The Good, The Bad, The Ugly: What About Martin Luther?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

I would like a thread discussing everything we need to know about Martin Luther and his contribution to Christianity during and after his time.

Much credit is given to him for the chain reaction or domino effect, but I wonder if he was merely a spark that set-off the great explosion of social change, the social change that was only inevitable.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 16, 2003

Answers

No. I haven't seen the movie--"Luther"--that receive two thumbs down, but has high marks by some religious leaders. I'll wait for the DVD to come out. I figure it is a must buy movie; all sides should be studied.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 16, 2003.


Luther's 95 Thesis.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


Im ages of Luther



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


Heavy on the Luther information link.



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


Rod I sent you an e-mail about the book you asked: The Trial of Luther.

Luther was a Doctor in Theology.

His command of the Bible was very good. He had disputations with Eck, Cajetan, the Emperor Maximilian and the Emperor Charles V.

It was Charles V who gave him only 21 days safeconduct. After that anyone should kill him, apprehend him, don't give him food, no shelter...This was in 1521.

The Church never gave him an answer for his questions on some of the 95 theses.

A year after he died, as told in the Book, the Emperor entered Luther's tomb, yet did not disturb it. It was traditional then to dig the body and burn it. I think the Emperor finally saw the light. He abdicated and joined a monastery.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.



Hi Elpidio.

Thanks for the email. Some of the subject matter has been revealed to me in some of my books, but the evidence in those books were very speculative and skimpy. The information that you provided is very hard hitting and reasonable. But, of course, I must spend more time investigating those points you've shown. Good info!

Have you considered making a new thread with the "sheva" subject? Well, it may prove too much for this forum, on second thought.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


You are welcome , Rod.

I don't believe Jesus was married, but anything is possible.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 17, 2003.


THE ROCK ~ THE 2000 YEAR OLD MOST HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH SAYS :

THE DOCTRINE OF SOLA SCRIPTURA HAD ITS SOURCE IN LUTHER'S SEVERE EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS

If anything at all can be said with certainty about Martin Luther, it is that he was DEEPLY AND CHRONICALLY TROUBLED by a combination of DOUBTS and DESPAIR about his salvation and SENSE OF UTTER IMPOTENCE in the face of temptation and sin. Luther himself notes, "My spirit was completely broken and I was always in a state of melancholy; for, do what I would, my 'righteousness' and my 'good works' brought me no help or consolation."

In light of this reality, one must asess Luther's psychological and emotional frame of mind in terms of their impact on the origins of his Sola Scriptura doctrine. Even a cursory examination will demonstrate that this doctrine was born out of Luther's need to be free from the GUILT FEELINGS, DESPAIR, and TEMPTATION which "tortured" him.

Considering that Luther himself admits to an OBSESSIVE concern with his own sinfulness, as well as an INABILITY to resist temptation, it seems reasonable to conclude that he suffered from SCRUPULOSITY, and even Lutheran scholars will admit to this. Scrupulosity means that a person is overly anxious about having committed sins when there is no real basis for such anxiety, and a scrupulous person is one who often exaggerates the severity of his perceived sinfulness, with a corresponding lack of trust in God. It is also relevant to note that scrupulosity "often seems to be based on some psychological dysfunction in the person."

In other words, Luther probably never had a moment of emotional or psychological peace, since the voice of "conscience" always pricked him about some matter, real or imagined. It would be quite natural for SOMEONE SO PLAGUED to seek refuge from that voice, and for Luther that refuge was found in the doctrine of Sola Fide, or salvation by "faith alone."

But since the avoidance of sin as well as the performance of good works are necessary components to salvation, and since these facts were steadfastly taught and defended by the Catholic Church, Luther found himself diametrically opposed to the teaching authority of The Church. Because The Church asserted the necessity of doing exactly what he felt incapable of doing, Luther made a DRASTIC decision ~ one which "solved" his scrupulosity problem: he REJECTED the Teaching Authority of The Church, embodied in the Magisterium with the Pope at its head, and claimed that such was contrary to the Bible. In other words, by claiming Sola Scriptura to be true Christan doctrine, Luther dismissed that Authority which compelled him to recognize that his own spirituality was DYSFUNCTIONAL. ~ Joel Peters



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


Sola Scriptura: A Response to a Catholic Writer.

by Wayne Jackson Christian Courier

The expression "sola scriptura" is a Latin term that reflects the affirmation that the "Scriptures alone" constitute the source of sacred revelation for the Christian age. A well-known Roman Catholic spokesman disputes this proposition.

This article responds to his arguments.

There are at least three serious ERRORS ? advocated by the prevailing authorities of the Roman Catholic Church ? that pertain to the nature of the Scriptures.

First, it is contended that the sixty-six books of our common Bibles do not contain the whole of the collection of divine writings. Hence, Catholic Bibles are appended with several extra books ? known as the Apocrypha.

However, the TRUTH is, these supplementary books were NOT a part of the original Hebrew Bible. Moreover, they were NEVER sanctioned by Christ, NOR by the inspired New Testament writers.

Finally, they DO NOT bear the marks of inspiration that would be expected of a divine document; they thus are to be REJECTED!!!

Second, Catholic authorities ALLEGE that the common person cannot understand the Word of God. There needs to be, therefore, a "clergy" to instruct the "lay" person in terms of what he is to believe and practice. This concept likewise is VOID OF JUSTIFICATION.

Paul instructed the Christians in Ephesus to "be not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17). The apostle told those saints that, by reading his words, they COULD UNDERSTAND those matters pertaining to Christ (Eph. 3:3-4).

Additionally, the FACT that the New Testament epistles were written to ORDINARY CHRISTIANS ? NOT to an upper-strata clergy, is, on the face of it, evidence AGAINST the papal theory.

Third, Catholicism CONTENDS that the canonical Scriptures were never intended to be the final body of authority in determining God's truth for humanity. Rather, it is argued, "the Bible is not the only source of faith ... but is a dead letter ...." Supposedly, this means that the "tradition of the Church," as such has been made known across the centuries through the councils and papal voices of the Roman institution, has been divinely intended to supplement the Scriptures.

Allegedly, then, religious dogma evolves over the years by means of an expanding body of revealed truth. It is to this third proposition that we direct a sharper focus in this brief essay. The allegation that the sixty-six books of Scripture are an incomplete source of divine instruction, stands in STARK CONTRADICTION to the testimony of an inspired apostle. In a letter to Timothy, Paul wrote. "Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Several terms in this passage warrant amplification.

What is "Scripture"?

"Scripture" renders the original word graphe, found about 51 times in the Greek New Testament. The term ALWAYS refers to a sacred writing. Most commonly it denotes the holy writings of the Old Testament, but the absence of a Greek article in conjunction with graphe in this passage "leaves room for other writings that have a right to be called divinely inspired Scriptures".

Without question, the term "scripture" embraces both Old and New Testaments. See 1 Timothy 5:18 and in 2 Peter 3:16 where the term is used comprehensively of both Testaments.

The Purpose of "Scripture". The Scriptures are described as having been intended to make the "man [person] of God complete," and "furnished completely" for the accomplishment of "every good work." The two terms "complete" (artios) and "furnished completely" (exartizo ? an intensified verbal form of the previous word) suggest the idea of that which is "well fitted for some function, complete, capable, proficient," the equivalent of, "able to meet all demands". The compound form, exartizo, carries two ideas, "to finish" or "complete" (cf. Acts 21:5), and to "connect perfectly, fit to perfection".

The point we are making relative to the matter at hand is this: If the Scriptures are capable of making a person complete, and furnishing him completely for every righteous activity, then it CANNOT be argued that the Bible is but a "dead letter," inadequate for one's religious instruction. It must NOT be contended that the "voice of the church" is imperative, both traditionally and currently, to complete the Christian's source of knowledge.

Sola Scriptura?

That brings us to this matter. A reader recently asked that we comment on an article titled, "The Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura," by James Akin. Mr. Akin identifies himself as the "Senior Apologist," for Catholic Answers. The gentleman disputes the proposition that all matters pertaining to the "faith and practice" of the Christian system must be derived from the Scriptures alone. Similarly, Akin (who converted to Catholicism some ten years ago, and wrote the essay referenced above only four years following his attachment to the Roman Church), denies that the individual Christian has the right of "private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures." In his ambitious effort to disprove the principle of sola scriptura (only the Scriptures), Mr. Akin offers seven points that he believes establish the validity of "Tradition" authority, or what also is called "Magisterium" (teaching authority), as opposed to the exclusive authority of the Scriptures.

Incredibly, in the gentleman's essay there is NOT a solitary appeal to the Bible. Rather, the argument is based altogether upon factors which, it is contended, from the very nature of the case, negate the concept of sola scriptura. In summary fashion, here are his seven points, along with our response.

1. Most Christians had no access to the Scriptures before the invention of the printing press, hence, the idea of sola scriptura cannot obtain where there is no widespread availability of the New Testament documents.

Just because gospel teaching was not circulated originally, in the precise format in which the Scriptures now exist, constitutes no argument at all to negate the undisputed fact that in those early centuries multiplied thousands of people became Christians, grew in the faith, and died with the hope of heaven, upon the basis of the simple gospel message. And all of this was achieved without the alleged interpretative skills or authority of popes, cardinals, arch-bishops, synods, or human credos ? which conglomeration, in fact, did not exist for centuries following the establishment of primitive Christianity. One must also remember that in earlier times, when printed materials were not so readily available, people relied upon the memory faculty of the human mind much more than is the case today. Sufficient gospel truth for redemption, therefore, was spread abroad ? even before the New Testament records were completed. As the New Testament documents were produced, and began to be circulated, numerous copies were made, and vast quantities of those were committed to memory. To suggest, then, that the pattern for New Testament belief and practice was unknown in those early ages is to contradict known historical facts. But reflect upon on the following data which suggest a widespread distribution of the Scriptures.

Polycarp, who lived in Smyrna (Asia Minor) around A.D. 70-155/60, in his small epistle to the Philippians, quoted from, or alluded to, no fewer than thirteen of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament.

Origen (A.D. c. 185-254), whose work was done principally in Alexandria and Caesarea, produced hundreds of writings pertaining to the Bible. In his various works there are more than 5,700 quotations from the New Testament.

Tertullian (A.D. c. 160-220), who lived in Africa, quoted the New Testament more than 3,000 times in his various writings. This sort of evidence could be multiplied many times over. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost textual critics of our time, has observed that the New Testament quotations from the "church fathers" are so extensive that if the New Testament were destroyed entirely, it could be reconstructed from these sources alone (Metzger, 86).

Even more dramatic than the above is the fact that even infidel writers (e.g., Celsus ? mid-second century, and Porphyry ? early fourth century) quoted profusely from the Scriptures in their vain attempts to discredit Christianity. How did they come to have access to the sacred writings if these documents were so scarce and so expensive in those days, as to be beyond the grasp of almost everyone?

The truth is, the early Christians copied the Scriptures extensively, and translated them into many different languages (in an age when literary translation was extremely rare). This constitutes powerful evidence for the reality that the biblical documents were perceived by the early saints as divine entitlements for the masses, and not merely a deposit to be hoarded by a select clerical elite who then would convey "official dogma" to the people.

2. Even when the Bible became available, copies were so expensive that few could afford them.

This assertion is answered by the data chronicled above.

3. In those early days, few could read; and so the Scriptures alone would do them little good. The voice of the Church thus was needed additionally.

This argument is seriously flawed ? both logically and historically. The fact that one may not be able to read does not mean he cannot be taught the gospel by trustworthy people. Many who are not literate technically have obeyed gospel truth and enjoyed the benefits of salvation.

The objection which our "senior apologist" friend makes in this regard could be lodged against his own position. How would an illiterate Catholic learn of the official dogma of the Roman clergy if he is unable to read his catechism? And how would the "voice" of the papacy be "heard" by the masses in those times when there were no media outlets of rapid and universal communication?

It is quite incorrect to imply that the masses of people generally have been unable to read. An archaeological artifact, the Gezer Calendar, which dates from the tenth century before Christ, is a schoolboy's exercise. It demonstrates that reading and writing were a part of ancient Israel's culture, even among the youth.

The fact is, archaeology has demonstrated the existence of schools going back at least 2,500 before the birth of Christ. Archaeological and literary evidence have shown than in first-century Palestine most folks were conversant with three languages ? Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Even Jesus could read and write (Lk. 4:16ff; Jn. 7:15; 8:6, 8), though He was raised in a very impoverished family environment (cf. Lk. 2:24, with reference to the "poor" offering; see also 2 Cor. 8:9) and, early-on followed the trade of a carpenter (Mk. 6:3). Peter and John, who were only humble fishermen ? not scholastics (see Acts 4:13), could read and write ? as demonstrated by their respective contributions to the New Testament collection. The "illiterate" argument is much ado about nothing.

4. Unlearned people do not have access to "scholarly" sources, thus whatever knowledge they have is most likely flawed.

By the same token, a Catholic "lay" person could hardly know of the reliability of the dogma received from their clergy. They have no access to the countless volumes of decisions that have been handed down from the various Councils. How could they possibly assess the numerous controversies that have raged across the centuries in the very bosom of the Roman Church itself?

The truth is, however, one does NOT need to have "scholarly" sources to ascertain God's plan of redemption and submit thereto. An honest consultation of the New Testament provides adequate information for instruction regarding how to obtain salvation, the fundamentals of church government, worship procedure, godly living, and such like.

While grammatical and historical minutia may be of value in honing the finer points of doctrine, it is not essential to attaining heaven.

5. Hardworking folks have little time for study, and so they need someone to tell them what to believe.

It requires no more time to study the New Testament than it does to peruse a catechism or listen to a priest recite dogma from some pope or council. Such a line of argumentation is embarrassingly impotent.

6. Through much of Christian history, people have had improper diets. This lack of nutrition resulted in their brains being unable to function critically. Hence, they could not draw rational deductions from studying the Bible alone.

This argument, quite frankly, is PATHETIC. If it applies to those who desire to study the Scriptures, but cannot think clearly because of unnourished brains, it applies equally to the instruction received from the Catholic clergy.

Why, pray tell, would it be more difficult to comprehend the teaching of the inspired New Testament writers, than it would be to ingest the teachings of uninspired Roman Catholic instructors? However, if Mr. Akin's argument has any merit, might it not explain why Catholicism has made its greatest inroads in the most impoverished nations of the world?

7. Since a high level of critical skill is necessary for interpreting the Scriptures, and, as most folks do not possess such skill, common sense would dictate that Church officials do their thinking for them.

This final quibble is in the same vein as the previous three, and responses to those matters need not be reiterated here. We would conclude this discussion with a reference to George Salmon's masterful volume, The Infallibility of the Church ? a book so powerful in its exposure of Catholic claims, that it has never been answered by papal apologists. In fact, noted Catholic scholar P.J. Toner, who authored the article on "Infallibility" in the Catholic Encyclopedia, described Salmon's work as "the cleverest modern attack on the Catholic position" of this issue.

"Cleverest" is an understatement; it is a devastating exposure of Catholic propaganda relative to the "authority" of the Roman Church.

Salmon points out that it is an UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACT that as the Roman ecclesiastical system evolved, the time came when Catholic clerics surrendered the idea that the doctrine and practice of the Roman Church could be defended by the Scriptures. Hence, by default, the notion arose that "the Bible does not contain the whole of God's revelation, and that a body of traditional doctrine existed in the Church equally deserving of veneration" (Salmon, 28). This is precisely the point that we made earlier, in noting Mr. Akin's total absence of scriptural argumentation.

Ambitiously-driven lusts for release from the authority of the Holy Scriptures has given birth to numerous heretical claims of special revelation from God. Sola Scriptura remains as the VALID procedure for pursuing the Mind of the Lord.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 20, 2003.


"Sola Scriptura remains as the VALID procedure for pursuing the Mind of the Lord. "

Bull, barf, and baloney!

"Sola Scriptura" remains as the most confused system of worship of the Bible and forgets the real Word as the only reason of worship.

"Sola Scriptura" reamains as the most damaging form of destroying the meaning of God's Word by splintering it into the thousands of differing doctrines as evident by the multitudes of denominations.

You can't walk into a Pentecostal church today and expect to hear one doctrine constistent with the next Pentecostal church. Every Protestant "Sola Scriptura" thumping church is teaching conflictintg doctrines. Kevin agrees with me, though he won't give you the benefit of the doubt. Those fundamental book readers may be reading the Scriptures, but they make a liar out of God by splintering His Word among the mutltitudes of lies, false doctrines, and obscure interpretations of His Holy Bible.

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.



""Sola Scriptura" reamains as the most damaging form of destroying the meaning of God's Word by splintering it into the thousands of differing doctrines as evident by the multitudes of denominations."

rod,

I challenge you to name all these different doctrines. I highly doubt you will ever get to "thousands" of them.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espirito Santo.

..

..



-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


All I need to name are two--the church of Christ and Assemblies of God. Those two conflict with each other.

En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espirito Santo.

...

...

...


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


The Church of Christ (denomination of) and Assemblies of God (denomination of) are not doctrines, they are churches. I asked for you to list doctrines (e.g. Trinity, Salvation, Baptism), not churches.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


I posted, "Sola Scriptura remains as the VALID procedure for pursuing the Mind of the Lord."

To which rod replid, "Bull, barf, and baloney!"

rod can continue to RIDICULE what God has PLAINLY REVEALED in His word. However, this does NOT change the FACT that God SPECIFICALLY said we will be JUDGED by WHAT IS WRITTEN. (Revelation 20:12).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 20, 2003.



Here is a much easier statistic to understand:

Add up all of the Protestants who read and interpretate the Scriptures on their own and come up with their own style of worship. Get the number of Protestants that populate this planet. If that number equals "X", then there are X-million splinters destroying God's Word.

You still haven't banned me, David. I'm waiting.

En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espirito Santo.

.....

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


I do not ridicule God. Kevin, there you go putting words in my mouth and trying to box me in and ship me to Satan, again. I ridicule the man who thinks that he is the voice of God and thinks he knows how all humans should worship Our Savior, Our God. "Sola Scriptura" is man's self-deception to the truth. The Holy Bible contains the truth, but not when mortal man meddles with it to his own vain motives. "Sola Scriptura" is just as wrong as "Sola Fide". Wake up men! You are still asleep.

En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espirito Santo.

.....

.....


-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


rod said,"You still haven't banned me,...I'm waiting."

Now why would I ban you? Also, I do not want to do a math problem counting protestants. That is not proof (in this case) If you are going to use the Roman tactic of making the Roman church look united, then you better be sure that these "thousands" of conflicting doctrines exsist.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


rod,

You wrote, "I do not ridicule God. Kevin, there you go putting words in my mouth and trying to box me in and ship me to Satan, again. I ridicule the man who thinks that he is the voice of God and thinks he knows how all humans should worship Our Savior, Our God."

Yes, rod you did RIDICULE God for you seek to cause someone to lose faith in His word when you CLAIM that someone CANNOT understand God's word on his own.

Since we WILL be judged by what is WRITTEN, don't you think that one should ENDEAVOR to make sure that he UNDERSTANDS what God has PLAINLY revealed???? Especially since this will be our standard of Judgment???? There is NOTHING in scripture that even "hints" that someone else (the Catholic Church) has to "interpret" the word of God for us. What is your response going to be on judgment day when Jesus asks you why you weren't smart enough to understand His word so you needed someone else to explain it to you???

You wrote, "Sola Scriptura" is man's self-deception to the truth."

No, "Sola Scriptura" CLEARLY and PLAINLY DEFEATS the Catholic Church and her FALSE DOCTRINES. Catholics CLAIM that they LOVE the word of God, EXCEPT when it is used to CONDEMN their FALSE DOCTRINES!!!

You wrote, "The Holy Bible contains the truth, but not when mortal man meddles with it to his own vain motives."

Please explain to everyone rod how I am guilty of "meddling" with the Holy Bible for my own "vain motives"??? I await your answer. If I am not speaking the truth, where is your correction of my exegesis???

You wrote, "Sola Scriptura" is just as wrong as "Sola Fide". Wake up men! You are still asleep."

Unfortunatley rod, it is you who have been "blinded to the truth". If you continue to believe that Catholics have the "truth" then all you have to look forward to is EXACTLY as 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 states.

I will continue to pray for you rod that God will OPEN your eyes to the TRUTH of His word!!!

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 20, 2003.


How easily they forget!

David, you made a pin-point attack on me by accusing me of calling Our God and Our Savior a liar. This is what those Satan lovers do. If that is what I am, then you should ban me with the greatest of joy. It is with smiles that such a blasphemer should be thrown out.

And, there you go again with the bashing technique. With your anti-Catholic comments about "unity", it is as if you are saying that the Protestant Splinters are ok, but the consistency in theology and doctrine found in the Church is wrong. You are blind. How can you be part of such mass confusion? Unless, of course, you and only you are in the true Church. Every person who is a fundamental self-interpreter Sunday morning theologian/minister that you meet, you should go ahead and make a head count and keep an ongoing tally. You will never cease to add to your list. You may very well exceed the 1000 mark. On the other hand, every Catholic you meet knows the same thing as the next Catholic. Sure, you will find schismatics, but the theology and doctrine are basic, unlike the fundamentalists' learnings.

En el nombre del Padre, el Hijo, y el Espirito Santo.

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


"With your anti-Catholic comments about "unity", it is as if you are saying that the Protestant Splinters are ok, but the consistency in theology and doctrine found in the Church is wrong"

I never said the "protestant splinters" are ok! I am just trying to get you to see the hypocrisy in the Roman Catholic church.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.


I have travelled that road. If you've ever read the Hislop book--Two Babylons--, you will know what I know about the Catholic Church. If you settle for such teachings (Hislop), you will never see the Church with, at least, a neutral mind. If you don't ever go into the bowels of that fear and confusion about the Catholic Church, you may never be able to seperate the lies from the truth. You have not made that journey, yet you say that you know the road.

...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 20, 2003.


David said, "If you are going to use the Roman tactic of making the Roman church look united,"

All 1.2 Billion of us Holy Catholics ARE UNITED! We All Believe in ONE POPE in ONE VATICAN. We All Believe in ONE UNIVERSAL CATECHISM of the Catholic Church and ALL it contains. We All Believe in ONE 1620 Year Old Most Holy Catholic Bible. We All believe in ONE Nicene Creed. All 1.2 Billion of us are Indisputably ONE.



-- james (elgreco1541@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.


To not believe that the every day man can understand the word of God is to not believe that God is powerful. To belieave that the roman catholic leaders can understand the Bible but other people can't, proves the pride of the roman catholic faith. I won't beleive one word of dogma from a catholic leader. What the catholics teach and what the Bible teaches are not the same. So you have to choice who you wish to believe; men or God's word.

If a catholic where to study the word of God they would find that the catholic faith was lieing to them. And when they would try point these things out to a catholic leader they would be told that they are too dumb.

Truth is I don't need the catholic faith to help me understand the word of God. I have the Holy Spirt, God Himself inside of me, teaching me and helping me understand. You have a man teaching you about God's word. I have God, teaching me about His word.

The Roman Catholic church lies out of their own dogma pride. Read the Bible.

-- Travis Thomas (SinMakesMeSad@hotmail.com), June 18, 2004.


Travis,

Your approach only warms the hearts of those who agree whole heartedly with you. If preaching to the choir is your goal, you've done well. If your goal was to change minds, then you need a different angle.

Just trying to help.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), June 18, 2004.


I agree with you, Travis, therefore, I don't believe a word you've said; you are just a man. How do we know that the Holy Spirit indwells in you? How can you trust the men who wrote the Bible after the fact? Do you trust St. Paul? Moses? Abraham? Benny Hinn....uh...scratch that.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 19, 2004.


As a Roman Catholic, I do read the bible. The Catholic church encourages every Catholic to read the bible. At one point I was to leave the Catholic church and join the Assemblies of God per my wife's insistance. However, I decided to read and learn more about the Catholic church, its history, its founding, its doctrines, its sacred traditions. And guess what my christian friends. I am more Catholic christian as I ever was. The more I read the more I see that the Catholic church is the church Jesus and the apostles founded. It is the church united, the universal church that God intended. The church that Jesus commanded Peter to build. In my humble opinion, not Luther or any other mere mortal will ever destroy the Catholic church "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). .

God bless you all my christian brothers. ej

-- ej (cuervo0003@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Hmmm...I wonder ej??

What has this done to your marriage?

I also wonder--how do you reconcile such dogmas as the *Assumption of Mary* and the *Immaculate Conception* for example--when neither teaching can be seen in the Bible?

Just curious.

Believing these seemingly harmless teachings causes man to focus too much on Mary.

And if you are focusing all your attention on her--guess who you are not worshiping??

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


You are putting words in his mouth, Faith. You perceive his worship as including the worship of Mary. Once again, that isn't the case.

If Elijah was "swept up" into Heaven, why can't Mary? Although, it is traditionally believed to have happened, it isn't written in the Bible.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Is that so rod??

How well do you know your Bible?

Elijah Taken Up to Heaven

When the LORD was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal. Elijah said to Elisha, "Stay here; the LORD has sent me to Bethel." But Elisha said, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So they went down to Bethel.

The company of the prophets at Bethel came out to Elisha and asked, "Do you know that the LORD is going to take your master from you today?"

"Yes, I know," Elisha replied, "but do not speak of it." Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here, Elisha; the LORD has sent me to Jericho."

And he replied, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So they went to Jericho. The company of the prophets at Jericho went up to Elisha and asked him, "Do you know that the LORD is going to take your master from you today?"

"Yes, I know," he replied, "but do not speak of it." Then Elijah said to him, "Stay here; the LORD has sent me to the Jordan." And he replied, "As surely as the LORD lives and as you live, I will not leave you." So the two of them walked on.

Fifty men of the company of the prophets went and stood at a distance, facing the place where Elijah and Elisha had stopped at the Jordan. Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it. The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground.

When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, "Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?" "Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit," Elisha replied. "You have asked a difficult thing," Elijah said, "yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours-otherwise not."

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Elisha saw this and cried out, "My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!" And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and tore them apart.

2Kings 2:1-11

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


If Elijah was "swept up" into Heaven, why can't Mary? Although, it is traditionally believed to have happened, it isn't written in the Bible.

I meant that Mary's Assumption was not written in the Bible. Yes, I knew that Elijah was recorded. Yes, my poor grammar will one day do me in.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


...and so was Enoch taken to Heaven, too. And, I don't believe that our Bible has that included in the accounts. But, the Jewish accounts do put Enoch awaiting the end of our world.

Why is it so difficult to believe that Mary was taken up to Heaven?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


oops!

Enoch is there: Genesis 5:18.

Genesis 5:24

"And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."

It must be the Jewish account that has me confused with the Christian accounts. One has Enoch waiting to return prior to Christ's arrival.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Isn't Genesis the Jewish account??

Are you refering to extra-biblical sources?

Anyway--Mary's supposed assumtion is not biblical. The others are....big difference.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


Well, sure. It is a Jewish account, but the idea is that we tend to believe that Jewish account. And, if it is considered "extra-biblical" to believe other accounts, why not Mary's Assumption? Is it strictly that the Assumption of Mary is not in the Christian Bible makes for a false theology? The New Testament is not in the Jewish accounts for their faith, either.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


I only take into account that from God's Word. The Holy Bible is it for me....

By God's divine providence--we have all we need in His Holy Scriptures.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 29, 2004.


Faith,

The assumption of Mary is Biblical. For Catholics, it is very clear.

Revelation 11:19 - 12:2 (KJV)

19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

This woman is Mary, and as verse 19 shows, she is the Ark of the New Covenant. Mary had her body in heaven, it did not decay like that of other people.

The assumption of Mary is also Biblical because it is part of the teachings of the apostles. In obeying the Church and the apostles as the Bible tells us to do, we are following the Bible. As has already been shown, the concept of bodily assumption exists in the Bible. Read the book of Jude with some footnotes. This letter references several apocryphal works such as a book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. We know the concept existed, and Jude clearly shows that using extra-Biblical sources is not wrong. The Assumption of Mary is actually fully in line with the Bible.

If you sincerely want to learn more about the Catholic teachings about Mary, listen to Tim Staples's All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed. He makes an excellent case for the Mary doctrines based on Scripture in the original language.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 29, 2004.


Really Emily?..., it doesn't say it is Mary.

I think the woman represents Israel. And the child can represent the birth of the church...

When did Mary ever have to flee into the desert? We know that a remnant Isreal will need protection during the great Tribulation.

Those verses say nothing about an assumption at the end of Mary's life--not even close.

Is this woman the same woman from the Garden who you also claim is Mary--the one who crushes Satan? Because in this--she flees to the desert to be protected from Satan., by God.

I think there is different meaning here than what you say.

Notice that she is protected for 1,260 days--the same amount of days of the sencond half (3 1/2 years) of the tribulation period-- as prophesied in Daniel. This is endtime prophesy.

I think the child is also representive of true believers--Christ's body--the church--and the snatching up of the child during this Tribulation period--could be a picture of the rapture.

-- ("faith01@myway.com), June 29, 2004.


When did Mary ever have to flee into the desert?

She and Joseph fled into Egypt with the Christ Child to escape Herod. If one sees Herod as an instrument of Satan, this would fit Mary as the woman in Revelation. However, there is no reason why she couldn't also represent the Church.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 29, 2004.


Andy..,

This woman in Revelation is not with her child when she flees into the desert.

This is endtime prophecy and it has nothing to do with Mary.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.


Faith said: This woman in Revelation is not with her child when she flees into the desert.

This is irrelevant. Neither is Mary when she flees to Egypt.

Matthew 2 (KJV) 13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.

Faith said: This is endtime prophecy and it has nothing to do with Mary.

So we should trust your personal opinion over that of the Church Fathers, who spoke the same language as the Scriptures were written in, and knew the apostles?

You claim that the birth of Jesus has nothing to do with Mary? How do you reconcile this with Luke 1?

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.


Faith,

This woman in Revelation is not with her child when she flees into the desert.

You are right, the woman did not flee with her child. But that doesn't mean that the woman could not be Mary. I know you're well read in the Word. You know that Scripture can have layers of symbolism, especially in Revelations. The woman could be Israel, the Church, and Mary at the same time. When I first read Rev 11:19- 12:6 I was struck by the similarities of the symbolism to Mary and Jesus. Who else but Mary "brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron" and who has been "taken up to God and to his throne?" I also see why she has been called the ark of the covenant. The division into chapters of the Book of Revelation was not done by John, they are artificial divisions. After John says, "And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple. And there were lightnings and voices and an earthquake and great hail." He immediately describes the woman "clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." Seems to me that John is describing the "ark of his testament."

I also see the woman as Israel, the Old Testament giving birth to the New in Christ. I also see her as the Church that gives birth to all believers. So in this I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't see that any of these interpretations of the symbolism in Revelations is mutually exclusive. I also see past, present, and future events described in Revelation. I don't think it's all about endtime prophecy (though that is part of it).

This is endtime prophecy and it has nothing to do with Mary.

That's your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 30, 2004.


Andy--This is how I put it on another Christian board where I post---

Has anyone here ever seen these verses below from Rev 12:1-6.,as being a picture of the rapture of the church during the great Tribulation?

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.>>>

Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.>>>

And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

I was arguing with some Catholics who think these verses reveal the *Assumtion of Mary.* I'm thinking, "Are you kidding me??

If the woman is Israel.., then the baby represents the birth of the church--and when you consider the fact that God takes the baby into heaven during that 1,260 days of tribulation..., couldn't it be a picture of the rapture??

I know that some see the woman as Mary, and the baby as Jesus...but I see them as both Mary/Israel and Messiah/church.....and in a sense--a sort of end-time prophecy as well as a prediction about Messiah conquering in the end...

What do you think?

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), June 30, 2004.


Ah! then by your own admission you do accept that Mary ascended into Heaven:

"I was arguing with some Catholics who think these verses reveal the *Assumtion of Mary.* "

"...but I see them as both Mary/Israel and Messiah/church....."

By equating Mary and Israel and interpreting Revelations as both symbolic and literal, your are affirming the Catholic belief that Mary ascended into Heaven, at least partly.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.


Oops. Sorry, Faith. I misread and thought you said "with child" instead of "with her child".

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 30, 2004.

Faith,

If the woman is Israel.., then the baby represents the birth of the church--and when you consider the fact that God takes the baby into heaven during that 1,260 days of tribulation..., couldn't it be a picture of the rapture??

From what I understand about the rapture, it's a relatively new doctrine in Christianity. I don't know much about it, but I think that Mark 13:24–27 and Matthew 24:26–31 contradict the concept of the rapture occurring before the tribulation. This seems to contradict your interpretation. If I subscribed to the idea of a pre-tribulational rapture I can see how this vision could symbolize that.

I know that some see the woman as Mary, and the baby as Jesus...but I see them as both Mary/Israel and Messiah/church.....and in a sense--a sort of end-time prophecy as well as a prediction about Messiah conquering in the end...

This sounds right to me. I would add Mary/Israel/the Church and Messiah/Church/believers. I also see past events as well as future events in John's vision here. Just my humble opinion. I think Revelation is a tough book to understand and get all the symbolism. It seems to jump around a bit, but there are certain images that jump out and seem obvious. I suppose the Christians in the first century would understand a lot more of the symbolism.

The biggest message of Revelation to me seems to be that we must persevere in the face of persecution because God will be victorious in the end. To me it also shows depicts the cycle of faithlessness, repentance, and renewal of God's people. The Old testament is full of stories of individuals and peoples who fall away in disobedience, are punished (or repent), and are renewed. Revelation seems to echo this theme.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), June 30, 2004.


Faith, I found an excerpt from that tape series to which I referred you, since I doubt you will listen to it based on the fact that you said you laugh at such suggestions.

This whole post is taken from: Lost Ark Discovered.

In a tape series titled All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed Tim brings out the similarities between the Gospel we just heard (Lk 1:39-45, the Visitation) and the ascent of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-15). Let me mention three.

1. As the ark is brought to Jerusalem, King David is overcome with awe saying, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (v. 9)

2. The ark remains three months in the hill country near Jerusalem, bringing great blessings to the house of Obed-edom. (v.11)

3. King David leaps for joy - dancing before the ark. (v. 13)

In today's Gospel, Elizabeth says to Mary, "Who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?" She tells how the babe (John the Baptist) leaped in her womb as she became filled with the Holy Spirit. Finally Mary remains three months with her kinswoman before returning to her home.

Are the parallels coincidental? The Church Fathers did not think so. At the end of the Bible John tells his vision of a heavenly ark. (Rev. 11:19) In the following verse we discover who it is: "a woman clothed with the sun, with moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." While this woman has a collective significance, representing the Church as the new Israel, she also is an historical person: "She brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations..." (12:6)**

--------------------------------------------------

**In his Biblical Portrait of Mary, Robert J. Payesko says this:

Since the Book of Revelation was not accepted as part of the canon of Scripture for several centuries, it had no early tradition of interpretation. Once its canonicity was established, the identification of Mary with the Woman of Revelation 12 became obvious (since the Woman's Man-Child was Jesus). For instance, Epiphanius in 367 A.D. gave a Marian interpretation and Quodvultdeus, a disciple and friend of Augustine, wrote, "None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary." (De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661).

John Henry Cardinal Newman comments:

What I would maintain is this, that the Holy Apostle would not have spoken of the Church under this particular image, unless there had existed a blessed Virgin Mary, who was exalted on high and the object of veneration to all the faithful. No one doubts that the "man-child" spoken of is an allusion to our Lord; why then is not "the Woman" an allusion to his mother?

This passage has traditionally had a double interpretation, which is not unusual in Scripture. The primary application is to the Church, or the people of God. But a secondary reference can legitimately be made to the Blessed Virgin Mary, according to the literal meaning of 12:5, in which she bears the Messiah, Jesus (see Psalm 2:9). As such, the passage echoes the Mary/Eve symbolism of John 19:26-27. Furthermore, the war with the dragon (identified as Satan in 12:9) recalls the Protoevangelion of Genesis 3:15 ("her seed" / "her offspring" battle the devil), and supports the notion of the spiritual motherhood of Mary. The symbolism of Mary as the Church and the New Eve was already prevalent in the early centuries of the Church. The "woman" here gives birth "in anguish" (12:2), which hearkens back to Genesis 3:16, and is perhaps an anticipation of Calvary.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.


Just so you know., Emily--

I didn't listen because you didn't link me to anything.

Though I do laugh at all the lengthy exegisis to such a simple question.

Is the Assumption of Mary revealed in the Scriptures? Just post the Scripture. And I get everything but.

Revelation does not cut it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 01, 2004.


Emily, that was a wonderful post. Thank you.

I love to meditate on the relationship Christ had with his mother. Very special indeed! And strangely draws me closer to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Truly, no woman has ever suffered more than Mary, nor is there any woman more deserving of a queenly reward.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.


"Though I do laugh at all the lengthy exegisis to such a simple question. "

Should we take your comeback as a smiley faced remark or as a smirky grin, Faith?

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.


Faith said: Is the Assumption of Mary revealed in the Scriptures? Just post the Scripture. And I get everything but.

I'm still waiting for you to post the Scripture that says all our doctrines must be found in the Scripture.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.


Well, Rod, she makes those kinds of remarks all the time and then wonders why she gets banned from other Catholic forums. She simply puts on a syrupy sweet mask to conceal her sarcasms.

What is really sad, though, is there can be no sweeter person than Emily on this forum and Susan treats her with the same contempt she treats ANYONE who doesn't share her narrowly-held opinions. Emily went to a great deal of trouble to respond to Susan's question in a methodical, well-thought-manner, using scripture and tradition (which of course is our rule of faith) to secure her argument only to be poo- pood by the queen of Bible interpretation (or misinterpretation I should say).

Thank you Lord Jesus for delivering me from fundamentalism!!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 01, 2004.


Faith, I wonder if you can recall our first conversation. My intuition about your character was right on target. I hope that I have remained consistent and honest (within reason) since my very first post.

My advice is to be nice or be mean, but at least be honest. I include myself as a receiver of that advice.

Some comments do ignite fires. My favorite phrase? "Only you can prevent forest fires."

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 01, 2004.


Emily,

You wrote, "I'm still waiting for you to post the Scripture that says all our doctrines must be found in the Scripture."

2 Tim 3:16-17 states, "16 ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, 17 that the MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK."

If the word of God which INLCUDES the NT is ALL the man of God needs, please tell me what else is necessary???

God said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

The doctrine of Christ is ONLY located in the pages of the NT.

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 02, 2004.


Kevin,

That verse doesn't say that "all our doctrines must be found in the Scripture" or that Scripture "is ALL the man of God needs" and Paul never meant it that way.

It says that "all Scripture" is "profitable for doctrine,..." which is something else all together. The word for "profitable" here can also be translated as helpful, serviceable, beneficial, or advantageous. It does not mean "all that is needed" as far as I could find. Whatever your stand on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I think you would agree that we not only need Scripture, but also faith and love "that the MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK."

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), July 02, 2004.


Kevin, thank you. However, that verse says "All Scripture," and that's wonderful. But as Andy pointed out, it's doesn't say "Only Scripture." Even still, you'd have to reconcile your view with the passages about the church as the pillar and foundation of truth and the commands to obey oral and written teaching of the apostles. That verse doesn't cut it. I'm still waiting for the verse that says we must base all our doctrines on Scripture alone.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 02, 2004.

I do remember reading that the church of Christ does resort to Tradition in celebrating the Lord's Supper in order to determine the frequency of partaking of Communion. The Scriptures don't exactly specify a time table schedule (pun?) for the Lord's Supper.

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 02, 2004.


Emily--

Here's a verse from Jesus that warns us about wrong teaching...

Mathew 16:5-12

When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread. "Be careful," Jesus said to them. "Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." (How does one guard against false teaching?)

They discussed this among themselves and said, "It is because we didn't bring any bread."

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?

How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

***********************

And there is always this verse:

Matt 23:33-38

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Old Testament canon) I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

Matt 26:55-56

At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

Jesus said Scripture is the most important way to know the truth. In these verses he is refering to the Old Testament--and alluding to the New Testament.

Jesus speaking to His believers:

John 14:23-31

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching (This teaching we find in the Scriptures Jesus tells us that).

My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

"All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 16:12-15

Jesus tells us he has more to say--but he tells us how he will say it- -through the Holy Spirit to His prophets--the apostles.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

Jesus was preparing us for receiving inspired Word...from His Apostles.

Luke 24:44-49

He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. (seems pretty important to Jesus<)

He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Jesus never alludes to the idea the there will be continual revelation from people over the generations......



-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 02, 2004.


Andy,

You wrote, "That verse doesn't say that "all our doctrines must be found in the Scripture" or that Scripture "is ALL the man of God needs" and Paul never meant it that way."

The verse I quoted DOES say, "that the MAN OF GOD MAY BE COMPLETE, THOROUGHLY EQUIPPED for EVERY GOOD WORK."

Since it DOES states this very thing, then NOTHING else is required for the man of God.

You wrote, "It says that "all Scripture" is "profitable for doctrine,..." which is something else all together. The word for "profitable" here can also be translated as helpful, serviceable, beneficial, or advantageous. It does not mean "all that is needed" as far as I could find."

If the man of God is "complete" AND "thoroughly equipped for EVERY good work" from Scripture, then this certainly does mean that Scripture is ALL that is needed. One CANNOT enter the kingdom unless they are born of WATER and the SPIRIT. (John 3:5). We are born again through water which is baptism IN water (Romans 6:3) and we are born again through the spirit which is the word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).

You wrote, "Whatever your stand on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, I think you would agree that we not only need Scripture, but also faith and love"

Yes, since we now have the written New Testament, 1 Cor. 13:13 states, "And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." What did Jesus say??? (John 14:15).

Emily,

You wrote, "Kevin, thank you. However, that verse says "All Scripture," and that's wonderful. But as Andy pointed out, it's doesn't say "Only Scripture."

Actually, since it does say "All Scripture", this includes ALL of the New Testament. If the man of God is COMPLETE and EQUIPPED for EVERY good work from Scripture, then NOTHING else is needed NOR is anything else required.

You wrote, "Even still, you'd have to reconcile your view with the passages about the church as the pillar and foundation of truth and the commands to obey oral and written teaching of the apostles."

Actually, the church is the pillar and foundation of truth however this does NOT give the church the AUTHORITY to legislate laws, NOR does it give the church ANY authority except to obey what has been written. There is NO command for us to obey the ORAL teaching of the apostles. If there are ANY oral teachings of the apostles still around, then I am sure you would have no problem presenting them so that we can see if they are the word of God. If the oral teachings of the apostles are ALSO binding on us, then why was it necessary for the apostles to WRITE them down for us in the New Testament???

You wrote, "That verse doesn't cut it. I'm still waiting for the verse that says we must base all our doctrines on Scripture alone."

I showed you that the man of God is COMPLETE from Scripture ALONE and NOTHING else is needed.

You say "that verse doesn't cut it" because it doesn't agree with your Catholic theology however, God has something DIFFERENT to say, "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12).

Rod,

You wrote, "I do remember reading that the church of Christ does resort to Tradition in celebrating the Lord's Supper in order to determine the frequency of partaking of Communion. The Scriptures don't exactly specify a time table schedule (pun?) for the Lord's Supper."

Actually, the Lord's Supper is NOT a tradition, what does Acts 20:7 say???

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 04, 2004.


Well, yes, Kevin. But, the Passover Supper was being celebrated prior to Christ's Last Supper. The three pieces of bread had a slightly different meaning to the Jewish ritual. Jesus celebrated the same tradition, but gave it the full, complete meaning--His death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. He also made references to the Manna and the meaning there too. All Traditions eventually have their focal point on Christ on the cross.

Perhaps the tradition adopted by the church of Christ deals with a different aberrant church? I have learned that not all church of Christ are identical.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.


Rod,

You wrote, "Well, yes, Kevin. But, the Passover Supper was being celebrated prior to Christ's Last Supper. The three pieces of bread had a slightly different meaning to the Jewish ritual. Jesus celebrated the same tradition, but gave it the full, complete meaning--His death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven. He also made references to the Manna and the meaning there too. All Traditions eventually have their focal point on Christ on the cross."

Who said anything about the "Passover Supper"??? Your question dealt with the Lord's Supper, this is why I responded with Acts 20:7.

You wrote, "Perhaps the tradition adopted by the church of Christ deals with a different aberrant church?"

Please explain??? Taking the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week is NOT a tradition that the church of Christ instituted.

You wrote, "I have learned that not all church of Christ are identical."

Were all the churches of Christ identical in the first century??? In other words were they ALL teaching the same things??? Look at the differences in the churches Jesus spoke of in Revelation chapters 2 and 3???

-- Kevin Walker ("kevinlwalker572@cs.com"), July 05, 2004.


I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that some Traditions have continued to this day. Some Traditions received their true meanings with Christ. Yes, we still have the problem of a great diversity in the different churches and their doctrines.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.


rod..,

The Passover supper and the three pieces of bread never had a different meaning than that the Trinity was revealed even to the Jews- -as well as Christ's resurrection which the Passover is a celebration of--even if the Jews refuse to admit it.

The three pieces of bread that come in that three sectioned bag represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Jews only remove the second piece (the Son) of bread--which, by-the-way., is unleavened=sinless., scorched, bruised and pierced flatbread (Matzah)., interesting in and of itself.

After they remove this body of bread--they break it--and bury it in a white linen cloth., under the table--hiding it out of sight. During their celebration., when they reach the third cup of wine--they raise the buried bread up and then they pass the broken bread around for all to eat.

I find that utterly amazing--and when you ask a Rabbi why they do this--they will suggest a new concept that has been made up since the truth is--that they do not know why they do this. An honest Rabbi will tell you that the reason has been lost in tradition.

-- (:faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.


Evidently, we are on the same page on this one, Faith. I guess we can understand my thinking that Christ gave meaning to those Traditions, which the Jews didn't understand at the time.

p.s. On the third day, the bread that was wrapped in linen is then brought down and partaken of.

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 05, 2004.


unfortunately--

...even with the obvious relationship and revelation., the Jews still don't understand it or acknowledge it.

-- ("faith01@myway.com"), July 05, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ