whether I can find it in Scripture or not.
You both seem to agree that I KNOW NOTHING, and that the Catholic Church contains all the men that have known and know ALL things.
May God show you that I do trust in Him...
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 24, 2002.
SorryMy bold pen got stuck.
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 24, 2002.
Dearest Tim, I do not believe that you KNOW nothing! On the contrary, you are a bright person who has a lot of knowledge, but not all of it is based on fact AND evidence.I understand the principle of reading scripture in light of scripture, which is a very good principle, and will take you far IF you apply that principle soundly, AND if you know ALL of scripture, and not just select portions. But unfortunately, as you well know, there are those who pervert the scripture. We are warned BY scripture of that very fact. And it would take CENTURIES AND CENTURIES to know ALL of scripture. (But you see, that's what Catholocism has to offer -- CENTURIES of knowledge forged by our ancestors! -- OUR FAMILY JEWELS!)
Over the course of 20 years I have been in approximately five Protestant churches (all of them evangelical), and quite frankly I am SICK TO DEATH OF Bible FIGHTS. Every single Bible study I attended resulted in hot red faces and screaming matches, which are of no use to the Lord or His kingdom. Then someone gets offended by the Pastor and goes around badmouthing him to his friends, they form a group, and proceed to sabotage their own church -- Why? Because their interpretation of scripture MADE them do it (their convictions)! And yet, His word warns us against useless arguments and to avoid an argumentative man. But what else can Protestantism do, there is NO remedy for the doctrinal divisions BUT yet more divisions!
I don't know when you met the Lord, but it is apparent you have a great zeal for the Lord! I pray that the Lord will bring you home to the Church He gave us for our safety and peace. PEACE like I've never known. And Tim, the Lord could use you in His Church like you cannot EVEN imagine! With your zeal and passion, why, you could light a whole church on fire! That's what happened to Scott Hahn -- vigilant anti-Catholic that he was! Now Scott is literally taking the Church by storm. How great is our God!
Have you ever been to a Mass? Why not check it out? Ain't gonna kill you! You won't lose your salvation! But pray first, fervently, and ask the Lord to give you eyes to see the un-seeable! Do you know the Mass is structured on the Book of Revelations? That's why they have the incense, the Holy, Holy choruses, etc. It's all set up to replicate the Lamb's Supper, and that supper is the focal point of every Mass. Isn't that cool? Tons of scripture reading every Sunday, songs that celebrate the themes of the writings. It's VERY rich!
Well, Tim, I can't argue with you anymore, but I do care for you, and pray that the Holy Spirit will pour His abundant wisdom into your heart. Amen!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 24, 2002.
JmjHello, Tim.
Earlier, I wrote to you: "you write as though you know everything -- that everyone else is always wrong and you are always right."
To this you retorted: "What? I believe I said 'I am presently studying about my KJV and the history of bible versions in my courses I am taking.'"The problem is, Tim, that two sentences after those words, you had written these: "I put my faith 100% in God that the KJV is His exact words as He wants them in English."
Do you really expect me to believe that you might give up on the KJV as a result of the "courses [you are] taking"? I would love for you to say "yes," but it seems unimaginable, based on your past statements. I think that you would sooner reject the courses than reject the KJV, but I hope you prove me wrong.
I apologize for using imprecise language in stating that "you write as though you know everything." I should instead have stated: "You write as though we need you to teach us everything you have written, while you won't accept anything we say to the contrary, regardless of how factual it is (or persuasive, in a matter of opinion)."You wrote: "... if I don't believe that something is true [due to Scripture] I am still supposed to submit to you and claim I am in error? I don't think so."
Oh, I do think so -- when you wrongly "believe that something is true due to" your incorrect, private interpretation of words you read in "Scripture." When you read something and interpret it to mean something contrary to what Jesus taught the Apostles (the "deposit of faith" that has been handed down throughout Catholic Church history), then it stands to reason that you must admit that you are in error when we point that out to you. Certainly you don't want to cling to error, do you?Tim, it appears that no one has made you aware of a set of key facts:
(1) Jesus did not write any books or letters. He taught his Apostles orally, and the Holy Spirit further opened their minds to truths.
(2) The Apostles and their first disciples taught orally, throughout the Eastern Mediterranean area, for a couple of decades, passing down the ENTIRE Christian faith by word of mouth. This is called "Oral Tradition" (from the Latin for "giving across" -- i.e., passing something across the generational line). Originally, the entire Christian-era "Word of God" was in the form of Oral Tradition.
(3) There came a time when the Apostles and their disciples, moved by the Holy Spirit, found it opportune to write down SOME -- but only a PART -- of the entire Christian-era "Word of God" ... in the form of narratives (gospels, Acts) and epistles. But MUCH of the Christian-era "Word of God" was NOT written down by the Apostles and their immediate disciples. The portion that was not written down -- most of which helps us properly to understand what WAS written down -- remains the second of two equally true and infallible "fonts" of Divine Revelation. It is called Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition.
(4) You, Tim, and many other "separated brethren" are operating at a horrendous disadvantage when you ignore Sacred Tradition and try to get along with "sola scriptura" -- Bible only, with private, unguided interpretation. Because of your great human fallibility, this causes you and all other Protestants to misinterpret all kinds of Bible passages. You are also lacking certain unwritten facts and religous practices that have always been known to Catholics because they are part of Apostolic Tradition.And, because you have never known what I've just laid out for you, you have wrongly criticized Catholics for the way we believe and take instruction from the Apostles (through their successors, the pope and bishops).
You wrote: "Until the Spirit of Truth or Scripture shows me where I am wrong, my stance shall remain grounded. I know, you don't believe the Spirit is showing me anything - that is fine - that is your opinion."
I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, the Holy Spirit wants to show you a lot of things, but you often block his path, because you are following a faulty protestant framework of belief and study. The Spirit of Truth wants to show you, for example, that part of what he revealed to mankind is contained in Apostolic Tradition, the key that you need for understanding so much of the Bible. Comparing scripture to scripture is sometimes helpful, but it is insufficient.Time, you are insisting on going down the fatally flawed path that led to 30,000+ denominations. You need to exercise common sense and get off that dead-end path by becoming a Catholic. It's your only hope for arriving at the peace and the fullness of truth.
You wrote: "I do listen to people [even the people here] and consider the things spoken, but if I don't believe that is what the Scriptures are saying, then I clearly can not accept them -- if you think I am just going to read what someone writes and believe it -- you're crazy."
Oh, gee, thanks a lot -- "even the people here," even you Catholic dolts! Can you see what you are saying? Translated, your words mean: "If you don't agree with me, I reject whatever you say! I am polite enough to listen, but I ain't open to unlearning any of my errors just because of what you Catholics say."So, why are you here, Tim? From all I can see, you have no purpose whatsoever except to proselytize us -- to try to convert us to KJV, sola scriptura, and all the other bland concoctions that you espouse. If that is the only reason you are bombarding the forum with dozens of messages, then it is time for you to go, because we have no use for that stuff. We have seen it scores of times, and it is ho-hum rubbish to us by now. [You can read all the old threads in the archives, instead of continuing on new ones.] The forum does not exist as a classroom in which you are our lecturer, Tim! (Read the Moderator's rules and obey them, please.)
But if you are here because you have the guts to admit that you might be wrong and that you will open your mind to learn from our Church (or at least learn about our Church), then please stay.You stated: "Okay, let's replace 'fruit' with 'bread'. 'Jer 11:19 ... Let us destroy the tree with the bread [fruit] thereof, ...' What sense does that make?"
I wanted to throttle you for that one, young man! Who ever said you had a right simply to "replace 'fruit' with 'bread.'" Scroll up and take another look at what was quoted from Tertullian and others, above -- how the word "bread" fit into the verse. The Hebrew word that is rendered "destroy" (in KJV) also has ambiguity (multiple possible meanings), and the word "thereof" need not be present. Your simple substitution (one word for another) was not valid. Amazing that you would try to do that, while ignoring the staggering statistic I presented (that the Hebrew word almost always is rendered as "bread" in the KJV, not as "fruit").
Note: I am not arguing that your translation of the verse is wrong, but only that you were wrong to criticize Tertullian's translation of the ambiguous Hebrew.I will pray for you, Tim, to decide in favor of accepting all of God's revelation (both Scripture and Apostolic Tradition), so that you can begin to fully understand what the Lord wants to tell you. He doesn't want you to be your own private pope, which is really what every serious Protestant becomes.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Gail,You write with such charity sometimes...
"Over the course of 20 years I have been in approximately five Protestant churches (all of them evangelical), and quite frankly I am SICK TO DEATH OF Bible FIGHTS. Every single Bible study I attended resulted in hot red faces and screaming matches, which are of no use to the Lord or His kingdom. Then someone gets offended by the Pastor and goes around badmouthing him to his friends, they form a group, and proceed to sabotage their own church -- Why? Because their interpretation of scripture MADE them do it (their convictions)!" -- I know what you mean - I will place this is my memory FOREVER and hope that I recall it when I need to rebuke MYSELF. Thanks. Honestly.
-------
John,
"Do you really expect me to believe that you might give up on the KJV as a result of the "courses [you are] taking"?" - honestly, I hope that if the Holy Spirit showed me otherwise that I would obey Him. At the present a good friend of mine and I have been talking about the KJV issues and I have purchased some books. I plan to read them and pray that the truth will be known to me regardless of what I believe now.
"(1) Jesus did not write any books or letters. He taught his Apostles orally, and the Holy Spirit further opened their minds to truths." - but He sure did a lot of quoting Scripture from the Old Testament.
"The portion that was not written down -- most of which helps us properly to understand what WAS written down -- remains the second of two equally true and infallible "fonts" of Divine Revelation. It is called Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition." - this is both your opinion and the Catholic teachings, not necessarily fact.
"Because of your great human fallibility, this causes you and all other Protestants to misinterpret all kinds of Bible passages." - I just find it funny that all Protestants are apparently confussed when it comes to Biblical teachings [even the Apostles misunderstood Christ sometimes - even Paul corrected Peter], but the Catholic Church has never been wrong even a little.
"Rather, the Holy Spirit wants to show you a lot of things, but you often block his path, because you are following a faulty protestant framework of belief and study." - I could also claim that the Holy Spirit would like to show you things, but you decide rather to follow the traditions of men.
"Oh, gee, thanks a lot -- "even the people here," even you Catholic dolts!" - that is not what I meant at all. I meant that I listen to my Paster, my father-in-law [a preacher], other Christians, and the people here at the forum - I didn't mean Protestant or Catholic.
"If you don't agree with me, I reject whatever you say! I am polite enough to listen, but I ain't open to unlearning any of my errors just because of what you [Tim or Protestants] Catholics say." - isn't this what you are saying to me [between the brackets]?
This is a waste of time to play with my words John.
Let me be straight forward. I first found this site because I heard someone mention about a 666 meaning on the Pope's hat [sorry, I forget what it is called - and please we don't need to discuss this subject], so I posted a site here to see what Catholic's said about it - to see if it was true or not, etc...
I began to talk with some of the people, Emerald, Gail, Jake, and others. Granted, I am a Baptist and do not agree with Catholicism. Everyone here probably knows that. But, I do not hate anyone here or do I hate Catholics - that would be unChristian like for sure.
Just as you believe I am wrong, I believe Catholicism is wrong. But, I really did not and do not understand all of the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church [I admit it]. So, I read and write here to [1]try to see and understand the Catholic teachings and [2] to witness with the Scripture where I believe the Spirit of God has showed me the truth - which differs from Catholicism. And I know that the people I am writing with consider themselves [as I do] witnessing to me the truth which they believe is from the Spirit of God which differs from my belief.
Truly, we are not both right when we disagree. Or, we wouldn't disagree. lol! I am not here to bash Catholics!
I look at it this way. Whether I am wrong or you [or whoever writes] is wrong - the truth [hopefully at least from one side or the other] is given and the Spirit of God can use that to both convict me and you [and all]. So, I believe we can all benefit from this - as long as we don't do like Gail mentioned above.
And just think, if Catholicism is right and I am wrong - maybe the Spirit will convict me and I may become a Catholic one day. But, although you wouldn't agree, I believe it is very possible that what I say is right [not by my own account, but by what I believe the Spirit has shown me and others] and that the Spirit may one day convict you [and others] of it.
Don't hate me for that...
God Bless you too, John
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 25, 2002.
Hey Tim, try what I said...Approach an investigation of the Catholic Faith based on demonic phenomena. I know it sounds strange, and it is a lesser entry to the truth to know something by its opposite instead of directly, but here is what I think you will find: that when it comes to the worst manifestations of the evil ones, all denominations will delegate this nasty matter to the expterts; the Catholic Church.
A careful study should highlight a couple points of interest, such as how the devil hates the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and hates magisterial authority, and in fact will not be bound to command unless authority of the Church is granted, aversion to relics, holy water, etc.
If all such things were impotent as non-Catholics would have us believe, we would not see the phenomena of hatred we read about.
Its a back door, but a door nonetheless.
Among humans, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, but in the polarized arena of God and Satan, it is most likely true.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 25, 2002.
Tim,I just had a few comments about some statements. I hope that neither you nor John mind me stepping in.
"The portion that was not written down -- most of which helps us properly to understand what WAS written down -- remains the second of two equally true and infallible "fonts" of Divine Revelation. It is called Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition." - this is both your opinion and the Catholic teachings, not necessarily fact.”
Actually, Tim, if you consider that without the second “font”, which helps to explain the first “font”, Scripture, we can see what has happened to the different Protestant sects. Without this second “font”, there is no definitive interpretation of the Scripture (which is a false doctrine on its own – there MUST be one definitive interpretation). And it is a fact, that is – it has proven to be true, that without this definitive interpretation (or second “font”) no Protestant church can stand without division (30,000).
“even the Apostles misunderstood Christ sometimes - even Paul corrected Peter], but the Catholic Church has never been wrong even a little.”
However, Tim, you will note that Peter and Paul belonged to the same Church! So that even though Peter might have been wrong, Paul corrected him, therefore the end result was an infallible statement by the Church.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.
Actually Jake --..."the second “font” [Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition], which helps to explain the first “font”, Scripture"
-- If you conside the "first font" Scripture, then the "second font" is the Spirit of Truth [God the Holy Spirit] not tradition.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
1co 2:12-14 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
A man might do the preaching and/or teaching, but it is the Spirit of God which works in our hearts and minds to understand and accept it!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 26, 2002.
All Apostolic Tradition is preserved and made holy by the Holy Spirit's presence. You're right, the Tradition we keep in the Catholic deposit of faith comes by the Holy Spirit. That is why it's as inerrant as Holy Scripture. And that's why the Church can teach no error. Bravo, Tim! You finally got one right!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
^
-- (^@^.^), November 29, 2002.
JmjHello, Tim-tlw. We have both been away from this thread for a week, but maybe we can get re-focused and have at least one more exchange.
(1) In my previous post, I wrote: "Do you really expect me to believe that you might give up on the KJV as a result of the 'courses [you are] taking'?"
To this, you replied: "honestly, I hope that if the Holy Spirit showed me otherwise that I would obey Him. At the present a good friend of mine and I have been talking about the KJV issues and I have purchased some books. I plan to read them and pray that the truth will be known to me regardless of what I believe now."
But, Tim, you don't need the courses or the books or the undependability of your "listening" for some kind of silent voice. The Holy Spirit is already speaking to you through the Catholic Church, whose humble ambassadors we are trying to be. There is nothing wrong with a Christian, even a Catholic, enjoying the classical prose and poetry of the KJV, but no one should fool himself about that version, since it contains translation errors, is extremely tough to understand in many places (due to archaic language), and is missing seven books (or mislabels the seven as not divinely inspired). You need to depend on a good Catholic Bible, Tim.
(2) In my previous post, I wrote: "Jesus did not write any books or letters. He taught his Apostles orally, and the Holy Spirit further opened their minds to truths."
To this, you replied: "but He sure did a lot of quoting Scripture from the Old Testament."
I'm sorry, but I don't understand the purpose of your words. It seems as though you are implying that the Catholic Church does not do "a lot of quoting Scripture." If that was your point, it is no point at all, but a grievous error. The Church constantly relies on all of revelation, both written (Old and New Testaments) and oral, quoting profusely. You, however, rely on only part of divine revelation, the written part, which you are sometimes ill-equipped to interpret correctly. That is a recipe for confusion, error, and even sinful behavior.
(3) In my previous post, I wrote: "The portion [of Jesus's teachings] that was not written down -- most of which helps us properly to understand what WAS written down -- remains the second of two equally true and infallible 'fonts' of Divine Revelation. It is called Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition."
To this, you replied: "this is both your opinion and the Catholic teachings, not necessarily fact."
Au contraire, mon frere. It is absolute fact, because (a) it is stated in the Bible, and (b) we know from Jesus's promises that all Catholic teachings are "fact." Thus, you were wrong to say that it was my "opinion." Something that is factual is not an "opinion."
(4) In my previous post, I wrote: "Because of your great human fallibility, this causes you and all other Protestants to misinterpret all kinds of Bible passages."
To this, you replied: "I just find it funny that all Protestants are apparently confused when it comes to Biblical teachings [even the Apostles misunderstood Christ sometimes -- even Paul corrected Peter], but the Catholic Church has never been wrong even a little."
There's nothing "funny" about it. Instead it is a rather sad fact. Notice that I said that you "misinterpret all kinds" of passages. I intentionally didn't say that you misinterpret everything. Clearly, you and I share many beliefs, which is a good thing, tending toward our eventual unification. But you have just given a clear example of your penchant for misinterpretation, by stating that "Paul corrected Peter." You are claiming that St. Peter was "misunderstood Christ," but he certainly did not. As the first pope, he could not teach error, but he could (and did) commit sins. He was reprimanded by St. Paul for sinning, not for teaching wrongly. Now that is a pretty straightforward fact from Galatians, but you didn't even get that right, Tim. Imagine how far you can go wrong on privately interpreting more complex passages, without the guidance of Apostolic Tradition, as presented to us by the Church. (5) In my previous post, I wrote: "Rather, the Holy Spirit wants to show you a lot of things, but you often block his path, because you are following a faulty protestant framework of belief and study."
To this, you replied: "I could also claim that the Holy Spirit would like to show you things, but you decide rather to follow the traditions of men."
Well, Tim, "I could also claim that" the moon is made of green cheese, but that would be nonsense. Nonsense too is your claim that we Catholics "follow the traditions of men." Instead, we have an unbroken chain of written evidence, from the first century, to prove that we follow the Apostolic Tradition, which is the teaching of Jesus himself. Even if you disbelieve the evidence, logical thinking should prove to you (a) that the Holy Spirit would not allow the Catholic Church of Jesus to slip into teaching error and (b) that "sola scriptura" leads to chaos.
Thanks for entering the conversation, Jake H. I never consider conversations here to be private. Everyone who is not banned is welcome. Tim, in response to Jake H, you wrote" "If you conside the 'first font' [of revelation to be] Scripture, then the 'second font' is the Spirit of Truth (God the Holy Spirit), not tradition." Then you quoted some scriptural passages.
Eugene rightly pointed out that there is no contradiction: the voice of the Spirit of Truth speaks most clearly to Christians through Sacred Tradition, as conveyed to us by those given the power of Magisterium (teaching authority), the pope and bishops united with him. You and I are free to ask the Holy Spirit to help us to learn the truth, but the Spirit neither writes explanations down for you nor speaks audible, recordable words into your ears. By a very bold act of pride, in my opinion, you only imagine that your private interpretations of the Bible are actually coming to you from the Holy Spirit, when in reality they could be coming from a variety of sources, even evil ones. What you and I can rely on 100% is that, if we arrive at an interpretation that contradicts anything in the Catholic catechism, then it could not have come to us from the Holy Spirit.
I'll close on a partially positive note, Tim, by quoting these words of yours:
"Whether I am wrong or you [or whoever writes] is wrong - the truth [hopefully at least from one side or the other] is given and the Spirit of God can use that to both convict me and you [and all]. So, I believe we can all benefit from this ... And just think, if Catholicism is right and I am wrong - maybe the Spirit will convict me and I may become a Catholic one day. But, although you wouldn't agree, I believe it is very possible that what I say is right [not by my own account, but by what I believe the Spirit has shown me and others] and that the Spirit may one day convict you [and others] of it. Don't hate me for that..."Not only would I not hate you for that, but I wouldn't hate you for anything. One of the few things in life that I hate is hatred itself!
But I see a key fact in your words that I just quoted. You say that you "may become a Catholic one day." The only way that you are able to say those sweet words is that you admirably admit that you are fallible and that certain key beliefs you now hold may be wrong. The wrong beliefs that you now hold came from inside you or from some fallible human teacher -- not from the Holy Spirit. And here is where we differ in a major way. I could never tell you that I "may become a [Protestant] one day." Although I personally am fallible, I do not hold any incorrect key beliefs, because ALL my key beliefs come, not from inside me or from some fallible human teacher -- but from the Holy Spirit speaking through an infallibly teaching Church (which has an infallibly teaching human teacher, the successor of St. Peter)." I invite you, Tim, to join me in that totally dependable assurance, rather than to lack certainty that what you believe is without error.God bless you again.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 02, 2002.
Okay John,Let me reply...
-- "You don't need the courses or the books or the undependability of your 'listening' for some kind of silent voice. The Holy Spirit is already speaking to you through the Catholic Church, whose humble ambassadors we are trying to be."
1] If I don't need any courses or books, then why do the many post here from Catholics consist of history and catechism material? Isn't that courses and books?
2] How can I hear a 'silent' voice? lol!
3] The Holy Spirit speaks to individual Born Again Believers as the Scriptures teach. The Bible doesn't say that God gave the Holy Spirit to the Church [which consist of some men] and every Believer needs to run to the Church for the knowledge. I believe if God is powerful enough to save us, He is powerful enough to speak to us on an individual basics. Here is my Scripture of proof for the Spirit to the Believer, please show me yours.
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
-- "There is nothing wrong with a Christian, even a Catholic, enjoying the classical prose and poetry of the KJV, but no one should fool himself about that version, since it contains translation errors, is extremely tough to understand in many places (due to archaic language), and is missing seven books (or mislabels the seven as not divinely inspired)."
1] If you believe the KJV is corrupt, then YES it would be wrong to read it. Why read something you believe to be corrupt? Unless you just read it to find errors in it. Do you know the 'translation errors' personally, or is it something you have been taught?
2] "extremely tought to understand" - What. I believe it is written on a 6th grade level or lower. They do have what is called a dictionary or Strong's Concordance that gives good definitions of misunderstood or unknown words. :) I have also seen in some of the modern version where it is MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to understand than the KJV.
3] Are the 'mysterious 7 books' included in the Jewish Old Testament? I believe I read somewhere that Jerome didn't consider them Scripture?. Have any insight on that - I will look through my books [which I don't need]?
-- "You need to depend on a good Catholic Bible, Tim".
1] Give me the name of the BEST one.
-- "It seems as though you are implying that the Catholic Church does not do 'a lot of quoting Scripture'."
1] No, that isn't what I meant by that. You stated that, "Jesus didn't write any books or letters. He taught his Apostles orally, and the Holy Spirit further opened their minds to truths." I replied, "He sure did a lot of quoting Scripture from the Old Testament."
What I meant was that Christ used the WRITTEN Old Testament to teach the Apostles. Where as the Catholic Church 'seems' to put MORE on the oral words [they say] have been passed down from the Apostles.
-- "You, however, rely on only part of divine revelation, the written part, which you are sometimes ill-equipped to interpret correctly."
1] "part of divine revelation, the written part"
Where did we get the Bible?
Peter II 1:20-21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
How do we come to understand what is in the Bible?
John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.
I alone am "ILL-EQUIPPED to interpret correctly" [the Word of God]. That is why WE ALL need the Holy Spirit to lead us in studing the Scriptures or WE ALL will not see the truth. I do not claim to have the entire Word of God figured out, but I believe what the Spirit has given me is Truth. And it isn't as if I hold beliefs that I ALONE have, and they are different from all the other people in the world - different from Catholicism? Yes. My beliefs alone? No. Where it APPEARS that you don't believe the Spirit will show you anything, you 100% cleave to whatever doctrines the Catholic Church teaches, since the Catholic Church is the only place the Holy Spirit gives ALL wisdom to?
-- "It is absolute fact [The portion of Jesus' teachings that was not written down remains the second of two equally true and infallible 'fonts' of Divine Revelation. It is called Sacred, or Apostolic, Tradition] because (a) it is stated in the Bible, and (b) we know from Jesus' promises that all Catholic teachings are 'fact'."
1] Show me Scripture. [All you have is 1 verse taken incorrectly - Mark 16:18] Clearly if it is a Bible teaching of Jesus Christ it will be listed throughout the Bible. All of Jesus' teachings, I agree, are infallible - but as to the Catholic Church claiming it has them all and Christ promised the Catholic Church would have the oral words that do not appear or do not even have reference to in the Bible - ????
-- "But you have just given a clear example of your penchant for misinterpretation, by stating that 'Paul corrected Peter'. You are claiming that St. Peter has 'misunderstood Christ," but he certainly did not. As the first pope, he could not teach error, but he could (and did) commit sins. He was reprimanded by St. Paul for sinning, not for teaching wrongly."
1] What was his sin?
2] Peter [yes Peter] was teaching WORKS FOR SALVATION!
Galatians 2:11-21 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Apparently it is you who has a "penchant for misinterpretation".
-- "Eugene right pointed out that there is no contradiction: the voice of the Spirit of Truth speaks most clearly to Christians through Scared Tradition, as conveyed to us by those given the power of Magisterium (teaching authority), the pope and bishops united with him."
1] So the "Scared Tradition" is used by the Holy Spirit MORE than the Word of God [Scripture]?
-- "What you and I can rely on 100% is that, if we arrive at an interpretation that contradicts anything in the Catholic catechism, then it could not have come to us from the Holy Spirit."
1] You are mistaken. The Catholic catechism DOES NOT supercede the Scripture. Never has, Never will! This is why you have blind faith. You trust the Catholic Church to have all of the answers, and if you see something that is in Scripture that is different that what they teach, instead of praying and seeking Scripture to see what the Spirit has to show you - you simply cast it out, because the pope hasn't proclaimed it.
-- Well, I hope you still don't hate me... :)
I hope and pray that you will open your eyes and not cleave so blindly to the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that you should cast all your beliefs away and cleave to me [Tim]. Forget about what I say, listen to the Holy Spirit. Scriptural proofs will allow the Holy Spirit to work in and with you MORE than any teaching or oral statement with CLAIMS of being from the Apostles.
You [and others] can't keep claiming that I have personal beliefs [that no one else in the World has], that I believe [I have it all figured out on my own], and that the Holy Spirit ONLY TALKS to the Catholic 'Higher Ups' and not the individual Believers. The individuals are the Church and body of Chirst - not the religion Catholicsim.
Ephesians 4:11-16 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
In Christ,
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 03, 2002.
I hate to break in here. I still want to hear what John has to say.But I couldn’t help responding:
“John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.”
You seem to miss, Tim, that Jesus isn’t talking to just any old believer! Jesus is talking to the Apostles, those that would guide and lead the Church! So, really, Jesus IS promising the Holy Spirit to the Church! He is promising the Apostles, who would lead the Church, that the Holy Spirit would be with them. And He has kept His promise and is still with the successors of those Apostles INSIDE the Catholic Church, that very same Church Jesus founded.
“Where as the Catholic Church 'seems' to put MORE on the oral words [they say] have been passed down from the Apostles.”
I have to admit, Tim, I was going to pounce all over you, but I saw that you put “seems” in the sentence. So, I think that it is out of ignorance of the Church that you speak. It is the Protestant, anti- Catholics who would like you to believe that the Catholic Church is “mostly” or teaches “more” or is “completely” based on oral words. This is truly NOT the case. The Catholic Church is rooted in Scripture! How could it not be? Those same Apostles and disciples who wrote the Scriptures were the ones who helped establish Christ’s ONE Church! St. Paul, who wrote half the Bible, was one of the Churches first evangelists! So, to say that the Catholic Church is based primarily on “oral” teachings is a complete and utter LIE! The Catholic teachings that are not found anywhere in Scripture can be counted on one hand (and not using all fingers)! Of course these few teachings still have Apostolic roots. The Truth is that the “oral” Teachings that the Church has compliment the Scripture. The oral traditions passed down by the Apostles help to explain the Scriptures. So, there certainly isn’t “More” put on the “oral words”, however, the Church rightly believes that these oral words are necessary in understanding Scripture fully. And there is ample evidence to support this, because without the “oral words” we can see how divided and splintered churches can become (30,000).
I guess what it really boils down to is this.
The Catholic Church has lived THROUGH the Scriptures, and therefore has all the necessary understandings that came with those who wrote the Scriptures. While, unfortunately, our Protestant brethren have merely lived WITH the Scriptures, and therefore must try to understand what the writers must have meant. So, to repeat it: While the Catholic Church lived through the Scriptures and knows exactly what the writers of the Scriptures intended (and therefore can teach what the Scripture means orally), the protestants only have lived with the Scripture and must extrapolate and seek to understand (from very little) what the writers could have or might have intended.
“How do we come to understand what is in the Bible? John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.”
Tim, the answer is right there! The Spirit of Truth will come and will guide the Apostles of Christ (the first priests and evangelists), who were the very first leaders of Christ’s Church (the Catholic Church).
So, How do we come to understand what is in the Bible? – We listen to those who were promised the Spirit of Truth, the Apostles. And where are their teachings? In the Catholic Church!
“Where it APPEARS that you don't believe the Spirit will show you anything, you 100% cleave to whatever doctrines the Catholic Church teaches, since the Catholic Church is the only place the Holy Spirit gives ALL wisdom to?”
It amazes me how many times we’ve told you this, and yet you still want to twist it. The Spirit Will Show US stuff! But that which the Spirit Shows us will not in any way run contrary to what He showed the Apostles (because the Spirit is a spirit of Truth!). And He, the Spirit, has shown the Apostles all that we must know now – and that is found in the Catholic Church. In other words, I may not know something that the Catholic Church teaches. Now, the Holy Spirit shows me this something. This something will not be new, because He’s already shown it to the Apostles and it’s been safeguarded in the Catholic Church. So, if I do a search on this something and it matches with what the Spirit has shown the Apostles, and that is taught in the Catholic Church, then the something that I was shown WAS indeed for the Spirit. On the contrary, if I come up with something, and I see that the Catholic Church believes something else on the subject, then since the Spirit definitely showed the Apostles this something and it isn’t jiving with my something, I would know that I wasn’t led by the Spirit.
You see what I mean, Tim. Since the Spirit has already given all that is necessary to the Apostles, and since they have preserved it in the Catholic Church, then really there is nothing the Spirit could show me that the Church doesn’t already have. Therefore, while the Sprit could and does show me things, I can always go to the Catholic Church to confirm that it was from the Spirit.
Unfortunately, when protestants come up with something and are led to believe that it was by the Spirit, you have NO WAY whatsoever of tracing this something back without running into trouble. You see, if you come up with something that is against what the Catholic Church teaches you will have a hard time proving it is from the Spirit without stopping cold at the reformation! You have solely to rely on your human, and error filled, nature to think something is by the Spirit. While you may have the support of others on your view this doesn’t in anyway indicate that it was from the Spirit. Hey, even Hitler had a following! The indication that it was from the Spirit is whether or not you can trace it to the Apostles (Scripturally or orally).
“2] Peter [yes Peter] was teaching WORKS FOR SALVATION! Galatians 2:11-21 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Tim, you wrongly accuse John of misinterpreting this passage, and then you show your own misinterpretation as clear as day.
Peter didn’t TEACH anything! Peter was living against the Gospel that he was preaching. “When I saw that they walked not uprightly…” meaning that they weren’t living that particular part of the Gospel. So, you see, Peter was sinning by not walking upright. Show me where it says that Peter was teaching others to not walk upright! John was correct; Paul reprimanded Peter for sinning (that is living against the Gospel). The Pope is a sinner, but he is infallible when teaching on faith and morals.
Look here, “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Peter was sinning by being two faced; eating with Gentiles, but then withdrawing for fear. He didn’t teach anything!
“You are mistaken. The Catholic catechism DOES NOT supercede the Scripture. Never has, Never will! This is why you have blind faith. You trust the Catholic Church to have all of the answers, and if you see something that is in Scripture that is different that what they teach, instead of praying and seeking Scripture to see what the Spirit has to show you - you simply cast it out, because the pope hasn't proclaimed it.”
It isn’t a matter of finding something in the Scripture that is different than what the Catholic Church teaches, because that will never happen. It is a matter of finding something in Scripture and interpreting it differently than the Catholic Church. And if it is a matter of interpretation, then the Catholic Church gets my vote for who is correct.
I hope that you can loose yourself from your blind and self guided interpretations of Scripture and cleave to the Catholic Church, who is the safeguard of the One True, Apostolic, interpretation of the Gospel of Life.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.
Jake,With your statement, "you seem to miss Tim, that Jesus isn't talking to just any old believer! Jesus is talking to the Apostles, those that would guide and lead the Church!", then you will have to take EVERYTHING that Jesus said to the Apostles and say that NONE OF IT is for the "just any old believer". That isn't right.
Corinthians I 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
So, we are ALL washed and sanctified and justified by the Spirit of God, but the Spirit of God is only going to lead the Apostles into all truth? That is what you are saying if you say that those verses in John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-14 are not for us, but for the Apostles.
If the Spirit sanctifies and justifies us, then why wouldn't He "dwell with us and in us" AND "guide us into all truth"? I don't understand how you can say that those verses are not for every Believer. Are you saying that the Spirit only guides the men of the Catholic Church, then it is their job to guide the members? That would be taking the job of the Holy Spirit and giving it to men... What do you mean?
That is your belief Jake that "the Catholic Church lived through the Scriptures and knows exactly what the writers of the Scriptures intended (and therefore can teach what the Scripture means orally)...". I can understand that.
But I don't believe Jesus, the Apostles, or anyone in the Bible was a Roman Catholic - nor Baptist. I am not talking religion wise, but that I don't believe they believed or taught EVERYTHING that the Roman Catholic's teach or CLAIM to have had passed down to them from them. There is just not enough evidence in Scripture, and I am NOT going to trust a writing or note from a man that claims to have come from the Apostles. There was A LOT of corrupting of Scripture going on during the time of the Bible, so what makes you so sure that every document that the Catholics have is 100% pure and from the Apostles or reliable sources? Is it not faith? In what? God or the Catholic Church? [I am asking - not mocking]
I understand what you are saying about the "Spirit Shows US stuff", but you always add, "that which the Spirit Shows us will not in any way run contrary to what He showed the Apostles" - you say "the Apostles", but what you mean is the Catholic Church, because you believe all of the teachings came from the Apostles. My point is that when you come across a Scripture that you may not believe lines up with Catholic teaching or that just doesn't seem clear, you just cast it away and trust the Church. Am I right? Am I wrong?
"If I come up with something, and I see that the Catholic Church believes something else on the subject [because you believe the Catholics teach exactly what the Apostles did - you put faith in the Church], then since the Spirit definitely showed the Apostles this something [because you believe the Spirit only guides the Apostles into all truth - you put faith in the Church] and it isn't jiving with my something, I would know that I wasn't led by the Spirit. [which you believe must have been a false spirit - you put faith in the Church]"
You see what I mean by my saying you make the Catholic Church your final authority? Is that not so?
"While the Spirit could and does show me things, I can always go to the Church to confirm that it was from the Spirit."
Give me a Scripture reference that we are to go to the Church for our confirmation of spiritual things? Honestly, give me a couple?
2] If "Peter didn't TEACH anything! Peter was living against the Gospel that he was preaching" - then what do these verses mean?
Galatians 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, [why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews]?
"why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
Then out of the blue, Paul starts talking about "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law"? It is all in the same context! What was meant by this context then? From verses 14 - 16?
"And if it is a matter of interpretation, then the Catholic Church gets my vote for who is correct" - I can live with that, because that is your choice and belief - but that does not make if FACT.
As a final note: If I hold "blind and self guided interpretations of Scripture" they are not my own, and I do not stand alone. And I am ready to face the God of Heaven with the Scriptures alone - not because of myself, but because the Word was God, was with God, was made flesh, died on the cross, and saved my Hell bound soul! To God be the glory!!!
God Bless!
P.S. I will get to your other post ASAP!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 05, 2002.
Tim:
You ask, ''If the Spirit sanctifies and justifies us, then why wouldn't He "dwell with us and in us" AND "guide us into all truth"? I don't understand how you can say that those verses are not for every Believer.''Well, they are for every one. And the Church is the believers in communion, fellowship. But when a member leaves the fellowship, as heretical teachers did, they also leave the protection of the Holy Spirit.
It has to be driven into your consciousness; all these passages were in and for believers; all Catholics at the time. You aren't a full- fledged believer, but a wannabe believer.
Our Church is established, even as Paul himself left it, as a hierarchy; even then the membership having distinct charisms. Some were shepherds, the bishops. Then came presbyters, which were the present-day priests, and other ranks, from deacons to the various discipleships. Paul himself was in the topmost ranks, and clearly knew it. All of his epistles as well as the other letters were Catholic Church correspondence. From the master to his disciples. How do we know?
We know because there was no other faith at the time. There should have been no other faith to this day, but men interfered with the working of the Holy Spirit.
Now, you-- a follower of those men, claim to have the Holy Spirit. --You should have the Holy Spirit. You just aren't in the Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 05, 2002.
“Then you will have to take EVERYTHING that Jesus said to the Apostles and say that NONE OF IT is for the "just any old believer". That isn't right.”
Tim, you’re right. There are times in the Bible when what Christ said to His Apostles applied to everyone. There are times when what Christ said to His Apostles applied to only them. There are also times when Christ talked with His Apostles about things that didn’t necessarily apply to them, but to others! It wasn’t like every single Word Christ spoke was meant for EVERYONE. He was human like us (except God at the same time). Therefore, when He talked, he talked like us. Sometimes we direct our thoughts at someone, sometimes we talk to someone about other people, and sometimes we talk to someone but include others. When Christ spoke alone with His Apostles about when He would die, but the Holy Spirit would come and Guide them, He was talking to them alone! The Holy Spirit is with us and guides us, but Christ wanted the Apostles (the leaders of His Church) to know that they would be guided in the teaching of His Church by the Power of the Holy Spirit!
You see, Tim, this is part of the trouble with reading the Bible and not having an authority to help you interpret the different circumstances.
“Corinthians I 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”
But, Tim, these are in different circumstances. The Spirit of God will guide us in our private lives. But He will not guide us away from the flock! The Church was given the Guidance of the Holy Spirit to be a shepherd for us! How is it that the Spirit would guide Luther to one mindset and Calvin to another. They both claim to have the spirit? The Spirit does guide us – but there was an ultimate authority which was promised the Holy Spirit forever, and that was the Apostles who would lead the Church.
“So, we are ALL washed and sanctified and justified by the Spirit of God, but the Spirit of God is only going to lead the Apostles into all truth? That is what you are saying if you say that those verses in John 14:16-17 and John 16:13-14 are not for us, but for the Apostles.”
Tim, you are misinterpreting it. The Spirit of Truth is with us. However, in those specific verses, Jesus is referring to the Apostles of His Church. We know for sure that the Spirit dwells in all of us, but the problem is, not all of us want to accept the Spirit’s guidance. “the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive.” Then He says to his Apostles ALONE “but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” Therefore, outside the Church, yes, the Spirit is guiding people and dwelling in people, but it is NOT guaranteed that those who “claim” to have the spirit really do. Could be… But might not… I don’t want to take a chance with some sort of odds. It was the Apostles of His Church who we know as a fact have the Spirit and KNOW the Spirit. Only INSIDE the Church, where the Apostles have safeguarded the Truth, are we guaranteed of finding the Truth.
“If the Spirit sanctifies and justifies us, then why wouldn't He "dwell with us and in us" AND "guide us into all truth"? I don't understand how you can say that those verses are not for every Believer. Are you saying that the Spirit only guides the men of the Catholic Church, then it is their job to guide the members? That would be taking the job of the Holy Spirit and giving it to men... What do you mean?”
I hope what I stated above clarifies what I meant. The Spirit IS in us and guides us. And when He guides us, He guides us into all Truth. But that is only if we accept his guidance, which is a hit or miss! Inside the Church, where the Apostles resided, the Spirit was guiding them AND they accepted the guidance because they KNEW HIM. And that is where He (the Spirit) is guaranteed to be known!
“But I don't believe Jesus, the Apostles, or anyone in the Bible was a Roman Catholic - nor Baptist. I am not talking religion wise, but that I don't believe they believed or taught EVERYTHING that the Roman Catholic's teach or CLAIM to have had passed down to them from them. There is just not enough evidence in Scripture,…”
Tim, there really is NOT enough evidence in Scripture to DISPROVE it either!
“…and I am NOT going to trust a writing or note from a man that claims to have come from the Apostles. There was A LOT of corrupting of Scripture going on during the time of the Bible, so what makes you so sure that every document that the Catholics have is 100% pure and from the Apostles or reliable sources? Is it not faith? In what? God or the Catholic Church? [I am asking - not mocking].”
The same question then can be applied to the Bible itself, Tim. It was the Catholic Church, which determined which Scripture was inspired. So, if you trusted God to guide the Church to make a decision about the Bible, then why not Trust God to guide the Church in other things?
It’s faith in God. God said that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, and I believe Him. And I’m not talking about religions or institutions. When I say Church, I’m referring to the Body of teachings that Christ has revealed to us. That is, the entire Word of God.
“I understand what you are saying about the "Spirit Shows US stuff", but you always add, "that which the Spirit Shows us will not in any way run contrary to what He showed the Apostles" - you say "the Apostles", but what you mean is the Catholic Church, because you believe all of the teachings came from the Apostles. My point is that when you come across a Scripture that you may not believe lines up with Catholic teaching or that just doesn't seem clear, you just cast it away and trust the Church. Am I right? Am I wrong?”
We don’t just “cast it away”. The Church explains it. If there is something unclear, or that seemingly runs contrary, I believe the Churches interpretation above my own. Why? Because, although the Holy Spirit is with me and in me, I don’t trust my own acceptance or un-acceptance of the Spirit. I do know, by Scripture, that the Church does KNOW the Spirit. If the Spirit has indeed guided me, then when I find out what the Church teaches on the certain passage, it will match, because the Spirit doesn’t say one thing to someone and another thing to someone else.
"If I come up with something, and I see that the Catholic Church believes something else on the subject [because you believe the Catholics teach exactly what the Apostles did - you put faith in the Church], then since the Spirit definitely showed the Apostles this something [because you believe the Spirit only guides the Apostles into all truth - you put faith in the Church] and it isn't jiving with my something, I would know that I wasn't led by the Spirit. [which you believe must have been a false spirit - you put faith in the Church]" You see what I mean by my saying you make the Catholic Church your final authority? Is that not so?”
The final authority is God, we both agree on that. However, Catholics believe that the authority just below Him and above us is the Church, which Christ founded. Therefore, the Church is my authority (not my final authority), but she is the only trustworthy, EARTHLY authority we have!
Would it be safe to say then that Protestants believe that while God is the final Authority (like Catholics believe) then the next authority below God is themselves. Therefore, since they are their own earthly authority, they can trust their own interpretation. If God is your final authority, and (you believe) God has given you (the individual person) the authority to interpret His Word, then how is it that thousands and thousands of protestants do NOT agree!? If God is all their final authorities, and God intended us to be our own earthly authority to interpret His Word, then they would agree! But they don’t. And so this cannot be what God intended!
“"While the Spirit could and does show me things, I can always go to the Church to confirm that it was from the Spirit." Give me a Scripture reference that we are to go to the Church for our confirmation of spiritual things? Honestly, give me a couple?”
I only have one off the top of my head –
Matthew 18: 15-17 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen EVEN to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
So, you see, the Church IS the final authority!
2] If "Peter didn't TEACH anything! Peter was living against the Gospel that he was preaching" - then what do these verses mean? …Then out of the blue, Paul starts talking about "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law"? It is all in the same context! What was meant by this context then? From verses 14 - 16?”
It is Paul who makes the teaching out of what Peter was doing. Show me Scripturally where it says that Peter was teaching anything. He wasn’t. Peter wasn’t living according to the Gospel, and so Paul reprimands him, and makes a teaching of it to those watching.
“As a final note: If I hold "blind and self guided interpretations of Scripture" they are not my own, and I do not stand alone. And I am ready to face the God of Heaven with the Scriptures alone - not because of myself, but because the Word was God, was with God, was made flesh, died on the cross, and saved my Hell bound soul! To God be the glory!!!”
That is exactly what the Pharisees did with Jesus, Tim. They brought him Scripture and tried to push their own interpretation of it. They weren’t alone, and they used Scripture alone! But in their minds the Word of God hadn’t shown itself to them. They knew the text of it, like you. But they didn’t know really what it meant; only what they wanted (or thought) it meant. What did Jesus do? Jesus corrected them and explained to them exactly what it meant. Therefore, you will bring God the Scripture alone (tainted with Protestant interpretations), and God then will correct you and show you the correct interpretation, which He showed His Church 2000 years ago!
Have a nice weekend!
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 05, 2002.
Eugene,-- "And the Church is the believers in communion, fellowship. But when a member leaves the fellowship, as heretical teachers did, they also leave the protection of the Holy Spirit."
What is the Church? The individuals or the religion? Does a person not in the Catholic Church or has left the Catholic Church lose the Holy Spirit?
1co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-- "You aren't a full- fledged believer, but a wannabe believer."
So now you have the power to judge my heart just because I am not a Catholic, I am not a Believer? A Believer of what? I'm not saved? What are you judging?
-- "There should have been no other faith to this day, but men interfered with the working of the Holy Spirit."
This also includes Catholicism. In my reading, it seems that Catholicsim was not doing very well at all [to be so perfect today], so they had to "set some rules" at the Council of Trent, which wasn't until 1534-1563. This is when they claimed that "church tradition was equal in authority with Scripture."
-- "You just aren't in the Church."
I am a Born Again Believer - therefore I am in the Church.
---------------
Jake,
-- "the Spirit dwells in all of us, but the problem is, not all of us want to accept the Spirit’s guidance."
This I agree. And I believe that this is what has happen ALSO in the Catholic Church - which I do not believe has held the EXACT teachings and beliefs as the Apostles.
-- [I don't believe they believed or taught EVERYTHING that the Roman Catholic's teach or CLAIM to have had passed down to them from them. There is just not enough evidence in Scripture,…”] "Tim, there really is NOT enough evidence in Scripture to DISPROVE it either!"
So, therefore it is your CHOICE to put faith in the Catholic Church that it is right, as I do not. So, it isn't Scripture based, but preference?
-- "It was the Catholic Church, which determined which Scripture was inspired. So, if you trusted God to guide the Church to make a decision about the Bible, then why not Trust God to guide the Church in other things?"
If this is so, then why does your Bible have more books?
If you trusted Augustine in some of his teachings, then why not all of them?
-- "The final authority is God, we both agree on that. However, Catholics believe that the authority just below Him and above us is the Church, which Christ founded."
Every believer is of and is the Church. So, I don't understand.
-- "Show me Scripturally where it says that Peter was teaching anything."
Ga 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ...
So, what does this mean then???
As a note: The Pharisees also talked against the Apostles with TRADITION.
-------------------
Have a good weekend!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 07, 2002.
Tim:
You are eager to state:''1co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. Heb 13:5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.''The simple reply: - - - - -Saint Paul was indeed writing to the same Catholic assembly, both in Corinthians and in Hebrews. It's very logical he would speak of their acquired faith and membership in the Church. He wasn't writing to the descendents of 16th century heretics. You are assimilating to your own soul what has no relation to Saint Paul's teaching. --Take it very seriously, Tim /
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 07, 2002.
Hey Tim:Just for the record, the Church teaches that "baptized believers" are members of THE Church, though separated, from THE Church. Someone more knowledgeable than I could elaborate.
I know that sounds arrogant, that the Catholic Church claims to be "THE church," but we know Jesus established an authoritative church because he says, "If you have a disagreement with a brother take it to the Church," plus all the other myriads of church related scriptures (I'm sure you are familiar)
History OVERWHELMINGLY records that the Catholic Church of today is an extension of that Church that Jesus established. There is no Church with a pedigree like the CATHOLIC Church. It has a rightful claim to the name, The Church. If you really want to know the truth as you say you do, read Eusebias FOR YOURSELF. Read the Church Fathers.
QUESTIONS: 1) The issue IS "authority" Who has the authority to teach and/or discipline? 2) Do you believe that anyone who has a bible and feels lead "by the Spirit" has that authority? 2) If so, where in the N.T. do you find that? 3) Secondly, what, in your opinion, happened to the church that Jesus established?
Gotta go,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 07, 2002.
It's nice to be on Eugene's side for a change. I heard a learned priest say. "Protestant's invoke the name of Christ, but do not keep His word, so how can they call themselves Christian's? "They left at His word, and walked with Him no more". They new exactly what the Lord meant, but they were not buying it. Apparently, neither do the Protestants.
-- ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), December 07, 2002.
-- (top@top.top), December 09, 2002.
“"the Spirit dwells in all of us, but the problem is, not all of us want to accept the Spirit’s guidance." This I agree. And I believe that this is what has happen ALSO in the Catholic Church - which I do not believe has held the EXACT teachings and beliefs as the Apostles.”Tim, You are mistaking individuals in the Church, again, for THE Church. That is not the case. THE Church’s Teachings are preserved in the Church as a result of the Spirit’s promised guidance. That is exactly why there is a hierarchy which consists of checks and balances, so that no single goof can carry on his or her beliefs. Just like when Peter wasn’t living out what he was preaching, Paul was there to bring him back into line. Similarly, the congregation of Bishops, the Pope, officials, etc. serve collectively to guard the Teachings of Christ. If it worked for several hundred years before Scripture was collected into the Bible, what holds you back from believing that it could happen after?
“[I don't believe they believed or taught EVERYTHING that the Roman Catholic's teach or CLAIM to have had passed down to them from them. There is just not enough evidence in Scripture,…”] "Tim, there really is NOT enough evidence in Scripture to DISPROVE it either!" So, therefore it is your CHOICE to put faith in the Catholic Church that it is right, as I do not. So, it isn't Scripture based, but preference?”
No, it is Scripturally based that the Catholic Church (that is the Church founded by Christ) would be the authority. And, since God granted His authority (the keys) to His Church, then we should believe that what they say. Although there might not be Scriptural evidence on the specifics of what the Apostles taught so that they can be compared to what the Catholic Church teaches now, there is Scriptural (and historical) evidence to support the Churches God given Authority. If the Church had the authority to decide for you which books would be in the Bible, why can you not accept that she has the authority now!?
"It was the Catholic Church, which determined which Scripture was inspired. So, if you trusted God to guide the Church to make a decision about the Bible, then why not Trust God to guide the Church in other things?" If this is so, then why does your Bible have more books?”
Because after the reformation, the Bible (with the 73 books) that the Catholic Church (the only Christian Church at the time) held for nearly 1200 years was maimed by some “bright” reformers who thought they were smarter than the Spirit.
“If you trusted Augustine in some of his teachings, then why not all of them?”
Be cause Augustine, as an individual, did NOT represent the Church! Nor was Augustine infallible in ALL his teachings. The things that he contributed that were investigated and confirmed by the Church and found to be true were “trusted”. That which was found by the Church to not match with Scripture, Tradition, or Magisterial Teachings, were not “trusted”.
"The final authority is God, we both agree on that. However, Catholics believe that the authority just below Him and above us is the Church, which Christ founded." Every believer is of and is the Church. So, I don't understand.”
Every believer is of and is the Church, but not as an individual, rather as a whole! Therefore, when someone speaks to me and is in agreement with the rest of the Church as a whole (including the Pope, Bishops, the 12 Apostles, etc.) then, yes, they are an authority.
"Show me Scripturally where it says that Peter was teaching anything." Ga 2:14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ... So, what does this mean then???”
It means exactly what I said in the last response! Peter was being a hypocrite because he was preaching on thing and doing another. He was eating and living with Gentiles, but when the Jews came he backed off! He wasn’t teaching from the pulpit, he was setting a bad example! This is not to be mistaken for “Teaching”. Remember what Jesus said, “Do as they preach, but not as they act.” (or something to that nature – in reference to the Pharisees)?
“As a note: The Pharisees also talked against the Apostles with TRADITION.”
But, Tim, this was tradition of men! The Pharisees had traditions that were set up to abuse the law. Like giving the Church more money so that they didn’t have to support their parents. The Catholic Church teaches with the Traditions that we are to “hold fast to”, as Paul told us!
Hope this helps.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 09, 2002.
Eugene,-- "Saint Paul was indeed writing to the same Catholic assembly, both in Corinthians and in Hebrews. It's very logical he would speak of their acquired faith and membership in the Church. He wasn't writing to the descendents of 16th century heretics. You are assimilating to your own soul what has no relation to Saint Paul's teaching."
Thank you pointing out that all the Bible characters were Catholics and all the Protestants [atleast from the 16th century] are heretics. And that I [as a Protestant] are not in the Body of Christ.
Sorry, but you have arrived at the wrong conclusion...
ANY Born Again Believer IS in the Body of Christ, regardless of what you or I think about it - according to Scripture.
Corinthians I 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Corinthians I 12:13-14 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.For the body is not one member, but many.
Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
-- Since this is brought up to whether who is the body of Christ and not, let's also take a look at "Eternal Security" of the Believer:
Corinthians II 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Ephesians 2:4-7 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
-- Sorry for all the verses, but you are missing out, when you don't believe you can know FOR SURE that you will got to Heaven. You can believe that a saved person can unseal themselves from the Holy Spirit, convert back to the old creature, reject the adoption [after having received it] of God, quit be a join-heir with Christ, remove yourself from the body of Christ, and quit sitting in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. For if he gave us all of this when we were sinners not seeking after him, what do you believe you could do to loose all of it?
---------------------
Gail,
-- "Just for the record, the Church teaches that "baptized believers" are members of THE Church, though separated, from THE Church."
That statment contradicts 1 Corinthians 12:13, 14 - AND
Romans 8:35-39 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
-- "...Jesus established an authoritative church..."
This is true, but the church was considered to be a body of believers, not a building.
Ephesians 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
-- "History OVERWHELMINGLY records that the Catholic Church of today is an extension of that Church that Jesus established. There is no Church with a pedigree like the CATHOLIC Church."
According to what I have read [Exploring Church History], it appears that Catholicism was really started in Rome in 590, by Gregory I's appointment as bishop of Rome [yet he refused to use the name of pope].
Yet it wasn't until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563 that they rejected "justification by faith alone", declared the Vulgate Bible alone as acceptable for church, and the church tradition was equal in authority with Scripture.
Then even later, in 1854, they declared the immaculate conception of Mary - 1869 issued the Syllabus of Errors [where the Pope speaks infaillible from his chair].
Still later, in 1963-1965, with the Vatican Council II, they avowed papal infalliability and the equality of Scripture and church tradition. It also made [optional] Latin in the liturgy, meatless Fridays, Lenten fasts and abstinence, the cult of the saints, and the regular practice of confession to the priests.
-- This is just some of the history to show that the "straight- arrow" Catholic Church has change its beliefs over time. Truly all of this could not be the SAME teachings of Christ - it is either yes or no, not yes then no.
-- "1) The issue IS "authority" Who has the authority to teach and/or discipline?"
The Word of God is the authority [Scripture]
-- 2) Do you believe that anyone who has a bible and feels lead "by the Spirit" has that authority? 2) If so, where in the N.T. do you find that?"
Authority to preach and teach - YES, the authority to be a pastor or such - NO.
PREACH/TEACH: Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. [This was not just for the Apostles, for this is the witnessing we do to others]
PASTOR: Timothy I 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
-- "3) Secondly, what, in your opinion, happened to the church that Jesus established?"
The church which Christ established is the Body of Believers which is still intact today. The doctrines and beliefs of Christ which are taught in physical churches [buildings/organizations] has be corrupted by Satan and man. But the Holy Spirit holds the Truth and shows it to the Beleivers that take heed.
-----------------
Jake,
-- "THE Church's Teachings are preserved in the Church as a result of the Spirit's promised guidance."
See above note to Gail.
-- "Although there might not be Scriptural evidence on the specifics of what the Apostles taught so that they can be compared to what the Catholic Church teaches now, there is Scriptural (and historical) evidence to support the Churches God given Authority."
So the Catholic Church has "authority" to teach whatever it wants whether it is in scripture or not? What?
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
-- Again I ask, if the Catholic Church has been on the strait and narrow since the voice of Christ, why so many changes?
Take Care!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 10, 2002.
I will reply more thouroughly tomorrow, but I wanted to make a comment on these two statements:“This is true, but the church was considered to be a body of believers, not a building.”
The Catholic Church is the Body of Believers, not the building you keep referring to! You see, Tim, you don’t “believe” quite the same as the Apostles. We do, because we have their teachings (that is the teachings of Christ) preserved in the Original Catholic Church!
“So the Catholic Church has "authority" to teach whatever it wants whether it is in scripture or not? What?”
NO! NO! NO! There you go again, Tim! We keep telling you, the Church will NEVER teach “whatever it wants”. It only Teaches what God wants! The authority given to her is precisely because God knows she will do what He wants and not what she wants. There are no teachings which run contrary to Scripture! But you don’t want to accept these interpretations. Instead you rely on your own interpretation of Scripture. The Teachings of the Catholic Church only appear to run contrary to Scripture, because you don’t see the Scripture correct yourself. Once you acknowledge that the Church was given the Authority to interpret correctly Scripture, then you will start to see how it makes much more sense!
Like I said, I will respond more elaborately tomorrow…. I’m off to a meeting!
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 10, 2002.
''Born again believers'', Tim? If your belief is the heretical one, you are not in the faith. I would sincerely have liked to think it doesn't matter, since you ''can say that Jesus is the Lord, [but] by the Holy Ghost.'' But otherwise, all the Bible does is confuse you about the Church and about salvation.You believe all the wrong things. Even though you WANT to believe all the truth. But you reject the greater part of the truth by relying on sola scriptura. The Word of God has become your stumbling block because you ''feel'' the Holy Spirit guides you in sola scriptura, and He doesn't.
--By this ''feeling'' you're reduced to fellowship in an imaginary church, without hope of solving your error. Worse; you think the Holy Spirit dwells in an imaginary church!
And this is precisely the vicious circle all Bible Christians are in. ''The Bible says''-- and, ''My interpretation can't fail to be correct.'' So-- any false interpretation of scripture can be quoted to refute the Church; upon whom all Christians must rely for teaching from scripture. The very Church who was to keep you from error is blocked by your sola scriptura,
. . . and then, what? You claim you're a part of Christ's Church, the same one you're rejecting! You don't even believe in a visible Church on earth. Tell you what; I feel very sorry for you, Tim. No, ''Born again believers'' are NOT part of the Catholic (universal) Church. Not indwelt of the Holy Spirit. Not in the fold; no matter how much Bible reading they do. The Bible cannot instruct them in the truth without the Catholic Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 10, 2002.
Eugene,You are saddly mistaken my friend. I am in the body of Christ, whether you like it or not. Are you in the body? That is between you and God, I would dare not say that you are or are not. I can not judge your heart as you have tried to do mine.
The key to your post "If your belief is the heretical one, you are not in the faith." - my beliefs are not. They are founded in and on Scripture, whereas you trust the Catholic church more. Yes, you say it is based on Scripture, but where do you turn? To Scripture, no, to the church and tradition.
"But you reject the greater part of the truth by relying on sola scriptura." What? See how you discredit Scripture. Honestly, you trust the church more than you trust Scripture. Do you not?
"The Word of God has become your stumbling block because you ''feel'' the Holy Spirit guides you in sola scriptura, and He doesn't."
Are you trying to refer to the verses:
1co 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
1 I am not a Jew and 2 I don't find the preaching of Christ crucified foolishness.
Because you denie the POWER of the Holy Spirit to show individuals the meaning in and of Scripture, you denie the POWER of God. You WANT to believe that God only shows the CHURCH [Catholic] the truth and hides it from everyone else. The fact is that the Holy Spirit REVEALS the Truth to EVERY Believer [which are the Church] and leads them to understand it. WHEN man denies what the Spirit shows them, they then come to ERROR.
This is not a "feeling" - I am not charasmatic! :)
"And this is precisely the vicious circle all Bible Christians are in." - I am proud to be a Bible Christian [not as Pride is concerned, but as using the Scriptures as my foundation!]!
"''Born again believers'' are NOT part of the Catholic (universal) Church. Not indwelt of the Holy Spirit. Not in the fold; no matter how much Bible reading they do. The Bible cannot instruct them in the truth without the Catholic Church."
By this thought - you have ERRED by ADDING the Catholic Church into the equation of Salvation! I hope you do this in ignorance.
I do believe that we should have an earthly church, which is a group of Believers, but the CHURCH OF CHRIST is the BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS, not the Catholic Church as you see it.
Sorry to upset you, but please answer the question in my post?
-- Again I ask, if the Catholic Church has been on the strait and narrow since the voice of Christ, why so many changes?
Thanks and God Bless!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 10, 2002.
“The key to your post "If your belief is the heretical one, you are not in the faith." - my beliefs are not. They are founded in and on Scripture…”So, Tim, your telling us that if a belief is “founded in and on Scripture”, then it can not be heretical! I don’t understand… Then as long as someone has a Scriptural passage supporting their ideas it is NOT heretical. This is silly (to be quite frank). Almost ALL heretical ideas come from people who have read the Scripture, thought that they understood something, and then used that to manufacture their own concepts. That’s heretical! Say for instance the idea that Christ isn’t God. Okay – so someone reading Scripture runs across Christ praying to the Father in the garden of Getsemeny. Well, since Christ WAS praying to the Father, then that might indicate that Christ wasn’t God. However, since they hadn’t read the ENTIRE Scripture (and / or were explained why He was praying) they do not know the Truth. Are you saying that this isn’t heretical? The “belief” was founded in Scripture! But it wasn’t founded collectively in Scripture and on the same beliefs of the Apostles!
Like we’ve been saying, Tim, any fool can pick up the Bible and read it for its text. It is the CORRECT INTERPRETATION of that text that is the Word of God.
“…whereas you trust the Catholic church more. Yes, you say it is based on Scripture, but where do you turn? To Scripture, no, to the church and tradition.”
We trust the Catholic Church because she holds the Correct interpretation of the Scripture! Not because we think Scripture is wrong and the Catholic Church is right! It is us who are wrong in our interpretation, and like the Eunuch, we need someone to teach us the correct interpretation!
“What? See how you discredit Scripture. Honestly, you trust the church more than you trust Scripture. Do you not?”
We DO NOT! Tim, it is Scriptural that our Church would have the Authority! For crying out loud Tim, it was the Church that decided which Scripture to go into the Bible! Why do you not understand that. If the Church had the Authority (in your eyes) to pick out which Scripture was inspired (the Authority of course being given by God), then why can you not see how the Church could still have the Authority!?
“Because you denie the POWER of the Holy Spirit to show individuals the meaning in and of Scripture, you denie the POWER of God.”
We do not denie this Power of the Holy Spirit! The Spirit DOES guide individuals. However, the Spirit will not guide you to a different understanding than that of the Apostles, which is found in the Church. If the Spirit did guide you, you would have the same understanding of Scripture that we do, because we (the Church) have held onto the Correct Interpretation for 2000 years.
“You WANT to believe that God only shows the CHURCH [Catholic] the truth and hides it from everyone else.”
NO – the Holy Spirit SHOWED the Church, and the Church has guarded and protected this SHOWN information. The Holy Spirit may SHOW individuals, but it wont be anything new that hasn’t been SHOWN already to the Church.
“The fact is that the Holy Spirit REVEALS the Truth to EVERY Believer [which are the Church] and leads them to understand it.”
Wow! So, is that why there are 30,000 denominations all claiming to be led by the “Spirit” with the “True” belief?
“This is not a "feeling" - I am not charasmatic! :)”
Uhem!? We are all Charismatic, if we have at least one “Charism” of the Holy Spirit. Love for instance, which is the greatest.
“By this thought - you have ERRED by ADDING the Catholic Church into the equation of Salvation! I hope you do this in ignorance.”
Wow! Tim, so Christ ERRED in founding the Church for our salvation. Had it not been for the Church, where would you be in your faith. 1) You wouldn’t have a Bible. 2) The Apostles would never have existed. 3) The word of God would never have been spread abroad BY MOUTH before the Bible. The list goes on. Without Christ’s Church there IS no salvation, even for those outside the Church.
“I do believe that we should have an earthly church, which is a group of Believers, but the CHURCH OF CHRIST is the BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS, not the Catholic Church as you see it.”
The Catholic Church “as [we] see it” is that group of Believers, Tim. As YOU see it, it is not. By believers of course we mean those who have the ENTIRE belief. There are others outside the Church who may be “believers”, however, they cannot have the ENTIRE and CORRECT belief unless they believe in the Church.
“Again I ask, if the Catholic Church has been on the strait and narrow since the voice of Christ, why so many changes?”
What Changes, Tim. On faith and morals there have been NO Changes – only developments, as the Spirit reveals things to the Church when He and she are ready!
Sorry, Eugene for responding in your stead. I hope that you will respond also.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 11, 2002.
Dear Tim:
You said: ''Are you in the body? That is between you and God, I would dare not say that you are or are not. I can not judge your heart as you have tried to do mine.''Except for this; I haven't judged your heart. Your heart is a good heart, I told you this was clear to me.
Your biblical proofs are what are judged here; and they testify against you. Since you carry on with a false interpretation of the scriptures, anyone without a bias can tell you aren't aided by the Holy Spirit. Which is ample proof you're missing from the Mystical Body of Christ. The CHURCH.
False notions of the meaning of scripture can't arise within the Body of Christ. Christ will have no part of untruth; ''I am the Truth, and the Way and the Life.''
Because the Holy Spirit is in the Church His Body, no error is possible, particularly when it comes to discerning the true content of all the written Word of God.
But in that outer, false faith which you cling to, error is always apparent. The very fact you belong to a sectarian group with no set boundaries, no communion of saints, personal but not Church doctrine, exposes a non- membership in the Body of Christ; where all is Unity and love. (Again, the Church.)
I see your words, ''Are you in the body? That is between you and God--''
No. You may think it's between a person and God.
But there is One faith, according to Saint Paul. Not multiple faiths. One Body, not everyone's notion of the Church. If the Church says you are in the Body, it's true.
Not between me and God-- although nothing is hidden to Him. Between the Church and me. If my doctrine is against the Church of the holy apostles, I am NOT in the Body; and it's wrong to say, ''It's between you and God.''
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2002.
"Your biblical proofs are what are judged here; and they testify against you. Since you carry on with a false interpretation of the scriptures, anyone without a bias can tell you aren't aided by the Holy Spirit. Which is ample proof you're missing from the Mystical Body of Christ. The CHURCH.False notions of the meaning of scripture can't arise within the Body of Christ. Christ will have no part of untruth; ''I am the Truth, and the Way and the Life.''
Because the Holy Spirit is in the Church His Body, no error is possible, particularly when it comes to discerning the true content of all the written Word of God."
Excelent, Eugene! Thank you.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 12, 2002.
Hello, Jake H.Today was my first chance to get back to this thread since December 2. On that date, I left a message filled with comments for Tim. After he replied, you came by on the 3rd and left a message that started with these words:
"I hate to break in here. I still want to hear what John has to say."Please don't ever think that way, Jake H.. You know that I often have trouble getting back to threads for a few days (even quite a few day), so I WANT you (and other good people) to step in and reply in my place.
So far I have read the various messages left by you, Gene, and Tim on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th -- and I must say that I endorse EVERYTHING that you told Tim. Maybe I could go back to Tim's reply to me and find something more to tell him, but it would just be window-dressing. You have already covered all the important things (and better than I would have covered them).I will have to pick up reading tomorrow at the messages of the 7th (etc.). I am still watching for some sign, some little indication, that Tim is not still 100%-pitch-dark blind on everything. It is almost mind-boggling how he continues to hold on to ideas that have been proved wrong ten times over. We have to continue to pray for his enlightenment and conversion. Let's keep in mind the clergy (including Baptist) converts to Catholicism that have appeared on "The Journey Home." That will keep us from thinking that Tim is a hopeless case.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 14, 2002.
Tim, I am an Italian catholic, new to this board and with little time to spend here. Everyone please excuse my poor english. And you Tim, please excuse my harsh style. I want to stress my respect for you. It is out of respect that I’m trying to help you understand what follows.Apparently you are writing here more than all the others put together, this makes difficult to respond thoroughly. A sum of partial answers may give you a sense of false security, since you are playing hide-and-seek with the concepts and no one can give you a complete demonstration, all-in-one, of the lack of merit of all your assertions. So, as a general example, it happens that while talking with someone about what is the real Church, you rely on sola scriptura; then, while debating, maybe with someone else, about sola scriptura, you rely on your particular vision of the Church.
This is a common mind trap; everyone should be aware of the danger of judging a system of thought taking for granted what the system implies. It seems that you never try to think using someone else's head. Of course in your mindset what the catholics believe is silly! If you want to test their credibility, you NEED to tentatively deny validity to EVERY specifically protestant tenet, at the same time. Please try to think for a while as someone who doesn't believe in sola scriptura. It all boils down to this!
I’m asking you not to react as if we were failing at proving something while simply describing a situation, because trying to give you a complete dissertation about the reasons of every idea touched is far beyond the limits of an internet thread. For instance, if I say: ”Historically, the Church has acted in this way...”, you can’t declare you the winner by: “How can you prove this??” as if you had unmasked an unsubstantiated lie; instead, a judgement about such a broad issue requires you to try to understand Church history using a catholic point of view, so it is not matter of a two lines answer, but of years of what I can call “objectivity training”, observation and evaluation. Well, if you want to underline and discuss a topic, there can also be a two lines answer; but to make it able to convince you is out of human capabilities, even if the argument is strikingly well founded. And, to avoid an obvious objection: yes, it is not out of the Holy Spirit capabilities, but you must remember that God wants us to accept Him, not to be blind servants. So, He can do anything, but if you don’t want to hear the true Holy Spirit, He surely won’t change your mind.
That’s also why there can’t be an invisible church made of people who sincerely want the Holy Spirit to guide them personally in the discovery of the meaning of the Scriptures: God could change your mind, but He doesn’t want to, hence the impossibility, for you, to ascertain if your faith is 100%, 80%, 37%, 2% Gospel Compliant. Your holiest thoughts MAY be divinely inspired, OR they MAY come from your sinful human nature, but fought by the Holy Spirit only by means of a proposal: YOU can deliberately change your mind, and embrace another view of christianity. God won't make this in your place.
“Luckily”, He gave us a way to stay tuned with his original message, and rest assured... sometimes, the better answer is the most obvious: the Church which traces back to the Apostles, as the other posters continue to tell you, apparently with no reaction whatsoever. It is so simple: Jesus created a Church, and this Church, as promised by Him, continued through history to preach the Gospel. How desperate are the tortuous attempts to deny this reality, because one, being a protestant, thinks this HAS NOT to be true!
I'll give a comment only on a particular topic you touched, since the other guys here are more expert than I am, and they are doing a good job.
---- But, first, let me explain why I have said that I am Italian. I meant to stress that, even being a quite uncommon one, at least for geographical reasons I'm not used to talk with protestants (if we except those Jeovah Witnesses that protestantsism itself felt compelled to declare out of the Christian faith, thus indirectly acnowledging that indeed there is a need of an authority deciding what defines Christianity). For instance, it took me some time to accept the mere fact that there were people debating over such things like the KJV-only issue! Here we can see another bias, and this you share with the other posters, even the catholic ones: being accustomed to some lines of thought, you can’t appreciate how fool they appear to someone who discovers them for the first time, via the www. In the case of the KJV only, I had to gulp the discovery that there were people applying the same naive attitude the muslims have towards the Quran, to a particular English translation of the Bible... an untouchable book, perfect in every word, without error... this is a substitute for Jesus, in Islam, but what about you? Don’t you understand that even the original Bible wouldn’t deserve such an attitude, and you chose a TRANSLATION (!) that achieves the difficult task of being both very old, nowadays unreliable, and at the same time very distant from the Apostolic times? But what amazes me the most is the arrogant blindness of someone who thinks that the anglosaxon world, and in particular the USA, is all that matters, so you can entitle your language the right of being The Chosen: a sacred language, indeed, as is classic Arabic for the muslims. God didn’t want the original Bible to be written in a single language, translations being necessary. But then... then came... drum roll... the KING OF ENGLAND! He deserved to obtain from God and build, only then, the REAL basis of Christian faith! An inerrant, perfect Bible, let all those frenchmen-spaniards-and-so-on learn English, if they want to know the real Jesus!
Even knowing of this odd KJV issue, and even if I arrived here via a search of the then-discovered Ian Paisley (poor bloke!), it seems I wasn’t really prepared, for when I read in your posts those delirious thoughts about rejecting egyptian manuscripts, I paused a bit and I seriously considered the possibility of you being not real, but only a mock-protestant invented by some imaginative, humorous catholic. Then I decided that, being human nature what it is, you must be real.
I hope I have not irritated you too much, since this was not my intention. Instead, I wanted you to come in touch with reality. That is, those who are not accustomed to your tenets, at first can’t believe there are groups upholding such incredibilia.
Another note about protestant eccentricities: it amazes me how often you resort to some kind of “magic formulas”. That is, phrases or words that are obsessively repeated, with great emphasis, as if this was to give them authority. For instance, your use of “Born Again Believer”, with capital letters, and positioned in the phrases as if it could convey such a special meaning. Uuuhhh, what the heck! Born Again. Let’s repeat it a few times: Born Again. Born Again. Born Again. Born Again. Marvelous! I’m in Heaven! ---- Well, quite lengthy a digression... And I said that you write more than the others! This is becoming a huge text... ehm...
So, here’s my original thought about the single topic I chose.
The development of the teaching of the Church: you are using it to prove that indeed we are changing our beliefs, so there's no God- given authority, only human whims and personal ideas of those who impose them on the flock.
When you refer to the Council of Trent you seem to be unaware of, or unwilling to acknowledge, the fact that no new teaching was introduced at the time; simply, they had to authoritatively assert what was part of the depositum fidei, but hadn’t been sanctioned because none before had tried to challenge the Church based on a different interpretation. Heretics help the Church in better defining the True Faith: they choose a particular set of dogmas, incompatible with the correct interpretation of the Bible, and so they help clarifying those points, with authentic catholic dogmas.
For instance, the principle that the correct interpretation of the Bible can’t be a matter of private judgement wasn’t a concept needing a tying declaration (but there was for instance 2Pt 1,20), till someone, with the so-called Reform, decided to use the Holy Book as a pedestal for manly opinions. Or, the Canon of the Bible was declared at that time because none had challenged it before.
Of course there are concepts receiving a clarification which is more than simply asserting with authority what was already known by all. Like celibacy. In this case, we clearly see an evolution. But of a truly particular kind. We have the gradual strengthening of the concept, which is contrasted, particularly at the beginning, by the faulty human nature of people in the Church. Some priests, for centuries, were expected to be celibate, but they failed. Then celibacy became unavoidable. The arrival point is clearly the most demanding, tending to holiness. Like a boy needs to have newer and tougher goals to achieve, as he grows.
To check if a church at a given time is evolving towards the full understanding and application of the original message, or instead changing due to external influences, we must compare its ideas with those popular in the same years. The Catholic Church reacts to the errors of the time preaching things not easily acceptable by the laymen, but 1.stimulating spiritual and societal growth, 2.in line with the Gospel, and 3.never contrary to what she taught before; instead, protestant denominations tend to acquire the point of view of the laity, of the World, changing positions every time the wind of history changes. This is undeniable.
I have another interesting argument about the development of teaching, but enough for now.
Sia lodato Gesù Cristo.
Alessandro.
-- Alessandro Grasso (alegenoa@tiscalinet.it), December 17, 2002.
Dear Alessandro Grasso,And you say I write a lot. lol! I probably write more because [1] I usually include Scripture and [2] I sometimes don't feel like I have explained myself enough for others to understand what I am trying to say.
It is good that someone from the outside [of the forum I mean] has looked in to critque me. I am far from perfect, and this helps me see what others see when they view my posts.
Let me just comment on a few of your points:
--
"That’s also why there can’t be an invisible church made of people who sincerely want the Holy Spirit to guide them personally in the discovery of the meaning of the Scriptures: God could change your mind, but He doesn’t want to, hence the impossibility, for you, to ascertain if your faith is 100%, 80%, 37%, 2% Gospel Compliant."
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
--
"the Church which traces back to the Apostles, as the other posters continue to tell you, apparently with no reaction whatsoever."
Which church, the West or the East?
--
"In the case of the KJV only, I had to gulp the discovery that there were people applying the same naive attitude the muslims have towards the Quran, to a particular English translation of the Bible... an untouchable book, perfect in every word, without error... this is a substitute for Jesus, in Islam, but what about you?"
What about the Catholics choosing the Latin Vulgate ABOVE all?
--
"But what amazes me the most is the arrogant blindness of someone who thinks that the anglosaxon world, and in particular the USA, is all that matters, so you can entitle your language the right of being The Chosen: a sacred language, indeed, as is classic Arabic for the muslims."
The Catholics chose Latin and NO other language?
--
"God didn’t want the original Bible to be written in a single language, translations being necessary."
What was the language of the Old Testament?
What was the language of the New Testament?
God has always had his Word in the language that is mostly used. English is mostly used today. But, of course it is good to have the Word of God in every known tongue. Who would denie this?
--
"That is, phrases or words that are obsessively repeated, with great emphasis, as if this was to give them authority."
Kind of like the Rosary?
A lot of people use Biblical words out of the original meaning, such as Born Again, Christian, Believer, Saved, etc.
--
"Heretics help the Church in better defining the True Faith: they choose a particular set of dogmas, incompatible with the correct interpretation of the Bible, and so they help clarifying those points, with authentic catholic dogmas. "
"Heretics help the Church in better defining the True Faith" - that is correct!
But Catholics use writings and tradition over Scripture, because most of the stuff isn't covered in Scripture - so we hear the same old song and dance [not everything that Jesus taught is in the Scripture, but we have the original writings from the Apostles].
--
Let me leave you with this last point of yours,
"For instance, the principle that the correct interpretation of the Bible can’t be a matter of private judgement wasn’t a concept needing a tying declaration (but there was for instance 2Pt 1,20), till someone, with the so-called Reform, decided to use the Holy Book as a pedestal for manly opinions. "
When it comes to salvation, the Reform believed GRACE ALONE - NOT ANY ACTION OF MAN, yet the Catholics believe in grace + this + this + this + etc...
Now, you tell me which is using "the Holy Book as a pedestal for manly opinions."
God Bless!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.
Tim, I can't believe my eyes! You said, "When it comes to salvation, the Reform believed GRACE ALONE - NOT ANY ACTION OF MAN, yet the Catholics believe in grace + this + this + this + etc." LOL! Pardon me while I pick myself up off of the floor!You chastised me on another thread for saying it is "God's grace alone." You even said, "Now, Gail, you don't really believe that now, do you?"
Now, you have turned a 190. You are completely impossible to pin down. I don't think you know what you believe. You simply LOVE to argue and it doesn't matter which side you take. You truly would argue with a fence post!
Let me say it again, we are saved by God's grace alone, through an active, living, obedient faith in Christ Jesus! It doesn't get any simpler than that. That is the Catholic position in a nutshell. It is ENTIRELY scriptural, and YOU KNOW IT!
Over and out,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2002.
Tim, My friend:Heb 13:20, ''Now the God of peace''
Is from an epistle written in the Catholic Church, by a Catholic apostle, to the Catholic faithful. --The Catholic Church selected the epistles of Saint Paul --and the first Pope Saint Peter's as well; and included them in the Canon of the Holy Bible. It was after almost 1,700 years that a Baptist finally got to read them, and this is thanks to our Catholic saints!
-- Yes, you are quoting Catholics to try to uphold heretical doctrines of your Baptist faith! Don't imagine for a moment Mr. Grasso isn't well aware of this. I think he did extremely well showing you how badly your exegesis lacks a foundation.
Benvenuto Signor Grasso, al suo foro Catolico nel America! Gracie por la sua contribuzzione! --Forgive my poor Italian. Tonight I'll drink a Negroni to your health! Ha!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 17, 2002.
Gail,"You chastised me on another thread for saying it is "God's grace alone." You even said, "Now, Gail, you don't really believe that now, do you?""
Then if I haven't claimed this from the beginning, then what have I claimed. By faith alone? It is the same. For the grace of God gave us the faith.
The reason I wrote "Now, Gail, you don't really believe that now, do you?" is because although you claim grace alone, you do not really believe that is ALL one needs to go to Heaven. You can't say you do or you denie all of the Catholic teachings of the sacraments.
If it is by faith [or God's grace] alone - sacraments ARE NOT NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. True I believe that a true Believer will obey God and perform good works - it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ONE GOES TO HEAVEN OR HELL. The BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST satisfied that price ALONE.
After all the debates we shared on this issue, how can you write "Now, you have turned a 190."?
I have always believed this, just without all the extras that Catholics believe we must also do - or at least have the "desire" to do.
Good night.
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 17, 2002.
Tim,
Never has ignorance been so stubborn. Grace is channelled into our souls through sacraments initiated by Christ as His personal commands to the apostles. We live sacramentally off His bloody sacrifice on Calvary-- by the holy sacraments. You don't find grace on any street-corner. That happens only in the imaginations of your revival tent ministers. They know nothing about grace; and you can't learn it from scripture because you can't understand. Your ancestors knew; they were all Catholic.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.
Tim, you failed to give an answer to the most part of what I said. And the answers you gave...>>"the Church which traces back to the Apostles, as the other posters continue to tell you, apparently with no reaction whatsoever." <<
>Which church, the West or the East? <
(It ain’t be yours anyway! Well, except if you change...) The fact that in 1054 in Eastern Europe, due to political reasons, people chose to lose unity even in religion (and we shall observe the fruits!), creating a number of quarrelsome local churches, separating themselves from the one Church, has little to do with what we were dealing with. It’s only another example of what happens when the spirit of division prevails, and you separate yourself from Christ’s Church. Of course the Orthodox Church is “less separated”, at least theologically; but this is another problem on your part.
>>"In the case of the KJV only, I had to gulp the discovery that there were people applying the same naive attitude the muslims have towards the Quran, to a particular English translation of the Bible... an untouchable book, perfect in every word, without error... this is a substitute for Jesus, in Islam, but what about you?" <<
>What about the Catholics choosing the Latin Vulgate ABOVE all? <
You completely missed the point. The attitude towards the Quran is a substitute for the adoration of Jesus. So it’s silly to act the same way when you are a christian, dealing with a translation. You can’t equate this attitude towards the KJV, today, with the decision to use the Vulgate. In the latter case, Latin was the only cultural language (actually, for centuries it was the everyday language), and they absolutely needed a trustworthy intelligible version, while there were lesser and lesser scholars able to translate from the originals. But nowadays, papyrology and exegesis are way developed. So, choosing to use the Vulgate in the past, and not to use the KJV, now, are both decisions based on the same principle of sound scholarship.
>>"God didn’t want the original Bible to be written in a single language, translations being necessary." <<
>What was the language of the Old Testament? What was the language of the New Testament? <
TWO different languages!
>God has always had his Word in the language that is mostly used. English is mostly used today.<
No. God has purportedly had his Word, if we except a brief initial period of time, in dead languages, so people HAD to rely on someone teaching them what was actually written there!
>But, of course it is good to have the Word of God in every known tongue. Who would denie this?<
You, because, in a KJV-only vision, I, being an Italian, either am denied the true Word, or have to learn ancient English!
>>"That is, phrases or words that are obsessively repeated, with great emphasis, as if this was to give them authority."<<
>Kind of like the Rosary? <
Don’t be silly. The Rosary is about focusing your mind in PRAYER. Repetition is powerful in creating a particular state of mind. Here instead we are dealing with an obsessive resorting to “magic words” while REASONING. But it seems that on this particular point, you developed a true blindness. You simply don’t get it.
>But Catholics use writings and tradition over Scripture, because most of the stuff isn't covered in Scripture - so we hear the same old song and dance [not everything that Jesus taught is in the Scripture, but we have the original writings from the Apostles]. <
This is funny. You continuously ignore an argument, others try to catch your attention again and again, with no result; then it becomes in your eyes a tedious, repetitive litany, so it’s dismissed for this reason.
Two considerations: 1. you refer always to writings, as if this was the point. Again, the protestant are mimicking Islam. One of the main differences between Christ and Muhammad is the foundational act. What caused the birth of Islam? The fact that the “Prophet” recited a Book. What caused the birth of Christendom? The fact that Jesus created a Church. And He did so by choosing a leadership group, no less! (Then, the community of Islam, and the Book of Christians, came as a mere consequence.) Of course, you can’t appreciate this monumental difference if you don’t REALLY try to be objective. 2. When you say that Catholics use tradition over Scripture, you are applying the protestant vision you are trying to demonstrate is valid! This is the bias I warned you against last time. You simply don’t want to admit that the contrast between Tradition and Scripture is created in your mind, based on protestant interpretation. I could as well say that the Reformed use Protestant interpretation over Scripture!
>When it comes to salvation, the Reform believed GRACE ALONE - NOT ANY ACTION OF MAN, yet the Catholics believe in grace + this + this + this + etc... Now, you tell me which is using "the Holy Book as a pedestal for manly opinions."<
My point was about a general problem. Let’s compare heresy with sickness: epidemiologically, that is, without going into theoretical explanation, we can observe the diffusion of a wide range of different protestant beliefs. This is already a proof of their being based on human opinions. The question is settled. You don’t need any other proof. As the epidemiology told scientists that smoking causes cancer, even years before they were able to understand how. It is the undeniable effect we notice in the general population.
Then , if we go into etiology, that is, the study of what causes the sickness, we can clearly see that saying that the Bible is to be examined and understood individually, obviously exposes the Scriptures to personal, questionable and changeable opinions. Come on! Even an 8yrs old could understand that! Problem is, you can’t admit it.
You are desperately trying to ignore these two compelling arguments, each one being sufficient, and go into microbiology, that is, studying in detail a particular biological mechanism involved in the sickness. And you brought in the “grace alone” quarrel. Again, I see clearly the use of the “magic word” attitude here.
Fine, let’s talk about it. Grace doesn’t operate in a vacuum. And God requires you to cooperate, even if it is clear that your cooperation is useless by itself, because it can do nothing to save you. One of the riches of our Faith (sadly usually overlooked in protestantism) is the concept of love “the family way” (God as a Father...). So let’s use an analogy from this context. If you are a child desperately “needing” the last videogame for Christmas, you know you have to eat all the vegetables, do your homework, respect others, obey your parents etc. This way, they buy you that videogame. And they’ll do it even if you haven’t been a very good boy, because they love you. But they may punish you, if appropriate. Of course you won’t ever obtain a videogame eating vegetables and attending diligently school, even in 1000 years! See the analogy?
And now, for the sweetest part: dulcis in fundo.
In Italy we have a saying: “Darsi la zappa sui piedi”, which can be translated “Hitting one’s own feet with the hoe” (my dictionary suggests: “To cut one’s own throat”)
>>"That’s also why there can’t be an invisible church made of people who sincerely want the Holy Spirit to guide them personally in the interpretation of the Scriptures<<
>Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. <
Your answer with the citation at first seems “only” without merit: after all, Paul is invoking the action of God on those who read the letter; this is a QUITE different thing from being this perfecting action assured! Rather, the fact that he is invoking shows clearly that this may not be the case, and, even if they read his letter, they may anyway lose God’s help!!! Notice the verse doesn’t say “...makes you perfect” but literally “May He make you perfect”. A prayer, a blessing are never a Spirit-O-Matic. With this, your citation has already retorted against protestantism.
One may wonder: how can I know, then, if I am in the right path, following the Holy Spirit, giving him the permission to work in me? The answer, an undoubtedly catholic one, can be found, among others, in the very chapter you cited! Here comes my sincere amazement (amusement) for the way Non-Catholics use to cite the Bible: I would like to see directly it happen, to understand how they can perform such a difficult task, of taking a passage out of context to the point that their thesis, which was already far-fetched if considering only the cited text, is clearly contradicted a few verses away! A remarkable blindness, indeed.
The very following verse: Heb 13:22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.
Here clearly he states the they need to follow these words as if they were a weight to bear, a cause of suffering; not really an assurance that it is sufficient to declare they are Born Again to obtain an automatic Holy Spirit perfecting action in them! Instead, he uses twice in a few words the concept of exhortation: for he is truly concerned that they REALLY live according to these words.
I understand this verse can be twisted to maintain protestant tenets, essentially minimizing it. But another compelling citation lies near: Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.
Clear as the sunlight!
To avoid possible, ridiculous interpretations about political rulers (a sad reality in protestantism, religion serving the state), there’s a verse which clarifies of whom he is speaking: Heb 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.
Well, indeed another verse about following the Church rulers...
Then we have: Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
This verse is not important by itself, ‘cause it would be unnecessary to stress the concept. It becomes important in this context, for the connection with the exhortation to follow the faith of those who have the duty of ruling: this underlines the central truth preached by the rulers, which is Christ: always Him, always the same. Here we have a reference to continuity!
And notice also the juxtaposition with the following verse. Heb 13:9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For [it is] a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.
The meaning is clear. Those who gave you the Gospels guide you towards the only Jesus Christ, in any age of history. They are your rulers and you must obey them. Lest you risk being led astray by false prophets...
Indeed, Paul was a Catholic.
Sia lodato Gesù Cristo.
Alessandro.
-- Alessandro Grasso (alegenoa@tiscalinet.it), December 18, 2002.
Dearest Tim, you wrote,"Then if I haven't claimed this from the beginning, then what have I claimed. By faith alone? It is the same. For the grace of God gave us the faith," Are you now saying that faith and grace are one in the same thing? Surely, surely not!
Tim, with all due respect, to agree with Martin Luther's salvation formula is counter to the clear and cogent meaning of scripture. We are NOT saved by faith alone, in and of itself, with no cooperation necessary on our part. That is ludicrous! And it completely opposes James. The only way you can agree with Luther is by twisting and churning the scriptures, ever pouring new meanings into the words to make them fit your theology. What A WASTE OF TIME! And HOW EXHAUSTING! And for what reason -- just so you can say 'them Catholics are wrong.'
Eugene, I do have to disagree with you. Yes, God does give us the sacraments to obtain grace, but His grace is poured out on any to ask for it, Protestant or Catholic. Anyone who is willing to bend the knee to our precious Lord and Savior, Jesus.
I love His Grace,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2002.
Gail,
For purposes of the discussion, it's OK to point out the superabundance of Christ's merits; passed on to each one of us by sacramental channels in GRACE, sanctifying grace. The sacrament of Penance, for one; restores it after a sinner has squandered the grace of his/her baptism. Grace is not applicable just because we believe; it is ours as the Church's wealth in Christ's graces.Even an apostate kneeling in private to implore God's forgiveness will only receive new grace out of the Church's stores. This is the only source in the world, by Christ's own provision.
The blood and water which poured forth from the pierced Heart of Jesus on the cross have been called figures of this treasure given to His Holy Church.
This is one of the reasons a doctrine of indulgences for our holy souls in Purgatory is conceived under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the same holy, inexhaustible source by which the seven sacraments make sanctifying grace available to the believer. All in and through One Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church. Not just out of a vacuum, as Alessandro has perfectly stated.
Signor Grassi; your beautifully expressed posting in reply to our friend Tim gives me the feeling you're a religious. Nothing quite that formidable has ever appeared in this forum. You didn't paste it, either, from my impression. Thank you; and please remain in touch.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.
Thanks, Eugene, that really makes sense, and I echo your sentiments on Signor Grassi. Hope he sticks around for awhile!Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 18, 2002.