Sorry to all for these "long" posts. I feel, however, that becasue Tim is spending his time to ask these questions, it is important that we show him we actually have answers. Tim, you should realise also, nonetheless, that the answers to your questions have long since been answered, debated, and exist for your benefit at several sites and sources.

Here it goes!

1: “What? I would be willing to say that the major of the things covered in the New Testament, were covered in the Old Testament. Only Christ changed or added things - what was added, in scripture, after His resurrection into Heaven for the last time? Even Revelation was written with Him.”

You’re right. The New Testament is only a FULFILLMENT of the Old Testament. However, if there were no MAJOR shifts, like Christ Himself becoming the Lamb, then why did Jesus even need to teach!? He should have just had his Apostles read the OT, right? But there was additional information that needed to be said to explain how this fulfillment took place. That is what is called revelation. Furthermore, the WRITTEN OT and NT are one thing, the COMPLETE OT and NT are another thing.

John 11: “Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you.” He dilevered the TRADITIONS by mouth, not merly by Scripture.

Had someone written every detail of the OT, or the NT, it would have been just as John said, “there would not be enough room in the world…”. Therefore, Christ would have needed to explain or reveal to the Apostles things that might not have been written at the time.

2: “but no "new" teachings will be contrary or add to doctrine already established by scripture.”

Tim, you are absolutely correct. You haven’t shown us ONE “new” Catholic teaching that is contrary to scripture. There are teachings that are “in addition to” the Scripture, but they aren’t NEW. The teachings of the Catholic Church are the very same teachings of the Apostles, which was taught by the Son of God. You know those few times that John and Paul said they’d rather speak to the churches “face to face”. Those teachings aren’t found in the Scripture because Paul and John didn’t want to “waste ink”. However, those same teachings can be found in the Catholic Church, the very same Church they spoke to “face to face”. Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is NEW, nor is anything contrary to Scripture. The Catholic Church may give a better understanding on something, or the Holy Spirit may reveal something to the Catholic Church (which is then checked by the Bishops and the Pope – and must be in line with Scripture and Tradition). However, if the Holy Spirit reveals something, that “something” will never be new. It may have never been thought of by the current Pope, but the fact that the information is “new” to him, doesn’t necessitate it being “new” in time. The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church for that precise reason: to preserve the Scripture (that is its correct interpretation) and Tradition. Therefore, if Peter knew something but in his human nature he forgets to pass it on to the next Pope or his Bishops, the Holy Spirit, in order to preserve the Teaching, will reveal it to his successors. But the Teaching is not new.

3: “"Everything that is necessary for us to know and do IS in Scripture." - then why is there "new" teachings that are not including within it?”

First of all, these “new” teachings aren’t “new”, they simply are not in Scripture. Second, they aren’t “necessary for us to know or do” in order to be saved. Third, can you please give a specific “teaching” you have in mind? The assumption is one that I can think of. But like I said, this is not “new” and it isn’t “necessary” for our salvation. This teaching simply brings us to a closer understanding of Christ and His saving Grace for Mary, His mother.

4. “"It isn’t necessary for salvation to know that Mary was assumed into Heaven, and the Catholic Church is aware of this." - I believe if Christ held Mary as high as the Catholic Church does, this would have been clearly noted in Scripture multiple times.”

First, how high is it that you think we hold Mary!? She certainly isn’t divine! I truly believe that you, or whoever is teaching you, is blowing it way out of proportion! Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? Barely ever do we mention Mary. In fact, in MOST Masses she isn’t even mentioned! We don’t teach people to ask for Mary’s intercession. It is only and option! As we can see from the OT, how highly respected was the mother of Solomon (a king of one nation), how much more highly must be the mother of Jesus be (the King of ALL Kings!).

Second, I thought we went through this: Mary’s intercession, her assumption, and her perpetual virginity, ARE NOT necessary for our salvation. They are however beneficial for our knowledge, and may assist us in our salvation. Just as your prayers assist me in my salvation, the think of how much MORE helpful those prayers are FROM Mary! She beholds her Sons face constantly!

5. “"To know your wife better, you get to know her parents, or her best friends." - The Bible never tells us to know Christ's mother or his best friends to know Him beter. To be a Born Again Believer is the same as being married, but in a spiritual sense.”

Sheesh, Tim! The Bible only tells us what is “necessary” to be saved. The Bible isn’t an exhaustive explanation of every little thing in life. It’s just common sense! To get to know someone better, you look to the people that knew him best! The Bible doesn’t say green beans are good for our health, but it’s common sense! And I know your going to say, “well, that isn’t spiritual”. Show me one scriptural passage that shows us HOW to pray (aside from the Our Father). Well, there isn’t any! We must look to how others have prayed! Or read books written by those who were able to pray more effectively. A better understanding of Christ MAY be sought through the study of His mother, this isn’t new.

“Joh 14:6-7 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

This only says that in order to know the Father, we must know Jesus. But it doesn’t explain how this is achieved. We can know Jesus, by asking Him to show us Himself. We can read Scripture. But, we also can find MORE about him through His Mother! Remember, Mary was with the Apostles A LOT! She was with them in the upper room, when they were filled with the Holy Spirit. You can’t say Mary didn’t say a thing to the Apostles! And you likewise cannot say that the Apostles new MORE about Jesus by hanging out with His mother. Most definitely they DID.

“Eph 5:29-32 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

The same comparison I gave! Paul uses the husband and wife to compare with Christ and the Church! But just as a husband comes to know his wife BETTER through her friends and parents, so too can we (the Church) come to know our Bridegroom, Jesus, through His friends and family!

6. “If Christ taught the Apostles for the 3 1/2 years in His ministry, and taught them ["That is to say, they knew it all and were commissioned by Christ to lead His Church and teach others."] - then why isn't priesthood, infant baptism, mass, popes, Mary sinless, etc... even taught once. Not once!?”

These things were taught! Some of it just wasn’t written down! The priesthood is explicitly taught in the OT! Remember, you yourself said that the OT was not abolished; only fulfilled! If it was fulfilled, then what happened to the hierarchy that was explicitly taught! Infant

Baptism is simply the New Covenant entrance, as circumcision was to the Old Covenant. You see, Tim, in the OT the elders had to express belief first and then be circumcised, whereas infants of 8 days were circumcised without this constituent! Likewise we see in the Gospel of Matthew how Christ healed on several occasions based NOT on the faith of the one being healed, but on the faith of the one ASKING. Therefore, how much more would Christ allow one to be Baptized based NOT on the faith of the infant, but on the faith of the Parents and Godparents?

We’ve given you ample scripture to support the teaching of Mary being sinless. It may not be sufficient for you, but if you look into history, you will see that it WAS sufficient for the early Church.

Mass is expressly taught in the Letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

Cor. 10: “Is not the (27) cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the (28) bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?”

Cor. 11: “20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21 for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and (23) another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the (24) church of God and (25) shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall (26) I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

23 For (27) I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that (28) the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same way He took (29) the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the (30) new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."”

This is the Mass!

7. “"the Apostles, when the time came, would also have to pass down the authority to others who would guard his Church and hold the keys." - I don't ever remember Christ telling the Apostles to pass down the authority He gave them to anyone else. Is this is scripture? ["we, the Catholic Church, believe"]”

“As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” That’s Scriptural.

8. “"each individual who is a believer in Christ and keeps all his commandments and sacraments exists in the Body of Christ." - where is keeping "sacraments" in the scripture. Did Christ do it? When did He commission the Apostles to do it?”

The definition of “sacrament” is: an outward sign instituted by Christ to give us grace.

Therefore, Baptism is a sacrament, Marriage is a sacrament, Apostleship or Priesthood is a sacrament, Reconciliation is a sacrament, the Body and Blood of Christ is a Sacrament, etc. They were instituted by Christ, all the sacraments are scriptural.

9. “"There is no “new” individual revelation. Therefore, the Assumption of the Blessed Mother isn’t something that was “revealed” to any one particular Pope." - What? I didn't think this came out till the early 1900's, maybe 1950? Or, was that the thought of Mary being sinless?”

Neither, “came out” in the 1900’s or 1950’s. You’ve confused, or have been taught wrong about, the fact that officially declaring something is quite different than making it up. Both the sinlessness and the assumption of the Blessed Mother were believed and taught from the very beginning. They were officially declared “dogma” or Truth later on. Same with the Bible: It wasn’t until 1500’s that the Catholic Church declared the official Bible, even though it was the very same Bible used since the 400’s. I think many of the official statements were made, not because there was a need for us to believe that they are True, but because of the need to protect these long-standing Truths from being destroyed. You will not that it wasn’t till AFTER the reformation that the Catholic Church declared the Bible “official”, I would say that part of that decision was to protect the True Bible from being defamed, as it was by the reformers.

10. “ About the seven books, I have just ordered a book that I hope will help me understand them more, and why - this and that.”

This is very comforting to hear. However, still be wary about what you read, because many anti-Catholic (when I say anti-Catholic, I don’t necessarily mean Protestants, but also atheists and pagans) writers are doing their dandiest to twist history. Even good Protestant writers will maintain the truth about the origin of the Bible.

11. “"when the Holy Spirit reveals something to you (like that Mary had children), this flat out contradicts what the Holy Spirit had already revealed to the Apostles." - the Scripture NEVER contradicts this, only the teachings of the Catholic Church - which claims to have received it from the Apostles.”

Of course the Scripture doesn’t contradict it, but neither does it contradict Mary’s sinlessness – as we’ve tried to point out. Don’t you think that if it really contradicted it, the Pope, who knows the scripture far better than you or I, would have caught that? I’ve been trying to express this point to you: There are several passages in Scripture that can be taken to mean several things! That is why there are several divisions of the Christian faith! It is up to someone to teach the True meaning of what the Scripture means. Even Scripture itself shows this! Look at the Pharisees: They did many things wrong! But they knew the scriptures. Christ came to show them what it really meant, and he commissioned his Apostles to do the same.

12. “No, I believe this is where the Catholics go wrong by "adding" to Scripture when they can't understand something, then claim it has been passed down from the Apostles. Who can ask the Apostles? Is this true?”

First, Tim, you’re telling me that of the Thousands of Catholics who have studied Scripture, NONE of them could understand!? Yet, ALL of the Protestants who have studied Scripture do understand? You’re saying that the same Church that hand wrote the Scripture for 1500 years could not understand, yet the Protestants (only after the reformation) could!? Luther himself believed that the bread that is blessed becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus!

Second, when we can’t understand something we “add” to it and say that it was passed down? This is childish! Would a 2000 year old Church consisting currently of a little under 2 billion people stand for this? Even if it was added, it must have been added in the early couple of centuries (when they were handwriting the Bible), because nothing new has ever been “added” since. And if it was added in the first couple of centuries, then people were pretty dumb for 1000 years! How could any enterprise exist, or hold an existence if every time it didn’t understand something, it “added” to it. Tell me, Tim, what has the Church “added” to Scripture? Only a handful of things! And these beliefs can be traced back to AT LEAST the first couple of centuries! Look into your history, Tim.

On the contrary, when the certain Protestant reformers couldn’t understand something, they “removed” books from the Bible. Then when they wanted to “Protest” the Catholic Church, rather than really “reforming” they took Catholic doctrine and flipped it around (simply to not be seen as Catholic). Tim, really, I’m not stupid – do you think I am? I’ve researched and listened to talks and read books and done internet site searches! There is NOTHING that any Protestant can claim, that hasn’t already been proven True by the Catholic Church using Scripture and tradition. Our debates have only made my faith Stronger, because every time you question one of our beliefs I have to look it up. And every time I look it up, the more and better I understand it! I am truly thankful for your questions, because they strengthen my Catholic faith. I only hope that it is this beneficial for you.

“Mr 14:24-25 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” So, Jesus Christ will drink His own blood with us in Heaven?”

First, Jesus was referring to the wine – which was transubstantiated to His Blood. And He drank of the “cup” when he was on the Cross, right before He died, he drank of the fruit of the vine. This finished the New Testament Passover Supper. In Jewish tradition, there were 4 cups. The third cup was the cup that Christ transformed into His Blood, and this is the cup that we drink to “remember” Christ’s death. Then the Apostles and Christ left and went out where He was betrayed. But what happened to the fourth cup? It was drunk when Jesus died on the Cross, once the Sacrifice of the Lamb was complete! And during the OT Passover, did they just sacrifice a lamb and that’s it? NO! They had to partake in the eating of the lamb, this was a unifying act which made the Israelites one under God. So to is the Lamb which we eat a unifying act, it unifies us as the Body of Christ (one Bread one Body!).

Second, when we get into heaven we will have no need for this sacrament, or any other. In heaven there are no sacraments (outward signs instituted by Christ to give us Grace), because we will have the Grace of God in and all around us at it’s fullest! Just as Jesus explains how there is no marriage in heaven.

13. “What happened in the Garden? God said, one thing - the Devil added something - Eve added something. It all sounded about the same, but was not the same. I doubt if ever version of the Catholic Bibles are "the same".”

By “the same” I mean to say that they are written to convey the exact same thing that the original writer intended. Therefore, the wording may not be “the same”, but the message is. However, since the Protestant Bible doesn’t have several books, and a few of the books in the Bible have been altered, it does NOT convey the very same message.

14. “"This is wrong, none of us will DEFEET Satan, with the Armour of God we can only send him away or defend ourselves from him. Jesus, with the cooperation of Mary, and His angels will DEFEET and destroy Satan for good." - What? Through the blood of Jesus Christ, the Devil can not beat us and bring us to Hell.”

The fact that we can not be beat by Satan, doesn’t mean that we will defeat him. Jesus will!

“Jesus does not need Mary to DEFEET Satan. Where do you get that?”

In order for Satan to be defeated, God decided to send us His Son. In his decision to send us His Son, he had to have a woman to give birth to his Son. Therefore, the fact that God decided to send His Son to defeat Satan necessitates Mary’s role in the defeat of Satan. No Mary, No Jesus!

“God cast Satan out of Heaven, without Mary”

- He also did it without the Word-Incarnate, though the Word was existing, the Word-incarnate necessitated Mary, and her salvation before conception.

“Christ beat the Devil's temptations with Scripture, without Mary.”

But WE could NOT beat the Devil’s temptations without Jesus Christ, and without the Mother of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ’s death doesn’t exist!

“Christ will judge the righteous, without Mary. God will judge the unrighteous, without Mary. The Devil will be cast into the Lake of Fire, without Mary.”

Although the actual “casting” may not be done by Mary, the existence of Jesus’ flesh and death and resurrection was give by Mary. And so, this participation in the giving of flesh to God, is a direct participation of her defeating Satan! Don’t get me wrong, I can hear you already, “Mary didn’t need to give God flesh”. But God Chose her too! God could have just sent Jesus in the flesh (a ready made human). But God made the Choice, the divine Choice, to humble himself to be born of a virgin. And therefore God’s Choice to use Mary, gave Mary the privilege to partake in the giving of flesh to God.

“Mary was not, is not, and never will be equal to Jesus Christ - or - able to hold the power which He has.”

This is what the Catholic Church teaches! Any Power that Mary Has was given to her BY her Son! Her Participation in the defeat of Satan was granted to her by God! It was revealed to the writer of Genesis, otherwise he wouldn’t have included “the woman” in the same sentence. It might have been written:

Modified-Genesis 3: 14 The LORD God said to the serpent, "(13) Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And (14) dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15 And I will put (15) enmity Between you and the woman[‘s seed], And between your seed and her seed; (16) He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

“”Christ NEVER put Mary as high as the Catholic Church does, never in Scripture does He ever do so... So, you can not convince me that after He died, then the Apostles decided to do so.”

Christ never put himself as high as the Catholic Church AND all Christianity does, never in Scripture does He ever do so… He humbled himself to be born of a virgin. He came to serve NOT to be served! He washed SINNERS feet!. So, I CAN be convinced that if after He died, the Apostles treated him as King (rightly so), then they likely also treated Mary as queen (rightly so).

15. “what does this verse mean? Eph 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: If the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are "for the perfecting of the saints...for the edifying of the body of Christ", then what are the popes and priest for - that are clearly not mentioned in the New Testament anywhere concerning Christ appointing such.”

Tim, you’re fooling yourself into thinking that Priests, Popes, Bishops, etc. are NOT pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc. Paul isn’t talking about the religious life or the married life. Paul is describing SPECIFIC CALLINGS that can occur inside priesthood, or inside marriage!

Priests ARE apostles, pastors, teachers, evangelists. There are also married people who are teachers, evangelists, etc. But remember Tim, they were all aware of the OT laws concerning Priests, vestments, rituals. The OT was not undone; it was fulfilled. Suffice it to say that since there were priests in the OT, there should be priests in the NT, unless Christ commanded otherwise.

16. "How long was the ministry of Christ with His Disciples? How long was Paul "missing" and being taught? You give me the math.”

Paul went out preaching as soon as Ananias laid hands on him!

Acts: 9 “20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus (30) in the synagogues, saying, "He is (31) the Son of God."”

He was called by Jesus, confirmed by the Apostles, and became an Apostle himself!

“Matthias was there with them the entire time, but wasn't an Apostle until then. Ac 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”

This is another instance when “ALL” doesn’t mean ALL. Was Matthias there at the Lords Supper? Only the 12 were there. In fact not all 12 of the Apostles were with Jesus ALL the time. It was only Peter, James, John, and his brother at the Transfiguration. There is no Scriptural evidence that Matthias was with the 12 during any of the events. They all taught each other that which the others hadn’t learned directly from Christ.

17. “"So, in order to be an Apostle, one must be Chosen (or Called) by God, which priests are, and then confirmed among the other Apostles and disciples, which priests are also." - What? An Apostles is not a priest, and a priest is not an Apostle. Where do you get that. The priest were Old Testament [Levi's] which peformed scarcrifices for the people - BEFORE - the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Priests of the OT didn’t simply perform sacrifices for the people. They were the judges, they mediated for Moses and the tribes. They were leaders! I would strongly suggest researching what the OT priests did, and compare it with what the Catholic priests do no. You will find striking similarities!

“I believe this Scripture anwswers two questions: A. The priest of the Catholic Church are of the Old Testament and perform the sacrifices as they did [Mass], but Christ has put the Old away, and established the New.”

You said yourself that the Old Testament has NOT been “put away”, but rather fulfilled! The Mass has nothing to do with the sacrifices of the OT, rather, the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb! And priests, as I said, didn’t simply sacrifice things all the time. They had other duties as well, as I’m sure you know.

“The moment we are saved, we are saved FOREVER: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Again, priests don’t simply sacrifice things, they minister to the sick, proclaim the gospel (missionaries), and much more. And if you’re hinting that you think the Catholic Mass is a new sacrifice every time, you’re wrong. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the Same Sacrifice that happened 2000 years ago. That’s right! “As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lords death, until he comes again.”

18. "So if there is no more Apostles, then what is your Pastor doing?" Joh 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

And also, Ephesians 4:11-12”

But your pastor doesn’t just “know the truth”, he is professing the “truth” to others. You will note that at the time Paul said this, they were all under his authority; they were learning from him! Even the “Pastors” were under his authority (as an Apostle). A couple of questions to you are: If Pastor and Apostle are both in this sentence, and you think that there are no more Apostles, why do you think Pastors still exist? And if it is because of the requirements to become an Apostle, then where does it explain the requirements to become a Pastor? And can your pastor prove that he’s met these requirements? You’re pastor is not even under any authority (aside from God), as was the pastors and teachers who were learning from Paul.

19. “When was Judas baptized? Who said that baptisim saves someone? Judas was of the Devil.”

It is assumed that Judas was baptized when the other 11 were, probably shortly after Jesus was baptized. And you said your self, “This means that when someone gets born again, they become a son of God and CAN NOT GO TO HELL!” So, presumably when one is “born again” they are either baptized or go to get baptized. But you make it seem like since you become born again, you cannot go to hell. Yes you can! Once you’ve been born again you aren’t all of a sudden freed from all temptation. You and I still could fall short if we don’t stay in our paths.

20. “"But Mary was redeemed by God’s Grace and Christ’s death PRIOR to her conception." - Again you have NO SCRIPTURE, just a "faith" that it has been pasted down from the Apostles to the Catholic Church. Again, no Scripture, no foundation!”

Tim, you don’t have Scripture either that irrefutably proves Mary to have sinned! You cannot show us all the same passages that you already have. Those passages have been studied by scholars and theologians century after century, and unless you go outside the Scripture, there really is nothing you can do to prove or disprove this fact. You have to believe that if God could preserve His Word in Scripture, then God can also preserve His Word in the Church.

21. “"What! Christ DID have to be born and die for our salvation!" - Yes, just for our salvation, but not to have life. So, Mary was just his choice to come to save His people. He could have just appeared in the flesh, taught, then get crucified for us. His choice. Doesn't change Mary being human one bit.”

Where is it that I, or the Catholic Church, ever said Mary wasn’t human. She was every bit human – not divine. But She was human without sin. This being due to the fact that she gave birth to her Savior.

22. “"But Mary only went into Heaven after Christ, her Son, died. So she was Pure enough to enter Heaven, but the Gates of Heaven weren’t opened until Christ Died and Rose!" - Exactly, if she wasn't pure enough to enter Heaven, then she wouldn't have been pure enough to contain God - as you claim.”

Hmm. I don’t get your statement. She WAS pure enough to enter Heaven, and she was pure enough to contain God. She didn’t enter Heaven until Christ died, because He opened the Gates. I think you misread my above post.

23. “Mary bored Christ. End of Mary. She didn't do anything else concerning the duties of Christ, the salvation of the Believer, or the casting of Satan into the Lake of Fire.”

But Mary’s participation in the Incarnation of God directly effected our Salvation AND the casting of Satan into the Lake of Fire. Had Jesus (the Son) not Chosen to be born of Mary, then we couldn’t say this. But God did choose Mary to give birth to Him in the Flesh. And because of his Choice, to be BORN of a human, had there been no Mary, there would not have been Jesus.

“Praise God, forever and ever! God Bless...”

Amen! Tim, I would encourage you to also do some research on this stuff outside of what I’m saying. It may be more convincing coming from others as well. Also, others might be able to explain things differently, and more effective. There is tons (literally) of literature on the net and in your local Christian (Catholic preferably) bookstore to answer all your questions. The reason we suggest Catholic material is that, if you want to know the Truth about our beliefs then you should hear it from the Horses mouth (so to speak). If you go to an anti-Catholic, or Protestant source, they will want to push their causes by promoting false teachings of the Church. Likewise, when I want to know what Protestants teach, I look at Protestant sights, because Catholic writers might over emphasize or misunderstand what they really do teach.

God bless.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 13, 2002

Answers

I don't know what those 'A's are, but I hope they don't mess up the message.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 13, 2002.

Jake,

I admire your zeal for a man that has been reading the Bible for a few months, but maybe Tim and you can take these looooong posts to private e-mail?

-- - (.@.....), November 13, 2002.

.@.....

??? You don't have to read these post if they are too much reading for you.

I enjoy talking with Jake, and studing Scripture.

Oh, you sure do have a weird name??? You just pop up here and there, but say nothing....

Tim

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 13, 2002.

I was almost about to say the same thing, Tim.

I don't feel so bad after looking at the "Euthanasia" thread. I think it's fair to say that one long post is just the same as a ship load of one-liners.

Hope to hear from ya.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 13, 2002.

Tim,

You are right! But, maybe you could keep it on one thread? Your basic questions have been answered hundreds of times before in this forum. I don't wan't to see Part 4-....Part 10.

Get the picture? Good!

-- - (.@......), November 13, 2002.

Okay Jake,

Sorry for the long awaited reply...

--

"John 11: “Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you.” He dilevered the TRADITIONS by mouth, not merly by Scripture."

This was said because it was known that people were already corrupting what the Apostles were teaching and trying to lead people astray.

2th 2:2-3 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

--

"You haven’t shown us ONE “new” Catholic teaching that is contrary to scripture."

Please see,http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00AClY

"The Catholic Church may give a better understanding on something, or the Holy Spirit may reveal something to the Catholic Church (which is then checked by the Bishops and the Pope – and must be in line with Scripture and Tradition" - this is what I fear has caused the deception.

--

"The Holy Spirit was promised to the Church for that precise reason: to preserve the Scripture (that is its correct interpretation) and Tradition."

Where does it say God will presevre tradition?

What did Paul say about himself following the tradition of old?

Ga 1:13-14 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

What has God preserve?

Ne 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Ps 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Wasn't it at the Council of Trent [1546] that it was established that sacared tradition is equal authority with Holy Scripture?

--

"First, how high is it that you think we hold Mary!?"

1. The was sinless - like Christ 2. She was assumbed into Heaven - Only Enoch, Elisah, and Jesus went body and soul ascending to Heaven. 3. Although Mary is not omnicient (spelling?) - she can hear everyones prayers and past them on to Christ. 4. Without Mary, Christ wouldn't be. (She was for his birth on earth, not his beginning) 5. Christ needs Mary to defeat the Devil. 6. Kiss statues of Mary and Jesus. 7. Hail Marys - What about Hail Jesus? 8. The Apostles learned from her and Christ? Where do we find this?

etc...

--

"Second, I thought we went through this: Mary’s intercession, her assumption, and her perpetual virginity, ARE NOT necessary for our salvation. They are however beneficial for our knowledge, and may assist us in our salvation."

May assist in salvation?

Joh 3:35-36 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

God put everything in the hands of Christ - without Mary - and we are to believe on Christ!

1ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Christ is our mediator to get us into Heaven - there is no reason to ask Mary for anything. She was human and is unable to perform ANY of the marvelous works of salvation or perfection that Christ is working in us.

--

"The Bible only tells us what is “necessary” to be saved."

That's right - so all of the "teachings" that are not in scripture are just the vain works of man.

--

The Gospel places truth in the Scriptures, not the passing down of tradition. 1co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

--

"These things were taught! Some of it just wasn’t written down!"

God would not have taught something important, and not included it in His Book. You mean God trusted more the word of mouth, than the written word? If I tell you something that isn't in the Bible, you would have to believe that God showed it to me. If I tell you something in the Bible, then you can believe God because it has been written down and preserved through many years.

--

Infant Baptisim - show me 1 verse, 1/2 a verse, any sign or hint of it in Scripture. The kissing of statues, show me any hint of it in Scripture. Paying money and praying people out of Purgatory, where is the hint of it in Scripture?

Show me, so that I may believe.

--

"Mass is expressly taught in the Letter of Paul to the Corinthians."

Please see,http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=00AClY

--

"It wasn’t until 1500’s that the Catholic Church declared the official Bible"

Wasn't it produced in English in 1610, - surprisingly 1 year or so before the KJV. Before then, it was in Latin, and funny thing is - MOST people DID NOT speak Latin.

--

About the so called Apocrypha?

According to "Purified Seven Times":

They were canonized at the Council of Trent, 1546. None of the books are contained in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.

What did Cardinal Wiseman say about the Douay-Rheims bible? "It has been altered and modified until scarcelyany verse remains as it was originally published".

What is in the preface of the Douay-Rheims bible? "The (New Testament) was not translated into English because it was necessary that the Bible be in the mother tongue, or that God had appointed the Scriptures to be read by all."

Show me where God doesn't want everyone to read His Word.

The Roman Catholic Church canonized 11 [how many were there?] of the Apocryphal books, but Jerome "rejected the Apocryphal writings as non-canonical in the fourth century AD."

And what is the Catholic Bible based on? Jerome's Latin Vulgate?

--

"The OT was not undone; it was fulfilled. Suffice it to say that since there were priests in the OT, there should be priests in the NT, unless Christ commanded otherwise."

What? The priests in the OT was from Levi and where to sacrafice animals for sin offerings - Christ abolished the sin offerings by fulfilling the Old Testament, so tell me again, Why do we need priest today? Are the Catholic priests of Levi? What other priests were there in the OT?

Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

Then Christ becomes the high priest, and there is no need for sacrafices or priest anymore.

Heb 9:6-17 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

--

"You said yourself that the Old Testament has NOT been “put away”, but rather fulfilled! The Mass has nothing to do with the sacrifices of the OT, rather, the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb! "

Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

--

"It is assumed that Judas was baptized when the other 11 were, probably shortly after Jesus was baptized. And you said your self, “This means that when someone gets born again, they become a son of God and CAN NOT GO TO HELL!” "

This just proves my point that baptisim doesn't save us - you can be baptized, but not saved.

Remember the people that were filled with the Holy Ghost - BEFORE - they were baptized? Does that mean that they had the Holy Spirit - BEFORE - they were saved?

Ac 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

But remember vs. 43 - PETER tells us what it takes to be forgiven:

Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

--

Again Jake - sorry for the long delay...

God Bless!!!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 19, 2002.

Correction - it should be Elijah in the chariot, and not Elisah - he could only wish. lol!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 19, 2002.

“"John 11: “Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you.” He dilevered the TRADITIONS by mouth, not merly by Scripture."

This was said because it was known that people were already corrupting what the Apostles were teaching and trying to lead people astray.”

But if it be true then for the Church of Christ, how can it not be true NOW!?

“2th 2:2-3 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”

I’m not sure how this proves anything about Scripture being the sole source of the Word of God. If we skip to 2Th 2:15 we see again reference to Tradition (by word of mouth or written).

“"You haven’t shown us ONE “new” Catholic teaching that is contrary to scripture." Please see,http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl? msg_id=00AClY “

Tim, I’m really not interested in re-visiting “old-hat”. We’ve been through those arguments, and as you can see, we Catholics have defended them pretty good. Maybe if there is a particular teaching that we can go “in depth” on, you can bring it up. But I assure you, I’ve read them all, and I am satisfied with the proof given and the logical evidence that the Catholic Church is correct, and none of her Teachings are contrary to Scripture.

"The Catholic Church may give a better understanding on something, or the Holy Spirit may reveal something to the Catholic Church (which is then checked by the Bishops and the Pope – and must be in line with Scripture and Tradition" - this is what I fear has caused the deception.”

What “deception”, Tim. It is clear from Scripture that the Tradition was either ORAL or written, and it is logically clear, because if this was a big “deception”, why did it take 1500 years to figure it out?

“Where does it say God will presevre tradition?”

Well, we understand the Gospels to be the Word of God, and inside the Word of God both John, John 11, and Paul, 2Th2:15, state clearly that we must hold onto Tradition (that is written and by word of mouth). So, as such, it can be taken that the Spirit, who was promised to the Church, would defend and preserve the Tradition (written and verbal).

“What did Paul say about himself following the tradition of old? Ga 1:13-14 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.”

This was because the traditions of his fathers were not preserved by the Holy Spirit. Remember, the Advocate would only come when Christ left. Again, we see Paul talking about the Traditions, which he was teaching by word of mouth, that were going to be preserved and needed to be held fast to (2Th 2).

“Ne 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Ps 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off. Wasn't it at the Council of Trent [1546] that it was established that sacared tradition is equal authority with Holy Scripture?”

Absolutely! Because we have understood Scripture and Sacred Tradition to come from God! Both, coming from God, are equal in authority. Scripture itself proves this! However, Scripture does NOT prove that it alone is the Word of God.

“"First, how high is it that you think we hold Mary!?" 1. The was sinless - like Christ” 2.

Actually, angels are sinless also, so really, not “like Christ”, but rather, like an angel.

“2. She was assumbed into Heaven - Only Enoch, Elisah, and Jesus went body and soul ascending to Heaven.”

This is wrong! Only Jesus “ascended”! That is, Jesus went up into heaven on his own authority and Power. Enoch, Elijah, and Mary were “assumed” (or taken up) into Heaven by and through the Power of God, not on their own. Enoch and Elijah were mentioned in Scripture. Mary’s assumption was not in Scripture, though it is in no way contrary to Scripture. Mary’s assumption is part of the Church Tradition (which is the Word of God as well – as we had previously discussed), and can be traced back way beyond the reformation. Therefore, the assumption of Enoch, Elijah and Mary cannot be compared to the ascension of Jesus. One went up on His own, Jesus, and the others were taken up by God, not on their own.

“3. Although Mary is not omnicient (spelling?) - she can hear everyones prayers and past them on to Christ.”

In heaven, where we will know things that angels long to know, Mary can hear our prayers, just as angels can hear our prayers. In Rev. it talks about the angels and saints raising the incense of the prayers of us up to God. If angels can know and hear our prayers, then humans can as well!

“4. Without Mary, Christ wouldn't be. (She was for his birth on earth, not his beginning).”

WE KNOW this! Where in Church teachings does it say that the Word, Jesus, only came about AFTER Mary? What we teach is that without Mary, Christ in the FLESH wouldn’t be. That is to say – it is understood that the “Word was with God, and the Word was God.” But the Word wasn’t FLESH from the very beginning! Only AFTER Mary was the Word made Flesh. And the fact that God picked and created His Mother, made Her a necessity for Christ – the Word made Flesh.

“5. Christ needs Mary to defeat the Devil.”

God Chose Mary to be a part of the defeat of the Devil. Please refer to the “Mary-Gods only Choice” thread.

“6. Kiss statues of Mary and Jesus.”

Paul says, “great one another with a holy kiss.” We are creations, and yet we kiss each other. The kissing of creations (statues of bodies) isn’t idolatry, or in any way contrary to Scripture. A kiss is a symbol of honor and respect do to the person represented by the image. In essence, when we kiss each other, we really are honoring the soul and spirit of that person; not their bodies, but the human person. In the same way, when we kiss a statue, we aren’t honoring the statue (a physical body similar to ours), we are honoring the soul and spirit that once accompanied the image. Tim, you must admit, when you kiss your mom, wife or daughter, you aren’t intending the kiss simply for the physical body; rather for the individual (comprised of body soul and spirit). Just like you might kiss the picture of your deceased grandma. It isn’t idolatry!

“7. Hail Marys - What about Hail Jesus?”

Again, if you know the power of the Rosary, you wouldn’t say this. The Hail Mary’s are said within the Rosary. The Rosary is a meditational prayer. While we verbalize our prayers to Mary, we are contemplating on the mysteries of Christ’s life. The Rosary IS Christ centered. Besides for this, the Hail Mary is simply one devotion to Mary among the Zillions of prayers to Jesus (God): The Mass, Our Father, Glory Be, Chaplet of Divine Mercy, O’ My Jesus, and the millions and millions of personal prayers said to Jesus.

“8. The Apostles learned from her and Christ? Where do we find this?”

Mary was constantly with Jesus since she was His mother, and when He started His ministry, Mary was always with the Apostles. Although Mary didn’t, nor could she have, teach the Apostles things about God the Father, she could have and more than likely did teach things about God her Son. Christ taught the Apostles what He was given from his Father. Mary taught the Apostles what she was given from her Son. This is one of those common sense things again. It isn’t explicitly stated in Scripture (but then again neither is Jesus brushing His teeth), but there are certain things, which just make sense. Mary was Jesus’ Mother. And the fact that she hung out with the Apostles most of the time, makes it just plain common sense that she would have at least talked about Jesus with them.

“"Second, I thought we went through this: Mary’s intercession, her assumption, and her perpetual virginity, ARE NOT necessary for our salvation. They are however beneficial for our knowledge, and may assist us in our salvation."

May assist in salvation?”

Yes, assist. We aren’t required to pray every second of the day. But if somehow we could, this would assist us in our salvation, don’t you think. There are certain things, which assist us in salvation. Water isn’t required for salvation either, but since baptism is, then water is an assistant in our salvation.

“Joh 3:35-36 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

And what does it mean to “believe” in the Son? Is it a simple acknowledgment of existence? I “believe” in my next-door neighbor. Even Satan “believes” in Jesus. But to believe is to live His commandments. To believe is to be Jesus’ best friend, to love Him like a Bride loves Her Groom. And to know Jesus the way a Bride knows her Groom, we search for assistance from one another.

Believe it or not, Tim, you are an assistant in my salvation. Through your prayers I am strengthened! Same too, Mary is an assistant in my salvation because her prayers strengthen me. She may not be necessary in your salvation, nor may I be necessary in your salvation, but to each of us comes different forms up support and help. We cannot do it on our own. It is through Jesus Christ, yes, but we also look to the Body of Christ (His members) to support us and cheer us on in the fight for victory.

“God put everything in the hands of Christ - without Mary - and we are to believe on Christ!”

We do believe in Christ! That’s a given. But I need inspiration, Tim. I need someone by my side to cheer me on, to support me! My parents are a key to my salvation! Had they not instilled in me the love of God, I may not be where I am. Don’t you see, Tim? It is shallow to say that it is simply God and me.

Alcoholics have support groups! Why? Many of them are Protestants and Catholics. Don’t they just need Jesus to stop!? They Know this, Tim. But it is our human nature to need help! We need a support group. What do you think the Church is? That is exactly what it is! It is a support group for those who are saved!

“1ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Christ is our mediator to get us into Heaven - there is no reason to ask Mary for anything. She was human and is unable to perform ANY of the marvelous works of salvation or perfection that Christ is working in us.”

Okay, Tim, then why ask any other human for prayers? You’re caught, Tim, unless you’ve never asked anyone else except Jesus for prayer. The fact is, Christ IS the mediator between God and men. Mary has to go to Jesus with our prayers… we’ve been though this before!

“"The Bible only tells us what is “necessary” to be saved." That's right - so all of the "teachings" that are not in scripture are just the vain works of man.”

EEEEE. Wrong again, Tim. The Bible tells us to hold fast to the Traditions, which Paul had taught by MOUTH! Therefore, the Bible does tell us what is necessary to be saved. What is it?

The Bible tells us that in order to be saved, we need to follow Gods Word. Gods Word, as shown in Scripture, is Scripture, Tradition (of God), and the Teachings of the Magisterium (who hold the Keys to the Kingdom – just as Christ gave them).

“The Gospel places truth in the Scriptures, not the passing down of tradition.”

What! Are you forgetting John 11, and 2 Th 2?

“1co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.”

Pause: Note… “…which I preached unto you…keep in memory…”

“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;”

Pause: Note… “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”. This doesn’t indicate that what Paul “received, and what Paul has “delivered” is scripture. It simply says that according to Scripture, Christ died. And this is true.

“And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”

Again, this is true, Christ died, Christ is Risen. These are true and they are from Scripture. But how is it that this somehow makes ALL of Paul’s teachings Scriptural? Paul certainly received much more from Christ than what was written in Scripture. And he certainly taught much more that Scripture. In fact, he says that he doesn’t like to write!

“"These things were taught! Some of it just wasn’t written down!"

God would not have taught something important, and not included it in His Book.”

Sheesh – If Christ (God) intended ONLY what was important to be written down, don’t you think the Apostles would have been jotting it down as they walked with Christ. Also, if ONLY what was important was to be written down, then why didn’t Christ write anything?

Furthermore, if everything written in the Bible is of the utmost importance, why did it take 50 years after the death of Christ for the Gospel writers to write? Moreover, what happened to the other 7 Apostles, that wrote nothing!

“You mean God trusted more the word of mouth, than the written word?”

Well, if you look at Scripture, it would appear that we. Christ commissioned his Apostles to Preach the Gospel to all nations (by word of mouth!). He said, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”. How did the Father send Jesus? Speaking, preaching! Writing? NO!

“If I tell you something that isn't in the Bible, you would have to believe that God showed it to me. If I tell you something in the Bible, then you can believe God because it has been written down and preserved through many years.”

But, Tim, it isn’t that the Church is just making stuff up out of the blue. ALL the current teachings have been written down! The belief in Mary’s virginity can be traced back to the early first centuries. Mary’s assumption, early first centuries. Give me a Church Teaching that ISN’T from the first centuries (by the direct successors of the Apostles) and I will consider its validity.

“Infant Baptisim - show me 1 verse, 1/2 a verse, any sign or hint of it in Scripture. The kissing of statues, show me any hint of it in Scripture.”

I showed you, Tim, Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant, just as circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant. With circumcision, the elders had to profess belief, but the infants were accepted on the belief of their parents (at 8 days!). Do I have to cut an past half of the Old Testament for you to see this? All throughout the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus heals people based not on the faith of the one being healed, but on the faith of the person asking! If Christ would raise a Child from the dead, based on the faith of her parents, why would he not accept a baptized infant on the faith of her parents? Christ said to his Apostles, “let the children come to me, it is to them the kingdom of heaven belongs”. Christ said that Children belonged to the kingdom! And in order to belong to the kingdom, one has to be baptized! So, in essence, Christ is saying, “don’t hold back baptism from the infants, they belong to the kingdom!”

Show me 1 verse, ½ a verse, any sign or hint of it in Scripture that denies infant baptism.

“Paying money and praying people out of Purgatory, where is the hint of it in Scripture?”

It is a shame that you try to slip the paying part in with the praying part. Paying money is wrong, and never was it ever ever taught by the Church (that is the Pope in union with the Bishops). It was a very rotten and evil group of con artists who taught this, NOT THE CHURCH. This issue was amended and repaired; unfortunately Luther couldn’t wait.

The prayer part can be showed in Scripture, unfortunately again, you do not consider Maccabees scripture. Unfortunate for sure, because it had been considered Scripture by the Church for 1000 years. However, there are also many Protestants who believe in the existence of a state of purgation or growth in the spirit (I don’t know if they’d call it Purgatory). You might want to listen to a few tapes by Dominic Berardino.

“"Mass is expressly taught in the Letter of Paul to the Corinthians." Please see,http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl? msg_id=00AClY”

Sorry, can’t enter this link. However, why don’t you just tell me what Paul meant, starting with 1 Cor. 11, “20 Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper”.

“"It wasn’t until 1500’s that the Catholic Church declared the official Bible" Wasn't it produced in English in 1610”

Tim, my point wasn’t about different translations (Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English or whatever). My point was about the context of the Bible. The Catholic Church has had the very same 73 books all containing translations, which reflect the original intent, for 1500 years. It was officialized in the 1500’s by the Church, but this doesn’t mean that it wasn’t the same. It was officialized so that no one could add verses or cut out books, which seemed to take root around the same time by Protestants.

“Show me where God doesn't want everyone to read His Word.”

If you are hinting that the Catholic Church didn’t allow anyone to read the Word, you are sadly mistaken. The Catholic Church was guarding the word against slashers – like that of the reformation. Since the Bible was Hand Written up until the printing press, there probably wasn’t enough monks in the world to produce a Bible for everyone!? Don’t you think that would be silly? Moreover, aside from hand writing the Bible, now you want them to hand write and hand translate the Bible into all the various languages!? Hmmm.

“The Roman Catholic Church canonized 11 [how many were there?] of the Apocryphal books, but Jerome "rejected the Apocryphal writings as non- canonical in the fourth century AD."”

Can you show me the source of this info.? I’m having a hard time understanding? I never heard of the Church “canonizing” 11 of the Apocryphal books?

“"The OT was not undone; it was fulfilled. Suffice it to say that since there were priests in the OT, there should be priests in the NT, unless Christ commanded otherwise."

What? The priests in the OT was from Levi and where to sacrafice animals for sin offerings - Christ abolished the sin offerings by fulfilling the Old Testament, so tell me again, Why do we need priest today? Are the Catholic priests of Levi? What other priests were there in the OT?”

I don’t have time right now to look up all the “duties” of the Priest, nor do I have time to verify that the office of the priesthood was solely for the Levi’s all throughout the OT. I know the “office of the priesthood was given to just them early on, but I’ll check. I know that their office wasn’t for simply sacrificing.

“Heb 7:5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:”

This doesn’t say that the office of the priesthood was solely for the levi’s, it only said that the sons of Levi received the office of the priesthood. But this was early on, when the 12 tribes had just begun and were together! But after much war and ravaging, and the Ark of the Covenant passed from one hand to another, I’m not sure the priesthood remained only in Levi. Farthermore, it said that their office was to “take tithes of the people”, which wasn’t abolished by the death of Christ.

“Then Christ becomes the high priest, and there is no need for sacrafices or priest anymore.”

But you just quoted from Heb. That priests collect tithes, which isn’t sacrifice. Moreover, there is a “remembrance” of the Sacrifice of Christ, “for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of Jesus”. And since it was Priests who sacrificed in the OT, then wouldn’t it be priests now to present the Sacrifice of the Mass? Note: I don’t want to draw us into an argument about the Sacrifice of the Mass. NO, it isn’t a “new” sacrifice, it is the very same sacrifice that went on at the Cross.

“"You said yourself that the Old Testament has NOT been “put away”, but rather fulfilled! The Mass has nothing to do with the sacrifices of the OT, rather, the sacrifice of Jesus, the Lamb! "

Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”

Like I said, we aren’t crucifying Him “afresh”, we are doing as He, Jesus Christ, had commanded, “do this in memory of me”. Paul is referring to those who were against Christ, not literally crucifying him afresh, but taking his name in vain by continuing in their pagan ways. When persons go out of the Catholic way, they need to be brought back to the right path.

“"It is assumed that Judas was baptized when the other 11 were, probably shortly after Jesus was baptized. And you said your self, “This means that when someone gets born again, they become a son of God and CAN NOT GO TO HELL!” "

This just proves my point that baptisim doesn't save us - you can be baptized, but not saved.”

Baptism doesn’t save us, but it is necessary to be saved! “What must I do to be saved?” “Repent and be BAPTISED!”

“Remember the people that were filled with the Holy Ghost - BEFORE - they were baptized? Does that mean that they had the Holy Spirit - BEFORE - they were saved?”

Absolutely! Once they were filled with the Holy Spirit, in order to be saved, they must “repent and be baptized”. If they had died at that instance, with the Holy Spirit filling them up, then they would be saved through the Baptism of desire. But as a requirement expressed by the Apostles through Scripture, yes, it is necessary.

“Ac 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

Indeed! They were filled with the Holy Spirit, who desired them to be baptized!

“But remember vs. 43 - PETER tells us what it takes to be forgiven: Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”

Forgiveness for sins doesn’t necessarily need to accompany Salvation. If the person was really sorry, and “believeth in him”, then they would want to be baptized.

No problem for the delay, Tim.

Glad to hear from you.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 20, 2002.

Excuse the intrusion
One thing these longish posts do is hide away little ''gems'' (in the eyes of their authors,) so that they can be drowned and never receive answers. Making outright evasion really easy; MEGO.

The one who does this habitually is leaving his best work in the shadow. Sometimes I'll search through the manuscripts and select a salient point on which to remark. I see a few in Tim's long post, and of course in Jake's. I suspect Tim will pass over the questions Jake MOST wants answered It wouldn't be smart of Tim to respond.

I see a few areas of Tim's own post where his point is well-taken, but arrives at bad conclusions. He has little hope of getting it to the attention of Jake, unless Jake wears skuba-gear (somewhere in this ocean, uh;)

But, what the heck. Each writer gets to read his own post. He loves that, even if it never gets read through by somebody else. I'm watching today to see if any valid questions or objections get a direct answer. I would do it myself-- But I want Jake to answer for himself, and Tim to answer for himself too. Give them a chance.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 20, 2002.

Boy, you can tell there's a full moon out! Eugene that was toooo funny!

Gail

P.S. Yes, sometimes Less really is More!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 20, 2002.

Indeed Timmy. "Quality not quanity!" Listen with your ears(eyes in forum) and don't listen with your mouth(keyboard in forum). That's why you have two ears and one mouth. Use them accordingly.

-- . (.@....), November 20, 2002.

Eugene and .@....

It is funny how God works...!

I receive a little rebuke today...From you both and from God.

"One thing these longish posts do is hide away little ''gems'' (in the eyes of their authors,) so that they can be drowned and never receive answers." - Eugene

"Indeed Timmy. "Quality not quanity!"" - .@....

And this is what God gave me in Church tonight:

Ec 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

Honestly, thanks for the rebuke guys!

I can take the rebuke when it is honest and pure. As I told you in the other post - really we should all be against the Devil and not against one another.

Although I must make clear that I am a Bible Believer, and that just means that if I can't find it in the Bible or the Spirit of Truth has not made it clear to me, I will have to reject it.

But isn't that what you do to, when you read my post?

I believe PRIDE is a major problem that people have when it comes to belief [including myself]. To except something that is true, we first have to put our PRIDE down and believe the Spirit of Truth over what we know [or think we know] and over the words of men.

God Bless!

And Jake, I'll try to reply to somethings you wrote!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 21, 2002.

Jake,

John 11? - “"John 11: “Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you.” He dilevered the TRADITIONS by mouth, not merly by Scripture."

The word tradition does not even appear in the book of John. Well according to my KJV - where are those verses from? My John 11 talks about Lazarus?????

I believe the traditions were basically the same teachings that the Apostles wrote. This way the people could match the writings and the teachings and see that they were EXACTLY

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 23, 2002.

SORRY

Jake,

John 11? - “"John 11: “Now (2) I praise you because you (3) remember me in everything and (4) hold firmly to the TRADITIONS, just as I delivered them to you.” He dilevered the TRADITIONS by mouth, not merly by Scripture."

The word tradition does not even appear in the book of John. Well according to my KJV - where are those verses from? My John 11 talks about Lazarus?????

I believe the traditions were basically the same teachings that the Apostles wrote. This way the people could match the writings and the teachings and see that they were EXACTLY the same and TRUTH.

2th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Why would they write one thing and teach something else???

"Also, if ONLY what was important was to be written down, then why didn’t Christ write anything?"

Why didn't Christ baptize?

"Moreover, what happened to the other 7 Apostles, that wrote nothing!"

What about writings of Adam, Enoch, Jacob, or other people that served God?

"How did the Father send Jesus? Speaking, preaching! Writing? NO!"

Baptizing? No.

"I showed you, Tim, Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant, just as circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant."

What? This is what Paul said about circumcision, would the same apply to baptisim then?

Ga 5:2-3 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

"So, in essence, Christ is saying, “don’t hold back baptism from the infants, they belong to the kingdom!”

Don't put words in Christ mouth. He never said anything about baptizing infants.

Even the verses about Baptisim one must REPENT first. How can an infant repent?

"Show me 1 verse, ½ a verse, any sign or hint of it in Scripture that denies infant baptism."

When something [a belief] IS NOT in Scripture, that is the proof that it isn't so. You can't prove a point by dismissing the Bible and using what man believes.

"However, there are also many Protestants who believe in the existence of a state of purgation or growth in the spirit (I don’t know if they’d call it Purgatory)."

What does this verse mean?

2co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

"The Catholic Church has had the very same 73 books all containing translations, which reflect the original intent, for 1500 years."

Original intent of the Catholics maybe, but not all of the Chritians during history. I don't believe anyone else has put the extra books into the Old Testament but Catholics.

[“The Roman Catholic Church canonized 11 [how many were there?] of the Apocryphal books, but Jerome "rejected the Apocryphal writings as non- canonical in the fourth century AD."”] - Purfied Seven Times, by Evangelist Bill Bradley - from - Craig Lampe, Ph.D., Southwest Radio Church interview, 1996. ** Let me know if you find this incorrect. Really, I would like to know.

Did you find out about the Priest yet? If there were any others than the Levits of the Old Testaments?

"Forgiveness for sins doesn’t necessarily need to accompany Salvation."

What? Then you claim the theif on the cross didn't go to Heaven. Jesus lied. Jesus doesn't save one person one way and another person another way. It is the same way. Straight is the Way!

If Christ forgave all of your sins right now, and as soon as he forgave you - you died. Without getting baptized. You would still go to Hell? How? You are sinless...

Later Jake - God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 23, 2002.

Can you trust a Catholic, Tim? Trust a Catholic to reply honestly on the morrow; 24th Nov.--??? Come back, because the Holy Spirit will be back? Don't go away-- We are not in a hurry.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 24, 2002.

“The word tradition does not even appear in the book of John. Well according to my KJV - where are those verses from? My John 11 talks about Lazarus?????”

Sorry, 1Cor. 11.

“I believe the traditions were basically the same teachings that the Apostles wrote. This way the people could match the writings and the teachings and see that they were EXACTLY the same and TRUTH.”

The key words in your statement were “I believe”. That is, you (and only you) simply believe what you think to be true. But can this claim be substantiated with proof (either written or taught orally by anyone)?

“2th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. Why would they write one thing and teach something else???”

I don’t understand why you have this “either / or” attitude. The truth is they wrote some things and taught the same things AND more. It isn’t that they wrote one thing, and taught something totally different and in contradiction to what they wrote! They wrote the basics, or in the case of Paul, in order to maintain order in the churches, but this didn’t necessarily mean that everything they wrote was ALL that they taught. In fact, and I keep posting this, Paul and John make it very clear that writing was NOT their fist preference.

“"Also, if ONLY what was important was to be written down, then why didn’t Christ write anything?"

Why didn't Christ baptize?”

Exactly, Tim! Christ didn’t have to write every teaching down, because HE was (and is) the LIVING Word! He taught through His actions and his speech! And just as the Father sent Him (not to write, but to preach and act), so too did He send his Apostles!

“"Moreover, what happened to the other 7 Apostles, that wrote nothing!" What about writings of Adam, Enoch, Jacob, or other people that served God?”

You are beginning to see, Tim! What they wrote WAS important. But it wasn’t included in the Bible. The Bible isn’t an exhaustive teaching of the faith. It is sufficient for teaching us how to do good works, and it is sufficient in bringing us to believe. But likewise my drivers manual is sufficient in teaching me to drive, right. However, if I want to be a better Christian, and if I want to drive better, I look outside what is “sufficient” and I search for more and more!

"I showed you, Tim, Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant, just as circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant." What? This is what Paul said about circumcision, would the same apply to baptisim then?”

I know what Paul says, Tim. But this was what Paul said AFTER Christ died for us, and AFTER the Old Testament was fulfilled. I know that since the Old Testament was fulfilled there was no need to be circumcised. But, Tim, you miss my point. I think you jump all over my writing in order to “disprove” it, before you have a chance to absorb it. The OT and NT correspond almost transparently, if you hadn’t noticed already. And as the OT covenant entrance WAS (in the past) circumcision, so IS (present) baptisms the NT covenant entrance. And since they both serve as the same thing in both their respective covenants, then baptism would have the same spiritual constituance as circumcision did. That is: The elders who wanted to enter into the covenant had to profess their faith and then be circumcised, but the infants were circumcised and entered into the covenant based on the faith of their parents. Same too with Baptism now (which replaced the OT covenant).

"So, in essence, Christ is saying, “don’t hold back baptism from the infants, they belong to the kingdom!” Don't put words in Christ mouth. He never said anything about baptizing infants.”

I’m not putting words in the mouth of Christ. It IS what He meant, because if we look back to the wee first couple of centuries this IS how the Church Fathers understood it to be, and they received their understanding of it from the Apostles themselves!

“Even the verses about Baptisim one must REPENT first. How can an infant repent?”

Tim, I’m frustrated that you must have glazed over the previous explanation. Just as circumcision was the entrance into the OT, Baptism IS the entrance into the new covenant. An infant cannot repent, but this doesn’t exclude them from entering the kingdom of Christ, through baptism!

“"Show me 1 verse, ½ a verse, any sign or hint of it in Scripture that denies infant baptism." When something [a belief] IS NOT in Scripture, that is the proof that it isn't so. You can't prove a point by dismissing the Bible and using what man believes.”

Well, unless of course that “man” is inspired by Christ, right? Or unless that “man” got his information from the Apostles, who got their info from Christ, right? When something is not in Scripture, it doesn’t prove it isn’t so. Unless it is blatantly against Scripture, then there is no proof either way. Where in the Bible does it say that Mary died a normal death like you or I? It doesn’t. So I guess by your theory this is proof that it IS NOT so. Since it is proof that Mary didn’t die a normal death, then maybe the Catholic Church is right. :) . OF course I’m just using this as an example. The Church has more than Scripture to back up this belief. But do you see my point? On the contrary, however, there is ample evidence that infant baptism was permitted. Just as I pointed out (Christ healing based on others faith, Christ wanting the Children to come to him, etc.)

“What does this verse mean? 2co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”

It means that we ARE confident that when we are absent from the Body, we will be present with the Lord. However, we do not know how long after the separation of Body and Soul we come into the presence of Christ. You cannot show from this verse that it is an immediate process. Like I said before, read the Church Fathers, read several protestant testimonies. They all seem to think there is much more than, wham! You die, and zap! Your in heaven. There is much much more than this. For, “Nothing pure can enter heaven.”

“Original intent of the Catholics maybe, but not all of the Chritians during history. I don't believe anyone else has put the extra books into the Old Testament but Catholics.”

Tim, you have completely missed the mark, or are being taught wrong, NO ONE has ever “put extra books” into the Bible. People have taken books OUT of the Bible, but no one has ever put extra books in since the compilation of the Bible in the 4th century.

“[“The Roman Catholic Church canonized 11 [how many were there?] of the Apocryphal books, but Jerome "rejected the Apocryphal writings as non- canonical in the fourth century AD."”] - Purfied Seven Times, by Evangelist Bill Bradley - from - Craig Lampe, Ph.D., Southwest Radio Church interview, 1996. ** Let me know if you find this incorrect. Really, I would like to know.”

What did Jerome consider Apocryphal books. Remember, Protestants have a different (and wrong) notion of Apocryphal, than Catholics, who actually picked the books to be contained in the Bible.

“Did you find out about the Priest yet? If there were any others than the Levits of the Old Testaments?”

Actually, not really, I have noticed however in several instances where Levites and Priests were mentioned separately. For instance “gather the Levites and Priests..” to that effect. I will make it a point to find some specifics for you, Tim. I also know that Priests did more than simply sacrificing things, and I will have some specifics on that too. But like I said, our priests fulfill the role of the OT priests in their sacrificing ALSO. However, instead of making NEW sacrifices, the Catholic priests commemorate (as Christ commanded) His sacrifice on the Cross.

"Forgiveness for sins doesn’t necessarily need to accompany Salvation." What? Then you claim the theif on the cross didn't go to Heaven. Jesus lied. Jesus doesn't save one person one way and another person another way. It is the same way. Straight is the Way!”

The thief obviously couldn’t be baptized while he was on the cross. Like I had mentioned before, there is a thing called “baptism of desire”. That is, like aborted babies, since they would have liked to be baptized into the new covenant, their “desire” for baptism, that which the thief had, afforded them the entrance as if they had been symbolically baptized like us. “If Christ forgave all of your sins right now, and as soon as he forgave you - you died. Without getting baptized. You would still go to Hell? How? You are sinless...”

You are right! But as I had said, it is through my “desire” for baptism, even though it is not possible, that I am baptized. But, if I survive, and I have the chance to be baptized, but through my laziness or doubt I do not achieve entrance into the covenant, and after that chance passes I die, then it would be a different story. God’s mercy is Great (much greater than I can imagine) and so I cannot say whether I could go to Hell – In fact it is difficult to say for sure that you know someone has gone to Hell. We know for sure that people are there, and that people go there. But to say a specific person has gone there for sure, is not possible. For, we do not know the persons last thoughts, and we do not understand God’s great love for humans.

Have a blessed night, all. Take care.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 24, 2002.

Here is a pretty good essay describing the connection between priests of the OT and priests of the NT. I will posts more, but this should hold ya till then. Thanks.

Priests

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 24, 2002.

Jmj

Tim, I found this claim of yours interesting:
"I must make clear that I am a Bible Believer, and that just means that if I can't find it in the Bible or the Spirit of Truth has not made it clear to me, I will have to reject it."

Now let's just suppose ...
(1) that I make the exact same claim,
(2) that you and I read the same Bible passage,
(3) that the "Spirit of Truth ... ma[kes] ... clear to me" one meaning of the passage, and
(4) that the "Spirit of Truth ... ma[kes] ... clear to" you a different meaning of the passage, seriously conflicting with the meaning that he "ma[de] clear to me."

Whose meaning is right, yours or mine? Maybe neither of us? (It can't be both of us.) Who would be the referee to decide?

Are you somehow not aware that this kind of thing is happening all over the place?
If you are aware of it, do you not see that your method is completely unworkable? You either invented it without realizing that you can't rely on it, or you learned it from a non-Catholic teacher who didn't realize how flawed a method it is.

Tim, there is truly just one realization that you need to have.
Forget about all the interminable proof-texting, wars of verses, etc., that have been taking place on this forum. The only thing that really matters is AUTHORITY. Where resides the authority to teach without error, to interpret the Bible without error?

I have just proved, by the example given above, that authority does not reside in your mind. You may think that you have the "Spirit of Truth," but you obviously do not -- at least not always, and not only, the Holy Spirit. The fact is that you block out some of the Spirit's promptings when you read the Bible. You place your own private "tradition" -- your filter or sieve of preconceived notions -- at a higher level than the truths that the Holy Spirit wants you to know. You thereby make yourself your own "pope" in your one-man denomination.

Once you realize that I am right -- that you are arrogating supernatural powers to yourself -- you will see that AUTHORITY resides only in the Catholic Magisterium, which alone can teach infallibly and was instituted by Jesus himself.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.

Jake,

"The key words in your statement were “I believe”. That is, you (and only you) simply believe what you think to be true. But can this claim be substantiated with proof (either written or taught orally by anyone)?"

True, that is what I believe about the traditions covered in the Bible by the Apostles. But how does that differ from you believing that they are different because somebody wrote something saying that they got it from the Apostles? Isn't that just you believing what they are saying - did the Apostles themselves write it down or tell you the difference?

"And just as the Father sent Him (not to write, but to preach and act), so too did He send his Apostles!"

I am beginning to see what you are saying. So, there is not really a good reason to have a Bible today. As long as you have someone telling you what to do and they are showing you what to do.

Then, you would NEVER know if they were lying or not.

"However, if I want to be a better Christian, and if I want to drive better, I look outside what is “sufficient” and I search for more and more!"

I realize what you are saying, honestly. That is why I read books and listen to preaching - to become a better Christian, we should pay attention to others that have already come through things and that give us words of wisdom. But, I believe [yes me] that it should be all Scripture based, and not anything that isn't covered within them. Sorry, if I am not perfect because I believe that. But, I believe that if I am wrong for trusting totally in Scripture over what other men have written that isn't contained therein - God will forgive me. :)

Through all of our words, I believe it boils down to this about salvation and the baptisim [even infant baptism].

1. I don't believe a baby - especially an aborted one - can have the so called “baptism of desire”. So a baby that doesn't repent, doesn't get baptized, doesn't take communion, and doesn't have parents that love God - where do they go?

Honestly, I don't know what God does with aborted babies - I pray that they all get a "free" ride straight to Heaven, but honestly I don't know.

2. I don't believe a person can lose salvation, for I believe once a person trust in Christ - they are saved forever - regardless. But, I realize that you [and some here] believe that you can fall from that. That nothing is secure. How can you go through life not knowing if you will be good enough to go to Heaven?

"Unless it is blatantly against Scripture, then there is no proof either way. Where in the Bible does it say that Mary died a normal death like you or I?"

Not exactly. It is an established FACT that people die, from the Scripture and today. It is a fact that the people that ascended to Heaven are mentioned in the Scriptures. So, therefore the claim you make about it could go either way, doesn't apply. - so I got your point, just didn't agree...

Let me ask you this: [Please answer this if nothing else.]

** Assuming the person answering is a Christian [You are, so please give me your answers].

1. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, did He die for the sins that you have done past, present, and future?

2. [If you went to Purgatory] Why would you go?

3. [If you were in Purgartory] What would you do [or what happens] to make yourself clean enough to enter Heaven?

3. When you stand before God, what will it be that allows you to enter Heaven?

You may ask me the same questions, I just would like to know your answers. I don't really need personal answers, so generic answers will do.

"However, instead of making NEW sacrifices, the Catholic priests commemorate (as Christ commanded) His sacrifice on the Cross."

commemorate - to honor the memory of somebody or something in a ceremony

To commemorate something, does not mean that the actual person and events are performed again exactly as before.

If it is only to commemorate [honor the memory of Christ], why does His literally flesh and blood have to return to earth and be eaten over and over again? The Apostles didn't eat his literal flesh and blood, and neither did the people after his death or his appearance.

That would mean that he is being crucified over and over again - which would be a lie.

Heb 7:26-27 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

"In fact it is difficult to say for sure that you know someone has gone to Hell."

I agree, just as I could not say that you are going to Heaven. I don't know, just like you don't know about me.

I could say that I believe that if you believe ON Jesus Christ [which is a heart matter, not just beliving Jesus is real], that you are a Christian, but only the person and God knows for sure.

God Bless...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 24, 2002.

Hello, Tim.

Please scroll up and reply to my message, which is just above your reply to Jake-H.
Here are some additional thoughts, based on what you just wrote ...

1. "How can you go through life not knowing if you will be good enough to go to Heaven?"
[What do you mean, "How can you" do it? Don't you know that about 90% of all Christians who have ever lived have done this. That includes all the Apostles and St. Paul, who "worked out [his] salvation in fear and trembling." Actually, it is not whether or not we "will be good enough." (That would be "works righteousness," which Catholicism rejects.) Instead what we don't know, as we "go through life," is whether or not we will remain faithful to God until the end (in a state of grace) or whether we will turn our backs on God some day and then die unrepentant. Tim, you need to be honest and admit that you could become corrupt and turn your back on God forever, some time between now and the day you die. If you cannot admit this, you are contradicting the Bible.

2. "I am beginning to see what you are saying. So, there is not really a good reason to have a Bible today."
[As Catholics, we would never say such a dumb thing! You ought to know perfectly well by now how we treasure the Bible. After all, Catholic wrote the New Testament, Catholics determined what ancient books (OT and NT) were inspired by God, and Catholics copied and preserved the Bible so that we have it today. Without Catholicism, you wouldn't even have the Bible. But it is true that, if all Bibles, suddenly disintegrated, true Christianity would go on, through the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church, given orally to the Apostles by Jesus, and passed down since then. All Protestant "teaching" is developed by man and is thus fallible.]

3. I think that you quoted Jake-H as saying, "However, instead of making NEW sacrifices, the Catholic priests commemorate (as Christ commanded) His sacrifice on the Cross." Then you criticized this, in part based on your definition of the word "commemorate," and in part speaking against the idea of Jesus being "crucified over and over again."
[Actually, the Mass is far more than a "commemoration" in the way you defined that word. It is the unbloody re-presentation (i.e., presenting anew), to God the Father, of the merits of the once-only sacrifice of Jesus his Son on Calvary. Notice: not bloody, once-only sacrifice. Jesus does not "die again" in the Mass. Although it is not easy to grasp without meditation, it would be good for you to try to understand it as our souls being given the grace to become present, in a mystical yet real way, on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Jesus's saving death and resurrection were actions, not just of a Man, but of God -- so they have an infinite character to them. That makes it possible for us to "be present" to them even today. And that is far more than a simple "commemoration" like a birthday or anniversary.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.

“True, that is what I believe about the traditions covered in the Bible by the Apostles. But how does that differ from you believing that they are different because somebody wrote something saying that they got it from the Apostles? Isn't that just you believing what they are saying - did the Apostles themselves write it down or tell you the difference?”

The difference, Tim, is that we have documented succession, which doesn’t contradict itself, asserting that which was passed down from the previous see has arrived at the current see. In other words, you believe something, but cannot trace it back to any one else, much less the Apostles. We, however, believe what the Magesterium teaches because the Magesterium can produce evidence that those in authority before taught the same, and those before them taught the same, all the way back to the Apostles and what they taught (verbally or written).

“"And just as the Father sent Him (not to write, but to preach and act), so too did He send his Apostles!" I am beginning to see what you are saying. So, there is not really a good reason to have a Bible today. As long as you have someone telling you what to do and they are showing you what to do.”

Well, somewhat. As you know well, the Scripture is profitable for reproof and teaching. It is the Word of God. And as John had mentioned, the Catholic Church played a major role in ensuring the availability of Holy Scripture for future Christians. If it wasn’t an important element in the preservation of our faith, then the Catholic Church would not have spent so much time and resources maintaining it. However, as John stated earlier, if the Bible were to disappear off the face of the earth, the Magisterium, which holds the ENTIRE teaching of God, will continue to sustain the Christian faith. It was through the Church that Christ promised the Holy Spirit and the propagation of his Word (by proclamation), not through the Bible. The Bible is a secondary element which came forth from inspired men who belonged to the Body of Christ (his Church).

“I realize what you are saying, honestly. That is why I read books and listen to preaching - to become a better Christian, we should pay attention to others that have already come through things and that give us words of wisdom. But, I believe [yes me] that it should be all Scripture based, and not anything that isn't covered within them. Sorry, if I am not perfect because I believe that.”

No need to be sorry. The fact is, most of the Catholic Teachings do come from Scripture. The difference is, there is Apostolic succession, and documented history to back up the True interpretation of the Scripture, from which they teach.

“Through all of our words, I believe it boils down to this about salvation and the baptisim [even infant baptism]. 1. I don't believe a baby - especially an aborted one - can have the so called “baptism of desire”. So a baby that doesn't repent, doesn't get baptized, doesn't take communion, and doesn't have parents that love God - where do they go?”

You may not “believe” it, but the fact remains. Just as I may not “believe” that I’m typing on a computer, the fact is that I really am. So, in order for you to break through the barrier, which is causing you to “believe” otherwise, I would suggest referring to what the early Church Fathers believe, and how they substantiated their belief (whether it was by Scripture or oral Tradition). Those babies, which haven’t had the chance to “believe”, had they had the chance, they might have “desired” to believe. Therefore, God knowing their hears and their future, would accept this “desire” as their baptism.

“Honestly, I don't know what God does with aborted babies - I pray that they all get a "free" ride straight to Heaven, but honestly I don't know.”

You are right: it is a mystery. However, gathering from the immense Grace that God gave us, and the extreme Love that He had to send us His only Son to Die, I can’t imagine such a Loving God sending these poor souls to hell, though they had not the Chance to be baptized.

“2. I don't believe a person can lose salvation, for I believe once a person trust in Christ - they are saved forever - regardless. But, I realize that you [and some here] believe that you can fall from that. That nothing is secure. How can you go through life not knowing if you will be good enough to go to Heaven?”

It isn’t like we are not sure of our salvation! Once we put our faith in Christ and try our hardest to never turn our backs on Him, and repent when we do fail, then we believe that we are truly saved. However, the wicked one is tricky and crafty, and it is easy for us to loose sight of Christ in the face of earthly pleasure. Just as those few Catholic priests were once on their path to salvation, living lives of austerity and obedience to Christ; once they turned their backs on Christ and sought earthly pleasure, they forfeited their salvation. Until they repent and are penitent for their sinful deeds, they are now on the path to fiery torment. So, you can see, that while we live our lives for Christ, there is no need to be “unsure”. But what we are unsure about, and what we must be wary of, is that we should not fail and remain in failure until our dying day.

“** Assuming the person answering is a Christian [You are, so please give me your answers]. 1. When Jesus Christ died on the cross, did He die for the sins that you have done past, present, and future?”

Yes, Christ died for our past present and future sins. However, if we are spiteful and do not repent of these sins, and acknowledge Jesus as the one who cleansed us from them, then we are not “saved”.

“2. [If you went to Purgatory] Why would you go?”

Purgatory is the place where believers go to “atone” for our sins. Please don’t take “atone” in the wrong way. Christ already paid for our sins; we know this. However, you will notice that in the OT, even after a sacrifice was made to clean them (temporarily) from sin, God still required penance for the sin. For example, because of Israel’s sins, and despite their repentance (and God forgiving them) they still walked in the desert for 40 years! Likewise, with David, Solomon, and his successors, although God forgave them when they sinned, there still was atonement that had to be made. Not that the atonement was necessary for God’s forgiveness (God forgave them already). The atonement was necessary for their own sake, so that they might be purged of the desire to sin. There is tons of teachings on Purgatory (if you really wanted to know more about it). Dominic Berardino gives some good info on it. He likens purgatory to an extra Catechism class, to fill in for all the stuff we don’t or didn’t know. It is a place where our soul is prepared to meet God face to face! He says it is like (and these are week comparisons because we can only imagine with our human minds) when you leave a pitch-black room and step into the sunlight. It really hurts your eyes. They need a period of time to adjust to the brightness. So too do our souls need a period of time to adjust to God’s goodness. We have been in a pitch-black world of sin, and to jump into a world of complete purity would hurt us! We need to be prepared.

“3. [If you were in Purgartory] What would you do [or what happens] to make yourself clean enough to enter Heaven?”

A few of the Bible writers, and some of the early Church Fathers, compare it to the same flames of hell, which purify us like gold in fire. It has been likened to being placed in prison until we pay the last fine. It is God’s grace working to purify our souls from the stain of a sinful world. Although our sins have been forgiven, we still are not ready to see God face to face. I mean, this is God! God sent his Son so that I would have the opportunity to see Him face to face, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that once I die, I’m ready. We on earth, as parts of the Same Body of Christ that these souls belong to, can pray and offer up our earthly suffering to help expedite their purgation. However, once you die, and your soul is separated from your body, you (the soul) can do no more work to prepare yourself for God’s presence. Once you die, it is based on the prayers and sufferings of those on earth who offer it for you, but primarily and officially it is ALL based on the Love and Grace of God to prepare you to view Him in His Full Glory. I am limited in my knowledge of exactly what goes on (as we all are – because one cannot know unless they experience it, at which time it is too late to write it down : ). But there, like I said, is tons of info from Scriptural proof, to writings of the early Church fathers, if you look for it.

“3. When you stand before God, what will it be that allows you to enter Heaven?”

It will be God’s grace and Love which allows me to enter heaven. It was through His Son that the doors were open. It is by his grace that I can enter.

“"However, instead of making NEW sacrifices, the Catholic priests commemorate (as Christ commanded) His sacrifice on the Cross." commemorate - to honor the memory of somebody or something in a ceremony To commemorate something, does not mean that the actual person and events are performed again exactly as before.”

On the contrary, commemorate is merely a translation (as you know) of the original language of the writers. The original word used (and it escapes my memory right now) means much more than to simply “remember” by symbols what went on. Christ said “Do this in memory of me”. He commanded them to “Do” it! That is, recall the very same Sacrifice that would take place. I could attempt to explain that which I know to be true, and that which I have researched. But, I feel that if you looked this up on your own (just a quick yahoo search) it would be more significant for you to see it directly from the Church Fathers, those that accompanied the original Apostles.

“If it is only to commemorate [honor the memory of Christ], why does His literally flesh and blood have to return to earth and be eaten over and over again? The Apostles didn't eat his literal flesh and blood, and neither did the people after his death or his appearance.”

As I stated above, commemorate (in it’s original intent) meant that they really recalled his death and resurrection. And if you remember John 6, if it wasn’t really going to be his Body and Blood, why would so many stop following Him. Why would they have left Him? Would anything less be such a “hard teaching”? And as Jesus said, whenever they do this they “proclaim his death and resurrection”.

“That would mean that he is being crucified over and over again - which would be a lie.”

It is difficult to understand, much less to explain, but it isn’t a new crucifixion and death. It is the same death and resurrection “proclaimed”. When a Catholic priest consecrates the bread and wine, and when they become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, it isn’t a new sacrifice, it is the same one that occurred.

Thanks for your patience, Tim. It is a pleasure to converse with you.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 25, 2002.

John,

"Whose meaning is right, yours or mine? Maybe neither of us? (It can't be both of us.) Who would be the referee to decide?"

That is a very good insight to that. You are correct that either one of us will be wrong or both of us will be wrong - but Scripture will be right.

Let me ask this: What if I read a Bible verse and tell you it means something because my father told me, and his father told him, and his father told him, and he got it from the Apostles - you don't read it, because you trust my judgment, and just accept it as fact - does that make it fact? No.

Honestly, would you go to the Pope or the priest if you read a verse and didn't agree with the Catholic teaching or would you just accept it?

The only thing you have proved is what I have heard Protestants say for years. "The Catholics kept the Scripture in Latin and from the people for many many years so that they could control the people." Looking at history it does seem that way to me. I don't understand why the Catholic "higher ups" didn't want the "common" man to have the Word of God, but to just trust the Catholic Church. What if they were wrong - then everyone would be wrong. Do you understand what I am saying - I don't want anyone to get mad.

"1. "How can you go through life not knowing if you will be good enough to go to Heaven?" [What do you mean, "How can you" do it? Don't you know that about 90% of all Christians who have ever lived have done this." - I like the way that you can judge 90% of the Christians that ever lived, without ever knowing half of them personally.

"Tim, you need to be honest and admit that you could become corrupt and turn your back on God forever, some time between now and the day you die." - Exactly - that is why I don't trust in Tim. I believe from the day I got saved, Jesus Christ has cleansed me from all unrighteousness FOREVER. Although I may sin, because I still have the sinful flesh, the blood of Jesus Christ is on the alter of God. Because the blood is on the alter, I appear sinless before God. NOT BECAUSE OF ME - but because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross which He shed is blood for sinners! Once you are saved - Christ works in us - till He comes to gather us home!

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Please see my reply to you at the other post too...

--------

Jake,

"Those babies, which haven’t had the chance to “believe”, had they had the chance, they might have “desired” to believe. Therefore, God knowing their hears and their future, would accept this “desire” as their baptism." - this is a "what if" Jake. God knows all anyway, so He knew that they would be aborted. So, basically it would be the choice of God whether they went to Heaven or Hell. Not because of sin which they commit [because they were not even born], but because of the sin of Adam [origianl sin].

"You are right: it is a mystery. However, gathering from the immense Grace that God gave us, and the extreme Love that He had to send us His only Son to Die, I can’t imagine such a Loving God sending these poor souls to hell, though they had not the Chance to be baptized." - I don't want to seem like I believe all babies [aborted or that die] goto Hell, but we must remember that God is not only loving but JUST. Because He is just we all DESERVE Hell - it is only His grace that sent His Son to die on the cross and take our place.

"It isn’t like we are not sure of our salvation!" - but you're not sure you can keep it. You can't - by yourself. But, we didn't get it by ourself. Jesus Christ freely gave the FREE gift of salvation to every person that calls on Him to save them. Salvation is given by the power of the blood and the blood keeps us saved. The only way we could be unforgiven is if the blood of Jesus Christ was cleaned off the alter. But God can not lie:

Tit 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Christ is everything we need - without us, TOTAL salvation is by Christ alone, regardless of our works:

1co 1:30-31 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Christ became sin for us:

2co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

"Purgatory is the place where believers go to “atone” for our sins. Please don’t take “atone” in the wrong way. Christ already paid for our sins;" - if the blood of Jesus Christ isn't enough to cleanse us TOTALY, then surly there is nothing we can ADD or do.

"Likewise, with David, Solomon, and his successors, although God forgave them when they sinned, there still was atonement that had to be made." - this is call the chastening of the Lord, which is for here on Earth.

Once saved, there is only one more thing that must take place for us to enter Heaven [which will happen to every Believer]:

1co 15:49-53 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So you are saying that even though Jesus Christ died on the cross and paid our sin debt - when we die - even though we are sinless because of Christ - we still have to suffer some to get ready to meet God?

"We on earth, as parts of the Same Body of Christ that these souls belong to, can pray and offer up our earthly suffering to help expedite their purgation." - even though Jesus Christ dieing on the cross wasn't good enough to do this?

"It will be God’s grace and Love which allows me to enter heaven. It was through His Son that the doors were open. It is by his grace that I can enter." - exactly! So, where do the prayers from people on earth and still having to suffer in Purgatory fit into - by God's grace and love through His Son - ALONE?

I hope I haven't caused you to become angry with my post. I didn't mean to. I just don't understand how you can claim "by the grace of God through Jesus Christ" - then ADD that we still need prayers once we die and still may have to suffer in Purgatory. It sure sounds like you don't believe that Christ suffered TOTALLY for ALL our sins and has made us PERFECT [through His Scarfice] in the eyes of God.

Eph 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Thanks for taking the time to converse back and forth with me.

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 25, 2002.

Dear Brother Tim,

It's sanctification -- ACTUAL holiness -- that is the BIG difference! Maybe you answered this on another thread, but what do Baptists believe about sanctification? And do Baptists believe that we will have to tote that old carnal sin nature around with us forever in eternity. These are very practical questions I have asked several Protestant theologians, and they couldn't answer it consistently.

Wesleyans/Church of the Nazarene believe that we don't even get the 'baptism of the Holy Spirit' until we're sanctified, and some of them believe you won't go to heaven AT ALL unless you are entirely sanctified in THIS LIFE!

It's the Catholic position that sanctification occurs throughout the course of our lives, and beyond into the next world (if need be). You see, justication (being made just) and sanctification (being made holy) are just about the same thing. Catholicism doesn't really make a distinction between those two terms; while Protestantism does. Protestantism, typically, says you are completely justified when you say "yes" to Jesus, while Catholicism says you have only begun to be justified, and will progress in justification, or sanctification, throughout your life, ever striving to be more like Him! How? By His Grace through an active, living, obedient, faith! That's it in a nutshell.

We don't EARN our salvation, but we respond to His grace! That's why the scripture says, "You are saved by grace, and not of yourself, lest anyone should boast." It's not dead works of the law, but it's works of love in response to His grace, coupled together like a hand in a glove. Because faith without works is dead, remaining by itself, as James says, and "You are not saved by faith alone," says James. It's hard to understand, but I know it's true because the Bible says so. You have to reckon with James. There is no getting around him. He makes clear that it is not 'faith alone.'

What say ye, Tim? And would you PLEASE ANSWER MY sanctification question.

Love,

Gail

P.S. BTW, are you Southern Baptist, Independent, or a different branch? Just curious!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 25, 2002.

Tim,
I feel as if I'm intruding, because Jake addressed you, then you came back at Jake. Even so, we are in a public forum. I think Jake will surely reply, but I'm capable of saying in a nutshell you're wrong, completely mistaken in very salient points. In case jake is slow to call you, I'll send this your way:

No, the unbaptised baby, though innocent of actual sin, will not enter heaven, as the Church teaches. At least, the infinite mercy of God will not cancel those words of his divine son; which state the absolute necessity of baptism. (John 3:5) Nevertheless, it is to be HOPED that aborted babies will be excepted from loss of heaven, through the unjust termination of their birthrights; the potential these little victims were robbed of by evildoers.

If not, God has provided for their souls. In His mercy granting them an intermediary place of eternal rest; neither hell nor heaven. Traditionally, it has been known as limbo. Here the children have all natural happiness short of glory in heaven. We can't presume to know what God's divine Will is; so we pray always for such poor souls.

No-- Tim. Jesus was not MADE sin in our place. He atoned for all the sins of humanity. You aren't to take such a verse literally; it would be sacrilegious; God is NOT sin, no matter how you read it.

All sin is atoned for, we are ALL redeemed. But not in the manner you mistranslate. This is another error brought about, as usual, through private interpretation of men what is rightly the Holy Spirit's to say.

Though redeemed, no man is to call himself secure from loss of his own salvation. It isn't written that way.

Men can and do lose what Christ paid for by His precious blood. It's by their free will; in rejecting the commandments of Our Almighty Father. Even if this is an action subsequent to coming to Christ in baptism and faith, it is not paid for without our absloute repentence before death. Even a practicing catholic must be vigilant for his final slavation. We are told emphatically, ''He who perseveres to the end shall be saved.'' --And, we're told Christ will return to judge the living and the dead, giving each soul what he deserves according to his works. As you sow, so shall you reap.

To offer contrary ideas about ''total security'' is a grave error. The catholic Church has tught us the whole truth about our salvation. You just proclaim what men have deduced through faulty interpretations of scripture.

No offense intended; I'm in a hurry. Ciao !

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.

Sister Gail :)

"Maybe you answered this on another thread, but what do Baptists believe about sanctification?"

Let me speak for myself. [this way I don't step on anyone elses shoes, and have another Baptist shout, "I don't believe that!" and it will give some another "edge" to say "see, it is only what he believes".]

-------- Definitions [for my sake, if no one else]

sanctification: The divine act of making the believer actually holy -- that is, bringing the person's moral condition into conformity with the legal status established in justification. - M. Erickson

justification: In the doctrine of salvation, the declaration that the human has been restored to a state of righteousness in God's sight. - M. Erickson

righteousness: The state of being just or morally pure, whether in one's own strength or on the basis of imputed virtue. - M. Erickson

order of salvation: [1]conversion, [2] regeneration, [3]justification, [4] sanctification - M. Erickson

conversion: The action of a person in turning to Christ. It includes repentance (renumciation of sin) and faith (acceptance of Christ). - M. Erickson

regeneration: The work of the Holy Spirit in creating a new life in the sinful person who repents and comes to believe in Christ. - M. Erickson

---------- [end]

I will take you through the order of salvation, given by, Millard Erickson to try to both answer your questions and give you what I believe happens to a sinner when they become a son of God.

-----conversion-----

I believe we are converted at the very moment we believe [not just believing God exist, but believing ON Him].

Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is a heart matter, and not just something someone says.

Ro 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

By putting our faith in Jesus Christ, that it is a gift of God that we CAN NOT earn.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

-----regeneration-----

As soon as we are converted, the Holy Spirit enters us and makes our DEAD spirit alive.

Ro 8:8-10 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

The spirit and body of a person is "detached" at regeneration.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

-----justification-----

We are made just before God, because the blood of Jesus Christ covers our sin and has cleansed us.

Ac 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Ro 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Ro 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

-----sanctification-----

How are we sanctified?

1co 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.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

It is by the Spirit working in us, not by our mere outwardly [good] actions. Because we are saved and the Spirit is working in us, we perform good works. It isn't to KEEP salvation.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Php 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

-----

Although our spirit has been made alive and our soul has been redeemed, our sinful flesh remains until Christ returns and changes it.

1co 15:50-54 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

-----

I know this has been kind of lengthy, but I still didn't cover everything. But, we can see that we are regenerated, justified, sanctified, and total saved body-soul-spirit by Jesus Christ and not by ANYthing we do. --------------------

As for Eugene, since you don't believe Christ became sin for you:

2co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Ga 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Col 2:13-15 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

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

Praise God for HIS love and mercy! Amen!

It is late and I must retire - If I have made any errors, I am sure someone will point them out. :) God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 26, 2002.

Dear Tim:
Answer us please, regarding: -----conversion-----

*I believe we are converted at the very moment we believe [not just believing God exists, but believing ON Him].* --Yes, the wonderful condition, ''on Him.'' Ive heard this song before.

What about conversion into a heretical faith? Is this what Christ expected of His people? Try if you can, Tim, and tell us: Did Jesus ever prophesy His Holy Church would fall into error? Find a verse somewhere telling us the Church of the apostles would be ''reformed'' into a better, more ''Christian'' church. Chapter, a verse. Somewhere? How do you excuse His faithful people; leaving the Church that Christ gave to them? Excuse this from a reading of scripture, won't you?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

Poor Tim.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.

“That is a very good insight to that. You are correct that either one of us will be wrong or both of us will be wrong - but Scripture will be right.”

Tim, this has become a circular debate. John just said that you would START (both of you) with reading the Scripture. Of course the Scripture (that is the written letters) can NOT be correct in and of itself! It absolutely MUST be accompanied by its correct interpretation. What good is a symbolic poem, without the correct interpretation? No one could ever get out of it what was intended by the original writer. Now, you will say, “but the Holy Spirit guides us”. But like John said, which one of you has the Holy Spirit when you both have a different interpretation of the SAME Scripture! You cannot claim that the Scripture is right. You can only claim that the Scripture RIGHTER is right. You see the difference? And so, the Holy Spirit, while He guides each one of us, will not guide us to our own faulty conclusions about Scripture! The Spirit will guide us to the place that Christ had promised where the correct interpretation would be preserved! The Catholic Church!

“Let me ask this: What if I read a Bible verse and tell you it means something because my father told me, and his father told him, and his father told him, and he got it from the Apostles - you don't read it, because you trust my judgment, and just accept it as fact - does that make it fact? No.”

You’re right to an extent, Tim. If it is just a mere “claim” with no substantial evidence to prove that your great great great grandpa was with the apostles, then it cannot be taken as fact. However, the Catholics can claim this as fact because we have written and documented historical and factual evidence that what we get is from the Apostles.

“Honestly, would you go to the Pope or the priest if you read a verse and didn't agree with the Catholic teaching or would you just accept it?”

If the Pope could explain how he got his interpretation of that verse (which he has) then I would strive to understand his interpretation, rather than take my week and unsubstantial interpretation of it. I would have to remember that the Pope and all priests study quite some time not only the Scripture, but they also study the surrounding conditions of the time, the “slang” of that particular era. They know the history surrounding the text. While I only know very little.

"The Catholics kept the Scripture in Latin and from the people for many many years so that they could control the people." Looking at history it does seem that way to me. I don't understand why the Catholic "higher ups" didn't want the "common" man to have the Word of God, but to just trust the Catholic Church. What if they were wrong - then everyone would be wrong. Do you understand what I am saying - I don't want anyone to get mad.”

Tim, this is a filthy lie that has been spread out of ignorance and deceit to simply slander the Church. Take a quick glance at history, please. First, how many people could read anyway. Second, the Bible was HAND WRITTEN. Should they have double-timed it to get copies out to the public? You’re crazy! Third, in order to get it into the vernacular, they would then not only need a person with the patience to sit there for a couple years and hand copy it, but they would need someone who was bilingual – both in the language of the Bible, and in the language of the people! It is a myth that the Catholic Church didn’t want people reading the Bible! There just was no way for them to have their own copy of it. The “common” man DID have the Word of God. It was given to them, just as the Apostles gave it to the Gentiles. They taught them using Scripture. But suffice it to say that the everyday ordinary Gentile convert didn’t have their own copy of ALL Scripture either. So was Paul stingy? Did Paul not want those he converted to have the Word of God? NO! Paul gave them the Word of God by speaking and preaching! Just as the Catholic Church did, prior to the printing press!

“So, basically it would be the choice of God whether they went to Heaven or Hell. Not because of sin which they commit [because they were not even born], but because of the sin of Adam [origianl sin].”

But because of the lack of the Chance to be baptized, I can’t imagine our Loving and JUST God sending them to eternal torment for the “actual” sin of the mother. We cannot know, you are right. And that is why we pray for them. Because as Jesus said, even the unjust king gave to the lady her way because she was persistent in her prayers to him. So to will God, who is Just, give to us what we ask if we are persistent.

“I don't want to seem like I believe all babies [aborted or that die] goto Hell, but we must remember that God is not only loving but JUST. Because He is just we all DESERVE Hell - it is only His grace that sent His Son to die on the cross and take our place.”

This is correct, we all deserve hell! However, because the unborn baby dies before the chance to be converted, regenerated, justified or sanctified, which begins with baptism, I would presume that a JUST God, would give them that chance before he casts them into eternal damnation.

"Purgatory is the place where believers go to “atone” for our sins. Please don’t take “atone” in the wrong way. Christ already paid for our sins;" - if the blood of Jesus Christ isn't enough to cleanse us TOTALY, then surly there is nothing we can ADD or do.”

One must stop then and think about our earthly life. “if the blood of Jesus Christ isn’t enough to cleanse us TOTALLY, then surly there is nothing we can ADD or do.” So then, Tim, must I be baptized? Must I even convert, repent, be sorry? Should I do good acts? If we are cleaned TOTALLY, then why is it we still have an inclination to sin? How is it you have a different view of us before death, yet after death it is like a blink of an eye cleansing? Where in the Bible does it say that Christ cleansed us of our sins ONCE WE DIE!? Christ did it NOW! He did it for us already! But yet on earth we still must “pay” for our sins. Not as in “pay” with a sacrifice, but we must be sorry and repent. So, if I am leading a very exemplar Christian life, but I falter and sin (like tell a lie – something pretty venial, yet an offense to God), and before I have a chance to say I’m sorry, Wham! I get hit by a car and die. Do I not have to still say I’m sorry, as I must do when I am alive. Should I not still have the opportunity to repent?

It is my understanding that many Protestants, when they are faced with a death in the family, or a death of a close one, begin to see this “purgation” more clearly. If your mother is a holy mother, but she sins before she dies (for whatever reason)… Actually, what if it was you mother, and she never rejected Jesus, yet never really led a good Christian life (in words maybe but not in action). Then how can you say she must spend eternal damnation! If I, an unjust and stupid human have pity on her, then How much more would a Just and Loving God have mercy on her? But she isn’t quite worthy of heaven either – yet. There must be a place where our Just and Loving Father could give her the opportunity to make the decision to change and repent, or chose hell.

“"Likewise, with David, Solomon, and his successors, although God forgave them when they sinned, there still was atonement that had to be made." - this is call the chastening of the Lord, which is for here on Earth.”

Can you show me the Scriptural teaching that this “chastening of the Lord is ONLY here on Earth. Once again, I know you are going to say, “if it isn’t in scripture, then it doesn’t exist…” But, yet, you fail to see IN Scripture any definitive explanation of what happens to the soul immediately after death. Are we to conclude that souls just either snap down to hell or jump up to heaven as soon as the body is dead? This isn’t in Scripture either! Scripture says we will end up in Heaven, or that believers will indeed go to heaven, but it doesn’t specifically say right after death. From the poetic and allegoric explanations of heaven and the Kingdom of God, we can gather that there is some sort of a cleansing period. But we cannot gather that the souls go straight to heaven.

“nce saved, there is only one more thing that must take place for us to enter Heaven [which will happen to every Believer]: 1co 15:49-53 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

But this is talking about the last and final Judgment, the resurrection of the Body. Once that happens then all the souls “living and dead” will be judged. It doesn’t say anything about NOT being purged. Just as 7 days in Genesis didn’t necessarily mean 24hrs X 7 days, so too is a “twinkling of an eye” symbolic, but not literal.

“So you are saying that even though Jesus Christ died on the cross and paid our sin debt - when we die - even though we are sinless because of Christ - we still have to suffer some to get ready to meet God?”

But like I said, Tim, it isn’t a suffering like here on earth (or what we think of). This suffering is GOOD and healthy for our souls. The purgation of our souls prepares us MORE for God. Don’t you want to be fully ready to see God? If you think you are ready now you are kidding yourself! Even John, when he saw the angle of the Lord, fell “as if dead”. How much more if we saw the Lord in his glory? WE would die! We aren’t paying that which Christ has already paid for us! But God is preparing that which WE hadn’t prepared for ourselves. You see the difference. While protestants think that we teach this because of something God lacks, in actuality Catholics teach this because of what WE lack and God has the Grace to replenish.

“So, where do the prayers from people on earth and still having to suffer in Purgatory fit into - by God's grace and love through His Son - ALONE?”

Because by God’s grace and love through His Son alone are we members of the Same Body of Christ. It is by His Grace that He accepts my prayers for my Grandma.

“I hope I haven't caused you to become angry with my post. I didn't mean to. I just don't understand how you can claim "by the grace of God through Jesus Christ" - then ADD that we still need prayers once we die and still may have to suffer in Purgatory.”

Don’t worry about causing me anger – just frustration : ) I should have been clearer that prayers aren’t in ADDITION to the Grace of God. Our prayers are a part of that very Grace. God was good enough to allow us to pray for each other, because as each part of the human body can help themselves out, so to is Christ’s Mystical Body able to help each other out.

“It sure sounds like you don't believe that Christ suffered TOTALLY for ALL our sins and has made us PERFECT [through His Scarfice] in the eyes of God.”

I’m not sure I can agree with this, Tim. Christ suffered Totally for All our sins, Yes. I completely and utterly agree with that. I believe Christ has paid for all my sins. However… Has made us perfect, NO – not yet. Christ gave us the opportunity to be made perfect by Him, as a PROCESS – even until after we are dead. When we convert, regenerate, …. We are starting the process of this perfection. Gold isn’t made perfect in fire the instant the flame hits it! It is a process. By the very statement you made above, Tim, then you would have to conclude that you and I, and Charles Manson are PERFECT. Not so. He gave us the opportunity to be made perfect through the process of repentance, sanctification, and so on. We are NOT perfect! WE ARE BEING MADE PERFECT (a continuing process even after death). For those who reject Christ, they’ve also rejected the chance to be made perfect and therefore are sent to hell where they can never be made perfect.

“Eph 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

Can I repeat a certain sentence: “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” So we must be sanctified and cleansed by the washing of the word, which is Christ. So, since we obviously aren’t clean right now, then where is it that it says we will miraculously clean up right after death. It is a cleansing process, even till after death. Not until we are made clean (that is, when we finish the process) will we enter heaven, because “nothing impure can enter heaven”.

Have a nice day – God bless.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

Tim,

I don't want to leave you hanging on the priest/levite issue, but I haven't had time to research Scripture in depth lately.

Here are a few thoughts however:

There surly were Priests in Jesus' time. But, correct me if I'm wrong, even then there wasn't a distinct Tribe of Levi. If they were picked on the necessity to be a part of the tribe of Levi, don't you thinkt that (since most of the mid east was populated) it would be difficult to find a pure "levite"? No, more than ever it would be impossible to trace back 3500 years in geneology to try and find out if someone belonged to levi. And God know that our world would mix and mingle. Therefore, arguing that because in the OT the priests were selected at one point from the Tribe of Levi, that now in the NT and in the current time priests must be levites is unimaginable. The best argument is that of their necessity. But they are clearly necessary in leading, preaching, and "commemorating" Jesus' sacrifice (in the sence of commemorate that we discussed earlier).

Hope this helps, until I come up with some Scripture.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.

Eugene -

I am saved and on my way to Heaven because of the grace of God - there is no need for poor Tim.

You read my entire post on what I believe to be the conversion of a sinner to a son of God, and this is all you can say, "What about conversion into a heretical faith?"

What a Christian you are grounded "deep" in the Words and teachings of Jesus Christ....

Show me a verse where the Scripture claims to take away the fact that Jesus Christ is the rock - shepherd - foundation of His Church and gives it all to Peter.

Don't use the same ole' verse in Matthew 16. Surely if this was a "true" teaching of Christ, it would be mentioned a lot of more times by Peter and the others.

And why would he give it to Peter, when it was John he loved?

----------

Jake,

"Of course the Scripture (that is the written letters) can NOT be correct in and of itself! It absolutely MUST be accompanied by its correct interpretation." - you are wrong here Jake. The Scripture is PURE IN AND OF ITSELF because it is the Words of God; regardless of interpretation.

If every person in the world [that ever lived and will ever lived] mis-translated Scripture, the Scripture would still remain PURE.

Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

"But like John said, which one of you has the Holy Spirit when you both have a different interpretation of the SAME Scripture! You cannot claim that the Scripture is right." - wrong again. The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS RIGHT, it is man that is wrong and A LIAR.

If you are wrong - you are a liar.

If I am wrong - I am a liar.

But the Holy Spirit and Scripture - NEVER WRONG or A LIAR!

"The Spirit will guide us to the place that Christ had promised where the correct interpretation would be preserved! The Catholic Church!" - wrong! The Spirit will guide us to Truth. When we accept that truth, by the grace of God, we are saved and are in the Church [body] of Christ.

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 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

Why did the Catholic Church wait till 1610 to publish a Bible in English? No one spoke English before then, or was it because of the KJV? Don't try to convince me that everybody understood it in Latin.

There were other people producing Bibles in the language of their people for them to read before this time, and the people trying to get out the Word of God in English were being persecuted.

"So then, Tim, must I be baptized?" - No, although IT IS an ACT OF OBEDIENCE it IS NOT an ACT TO RECEIVE SALVATION.

1pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

You face is as red as my shirt. The same? No. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is why we are saved.

"Must I even convert, repent, be sorry?" - that is what is done to believe unto salvation.

Ro 10:9-10 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

"Should I do good acts?" - Yes, because a saved person has the Holy Spirit and Christ working in them to perform good works - we do not do them on our own - it is because of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Tit 2:13-14 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

That is why James claims: Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.

Because the truth is that when a person is TRULY SAVED with the Holy Spirit and Christ working in them - THEY WILL DO GOOD WORKS - not because of themselves, but because of the work which is being perform within them.

"Where in the Bible does it say that Christ cleansed us of our sins ONCE WE DIE!?" - Our sins are taken away with Christ the moment we become a son of God, but a sinful flesh we still have until it is changed by Christ.

"But yet on earth we still must “pay” for our sins." - tthis is the chastening of the Lord.

Job 5:17 Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:

Pr 3:11-12 My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Heb 12:10-11 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

For sins that a Christian hasn't confessed and works that they have done wrong or not done right, there is the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST.

2co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

This chapter is talking to saved people - not everyone of the World.

This is ONLY FOR THE BELIEVER. The unsaved will be judge by God at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGMENT - Revelation 20

"Are we to conclude that souls just either snap down to hell or jump up to heaven as soon as the body is dead? This isn’t in Scripture either!" - You are incorrect to believe this is not Scripture.

Lu 16:22-23 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Lazarus - died - carried by angels into Abraham's bosom

Rich man - died - buried - in hell

Where is the Purgartory? I guess a GAP in the verse?

"Just as 7 days in Genesis didn’t necessarily mean 24hrs X 7 days, so too is a “twinkling of an eye” symbolic, but not literal." - Jake, do you have a problem believing the Word of God, but can believe everthing the Catholic Church teaches.

Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

So, how long were these days? You are becoming more athiest than Christian by claiming the Word of God doesn't necessarily mean what it says.

"While protestants think that we teach this because of something God lacks, in actuality Catholics teach this because of what WE lack and God has the Grace to replenish." - if you lack something to allow you to get you into Heaven when you die - then it is because the blood of Christ was not enough on the Cross, the Spirit couldn't work in you, and Christ couldn't save you... NOPE!

Christ DID IT ALL - 1co 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.

Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

If the blood of Jesus Christ doesn't save you body-soul-spirit, then nothing you suffer or go through will do it.

May God show you it is Him alone!

Have a nice night!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 26, 2002.

“And why would he give it to Peter, when it was John he loved?”

Tim,

You surly don’t think that Jesus, who was God, loved John more than anyone else. Do you? Could God, who is pure love, love someone more or less? The fact that it says in scripture “the Apostle that Jesus loved”, doesn’t mean that He did not love any one else (or love anyone less). If you did a search on this subject, I’m sure you would find some historical, allegorical, or some kind of an explanation for this statement.

“you are wrong here Jake. The Scripture is PURE IN AND OF ITSELF because it is the Words of God; regardless of interpretation.”

What!!!!!!!!!? You’re kidding me right? So, you’re saying that the Holy Spirit held more than ONE meaning of Scripture. Your saying that both Catholics and Protestants are right about John 6. We can prove it using scripture, and you can disprove it using scripture. Scripture is Pure only when we get the Pure meaning from it!! If Scripture is PURE IN AND OF ITSELF, please, I long to know then how 30,000 interpretations of different passages are all the right ones? Tim, you are in grave error. We cannot accept anyones interpretation of the Scripture! If the Scripture was pure in and of itself, then the Eunuch that Philip taught could have read and understood it on his own! He could have simply come up with his own interpretation of it, as long as it was based on the Scripture! So, now, if you claim that it was because the Eunuch hadn’t accepted Christ, you then ADD a constituent, which would make the Scripture NOT PURE in and of itself. Then you would have to say that the Scripture is pure ONLY when the one reading it has accepted Christ! The Scripture IS the Word of God, however, ONLY when accompanied by the meaning that God intended! Don’t you see? The Pharisees were also quick to make their own interpretation of the Word of God! What they spoke WAS the Word of God, but the interpretation they took from it WAS NOT. Even if God came down and spoke to us, you and me, and He said, “You must eat my Body and Drink my Blood”, and that was all he said. It was the Word of God! But what did He mean? How can we act on the Word of God, without the interpretation of the Word of God? Unless there is a meaning attached to the Word, then it is nothing more than a word (lower case noted). You could then run off and say, God told us that we must eat his Body and drink his Blood, which means we simply have to obey his Words (or some other explanation), but unless this is what God truly meant, then it ISN’T the PURE meaning. I will cut off on my defense here, because I’m sure others will pipe in.

“If every person in the world [that ever lived and will ever lived] mis-translated Scripture, the Scripture would still remain PURE.”

Okay – I don’t know if I understand: Help me out…. You think that the written typed letters and words inside the Bible in and of themselves are PURE? Or is it the essence of what God said that was Pure? Cause from the above statement, I think we are in agreement. The intention of God in what He had people write IS PURE, however, the interpretations that we humans can come up with are not. Is that a correct statement? Okay – so now, how can you say that the written typed letters and words in the Bible are PURE if the intention of God (that singular and unique interpretation that God had intended) is not inseparably bonded and accompanies it? If I speak a scriptural passage, yet carry tones and expressions that convey a totally different meaning (even though the exact grammatical wording is the same), then how can that be of God, or even PURE? If what you intended for me to understand was that inherent in the Scripture IS ONE individual meaning, then I would agree. But the way you stated it seemed to say that anyone could read it and come up with the correct interpretation, which is obviously and proven to be false.

“"But like John said, which one of you has the Holy Spirit when you both have a different interpretation of the SAME Scripture! You cannot claim that the Scripture is right." - wrong again. The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS RIGHT, it is man that is wrong and A LIAR. If you are wrong - you are a liar. If I am wrong - I am a liar. But the Holy Spirit and Scripture - NEVER WRONG or A LIAR!”

Urrr, Tim, this is frustrating. Then, like I’ve tried to explain, there is more to Scripture than simply typed words. That was my point. There has to be one CORRECT interpretation to accompany those written in ink words. The intention of God must accompany the written grammatical vocabulary of the Bible, or else it is simply a fun text. The Bible is a Living Word, it has to be accompanied by the True intention! Tim, then how can we prove that either of us is right, say for instance on John 6? We both get our proof from Scripture, and it has been 500 years since the Protestants have developed proof against the true presence, and the Catholics have held proof for the true presence. So, since we can not obviously use Scripture to definitely prove it one way or another (unless we know God’s true intention) than who’s the liar? We must turn then to the Oral Tradition, that which the Apostles had passed down.

“"The Spirit will guide us to the place that Christ had promised where the correct interpretation would be preserved! The Catholic Church!" - wrong! The Spirit will guide us to Truth. When we accept that truth, by the grace of God, we are saved and are in the Church [body] of Christ.”

You just don’t seem to grasp what I’m trying so desperately to get across, Tim. Take a look! The Spirit was promised to the Church! Look at what happens when you are outside the Church (the Catholic Church)! 30,000 splits, Tim. Is that the Spirit guiding people? Would the Spirit guide people to division? Or would the Spirit have guided people to correction inside the same Body of Christ? Do you think that Luther was inspired by the Holy Spirit to leave the ONE Church? Or if it was really of the Spirit wouldn’t he have been moved to reform the Church from the inside, while maintaining UNITY, as Paul so adamantly fought for? Can you be sure that you’ve accepted the “truth” when there are 30,000 others claiming another “truth”? Have you investigated all their “truths” to make sure that the “truth” that you hold is right? Or are you basing your “truth” on the interpretation that you get from the Scripture (which may not be the ONE interpretation that God meant).

“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.”

Very good, Tim, but there was ONE Truth back then and it was being promulgated and preached by the Apostles who belonged to ONE Church!

“1co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”

Still, Tim, there was only One Church!

“Why did the Catholic Church wait till 1610 to publish a Bible in English? No one spoke English before then, or was it because of the KJV? Don't try to convince me that everybody understood it in Latin.”

Tim, you cannot say that the Protestant church “would” have made the Bible available in English if it were around before 1550. You cannot say that the Protestant church would have done anything differently! They came out with the English Bible, around the same time, because printing methods had began to develop, outside of hand writing! Why do you try to bash this point. The Protestant have nothing to say except, thanks! When the Protestant’s printed the English version of the Bible, and started to promote a FALSE interpretation of it, then the Catholic Church (who had the Correct interpretation) needed to protect herself from this heresy!

“There were other people producing Bibles in the language of their people for them to read before this time, and the people trying to get out the Word of God in English were being persecuted.”

Have you searched to find out exactly what “interpretation” of the Word of God they were trying to “get out”. You see it as the big bad Catholic Church keeping people from reading the Word of God. But don’t you see, the Church was smarter than that?! The Catholic Church had been studying the Scriptures since the death of Christ, and they knew that the average Joe (or Tim) might not fully understand it. So in order to protect and preserve the Word of God (written and accompanied by the intention of God), the Catholic Church had to maintain certain control. Not to keep anyone in the dark, but to keep the Word of God in the right hands! You must understand that the people were getting the Word of God, at Mass. But accompanying the written letters, was the explanation of the Apostolic Church which was the intention of Christ.

So, while you see the Church as bad for holding onto the Bible, wouldn’t you have preferred to have ONE Church and ONE Truth. Once the Bible was wide spread and in the hands of those who would do harm, it was just a matter of time before division upon division would occur. Aside from this, Tim, the Catholic Church couldn’t, as we have said, make handwritten English copies for everyone! That would be simply impossible (for Protestants of Catholics).

“"So then, Tim, must I be baptized?" - No, although IT IS an ACT OF OBEDIENCE it IS NOT an ACT TO RECEIVE SALVATION. 1pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

Acts 2: 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (50) what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "(51) Repent, and each of you be (52) baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Hmmm. Looks like you need to be baptized to be saved, Tim. What say you of this passage?

“You face is as red as my shirt. The same? No. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is why we are saved.”

I disagree, Christ died that we MIGHT be saved. If you think that the resurrection of Jesus Christ SAVED everyone, you’re wrong. Then no one would go to hell… Christ’s death and resurrection AFORDED us the OPORTUNITY to be saved. But in order to reap the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection (a gift to us), we have to repent and be baptized.

“"Where in the Bible does it say that Christ cleansed us of our sins ONCE WE DIE!?" - Our sins are taken away with Christ the moment we become a son of God, but a sinful flesh we still have until it is changed by Christ.”

So, is it simply our sinful flesh that causes us to disobey God, or is our mind and intentions (which are associated with our soul), also corrupt and in need of purification by God, during life and after death?

“"But yet on earth we still must “pay” for our sins." - tthis is the chastening of the Lord.”

Didn’t we go through this already? Where does it say the chastening of the Lord is only on earth during our earthly life?

“"Are we to conclude that souls just either snap down to hell or jump up to heaven as soon as the body is dead? This isn’t in Scripture either!" - You are incorrect to believe this is not Scripture. Lu 16:22-23 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

You are, once again, getting the wrong interpretation of this Scripture. Was Abraham in heaven, Tim? NO! Christ hadn’t died and descended to retrieve the holy souls yet. Abraham was in the place of rest for the holy souls (limbo- if you like).

“Lazarus - died - carried by angels into Abraham's bosom”

But NOT yet in heaven!

“Rich man - died - buried - in hell”

Yup. I agree that you go to hell right away, purgatory is only for those who are saved, but still need to be prepared for the great Wedding feast. At death if we are bad enough to go to hell, then we go. It’s a done deal. But if we are good enough to not go to hell, we still aren’t good enough for heaven yet, Jesus allows us into a state up final purification.

“Where is the Purgartory? I guess a GAP in the verse?”

Nope! On the contrary, where is heaven? I guess a GAP in the verse?

“"Just as 7 days in Genesis didn’t necessarily mean 24hrs X 7 days, so too is a “twinkling of an eye” symbolic, but not literal." - Jake, do you have a problem believing the Word of God, but can believe everthing the Catholic Church teaches.”

NO! Wrongly stated Tim. If you would say, “Jake, do you have a problem believing [my interpretation of] the Word of God, but can believe everything the Catholic Church teaches [about the Word of God].” To this I would shout an AMEN! There is a HUGE problem with me believing your personal interpretation of the Word of God. Because the way you interpret it is not the intention of God. The Catholic Church has historical proof that it has been teaching the very same thing for centuries upon centuries.

“Ge 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:” “So, how long were these days? You are becoming more athiest than Christian by claiming the Word of God doesn't necessarily mean what it says.”

Wow! You just began to think that in some instances the Word of God doesn’t necessarily mean what it says!? Then please explain to me what John 6 means. You seem to think that John 6 “doesn’t necessarily mean what it says.”

I believe the Word of God, but one must know that the Word of God isn’t a history book (though it has historical significance and in some cases historical evidence). The Bible was written in different ways, poetically, allegorically, parables, and literal, etc. You have to know which one is which or else you end up taking the literals figuratively and the figurative literally.

Tim, we don’t know how long these “days” were, but they might not have been 24hrs? (Might – we don’t know because of the poetic symbolism used in Genesis). Remember, he made “light” first and then created the sun. “16 God made the two great lights, the (24) greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (25) the stars also. 17 (26) God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to (27) govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.”

“"While protestants think that we teach this because of something God lacks, in actuality Catholics teach this because of what WE lack and God has the Grace to replenish." - if you lack something to allow you to get you into Heaven when you die - then it is because the blood of Christ was not enough on the Cross, the Spirit couldn't work in you, and Christ couldn't save you... NOPE!”

Tim this isn’t what I meant. If Christ’s death was a free trip to heaven, and upon my conversion and repentance I’m as pure as a I could ever be, then why wouldn’t I simply go into heaven right now? Christ did do it ALL, He opened the gates so that I might have the opportunity to make it. It is Christ who helps us through this life to become better and better, and it will be Christ who helps me through Purgatory. It is Christ who does the purging, Tim!

“Christ DID IT ALL - 1co 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. Mt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. If the blood of Jesus Christ doesn't save you body-soul-spirit, then nothing you suffer or go through will do it. May God show you it is Him alone!”

Tim, how many times must I say it! I KNOW IT WAS GOD ALONE! He’s already shown me. It is HE that pushes me to be my best hear on earth. And it will be HE that purifies me in purgatory. Christ prepares us to view HIM and HIS FATHER in their Glory! There isn’t anything I can do on my own. Why do you think that purgatory is because Christ’s death wasn’t sufficient!? Purgatory is a part of the plan! Christ died so that we might go to purgatory upon death and be completely purified to see Him in heaven. It is ALL GOD!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 27, 2002.

If we are all around in 50 years, I wonder whether there will be as many Bible translations as there are Protestant denominations! You know every denomination has it's own Bible! Great idea! It's getting so that every time you go to the bookstore there is YET another Bible translation. Now Oxford has put out one that expunges the Bible of references to homosexuality. Ah, well, just another fruit of that glorious thing we call "The Reformation"

Well, just imagine if the Lord would have allowed the Reformation -- everybody get a copy of My holy word and go start your own thing -- just what would Protestantism look like today -- 100,000, 500,000, who knows maybe a MILLION different churches with different Bibles beating each other over the head! Umm, now which is it 30,000 different churches, or ONE BODY, ONE BAPTISM, or . . .

Gotta run,

Gail

P.S. I hope you are alright, Tim. Haven't heard from you this morning. You are a tough cookie, I'll say that for ya!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 27, 2002.

Jake & Gail,

Just a note to let you know I will gone till Sunday. I will reply, don't think I have run off... :)

Have a GREAT Thanksgiving!!!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 27, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), November 30, 2002.

Jake,

-- "You think that the written typed letters and words inside the Bible in and of themselves are PURE? Or is it the essence of what God said that was Pure?"

I believe that the KING JAMES BIBLE is EXACTLY the way God wanted His Word [Scripture] to appear in English. The claim you insist on creating really doesn't have anything to do with the WRITTEN WORD of GOD.

You keep mentioning "the interpretations that we humans can come up with". They don't matter to prove whether Scripture [the Word of God] is pure or not. The Scripture can not be wrong. If you believe it can contain errors, then you need to throw out your own Catholic Bible, because you want know what is true and what is not.

THE INTERPRETATIONS of MEN [of Scripture] is what is wrong sometimes - BUT - that doesn't make the Scripture wrong, just the interpretation and the believer of the interpretation. The Scripture remains true regardless.

"If I speak a scriptural passage, yet carry tones and expressions that convey a totally different meaning (even though the exact grammatical wording is the same), then how can that be of God, or even PURE?"

It isn't. That is what I am saying. Although the Scripture remains true, THE INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.

-- "The Spirit was promised to the Church."

The Spirit was promised to the BELIEVER.

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.

----- abide with you forever [how can we lose him?]

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

-- "Tim, you cannot say that the Protestant church "would" have made the Bible available in English if it were around before 1550."

There were at least 6 other English versions of the Bible before the KJV [which were used by the KJV translators], and there were other Bibles in other languages besides Hebrew, Greek, and Latin [of course, non-Catholic].

-- "The Catholic Church had been studying the Scriptures since the death of Christ, and they knew that the average Joe (or Tim) might not fully understand it. So in order to protect and preserve the Word of God (written and accompanied by the intention of God), the Catholic Church had to maintain certain control."

That may sound good, but actually what you are saying is that the Catholic Church took the role of the HOLY SPIRIT. I recall that while the Scriptures were being written, there were people corrupting them, but the Apostles didn't say "Hide the Words we have written from the people, for they might corrupt them." It is the job of the Holy Spirit to lead men to Christ and show them the truth, regardless of who or what tries to corrupt the Word of God.

So God isn't powerful enough to do it Himself, so the Church helped him? Then why did they make it available in 1610? Changed their mind? Or, scared they may lose numbers? Or, scared people might learn the Truth of God if they were able to read the Bible themselves and let the Holy Spirit lead them?

-- Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

We are supposed to get baptized because we are told to, but that isn't what saves us. There is WAY MORE Scripture telling us to BELIEVE than to BAPTIZE.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Notice the person that DOESN'T BELIEVE is DAMNED - NOT - the one that ISN'T BAPTIZED.

And does the baptisim of water or of the Holy Spirit save us?

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

You mean we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit? Till the say of redemption? How do we become unsealed?

-- "I disagree, Christ died that we MIGHT be saved...But in order to reap the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (a gift to us), we have to repent and be baptized."

And joined the Catholic Church, take mass, go through Purgatory, etc...

See, you claim it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that you are saved, but you rely on your merit of works to keep you good and saved to go to Heaven.

-- ALL PURIFICATION is done by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

Jake, I beg for you to read just the last post that I have given to Gail at: Justification/Sanctification (Tim's post)

I will answer the questions and keep me from having to retype them here. Thanks!

-- "Abraham was in the place of rest for the holy souls (limbo - if you like).

Is that Purgatory? Or, did they all miss Purgatory?

Of course they were there, because Christ hadn't risen yet.

-- "But if we are good enough to not go to hell, we still aren't good enough for heaven yet, Jesus allows us into a state of final purification."

What? We ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGHT TO GO TO HEAVEN - BUT - because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

The blood of Jesus Christ DID MUCH MORE than keep us out of Hell, it has given us ENTRANCE INTO HEAVEN.

Again, please read my post to Gail at: Justification/Sanctification (Tim's post)

-- "You just began to think that in some instances the Word of God doesn't necessarily mean what it says!? You seem to think that John 6 "doesn't necessarily mean what it says."

I take the account of Genesis to not be 24 hours - WITH NO SCRIPTURE PROOF.

I find SCRIPTURE PROOF of the meaning of John 6 to be spiritual, and you denie it?!

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

SAME CHAPTER --- AS CHRIST IS EXPLAINING HIMSELF, after some people leave:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

So, does verse 65 mean that no man can eat the literal flesh of Christ unless God gives it to them? Come on Jake, read the chapter and study it, they truth is there but you have chosen to denie it.

-- "Chris did do it ALL, He opened the gates so that I might have the opportunity to make it. It is Christ who helps us through this life to become better and better, and it will be Christ who helps me through Purgatory. It is Christ who does the purging.

Peter I 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Peter I 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.

If Christ suffered for us, then why do we still have to suffer?

If it was Christ ALONE [as you stated earlier], then what does our suffering ADD to it?

Open your eyes to the Truth, Jake [not my interpretation, but the Scripture and Holy Spirit]

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 02, 2002.

“The Scripture can not be wrong. If you believe it can contain errors, then you need to throw out your own Catholic Bible, because you want know what is true and what is not.”

Tim, you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. Without a teaching authority to tell us what some certain passages mean in the Bible, there can be NO way one can understand it by simply reading it! Sure, the Holy Spirit could tell you in your heart what He intended, but you must be able to substantiate it with evidence. That is, the interpretation the Holy Spirit will give you WILL be the very same interpretation He gave to the Apostles. So, you see, it isn’t that the Bible is wrong at all. But it can be interpreted wrong, and therefore it MUST be accompanied by the correct intention behind the written passages.

“THE INTERPRETATIONS of MEN [of Scripture] is what is wrong sometimes - BUT - that doesn't make the Scripture wrong, just the interpretation and the believer of the interpretation. The Scripture remains true regardless.”

This is exactly what I said, Tim. The Scripture (that is the essence and intention of the Scripture – not just the ink and paper) is correct. But unless it is taught to us correctly, we may not come up with the correct interpretation of it on our own.

“"If I speak a scriptural passage, yet carry tones and expressions that convey a totally different meaning (even though the exact grammatical wording is the same), then how can that be of God, or even PURE?"

It isn't. That is what I am saying. Although the Scripture remains true, THE INTERPRETATION IS FALSE.”

Whew! So good, we agree! But then, Tim, how is it that you know for sure the interpretation you pull from the Scripture is the correct interpretation, even though the Scripture is True? If your interpretation is off, yet you seem to think that this is what the Scripture is saying, then how do you confirm for yourself whether or not your interpretation is false?

“The Spirit was promised to the BELIEVER. 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. ----- abide with you forever [how can we lose him?]

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Who is Jesus talking to, Tim? He’s not just talking to “believers”! Jesus is talking to His Apostles, the leaders of the Church that he founded! Christ’s Church was established to propagate and spread His Word. His Church was founded to guard and protect His Word! If there wasn’t a Church to hold and protect the Correct and True interpretation of the Word, then there would be utter mayhem! I mean, imagine, if in a mere 500 years the “reformation” has given birth to nearly 30,000 splits, then how many splits would there be if this had happened earlier!?

“"Tim, you cannot say that the Protestant church "would" have made the Bible available in English if it were around before 1550." There were at least 6 other English versions of the Bible before the KJV [which were used by the KJV translators], and there were other Bibles in other languages besides Hebrew, Greek, and Latin [of course, non-Catholic].”

Can you provide details as to who exactly made these English copies? And where did they get their “sources” from?

“"The Catholic Church had been studying the Scriptures since the death of Christ, and they knew that the average Joe (or Tim) might not fully understand it. So in order to protect and preserve the Word of God (written and accompanied by the intention of God), the Catholic Church had to maintain certain control." That may sound good, but actually what you are saying is that the Catholic Church took the role of the HOLY SPIRIT.”

Not in the least, Tim. What I’m actually saying is that the Catholic Church has fulfilled (and is fulfilling) the command of Christ THROUGH the Power of the Holy Spirit. The Church didn’t take the role of the Holy Spirit! The Church and the Spirit have separate roles, both of which compliment eachother, and are exactly as Christ had requested.

“I recall that while the Scriptures were being written, there were people corrupting them, but the Apostles didn't say "Hide the Words we have written from the people, for they might corrupt them."

You’re right Tim. But remember that the CORRECT interpretation was in the hands of the Apostles and Christ’s’ disciples INSIDE the Church that he founded! Although there might have existed some correct versions outside the Church – one could not be secure and sure of the message given outside the Apostolic Church. So, if it be true that the Scripture back then was found correct only inside Christ’s Church (and before Christ’s Apostolic Church it was the Jewish Church), and outside the Church there were corrupt versions mixed with truth so that one couldn’t be sure; then why would this not be true now? Of course, like then, there might be some correct stuff outside the Church, but you cannot be sure that it is ALL true. Only INSIDE the Church can you be sure – just as in the time right after Jesus died!

“It is the job of the Holy Spirit to lead men to Christ and show them the truth, regardless of who or what tries to corrupt the Word of God.”

It is the job of the Holy Spirit to work with the Church in safeguarding and spreading the correct Word of God. If the Holy Spirit’s job was to lead men to Christ and show them the truth (outside of the Church), then Tim, how do you explain Christ’s command to the Apostles to go out and spread the Word of God, or His establishment of a Church? The Holy Spirit could do it on His own, but this isn’t what Christ intended.

“So God isn't powerful enough to do it Himself, so the Church helped him?”

God is powerful enough to do it Himself, but it is apparent that He WANTED the Church! If God wanted to do it on His own, why did he send the Apostles? Why did He establish a Church? Tim, you have to realize that God can do what ever He wants. He’s Powerful enough right now to simply change our hearts and Bring us all to Him! But he doesn’t work that way, Tim. Once again, it feels that you read the Scripture not to know God, but to defend your beliefs. Read the Scripture and you will see, God uses and works with people! Jesus didn’t need a Church or the Apostles to spread His Word! Jesus could have sent the Spirit on His own to touch the hearts of people without the Church or without the Bible for that matter. So, why would Jesus even establish a Church? Why would He pick out Apostles to spread His Word? Does He NEED them, Tim? Does God NEED the Bible, Tim? NO. But He wants it that way!

“Then why did they make it available in 1610? Changed their mind? Or, scared they may lose numbers? Or, scared people might learn the Truth of God if they were able to read the Bible themselves and let the Holy Spirit lead them?”

I doubt any of your claims, Tim. I think that they were scared people would lose their souls if they had tainted Bibles swarming around. So, in an effort to counter this plague, the Church officially stamped the Catholic Bible (securing and safeguarding the correct full canon), and then started to distribute the Complete Bible. Aside from this, Tim, around the same time the Printing Press began to develop and there were more efficient methods of making copies available. You keep forgetting that prior to the reformation there were little resources available to make tons of copies for everyone. Please, Tim, if you remember anything about this, remember that the Church was HAND COPYING the Bible! Do you expect a million monks to sit year on end copying Bibles so that the public could have their very own Bible? The public was able to hear the Scriptures by going to Mass!

“Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. We are supposed to get baptized because we are told to, but that isn't what saves us. There is WAY MORE Scripture telling us to BELIEVE than to BAPTIZE.”

So, again, you base the emphasis on important doctrines on the number of times they show up in the Bible? Tim, show me a comparison on how many times the word “write”, “written”, and the like appear, compared to “speak”, “oral tradition”, “preach”, and the like. If one believed, then they were Baptized. Yes, to believe is important (I agree). But Baptism is just as important! Because it is a sign of your belief! And on top of that it is a sacrament, which symbolizes the washing away of sins. And as a Sacrament, which “belief” isn’t, it gives you grace! Belief is an integral part of the Sacraments, but belief is very shallow if it isn’t followed by works. They go together, Tim! Faith and Belief lead us to do what Christ wanted (baptism). Therefore, if you don’t get baptized, but you claim to believe – then how strong is your belief? What kind of belief do you have if you don’t follow through with what you claim to believe in? So, to believe you must show your belief! Be baptized to show your belief – and then you will be saved!

“Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. Notice the person that DOESN'T BELIEVE is DAMNED - NOT - the one that ISN'T BAPTIZED.”

Note too, however, that it says He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved! So, if you believe, but aren’t baptized – then you aren’t necessarily saved, right? It says it right there as clear as day! He that believeth AND is baptized… Not, He that believeth… or He that is baptized… The Word of God says, “He that believeth and is baptized…”.

“And does the baptisim of water or of the Holy Spirit save us? John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” We are Baptized by Water and the Spirit. But not necessarily at the same time. One is baptized into the faith, and this baptism of water washes away all past sins. The baptism in the Spirit is a higher level, and it is this time (like when the Apostles received the Holy Spirit) that the gifts of the Spirit are “opened” so to speak.

“Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. You mean we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit? Till the say of redemption? How do we become unsealed?”

We unseal ourselves! If we receive the Holy Spirit, but then later fail and fall and become perpetually sinful without repentance, then we unseal ourselves. So, Tim, you think that if I, who profess to believe and who has been baptized and I love the Lord; you think that if I start sinning (like killing people or whatever) and do not repent when I die, that I’m still sealed and saved?

"I disagree, Christ died that we MIGHT be saved...But in order to reap the benefits of Christ's death and resurrection (a gift to us), we have to repent and be baptized." And joined the Catholic Church, take mass, go through Purgatory, etc... See, you claim it is through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that you are saved, but you rely on your merit of works to keep you good and saved to go to Heaven.”

Uhhhrrrr. Tim, it isn’t like the Catholic Church came up with this stuff last year! The Catholic Church didn’t “come up” with any of this! This is how the Apostles believed it to be – look back in your history book. The Catholic Church claims that we are saved by the death and resurrection of Christ, but not as you see it. This was a gift to us, Tim. We can accept it or refuse it. From the tone of this, Tim, it appears as though one has to do absolutely nothing (not even repent) to be saved. Christ died for us, but we must also receive the gift. If you receive the gift and repent and are baptized, you then begin to belong to the family of Christ. Once you’ve repented and have grown to Love the Lord – then you should WANT to know more about the Lord! It isn’t a necessity – it is a WANT. I don’t NEED to know all about my fiancé! I WANT to know! Same with Mass, and the Catholic teachings. They are there for those who WANT to know Christ better.

And on Purgatory – this isn’t a requirement of the Catholic Church, Tim. This is a Truth revealed by God!

“-- ALL PURIFICATION is done by Christ and the Holy Spirit.”

Tim, did you even read what I wrote? I’m a bit discouraged because I specifically repeated myself like 3 times at least (in caps). IT IS DONE ALL BY CHRIST!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL PURIFICATION AND SALVATION AND LOVE AND EVERYTHING IS BY AND THROUGH GOD THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The purification we receive here on earth is BY God, and the purification we complete in purgatory is BY GOD. Tim, I’m growing tired of this circular debate (on this topic). Please, just ponder it for a while. If there is no need for purification after we die, then how is there a need now for us to be purified? Show me scripturally the difference with our souls immediately after we die, and while we are alive. It is the same exact soul. The only difference is that once we die, the purification of us (BY GOD) can be done unimpeded. What I mean by this is that here on hear there are stumbling blocks, or temptation if you will. Our senses tempt us into doing sinful deeds. These sinful deeds, you hopefully agree, need to be repented of. So, we spend our lives in a battle of good vs. evil. We are constantly trying to walk in the path of Christ, but here and there we stumble and need to be picked up. We are in no way pure here on earth, yet we seek by good works through Love of God to become pure. We work here on earth to become pure because we want to get closer to God. Well, once we die, as Paul tells us, no more work can be done. Once we die, our earthly struggle through temptation and evil to become pure ceases. Now, it is simply God’s grace that purifies us to what we were once trying to accomplish here on earth. The purification doesn’t stop all of a sudden after death, Tim. Our soul is the same sinful soul that we have on earth. But the soul in purgatory cannot be tempted to sin any longer. So, it is ONLY God’s LOVE and grace that purifies us.

“Jake, I beg for you to read just the last post that I have given to Gail at: Justification/Sanctification (Tim's post)”

I’ve read them, Tim, but there is nothing new that I’ve not heard. I know it is by God alone! I’ve already told you this. But the fact that it is only God doesn’t disprove Purgatory or anything else. Really, if you think that way, then since it is all by God and God doesn’t need anyone or anything, then toss out your Bible Tim, because God doesn’t need the paper and ink to give you His Word.

I hope you know I’m joking. God doesn’t need anything, but He chooses to do things certain ways (which are beyond our comprehension). Purgatory, like the Bible, is something God chooses to have for us.

"Abraham was in the place of rest for the holy souls (limbo - if you like).

Is that Purgatory? Or, did they all miss Purgatory?”

Good question. It is for sure that they went through a purifying state – we all need that. But once they were pure enough to see God, the gates of Heaven were still closed until Christ died. So, I don’t know if their purgation occurred in the same place, but it is definitely a different state of the soul. So, we don’t think purgatory to be a place (like stopping in Kansas on the way to New York), but purgation is a state of purification. So, while Abraham might have been in the same place of his purgation (Purgatory), but once his soul was pure, there was no more need for purification, yet he still had to wait for the coming of Christ to gather him and the others up into heaven.

“Of course they were there, because Christ hadn't risen yet.”

But it is the same thing, Tim. There is a place (location) for waiting – where you are neither in heaven or in hell. So, if there was a place (location) for our soul after death, which was neither heaven or hell before Christ’s death. Are you sure that this location is still not available? It certainly isn’t needed any longer when the soul is ready to go to Heaven. But for the unprepared souls, this location is what is used for the different state of our soul during purgation.

"But if we are good enough to not go to hell, we still aren't good enough for heaven yet, Jesus allows us into a state of final purification."

What? We ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGHT TO GO TO HEAVEN - BUT - because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Jesus Christ DID MUCH MORE than keep us out of Hell, it has given us ENTRANCE INTO HEAVEN.”

Tim, it gives us entrance into heaven, I AGREE (CAN I SCREEM THIS LOUD ENOUG). However, because of our wicked deeds, NO, WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR HEAVEN. God in His mercy sent His Son to die for our sins and OPEN the gates of heaven. And still by His mercy, He purifies us before we enter into His presence.

"You just began to think that in some instances the Word of God doesn't necessarily mean what it says!? You seem to think that John 6 "doesn't necessarily mean what it says." I take the account of Genesis to not be 24 hours - WITH NO SCRIPTURE PROOF. I find SCRIPTURE PROOF of the meaning of John 6 to be spiritual, and you denie it?!”

No, we do not denie it. It was spiritual! But we believe it to be spiritual / literally. While you believe it to be spiritual / figurative. But Jesus was really talking about His Body and Blood! If it was meant spiritually / figuratively, then explain all the disciples leaving! In fact, if you understood the language of the time, you would know that if it were meant figuratively Jesus would have been telling his disciples to make fun of him and hate him (because saying “eat my body and drink my blood” figuratively was a bad saying). It could ONLY be meant literally.

“John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. SAME CHAPTER --- AS CHRIST IS EXPLAINING HIMSELF, after some people leave: John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.” So, does verse 65 mean that no man can eat the literal flesh of Christ unless God gives it to them? Come on Jake, read the chapter and study it, they truth is there but you have chosen to denie it.”

Don’t mock me, Tim, or you can find someone else to talk to! Dr. Scott Hahn, and many other scholars have studied the verse much more than you or I, and it was this that has led them to the real truth. Those protestants who claim to have studied it, merely study it to try and prove their point! They aren’t interested in the Truth otherwise they would be lead to the truth.

“John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

If you read before John 6:53 you will note that the crowd came to Jesus wanting FOOD to nourish them physically. Jesus had just fed the crowd the night before on the mountain. Jesus was telling them, you’re flesh prifiteth nothing (not his own flesh profits nothing – this would be a lie because his flesh was given up for us on the cross). Jesus was saying you’re physical, fleshly, hunger, profits you nothing. It is your spiritual hunger that must be maintained! He explains to them that He is speaking of the spirit and life. So, He tells them, because they came looking for food to nourish their flesh, they will need to eat His Body and Drink His blood once He becomes the pass over Sacrifice of the New Covenant not for physical hunger, but to give them spiritual life.

“"Chris did do it ALL, He opened the gates so that I might have the opportunity to make it. It is Christ who helps us through this life to become better and better, and it will be Christ who helps me through Purgatory. It is Christ who does the purging. Peter I 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; Peter I 4:2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. If Christ suffered for us, then why do we still have to suffer?”

Ask yourself the same question in regards to this life. If Christ suffered for His Apostles, why is it that many of them were tortured and martyred? Christ wasn’t saying – I suffered that you will not have to suffer ever. Christ died that we might have the opportunity to have everlasting life in heaven without suffering. However, Christ didn’t say what you are trying to say. Christ didn’t say, since I’m suffering you will never have to suffer. We do suffer on this earth, and we can offer it up with Christ on the Cross for our sins.

“If it was Christ ALONE [as you stated earlier], then what does our suffering ADD to it?”

It isn’t like purgatory is a place of suffering for the sake of suffering. We suffer not because we are being tortured, but because we cannot wait to be with Christ. Purgatory is a place (a state of the soul) where we are cleansed and purified. Like I compared it to earlier: when you open your eyes in the light after being in the dark. It hurts, but it isn’t like intended torture. God prepares us so that we can come and see Him. Again, the same can be applied to our souls on earth. It is painful to our sinful souls to turn away from our sinful ways. Isn’t it painful to not look lustfully at a beautiful girl? If you say no, then you are blessed. But for most people it IS painful to put away their sinful ways. By the Grace of God we suffer through this life doing what is right. This isn’t a mandated suffering, but it is a part of following Christ. Once we die, we no longer have the temptation of sin in our path to God, however, our souls still need to be turned away from their sinful inclination.

Open your eyes to the Truth, Jake [not my interpretation, but the Scripture and Holy Spirit].

Who’s “Truth”, Tim? “not my interpretation…” Who’s interpretation then? Is it the one true interpretation, Tim? Where did you get your interpretation? Did you come up with it yourself? If so, then who can back you on this interpretation? Others have to have the truth also, right? Not just you? There are many other interpretations, Tim (30,000). So, should I open my eyes to this “Truth”, or maybe Luther had the “Truth”, or maybe Calvin? Hmmm. Dot he Jehovah’s witnesses have the Truth? Or do Baptists, or Methodists, or Presbyterians, or Latter day saints, or Episcopalians, or Mormons? Tim, help me out? How do you know your “interpretation” is correct? Is it the same one the Apostles had? Or after the Apostles, did Thomas Aquinas have the same Truth? Or did the Church Fathers?

I’ll tell you who has the Truth, and I’ll tell you where our eyes need to be opened to to find the ONE TRUTH: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 03, 2002.

Paul desired to suffer with Christ as indicated by the following:

Phillipians 3:10-11 That I may know Him, and the power of his resurrection, and the FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SUFFERINGS, being made conformable unto his death. IF by any means I MIGHT ATTAIN UNTO THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

Why would Paul want to know the FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SUFFERINGS? And what did Paul mean by "IF . . . I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead."

And then we see:

Colossians 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that WHICH IS BEHIND OF THE AFFLICTIONS OF CHRIST in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the Church.

We believe that sanctification is wrought through sufferings and afflictions as indicated in multiple passages of scripture, and that we suffer with Christ as he travails over His Holy Bride.

Gotta run. Been here way tooo long already!

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 03, 2002.

Hey Jake,

I have to laugh, because I keep trying to cut the post shorter and it seems that you keep getting longer. ha!

-- "This is exactly what I said, Tim. The Scripture (that is the essence and intention of the Scripture – not just the ink and paper) is correct. But unless it is taught to us correctly, we may not come up with the correct interpretation of it on our own."

Finally we agree on something. lol! Of course we still disagree that the Spirit can lead me outside of the Catholic Church. Oh well.

-- "Christ’s Church was established to propagate and spread His Word."

This is true.

Eph 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:

-- "His Church was founded to guard and protect His Word!"

I thought that was God's job.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Of course, I guess you could say that he uses men to do it.

-- "If there wasn’t a Church to hold and protect the Correct and True interpretation of the Word, then there would be utter mayhem!"

I thought that was the Holy Spirit's job.

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.

-- "Can you provide details as to who exactly made these English copies? And where did they get their “sources” from?"

[Purified Seven Times, Evangelist Bill Bradely]

1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heretic.

1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heretic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.

1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious license." Later, during "Bloody Mary's" reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.

1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a license.

1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Matthews Bible; becomes the first victum of "Bloody Mary", queen of England.

1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee to Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.

1611 - KJV

"The Anabaptists had produced several Bible translations in their respective languages by Wycliffe's day..."

-- "Once again, it feels that you read the Scripture not to know God, but to defend your beliefs."

That is an incorrect feeling. And probably brought on by the fact that I disgree with some of the Catholic teachings.

-- "Read the Scripture and you will see, God uses and works with people!"

I agree - God through the Holy Spirit works with individuals - which are the Church and the body of Christ.

-- "Tim, if you remember anything about this, remember that the Church was HAND COPYING the Bible!"

Tyndale's Bibles were printed in 1526, why did the Catholics wait till 1610?

-- "Tim, show me a comparison on how many times the word “write”, “written”, and the like appear, compared to “speak”, “oral tradition”, “preach”, and the like."

[KJV - just the word, not knowing the context]

write - 91

written - 250 [it is written - 80]

Scripture - 53

speak - 250

tradition - 13 [oral tradition - 0]

preach - 145

So, what is your point?

-- "But Baptism is just as important! Because it is a [sign] of your belief! And on top of that it is a sacrament, which [symbolizes] the washing away of sins."

By your own definition [of baptisim] you believe the same as me. [1] It is important because Christ said to do it BUT [2] it is only a "sign" of our belief and it "symbolizes the washing away of sins". It does not give us belief not does it wash away the sins - so yes we should get baptized because it is obedience to Christ, but no it does not give us or help us keep salvation. It is a work!

-- "And as a Sacrament, which “belief” isn’t, it gives you grace!"

Where do you find this? We are given grace from God alone, without any merit of ourselves.

Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

-- "Belief is an integral part of the Sacraments, but belief is very shallow if it isn’t followed by works."

This is what I keep saying - you put a GREATER amount of power toward works instead of faith [belief].

-- "Therefore, if you don’t get baptized, but you claim to believe – then how strong is your belief?"

I agree, and this goes to what James is all about. If one really gets saved, they will want to get baptized and not be ashamed of the gospel of Christ!

-- [Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.] "Notice the person that DOESN'T BELIEVE is DAMNED - NOT - the one that ISN'T BAPTIZED. Note too, however, that it says He that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved! So, if you believe, but aren’t baptized – then you aren’t necessarily saved, right? It says it right there as clear as day! He that believeth AND is baptized… Not, He that believeth… or He that is baptized… The Word of God says, “He that believeth and is baptized…”.

What about these verses then - plain as day NO baptisim needed?

Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Ro 4:5 But [to him that worketh not], [but believeth] on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

-- "If we receive the Holy Spirit, but then later fail and fall and become perpetually sinful without repentance, then we unseal ourselves."

Just give me 1 verse. And if you could lose salvation - you CAN NOT get it back!

Heb 6:4-6 For [it is impossible] for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, [to renew them again unto repentance]; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

So, if you believe you can lose salvation, then once you lose it IT IS OVER - NO SECOND CHANCES!

-- "The purification doesn’t stop all of a sudden after death, Tim. Our soul is the same sinful soul that we have on earth. But the soul in purgatory cannot be tempted to sin any longer. So, it is ONLY God’s LOVE and grace that purifies us."

So, let me ask? If God does all the work without us [as stated earlier by you] and it is "God's LOVE and grace that purifies us" then why couldn't it be down at the moment we die without having to go to Purgatory for a while?

-- "So, if there was a place (location) for our soul after death, which was neither heaven or hell before Christ’s death. Are you sure that this location is still not available?"

Did Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and/or Mary go to Purgartory?

-- "If you read before John 6:53 you will note that the crowd came to Jesus wanting FOOD to nourish them physically."

Then what about these verses Jake? I'm not mocking, just trying to show you what I am saying about Jesus speaking spiritually.

Joh 4:11-14 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

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

Gail,

I understand Gail, and believe that we will suffer in this life, but Jesus Christ suffered for our sins TOTALLY on the cross and has PAID 100% for them. That is why we get to enter Heaven - not by ANYTHING we do.

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

Have a good weekend. God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 06, 2002.

I'll have to respond completely tomorrow, but for now I just wanted to reply to the very first comment.

"Of course we still disagree that the Spirit can lead me outside of the Catholic Church. Oh well."

Wrong, Tim. We DO agree on this. I have no doubt that the Spirit COULD lead you... Could, that is! The problem is that there is no real evidence to support when He has or when He has not led you. The only evidence that He has lead you, is that if He leads you in the same ways that He led His Apostles. And therefore, since the teachings of Christ given to the Apostles are safeguarded in the Church, we can only be SURE that the Holy Spirit has led you when it matches with what the Church holds! Don't you see? The Spirit CAN lead you! However, there is no insurance that He has. You might accept his lead in some things, but not in others. That is why many Protestants have partial truthes, yet cannot agree completely with eachother. The Catholic Church holds the insurance, because as Christ told the Aposltes, "you know Him"!

You see what I mean? I agree that He could lead you. But I cannot take your word for it! Because truthfully your word is as good as the next guy who quotes Scripture. I only Know for SURE that the Holy Spirit IS guiding His Church, and therefore I can ONLY BE 100% sure that the Spirit has lead you when your interpretation is in agreement with that of the Church.

In Christ.

-- Theresa (Rodntee4Jesus@aol.com), December 07, 2002.

Sorry, its me - My mom's cookie is set for this computer

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 07, 2002.

"His Church was founded to guard and protect His Word!" I thought that was God's job.”

It IS the “job” of the Holy Spirit INSIDE the Church! Outside of the Church, sure, the Holy Spirit will guide and protect HIS word with those who are willing to accept ALL His guidance, however, as we can see, this isn’t the case. So many people do NOT want His guidance. INSIDE the Church on the other hand, the Holy Spirit is KNOWN for sure! Therefore it isn’t a guessing game. That was the plan!

“Ps 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Of course, I guess you could say that he uses men to do it.”

“Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever”… How? The Lord willed that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would preserve HIS word. We know this from the fact that Christ established the Church.

"If there wasn’t a Church to hold and protect the Correct and True interpretation of the Word, then there would be utter mayhem!" I thought that was the Holy Spirit's job.”

Please refer to the very first paragraph at the top. Exactly the same…

"Can you provide details as to who exactly made these English copies? And where did they get their “sources” from?" [Purified Seven Times, Evangelist Bill Bradely] 1384 - John Wycliffe translates the whole Bible into English for the first time in history. The "Church" repays him by condemning him as a heretic.”

Are you sure it was simply because he translated it into English, Tim? Or was it because he heretically MIS-translated it (coincidentally in English)…?

“1536 - William Tyndale burned as a heretic for his Bible translation work - the first printed English Scriptures.”

Again, was it because it was in English – or was it because it ruined Scripture? While several protestant sources might say it was for the English, then again it might have been a different story. Honestly I don’t know. Even if it was purely because he printed it in English, this doesn’t mean that the Church Herself was in error. The individual sinner who allowed this to happen was in error, and I’m sure he has paid his price. But, once more, the Church Herself is not to be blamed.

“1537 - Myles Coverdale's Bible translation published "with the king's most gracious license." Later, during "Bloody Mary's" reign, he is hunted for his life and forced to flee England.

1539 - Coverdale's "Great Bible" chained to the pulpits by order of King Henry VIII. Christians executed for reading the Bible without a license.”

Was this an order from the Church or from the King? Just curiouse, because isn’t he the same king who wanted to get a divorce and so he left the Church to start his own?..

“1555 - John Rogers burned to death for publishing the Matthews Bible; becomes the first victum of "Bloody Mary", queen of England.”

The Church wasn’t run by or represented by the views of the King or Queen. The Church is run by the Power of the Holy Spirit, and is represented by the successors of the Apostles (when they abide in Him).

“1560 - Queen Mary commands all "heretics" to return to Romanism or face the consequences. Many flee to Geneva, and the exiled church leaders produce the Geneva Bible.”

Again, the Queen…. Not the Church…

"Once again, it feels that you read the Scripture not to know God, but to defend your beliefs."

That is an incorrect feeling. And probably brought on by the fact that I disgree with some of the Catholic teachings.”

I’d be glad if it was incorrect! I don’t think it simply is because you disagree with some Catholic teachings, but rather because of the way that you present your views. If just seems like you don’t try to understand what I’m saying. It could be just my impatiens. I apologize.

"Read the Scripture and you will see, God uses and works with people!" I agree - God through the Holy Spirit works with individuals - which are the Church and the body of Christ.”

Exactly! But the difference is that He is GUARANTEED to work INSIDE the Church. It is merely a guessing game outside.

"Tim, if you remember anything about this, remember that the Church was HAND COPYING the Bible!" Tyndale's Bibles were printed in 1526, why did the Catholics wait till 1610?”

Maybe it just wasn’t the right time, Tim. The Church is prudent and doesn’t make rash decisions. She waits for the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit. She doesn’t just go on a whim (with the crowd – so to speak). If they had printed it earlier, who knows, maybe there would be many more divisions and “lone-wolves” who wanted to express their own opinions of Scripture.

"Tim, show me a comparison on how many times the word “write”, “written”, and the like appear, compared to “speak”, “oral tradition”, “preach”, and the like." [KJV - just the word, not knowing the context] write - 91 written - 250 [it is written - 80] Scripture - 53 speak - 250 tradition - 13 [oral tradition - 0] preach - 145 So, what is your point?”

My point was, that the volume of a particular word of passage doesn’t mean a thing as far as “importance goes”. If we look at sheer volume, it would appear that written takes a back seat to spoken words. So, we shouldn’t use the shallow argument that something is important simply because it is mentioned a lot.

"But Baptism is just as important! Because it is a [sign] of your belief! And on top of that it is a sacrament, which [symbolizes] the washing away of sins." By your own definition [of baptisim] you believe the same as me. [1] It is important because Christ said to do it BUT [2] it is only a "sign" of our belief and it "symbolizes the washing away of sins". It does not give us belief not does it wash away the sins - so yes we should get baptized because it is obedience to Christ, but no it does not give us or help us keep salvation. It is a work!”

That’s right, Tim! But, look at it this way. If you don’t get baptized, what does this say? It says that you don’t really believe! Because if you really believed in Christ and His teachings, then you believe that He wants you to be Baptized into His Body! As baptism is a sign of you belief, then not being baptized is a symbol of your disbelief.

"And as a Sacrament, which “belief” isn’t, it gives you grace!" Where do you find this? We are given grace from God alone, without any merit of ourselves.”

Again, you are right and I agree. God gives us this grace ALONE. However, without us outwardly expressing our belief through the sacraments, God will not give us the graces that come from this. God GIVES US THE GRACE, but only when we fulfill His Holy Will.

“Ro 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.”

That’s right! Grace is a gift… You can either open your gift (through the sacraments). Or you can look at it from the outside all wrapped up and pretty, but not receive what’s inside.

"Belief is an integral part of the Sacraments, but belief is very shallow if it isn’t followed by works." This is what I keep saying - you put a GREATER amount of power toward works instead of faith [belief].”

Not necessarily. It may appear that way, and this is why: Faith cannot be accounted for because it is intangible. However, we are able to account for faith through works. Therefore it isn’t the specific “work” which we put a “greater amount of power toward”, rather it is the faith behind the work that is now physically able to be accounted for. So, we don’t put a greater amount of power toward works! We are able to see the faith by works, and only when we can see the faith is their a greater amount of power…

“What about these verses then - plain as day NO baptisim needed? Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”

Amen! He that believeth on me hath everlasting life… However, he that believeth in Christ should believe in Baptism. Therefore, Christ isn’t saying you will be saved without baptism! He is saying if you believe in me you will be saved. But what does believing in Him entail? Baptism!

“Ro 4:5 But [to him that worketh not], [but believeth] on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

“Worketh” in this instance is not to be taken as the same kind of “work”. I think Gail explained this in a different thread. Christ is referring to dead works. He that does not perform dead works, yet believeth [ and therefore performs live works through the Spirit] will be saved. Dead works is work done that doesn’t glorify God or express your faith. Alive Works glorify God and express your faith in Him. Therefore one doesn’t have to do these dead works to be saved.

"If we receive the Holy Spirit, but then later fail and fall and become perpetually sinful without repentance, then we unseal ourselves." Just give me 1 verse. And if you could lose salvation - you CAN NOT get it back!”

It isn’t like once we’re sealed we cannot unseal it, nor is it if we are unsealed we cannot ask the Holy Spirit to re-seal us. It is a life fight. It is a process till the end. We remain sealed by the Holy Spirit as long as we continue to accept Him and Love Him. If we reject Him, as Scripture says, then He will reject you.

As far as being saved and losing salvation goes: Well, the only person we know for SURE from Scripture that went to hell – besides for the parable of the rich man – was Satan. Lucifer was the most beautiful and powerful of angels. He was certainly saved! He was created for Heaven! Yet he lost his salvation when he made up his mind (eternally) to go against God. I cannot give you Scriptural evidence that supports anyone going to hell. I don’t even think that we can prove Judas went to hell – or can we? He was saved, but then became a traitor. So you see, Tim.

“Heb 6:4-6 For [it is impossible] for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, [to renew them again unto repentance]; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. So, if you believe you can lose salvation, then once you lose it IT IS OVER - NO SECOND CHANCES!”

You are snipping passages and using them as individual teachings, but you are not looking at the big picture. How could God mean that you can never get a second chance!? Jesus said to His Father – forgive them, for they know not what they do. The thief on Christ’s side was forgiven! They were given a second chance. We should take this passage as those who have tasted God’s goodness, but reject it forever. If you taste His goodness, reject God, but come back and Love God with all your heart you still can be saved, Tim. Are you telling me that God will not Love His sheep if it goes astray and returns? What about the prodigal son?

"The purification doesn’t stop all of a sudden after death, Tim. Our soul is the same sinful soul that we have on earth. But the soul in purgatory cannot be tempted to sin any longer. So, it is ONLY God’s LOVE and grace that purifies us." So, let me ask? If God does all the work without us [as stated earlier by you] and it is "God's LOVE and grace that purifies us" then why couldn't it be down at the moment we die without having to go to Purgatory for a while?”

You are asking things that only God can answer? Ask this, why did God use a human to give birth to His Son? He “could” have done a lot of things differently. Why does God use angles to speak to people? Isn’t God powerful enough just to speak to us on His own? He “could” do this differently also. We aren’t the ones to say WHY God chooses to do certain things. The Church isn’t even capable of explaining WHY God has chosen some things, only that we know they were the best possible choice! The Church CAN however determine, by divine guidance, what God does! So we know there is a Purgatory. However, we cannot know exactly WHY. Our minds aren’t God’s.

"So, if there was a place (location) for our soul after death, which was neither heaven or hell before Christ’s death. Are you sure that this location is still not available?" Did Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and/or Mary go to Purgartory?”

Enoch, Moses, and Elijah we cannot be sure of, because they sinned and we know they sinned through Scripture. Besides for this evidence, we know for sure that they spent time in waiting for Christ to die. So, we know that they were in waiting, but we don’t know specifically what went on. Mary on the other hand, as the Church teaches, had no sin (and we’ve had that argument before), therefore it would be completely unnecessary for her to go to a place for purification when she is already pure.

"If you read before John 6:53 you will note that the crowd came to Jesus wanting FOOD to nourish them physically." Then what about these verses Jake? I'm not mocking, just trying to show you what I am saying about Jesus speaking spiritually. Joh 4:11-14 The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

First of all, like I said, we believe Jesus was speaking spiritually in John 6, but spiritually/literally, not spiritually/figuratively. We know that these verses here are spiritually/figuratively because of the context. The water that Jesus shall give… Well, what water, Tim? There was no more mention of real water. There was no analogy of water to anything else… We can gather then, since there was no real physical connection between water and something, that water referred to His life-giving Gospel, His Spirit, the Spoken Word. In John 6 however, we know it was spiritual/literal, because Jesus specifically makes the connection to HIS BODY! And then again, in all the gospels, the Last Supper – Jesus said, “This is My Body”. And in Paul’s letter to the Cor. “Eat His Body”… Aside from Scriptural evidence, the Church teaches what the Apostles taught, and since the Church teaches that John 6 is spiritual/literal, then we should know that that is what the Apostles intended, which in turn was what Christ taught them.

“I understand Gail, and believe that we will suffer in this life, but Jesus Christ suffered for our sins TOTALLY on the cross and has PAID 100% for them. That is why we get to enter Heaven - not by ANYTHING we do.”

Not to speak for Gail, but, we know it isn’t anything we do, Tim. We’ve been telling you this! Christ died totally and paid 100% for our sins, however we must accept this gift by accepting the Holy Spirit. It is a doing on our part to receive the gift, that we MIGHT be saved. However, our salvation gift is owed 100% to Christ.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 07, 2002.

You are doing great work, Jake. Please persevere, for you are upholding the truth. JFG
PS: No English translation was condemned merely for being English, but rather for containing errors. The Catholic Church approved of vernacular translations of scriptural books centuries before King James approved the partial version that was translated by non-Catholics. St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation itself was a vernacular bible of its time.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 09, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Tim.
Sorry that it has taken so long for me to get back to this thread.

In my last message to you (more than two weeks ago), I stated: "Whose meaning is right, yours or mine? Maybe neither of us? (It can't be both of us.) Who would be the referee to decide?"

To this you responded: "That is a very good insight to that. You are correct that either one of us will be wrong or both of us will be wrong -- but Scripture will be right."

Tim, I'm not sure, but it appears that you are putting words in my mouth -- words that I would not say. I wouldn't state that "Scripture" would be "the referee to decide" if you or I (or neither of us) is right. I think that I have clearly stated that the Church of Jesus, the Catholic Church, is the only thing on this Earth capable of being that "referee," because she is infallible. A book cannot be a referee, because a book requires visible, appointed human beings to explain its meaning when there is a disagreement. You know who those human beings are -- the Apostles' successors.

You then asked me: "What if I read a Bible verse and tell you it means something because my father told me, and his father told him, and his father told him, and he got it from the Apostles -- you don't read it, because you trust my judgment, and just accept it as fact -- does that make it fact? No."

You are right, because the simple string of fallible "fathers" you listed may get something wrong. But the Catholic Church has an infallible string of popes and bishops in union with them (successors of the Apostles). That is what will "make it fact." When we hear the teaching message (faith and morals) coming from the pope and his fellow bishops, we are hearing the Apostles themselves, relaying the message of Jesus himself. (We have no such assurance of reliability in your example, though -- when speaking of mere lay fathers, grandfathers, etc..).

You asked: "Honestly, would you go to the Pope or the priest if you read a verse and didn't agree with the Catholic teaching or would you just accept it?"

I never have to answer that question, Tim, because I never disagree with Catholic teaching. I don't "read a verse" and ever think of using it against Church teaching. You see, you have the whole thing backwards ...
RIGHT way: What God wants each of us to do is (1) to determine which Church Jesus founded, (2) to realize that his Church cannot teach error, (3) to learn what his Church teaches [as found most especially in the Catechism], and (4) to let the doctrines we have learned help us to understand the Bible.
WRONG way: What God does NOT want us to do is (1) read the Bible, (2) figure it out on our own [with what we hope is the Holy Spirit's aid], and (3) look for a "church" to join that believes the way we do.

Tim, zillions of people (including me and millions of converts, including numerous protestant clergy) have done it the right way. But millions of people (including you) are floundering around, switching from one "church" to another, starting their own denominations, etc., because they have done it the wrong way.

You then wrote: "The only thing you have proved is what I have heard Protestants say for years. 'The Catholics kept the Scripture in Latin and from the people for many many years so that they could control the people.' Looking at history it does seem that way to me."

You must be looking at false "history." What you have quoted Protestants as "say[ing for years" is ridiculous. For many centuries, Latin was the vernacular language! How then could the Scriptures being in the vernacular be a way of hiding the scriptures and controlling people? Eventually, modern languages developed, and the Church permitted the Bible to be translated into them. Long before the protestant rebellion of the 1500s, there were many Catholic vernacular (non-Latin) scriptural translations. Please don't buy the lies you have heard.

Here is another error that you relay from your anti-Catholic mentors: "I don't understand why the Catholic 'higher ups' didn't want the 'common' man to have the Word of God, but to just trust the Catholic Church. What if they were wrong - then everyone would be wrong." Almost everyone prior to recent times was illiterate. The Bible was read to all Catholics at every Mass, it was depicted in art (stained glass, etc.), and it was explained in sermons -- all before the protestant rebellion. There was no worry about people being taught wrongly ["then everyone would be wrong"] because the Holy Spirit PREVENTED the Church from teaching wrongly. That is exactly what is meant by infallibility -- divine protection from teaching error.

Previously, you asked: "How can you go through life not knowing if you will be good enough to go to Heaven?"
I replied "Don't you know that about 90% of all Christians who have ever lived have done this."
To this, your non sequitur response was, "I like the way that you can judge 90% of the Christians that ever lived, without ever knowing half of them personally."
Take another look, Tim. I "judge[d]" nobody. I was simply speaking of all faithful Catholics and Eastern Orthdox of all time (plus some protestants) -- i.e., all the folks who have rejected the anti-biblical principal of "once saved, always saved." I just "guess-timated" that those billions of right-believing Christians since the first century comprise 90% of all Christians who have lived. By contrast, I "guess-timate" that about 10% of all Christians who have ever lived [and the full 10% are from the last few centuries] have believed in the "eternal security" myth.

Tim, it was breathtaking (and very saddening) to read your blatant statement that contradicts the Bible by exemplifying the mortal sin of presumption (i.e., assuming that you are undoubtedly going to heaven):

"I believe from the day I got saved, Jesus Christ has cleansed me from all unrighteousness FOREVER. Although I may sin, because I still have the sinful flesh, the blood of Jesus Christ is on the altar of God. Because the blood is on the altar, I appear sinless before God. NOT BECAUSE OF ME - but because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross which He shed is blood for sinners! Once you are saved - Christ works in us - till He comes to gather us home!"
This is incorrect, Tim. You can easily turn from God, become a grave sinner, and go to hell -- though we hope that you will not! God has forgiven your PAST mortal sins (if you have sincerely repented, with perfect contrition), but he has not forgiven your present and future deadly sins in advance, as you seem to be saying. You must continue to repent and receive new forgiveness, again and again, to avoid finding an eventual home in Gehenna.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 12, 2002.

''. . . It is important because Christ said to do it BUT [2] it is only a "sign" of our belief and it "symbolizes the washing away of sins". It does not give us belief not does it wash away the sins - so yes we should get baptized because it is obedience to Christ, but no it does not give us or help us keep salvation. It is a work!” --
This is Tim, falling into error.

That’s right, Tim! But, look at it this way. --This is Jake, our Catholic, agreeing with the error.

Friends, --Baptism, as all sacraments do, confers grace directly upon the recipient. Sacraments are outward signs, but as sacraments do infuse sanctifying grace; as they are administered. They are NOT symbolic. They give us Christ's grace, as well as signify the giving.

Tim has called baptism a mere act; which would mean ''as if'' our sins were being washed (baptism) away. But the Catholic Church has always taught Christians we truly receive the grace and gift of the Holy Spirit at the moment matter and form are ceremonially combined in the sacrament. Matter is the water, form is the words, ''I baptise you, etc., The grace infused is our Lord's own merit, earned upon the cross, and accomplishes our salvation in baptism. Therefore, baptism DOES save us. We are born again.

Baptism is not a symbol. Neither is Our Lord's Body or His Blood in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist symbolic. The Body and Blood become reality in that sacrament.

These are things Tim can't know as yet. But God has revealed them, and God neither deceives nor is He deceived. Tim will have to believe, to be a true member of Christ's living Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 12, 2002.

Thanks Eugene for that clarification. I meant to agree that, while Baptism itself is NOT symbolic (and I gave the def. of Sacrament as well), there is symbolism involved - like the water. So, while the entire Sacrament is REAL, the definition needs symbolism:

A sacrament is an outward sign [symbol], instituted by Christ to give grace. I tried to make the point that Baptism IS REAL and necessary, BUT the water (which is the sign) is symbolic. Because the submersion, or sprinkling, or pouring of water doesn’t matter, it is the fact that there is water. I guess I didn’t explain it that well.

Thanks again for the clarification.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 13, 2002.

Jake,
I'm well aware you know all the details, but are trying to keep Tim's attention as he flies off in every direction.

But when the person oversteps; call a halt for his own sake. He should not be permitted to make false statements just because we want to be courteous to him. He can't take liberties interpreting from the Bible. Our whole issue has to be sola scriptura and the damage it's done to the faith. We have to make Tim realise this.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 13, 2002.