Was there such a thing as Apostolic Succession -- Let's look at the record. Dashman -- are you up for it?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Apostolic Succession"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Clement,Epistle to Corinthians,42,44(A.D. 98),in ANF,I:16,17
"For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ Of God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counsellors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as ... Anencletus and Clement to Peter?" Ignatius,To the Trallians,7(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:69
"Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: 'And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.' " Hegesippus,Memoirs,fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History,4:22(A.D. 180),in NPNF2,I:198-199
"True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4:33:8(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:508
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,--a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith." Tertullian,Prescription against the Heretics,33(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:258
"And that you may still be more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale? which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit." Clement of Alexandria,Who is the rich man that shall be save?,42(A.D. 210),in ANF,II:603
"We are not to credit these men, nor go out from the first and the ecclesiastical tradition; nor to believe otherwise than as the churches of God have by succession transmitted to us." Origen,Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244),in FOC,407
"Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers." Cyprian,To the Lapsed,1(A.D. 250),in ANF,V:305
"Therefore the power of remitting sins was given to the apostles, and to the churches which they, sent by Christ, established, and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination." Firmilian,To Cyprian,Epistle 75[74]:16(A.D. 256),in ANF,V:394
"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing... When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria... Linus ... was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there ... Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome." Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24,(A.D. 325),in NPNF2,I:81
"Lo! In these three successions, as in a mystery and a figure ... Under the three pastors,--there were manifold shepherds" Ephraem,Nisbene Hymns,The Bishops of Nisibis(Jacob, Babu, Valgesh),13,14(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,XIII:180
"[W]hile before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures ... For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit this state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?" Athanasius,To Dracontius,Epistle 49(A.D. 355),in NPNF2,IV:558
"[B]elieve as we believe,we , who are, by succesion from the blessed apostles, bishops; confess as we and they have confessed, the only Son of God, and thus shalt thou obtain forgiveness for thy numerous crimes." Lucifer of Calaris,On St. Athanasius(A.D. 361),in FOC,274
"[W]e shall not recede from the faith ... as once laid it continues even to this say, through the tradition of the fathers, according to the succession from the apostles, even to the discussion had at Nicea against the heresy which had, at that period, sprung up." Hilary of Poitiers,History Fragment 7(ante A.D. 367),in FOC,273
"[D]uring the days of that Anicetus, bishop of Rome, who succeeded Pius and his predecessors, For, in Rome, Peter and Paul were the first both apostles and bishops; then came Linus, then Cletus ... However the succession of the bishops in Rome was in the following order. Peter and Paul, and Cletus, Clement ..." Epiphanius,Panarion,27:6(A.D. 377),in FOC,279
"He[St. Athanasius] is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense." Gregory of Nazianzen,Oration 21:8(A.D. 380),in NPNF2,VII:271
"For they[Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' " Ambrose,Concerning Repentance,7:33(A.D. 384),in NPNF2,X:334
"It has been ordained by the apostles and their successors, that nothing be read in the Catholic Church, except the law, and the prophets, and the Gospels." Philastrius of Brescia,On Heresis(ante A.D. 387),in FOC,280
"Let a bishop be ordained by three or two bishops; but if any one be ordained by one bishop, let him be deprived, both himself and he that ordained him. But if there be a necessity that he have only one to ordain him, because more bishops cannot come together, as in time of persecution, or for such like causes, let him bring the suffrage of permission from more bishops." Apostolic Constitutions,8:27(A.D. 400),in ANF,7:493
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,I:298
" 'To the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi.' Since it was likely that the Jews too would call themselves 'saints' from the first oracle, when they were called a 'holy people, a people for God's own possession' (Ex. xix. 6; Deut. vii. 6, etc.); for this reason he added, 'to the saints in Christ Jesus.' For these alone are holy, and those hence-forward profane. 'To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons." What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, "Fulfil thy ministry,' when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, 'Lay hands hastily on no man.' (1 Tim. v. 22.) And again, 'Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.' (1 Tim. iv. 14.) Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop. And again, in writing to Titus, he says, 'For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge. If any man is blameless, the husband of one wife' (Tit. i. 5, 6); which he says of the Bishop. And after saying this, he adds immediately, 'For the Bishop must be blameless, as God's steward, not self willed:' (Tit. i. 7.) " John Chrysostom,Homilies on Phillipians,1:1(A.D. 404),in NPNF2,XIII:184
"[I]f any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God.' And to Timothy he says: 'Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' Peter also says in his first epistle: 'The presbyters which are among you I exhort, who am your fellow-presbyter and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: feed the flock of Christ' ... taking the oversight thereof not by constraint but willingly, according unto God.' In the Greek the meaning is still plainer, for the word used is episkopountes, that is to say, overseeing, and this is the origin of the name overseer or bishop. But perhaps the testimony of these great men seems to you insufficient. If so, then listen to the blast of the gospel trumpet, that son of thunder, the disciple whom Jesus loved and who reclining on the Saviour's breast drank in the waters of sound doctrine. One of his letters begins thus: 'The presbyter unto the elect lady and her children whom I love in the truth; ' and another thus: 'The presbyter unto the well-beloved Gains whom I love in the truth.' When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing t to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles." Jerome,To Evangelus,Epistle 146:1(ante A.D. 420),in NPNF2,VI:288-289
"We must strive therefore in common to keep the faith which has come down to us to-day, through the Apostolic Succession. " Pope Celestine[regn A.D. 422-432],To the Council of Ephesus,Epistle 18(A.D. 431),in NPNF2,XIV:220
"Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received." Vincent of Lerins,Commonitories,6:15(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:135
"Moreover, with respect to a certain bishop who, as the aforesaid magnificent men have told us, is prevented by infirmity of the head from administering his office, we have written to our brother and fellow-bishop Etherius, that if he should have intervals of freedom from this infirmity, he should make petition, claring that he is not competent to fill his own place, and requesting that another be ordained to his Church. For during the life of a bishop, whom not his own fault but sickness, withdraws from the administration of his office, the sacred canons by no means allow another to be ordained in his place. But, if he at no time recovers the exercise of a sound mind, a person should be sought adorned with good life and conversation, who may be able both to take charge of souls, and look with salutary control after the causes and interests of the same church; and he should be such as may succeed to the bishop's place in case of his surviving him. But, if there are any to be promoted to a sacred order, or to any clerical ministry, we have ordained that the matter is to be reserved and announced to our aforesaid most reverend brother Etherius, provided it belong to his diocese, so that, enquiry having then been made, if the persons are subject to no fault which the sacred canons denounce, he himself may ordain them. Let, then, the care of your Excellency conjoin itself with our ordering, to the end that the interests of the Church, which you have exceedingly at heart, may not suffer damage, and that increase of reward may accrue to the good deeds of your Excellency." Pope Gregory the Great[regn A.D. 590-604],Epistle 6(A.D. 602),NPNF2,XIII:94
This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.
Joseph A. Gallegos © 2000 All Rights Reserved.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 22, 2002
Quotations from men mean absolutely nothing!I am still waiting for the quote from the Word of God where the apostles were to have successors.
The Catholic Church has used forged historical documents in the past, so who can say with any certainty that these quotes are true?
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 23, 2002.
Now that's an original answer...we've got a Sola Scriptura Zealot.Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 23, 2002.
Well, then, maybe the Catholic church invented the whole N.T. as well! Ever consider that? After all, it was CATHOLICS who canonized the N.T. Maybe they just invented the whole thing in the 300's along with Augustine and St. Jerome and Clement, and all the rest! It was all a GRAND conspiracy to create a one world government! Yes, that's probably it; a group of power hungry despots got together and dreamed up a scheme to put millions of people under their unholy control so that they could mastermind a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, strip the rest of the world of its power and REIGN SUPREME! That's it! I got it!Give me a break ------
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 23, 2002.
?Well, then, maybe the Catholic church invented the whole N.T. as well! Ever consider that??This statement sounds like it was written by an athiest and not someone who claims to follow Jesus Christ. Who can believe it?
Then Gail says, ?After all, it was CATHOLICS who canonized the N.T. Maybe they just invented the whole thing in the 300's along with Augustine and St. Jerome and Clement, and all the rest!?
Here is that athiest coming out again. For your information, the apostles put their own writings into circulation. Just because Catholics claim that they canonized the N.T. doesn?t prove a thing.
Then she says, ?It was all a GRAND conspiracy to create a one world government! Yes, that's probably it; a group of power hungry despots got together and dreamed up a scheme to put millions of people under their unholy control so that they could mastermind a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, strip the rest of the world of its power and REIGN SUPREME! That's it! I got it!?
Another statement that is way out in left field that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in my last post. Then she says, ?Give me a break ------?
I didn?t ask for a Scripture reference this time, so there is your break.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 23, 2002.
Titus, Chapter 1 vs. 5 "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and APPOINT elders in every city as I directed you."You see, they were APPOINTED! When these "appointed" men came near to their deaths, usually by threatened martyrdom, they would appoint someone to take their stead, as in the case of Ignatius and Polycarp and many other church leaders of the first century Christians. Of course, that would not be recorded in the N.T. because they were not yet facing the FIERCE PERSECUTION they would later face in 70 A.D. Why don't you read Eusebius! Read the writings of Polycarp, an 80 year old man, who, when he knew they were coming for him to lay his poor old bones on an open fire, wrote a letter to his SUCCESSOR giving him advice and encouragement. Or is that just fabrication too! You CAN READ POLYCARP FOR YOURSELF. There are all sorts of references in the writings of second generation Christians (the disciples of the disciples) wherein they submitted their ministries to leaders THEY chose.
You are the one who alleges the Church MADE UP all of the quotes I sent you. You are the one who accuses us of fabrication. I merely took your accusations out to their logical conclusions in my earlier post. Can you not base your arguments on fact, or are you so desperate for a response that you will stoop to ANY length to hold on to your MISbeliefs.
Tell me, Dashes, where is the blueprint for Protestant Denominationalism in the N.T. --Every man get a bible (of course not until KJV is published) and go start your church. Send your seminarians to churches for a popular vote to let the congregation who their latest ear tickler will be. WHERE IS THAT Dashes?
Gail
P.S. A Protestant who desires the demise of the Catholic Church is like a man sitting on the tip of a brittled branch, leaning off as far as he can stretch, and with an axe in hand, proceeds to chop away at the trunk! That is what YOU are, Dashes! A misguided ignoramus sitting on the tip of a branch chopping away at the very trunk on which he rests!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 23, 2002.
Gail quotes Titus 1:5 and says that this proves the doctrine of Catholic succession.Actually, what Gail is doing is ?assuming? something that she must prove. Please note how she speculates that when men died they would appoint someone to take their stead.
There is NO proof of that in the New Testament. First she tries to prove succession through history, and when that doesn?t work, she tries to go to the Word of God, but the proof is not there either.
Since the Word of God equips us for EVERY good work, (2 Tim. 3:16), don?t you think that if any successors were to be assigned that God would have clearly mentioned this fact in His Word?
Then Gail says, ?You are the one who alleges the Church MADE UP all of the quotes I sent you. You are the one who accuses us of fabrication. I merely took your accusations out to their logical conclusions in my earlier post. Can you not base your arguments on fact, or are you so desperate for a response that you will stoop to ANY length to hold on to your MISbeliefs.?
I base my arguments on FACT, the Word of God. Since you can only ASSUME that these men spoke the truth you are not basing your arguments on fact now are you?
Then Gail says, ?Tell me, Dashes, where is the blueprint for Protestant Denominationalism in the N.T. --Every man get a bible (of course not until KJV is published) and go start your church. Send your seminarians to churches for a popular vote to let the congregation who their latest ear tickler will be. WHERE IS THAT Dashes??
We are told to UNDERSTAND what the will of the Lord is. (Ephesians 5:17)
For you to say that we cannot UNDERSTAND the will of the Lord without the Catholic Church to explain God?s Word to us is just plain ludicrous. This is what I expect someone to say who doesn?t want to take responsibility for their own actions.
God says that we can UNDERSTAND His will (Matthew 13:23), but NO mention is made of having someone INTERPRET for us.
Gail forgets that it is not the Church that produced the Bible, but the Bible that produced the Church!
The SEED is the Word of God. (Luke 8:11) Not the Church.
The implanted Word is able to SAVE OUR SOULS. (James 1:21) Not the Church.
The Gospel is the POWER of God for salvation. (Romans 1:16) Not the Church.
The apostle Peter said that we are born again THROUGH the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23) Not the Church.
We will be judged by what is WRITTEN. (Revelation 20:12) Not by the Church.
Then Gail says, ?P.S. A Protestant who desires the demise of the Catholic Church is like a man sitting on the tip of a brittled branch, leaning off as far as he can stretch, and with an axe in hand, proceeds to chop away at the trunk!?
The Word of God does an effective job of cutting down the Catholic Church. (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Your doctrines are defeated by the very book that you claim to follow.
Then Gail throws an insult my way when she says, ?That is what YOU are, Dashes! A misguided ignoramus sitting on the tip of a branch chopping away at the very trunk on which he rests!?
Is this what Catholics do to people when they can?t answer questions from the Word of God?
Do they just bash people and call them ignorant?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I have not called you names.
Does it make you feel better?
I certainly hope so.
Name calling most certainly doesn't prove your point.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 23, 2002.
“Actually, what Gail is doing is ?assuming? something that she must prove. Please note how she speculates that when men died they would appoint someone to take their stead. There is NO proof of that in the New Testament.”Actually, Dashman, it is quite scriptural that when someone died they would need to appoint someone to take their stead. How truly amazing that earlier today on EWTN Dr. Scott Hahn gave an explanation of this notion of “Apostolic Succession”. We can see the teaching of it in the New Testament specifically in the Acts of the Apostles. Here is the quote:
Acts Ch.1: 15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.”
Please note verse 20. “…And his bishoprick let another take.
So, you see, it was written in the book of Psalms that when one of the Apostles died, Judas in this case, then his bishoprick (or Apostolic see) must be replaced. And Peter, who stood up in the midst of the disciples in those days, taught them that this commandment of God must be fulfilled! That is, when one of them dies, their see must be replaced.
I don’t want to get to in depth in this discussion, lest I overstep my bounds. However, it is interesting that Dr. Scott Hahn (a PhD and A+ Scholar of Scripture) would recognize this, and come to be a believer in Apostolic Succession (despite his initial barrier of being a protestant). Do you, Mr. Dash, have a PhD in Theology?
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 24, 2002.
What Jake doesn't tell you is what qualification was required of the man who replaced the deceased apostle.The Word of God speaks on this subject.
Acts 1:22 says, "beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, ONE OF THESE MUST BECOME A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION." (Emphasis mine).
The Bible also says in Acts 4:33, "And with great power the apostles GAVE WITNESS TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS. And great grace was upon them all." (Emphasis mine).
Please do tell Jake, who today has those qualifications?
Obviously this guy who has a PHD didn't read his Bible.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.
I will respond more on the "qualifications" that our Catholic Bishops have, and I will (hopefully not emberass you) also help you realize that future successors of the Apostles didn't have to have "wittnessed the reserection". But I wanted to respond to this:"Obviously this guy who has a PHD didn't read his Bible."
Dashman, please step outside your cave and recognize that there are others who do read the Bible, yet understand the real and true interpritation of it (which you lack). Scott Hahn is a world renound Catholic Convert who has read the Bible probably several hundred times over. But the difference is that he dosn't merely read the Bible, he understands the history behind it, and he has read several thousand books (protestant and Catholic) which help to explain the early Churches stance on the Bible. Scott Hahn also is familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so that he can fully understand what the Bible writters intended. For your information, Scott Hahn has taught at several famous Christian Universities, the lates being Stubenville.
I hope, Dash, that you can humble yourself to realize that you alone arn't the only person who's ever read the Bible. Yes, even Catholics read the Bible.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 24, 2002.
Dashman, Trashman, hanging from a tree, He has no answer for you or me,His debating style illogical To this we can all agree,
He's as splippery as a snake, folks, He's lost his sanity.
My mama always told to stay away from such the like They can't make sense, all they do is bite... and bite... and bite!
Good Bye, Mr. Dashman, "ye ain't worth my time!"
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 24, 2002.
Jake writes, "I will respond more on the "qualifications" that our Catholic Bishops have, and I will (hopefully not emberass you) also help you realize that future successors of the Apostles didn't have to have "wittnessed the reserection"."Please when you respond make sure that the qualifcations of Catholic Bishops are in accordance with the Word of God, if not, you might as well not even bother to respond.
Then Jake writes, "Dashman, please step outside your cave and recognize that there are others who do read the Bible, yet understand the real and true interpritation of it (which you lack)."
Please notice that Jake here says that I lack "real and true interpretation of the Bible", and please notice that he hasn't really proved this from the Word of God. What Jake also doesn't tell you is the fact that God NEVER said that we would need an interpreter to teach the Word of God to us.
Let's let Jake give us the Scripture verses which show this to be a fact? If he cannot, then Jake really doesn't know what he is talking about.
Here is what God says on this subject. First from the Old Tesatament, "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." (Jeremiah 31:34)
And in the New Testament, "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:11-13).
This New Covenant is WRITTEN down for us in the New Testament.
Once again, NO mention of the Church having to explain the NT to us.
Then Jake writes, "Scott Hahn is a world renound Catholic Convert who has read the Bible probably several hundred times over."
Jake gives another assumption with no proof. Just because someone reads the Bible several hundred times is no proof that they understand it.
Then he writes, "But the difference is that he dosn't merely read the Bible, he understands the history behind it, and he has read several thousand books (protestant and Catholic) which help to explain the early Churches stance on the Bible."
As I have said before, history is NOT a safe guide in religion.
Proverbs 2:1-5 says, My son, if you receive my words, and treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God."
Once again, NO mention of needing an interpreter, history book, or any other book besides God's Word to find the knowledge of God. God says that we CAN understand, the Catholic Church says we cannot. Who are we to believe?
Then Jake writes, "Scott Hahn also is familiar with the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew so that he can fully understand what the Bible writters intended. For your information, Scott Hahn has taught at several famous Christian Universities, the lates being Stubenville."
We don't need to be familiar with the Latin, Greek or Hebrew to understand what the Bible writers intended. That is why we have all of those scholars who interpreted the Bible in the first place. To say that we have to understand all of those languages to really understand what God's will for us is just not true.
Let Jake prove that a knowledge of different languages is required to understand God. Please re-read Proverbs 2:1-5.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.
Gail responds with a silly little poem that still does not answer my questions that I have asked her to answer.Typical response of someone who is presented with the truth and lashes out because it doesn't fit their pre-conceived beliefs.
We are told to "rightly divide the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15).
No mention is made of a Church to do this for us.
We will be judged by OUR own works and by what is WRITTEN in the Word of God, not by what the Catholic Church tells us to believe. (Revelation 20:12-13).
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.
“What Jake also doesn't tell you is the fact that God NEVER said that we would need an interpreter to teach the Word of God to us. Let's let Jake give us the Scripture verses which show this to be a fact? If he cannot, then Jake really doesn't know what he is talking about. …We don't need to be familiar with the Latin, Greek or Hebrew to understand what the Bible writers intended.”Mr. Dash, I don’t need Scripture to prove this. Although we have given you ample proof through scripture (Jesus sent his disciples as His Father sent Him. Jesus said – “go out and preach the Gospel”. John, Paul, Peter, and the rest, interpreted the Scripture for the others!) But aside from this proof, just do a quick search on Protestantism. I hope that you understand, there are currently round about 30,000 splinters. I doubt Christ intended this. If God NEVER said that we would need an interpreter, then why is it, when there is none, no one can figure out the truth for themselves and division is rampant. How many Catholic Churches are there? ONE. How many Protestant churches are there? Hmmm. You, and many others, would like to think that the Word of God in Scripture is so simple that even a monkey can come up with the Truth. But as we can clearly see this is not the case.
I’ve given you one example, Scott Hahn, among many. Yet you refuse to search for his credibility on your own. What do you need, Dash? Do you want me to fax you his resume so you can approve of his Bible knowledge. And what makes you such an expert that we should hear or read your information.
I am in agreement with Gail. Unless you stop your blatant anti- Catholic propaganda and be truthful and receiving (you did come to OUR site), then I will refrain from spending time conversing with you. You might take a hint from our friend Tim, who is thirsty for truth and not merely “out to get us”. The Word says, “do not throw your pearls to the swine.” We are also taught that if our brother is wrong, confront him, if he refuses to listen to you, bring two or more witnesses (Gail, John, Eugene), and If he refuses to listen to them, bring him to the Church (we’ve quoted Church Fathers, Scripture, and from the Catechism), and if he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church, then treat him like a Gentile and tax collector. So, thus shall you be treated, Dash.
God bless you.
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 24, 2002.
You and Gail are right, Jake.
The "Dashman" is behaving totally against the letter and spirit of the rules of the forum and should be on the verge of being banned.
It is very clear to me that he is a professional anti-Catholic, very possibly a minister (unworthy of the title). He has no interest in learning about Catholicism, but only in bashing it.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 24, 2002.
?What Jake also doesn't tell you is the fact that God NEVER said that we would need an interpreter to teach the Word of God to us. Let's let Jake give us the Scripture verses which show this to be a fact? If he cannot, then Jake really doesn't know what he is talking about. ?We don't need to be familiar with the Latin, Greek or Hebrew to understand what the Bible writers intended.?Catholicism says that it is the ONLY interpreter of the Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I asked for proof from the Word of God where this is the case.
No proof was offered.
The typical response is "Mr. Dash, I don?t need Scripture to prove this."
Then Jake says, "Although we have given you ample proof through scripture (Jesus sent his disciples as His Father sent Him. Jesus said ? ?go out and preach the Gospel?. John, Paul, Peter, and the rest, interpreted the Scripture for the others!)"
This is NO proof that someone needed an interpreter to UNDERSTAND God's will. I have shown through Scripture where you are WRONG, and yet you conveniently ignore the Scriptures that I have presented.
Then Jake says, "But aside from this proof, just do a quick search on Protestantism. I hope that you understand, there are currently round about 30,000 splinters. I doubt Christ intended this."
You are absolutely right. In John 17:20-21 Jesus prayed for unity. Yes, there are many so called churches in the world, but the Bible knows of only ONE. (Ephesians 4:4-6). Men are the cause of all this division, not God.
Then Jake says, "If God NEVER said that we would need an interpreter, then why is it, when there is none, no one can figure out the truth for themselves and division is rampant."
The truth CAN be known if one SEARCHES for it. (Proverbs 2:1-5).
The parable of the sower says that it is possible for us to UNDERSTAND the truth. (Matt. 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:11-15).
God says that His Word WILL NOT return to Him void. (Isa. 55:11).
We are BORN AGAIN through the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).
If one is forced to the conclusion that God's Word is not enough and the seed of the Kingdom will not do what God said it would do, this betrays pitiful ignorance of God's Word or a denial of inspiration, or both. If this is the case, then one is guilty of calling God a liar.
Then Jake says, "How many Catholic Churches are there? ONE. How many Protestant churches are there? Hmmm. You, and many others, would like to think that the Word of God in Scripture is so simple that even a monkey can come up with the Truth. But as we can clearly see this is not the case."
This is NOT true. The truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church is the mother of division. Every major division that is in Christianity originated with and came out of the Catholic Church. Approximately 1050 A.D., the Catholic Church split and there was the great schism between the West and the East. A few hundred years later, there was a split and the Anglican Church was started. It claimed to honor many of the very same bishops and trace its lineage back to the apostles over much the same route. A division occurred in Catholicism when the Lutheran Church broke away; it was another branch or division within Catholicism. The bulk of Protestant denominations today are branches and sects of groups which originally broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. The disrespect that the Catholic Church has toward the Bible is the prime cause of division in the Religious world. Such charges lead men away from the Bible and cause them to distrust it as the only rule of faith. Holding to the Bible alone DOES NOT cause division, but to the contrary, is the only true means of unity.
Then Jake says, ?I?ve given you one example, Scott Hahn, among many. Yet you refuse to search for his credibility on your own. What do you need, Dash? Do you want me to fax you his resume so you can approve of his Bible knowledge. And what makes you such an expert that we should hear or read your information.?
It really doesn?t matter what his resume is, you don?t really care about Protestants Bible knowledge who have PHD?s now do you? To you, their PHD?s mean absolutely nothing even though they could prove that they were so called experts in their field. If their doctrine doesn?t agree with God?s Word, then it really doesn?t matter what type of Bible knowledge they have now does it? I NEVER claimed to be an expert on the Word of God and NEVER will.
Then Jake says, ?I am in agreement with Gail. Unless you stop your blatant anti- Catholic propaganda and be truthful and receiving (you did come to OUR site), then I will refrain from spending time conversing with you.?
The Bible says in 1 John 4:1-2, ?Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.? The Bereans searched the Scriptures in Acts 17:11, and we are to do the same. If you wish to refrain from spending time conversing with me, that is your choice.
Then Jake says, ?You might take a hint from our friend Tim, who is thirsty for truth and not merely ?out to get us?. The Word says, ?do not throw your pearls to the swine.? We are also taught that if our brother is wrong, confront him, if he refuses to listen to you, bring two or more witnesses (Gail, John, Eugene), and If he refuses to listen to them, bring him to the Church (we?ve quoted Church Fathers, Scripture, and from the Catechism), and if he refuses to listen EVEN to the Church, then treat him like a Gentile and tax collector. So, thus shall you be treated, Dash.?
Where is the truth Jake? It most certainly HAS NOT been presented to me on this forum. You can claim that it has, but that is just not the case.
BTW, people who post here do a pretty good job of asserting and assuming things without offering any proof. I have pointed this out numerous times. Most of my Scripture verses that I have quoted to you go unanswered. Why is that the case Jake? If you were so interested in converting someone, then ALL of the Scripture verses would be explained and I would be shown how my interpretation did err from the truth.
John says, ?It is very clear to me that he is a professional anti-Catholic, very possibly a minister (unworthy of the title). He has no interest in learning about Catholicism, but only in bashing it.?
I am not a ?professional? nor even a ?minister? much to John?s chagrin.
Yes, I am ?anti-Catholic? because Catholicism is NOT taught in the Word of God.
Please tell me John how that if I were a minister that I would be ?unworthy of the title??
Is it because I have pointed out in God?s Word where Catholics do err in their interpretation of Scripture? If not, then what is it?
If I am not speaking the truth, then prove this to be the case through the Word of God.
-- --- --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.
I will not answer your insulting questions, minion of satan. Each question has an answer, but you don't merit to receive them, because you are laboring for the evil one. I urge Jake-H and Gail to join me in boycotting your useless butt until such time as the Moderator can purge your messages.You have just banned yourself by admitting that you are an anti-Catholic and by continuing to violate the forum's rules.
I have detected similarities in your writing style and content to things we have seen here before from a disgusting person who posted under various aliases. I see that you are hiding under even deeper cover by using the hyphens these days. You bore me half to death.
JFG
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 25, 2002.
Dear readers,Please notice how John makes another accusation when he says, "I will not answer your insulting questions, minion of satan."
Also notice that he does not attempt to prove this is the case, he just expects everyone to believe that it is true. This must be what Catholics do when they can't answer somebody's argument that clearly contradicts what they have been taught by an institution that claims to follow God's Word, but at every opportunity they deny this fact when they state that God's Word is not enough for our salvation. Incredible.
For John's information, the only "minions of satan" are those who DISOBEY God.
He conveniently forgets that the power of God to salvation is the gospel and NOT the Catholic Church. (Romans 1:16).
Then he says, "Each question has an answer, but you don't merit to receive them, because you are laboring for the evil one."
This is another response that John couldn't prove if his life depended on it. John doesn't believe that someone can read God's Word, UNDERSTAND it, and be saved. God tells us what we need to do to be saved and NO interpretation from the Catholic Church or anyone else is needed or required. I have continued to ask for passages that require the Church to interpret God's Word for us to no avail.
Then John says, "I urge Jake-H and Gail to join me in boycotting your useless butt until such time as the Moderator can purge your messages."
This must be what you do every time the truth is presented, you delete messages. Instead of earnestly contending for the faith, you shrink back and delete messages instead of exposing them as false.
Then John says, "You have just banned yourself by admitting that you are an anti-Catholic and by continuing to violate the forum's rules."
If that is the case, then there are other people who are here who have "violated forum rules" and you don't bother to make the same statement to them do you? If you don't want "anti-catholic" people here, then I suggest that you make this forum password protected.
Then John says, "I have detected similarities in your writing style and content to things we have seen here before from a disgusting person who posted under various aliases."
Who is this person you speak of? For your information, I am NOT disgusting, this is another accusation that you couldn't prove if your life depended on it. The truth has NOTHING to fear does it John?
Then John says, "I see that you are hiding under even deeper cover by using the hyphens these days."
There is no requirement for me or anyone else to use my real name. To use my real name would just invite more insults to be thrown my way as has happened to many "non-catholics" who visit this web site.
Then John says, "You bore me half to death."
This is a response that I would expect from someone who doesn't have an answer to my questions.
God says, "For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).
Deleting my posts will only prove that this is another passage of Scripture that Catholics deny.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.
Dasht:
No one has to delete you. I for one believe the old adage; Give a fool enough rope and YUP, he'll hang himself.You've proven nothing; least of all from Scripture. In EVERY one of your posts you made the Catholic faith look STRONGER and more Christian by contrast. In fairness, you can't compete with the Holy Spirit. No one can really blame you if you're swamped.
The pity is, not only do you undermine the protestant position; you come across as desperate. Mainly in that drumbeat: ''--If I am not speaking the truth, then prove this to be the case through the Word of God. --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.''
Sure, Dash-it-all; we'll find your name in the Holy Bible (a name nobody knows--) and show you in there where one false prophet is you-- prophesied by Jesus and Saints Peter and Paul. YOU ARE one of them !
No one has to ''prove'' you aren't truthful. All they need is to read your posts and see; you obviously haven't a leg to stand on. You had fun as long as you were preaching to your own choir. Except here we've defined the holiness of the Catholic Church with scripture ! --Indisputable and clear-- And any impartial witness can see you've stonewalled the posts. Not by rebuttals; just by repeating your clueless opinion.
My heart goes out to you now that you've self- destructed in a Web forum. I wouldn't care to find myself embarrassed the way you are. But what is most important overall is Christ's holy words; He who gave us the Holy Catholic Church.
He is once more vindicated by the very ones who dispute the true power of His words. He was right; heaven and earth will pass away. But His words cannot pass away, no matter how they grind them in all the protestant scripture-mills.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.
- - -
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.
Dashman writes:"There is no requirement for me or anyone else to use my real name. To use my real name would just invite more insults to be thrown my way as has happened to many "non-catholics" who visit this web site."
Dashman, I personally agree that your constantly signing as "---@---.---" is bad netiquette. I don't think anyone wants your real name. We just want something that isn't made up of symbols. It's like having a dialogue with "the artist formerly known as Prince." I have yet to see an updated keyboard with the squiggly symbol that he uses.
Until you make up a name, Dashman works for me...assuming that you're not a woman!
Enjoy,
Mateo (aka ~~~@~~~.~~~)
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), November 25, 2002.
Eugene writes, “You've proven nothing; least of all from Scripture.”You most certainly have not taken the opportunity to show where this is the case now have you Eugene? You assume that I have not proved my point from Scripture, but you don’t even bother to point out where I am wrong except to make a blanket statement that “I have proven nothing”. That statement proves that you are either unwilling or unable to correct me.
Then Eugene asserts, “In EVERY one of your posts you made the Catholic faith look STRONGER and more Christian by contrast.”
Another false statement that Eugene doesn’t bother to prove, he just makes a statement and expects every one to believe him.
Then Eugene writes, “ In fairness, you can't compete with the Holy Spirit. No one can really blame you if you're swamped.”
????? Not sure where this came from? Who says I am competing with the Holy Spirit? What does being swamped have anything to do with the conversation? This statement is way out in Eugene’s imagination.
Eugene writes, “The pity is, not only do you undermine the protestant position; you come across as desperate. “
I have told you before, I am NOT a protestant.
Eugene writes, “Mainly in that drumbeat:” then he quotes my by saying “''--If I am not speaking the truth, then prove this to be the case through the Word of God. --- (--@---.net), November 24, 2002.''
To which he replies: “Sure, Dash-it-all; we'll find your name in the Holy Bible (a name nobody knows--) and show you in there where one false prophet is you-- prophesied by Jesus and Saints Peter and Paul. YOU ARE one of them !”
Notice how he doesn’t bother to prove anything from the Word of God. He claims that I am a false prophet, but doesn’t bother to show any proof except by his word. Just claiming that I am a false prophet without offering any proof doesn’t prove a thing.
Then Eugene writes, “No one has to ''prove'' you aren't truthful. All they need is to read your posts and see; you obviously haven't a leg to stand on.”
That is where you are wrong Eugene. All someone has to do is READ God’s word and compare it with the Scriptures I have given to see that is NOT the case.
Eugene writes, “You had fun as long as you were preaching to your own choir. Except here we've defined the holiness of the Catholic Church with scripture ! --Indisputable and clear-- And any impartial witness can see you've stonewalled the posts. Not by rebuttals; just by repeating your clueless opinion.”
Eugene once again claims that my opinion is clueless however from the Scripture verses I have provided, I have shown where this is just not the case. It really doesn’t matter what Eugene thinks about my opinion, all that matters is what God has said on any subject.
Then Eugene boasts, “My heart goes out to you now that you've self- destructed in a Web forum.”
Another accusation with NO proof offered. This guy is very skilled in making statements that he can’t prove.
Then Eugene continues, “I wouldn't care to find myself embarrassed the way you are.”
Sorry to burst your bubble Eugene, but I am not the one who is embarrassed. It is you and others who write in this forum who regularly hurl insults and accusations to others who are not Catholic who should be embarrassed. I have said and will continue to say that you and your doctrines are defeated by the very book which you claim to follow.
Then Eugene says, “But what is most important overall is Christ's holy words; He who gave us the Holy Catholic Church. He is once more vindicated by the very ones who dispute the true power of His words. He was right; heaven and earth will pass away. But His words cannot pass away, no matter how they grind them in all the protestant scripture-mills. “
Please notice there is NO mention of the Catholic Church in the Bible.
Catholics claim to follow the Bible but by their very words they deny this is the case.
The assertion that the Bible does not contain all truth reveals the true attitude of the Catholic Church toward the Bible.
The Catholic Church does not have love and respect for the Bible otherwise, why raise such false claims?
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.
You certainly are a protestant; and I defy you to find a protestant ''church'' in the scriptures. I would like to ask you where Jesus commanded us to read the Bible? We read the Bible because the Catholic faith is contained in the pages of the Bible, and her doctrines are all in line with it. Yours are false, and don't have any scriptural support.Have I an obligation to spotlight this for you? NO. I'm content that your own posts are enough to sink you. Without bubbles! Lol! You've made many Catholics more secure in their holy faith. By expounding on yours; which is the faith of lost sheep. But you've come to the right place, Dasher. Stay tuned and learn every day. Don't go back where you were.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.
Eugene writes, "You certainly are a protestant; and I defy you to find a protestant ''church'' in the scriptures."No Eugene, I am NOT a protestant as you so claim. Please quit making accusations without any proof. I have lectured you on this several times, but it appears that you do not listen.
You are right in that there is NO "protestant church" in the Bible.
I am right in that there is NO "Catholic Church" in the Bible.
Then Eugene writes, "I would like to ask you where Jesus commanded us to read the Bible?"
Ephesians 5:17 says, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is."
We can UNDERSTAND God because He says, "My son, if you receive my words,And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom,And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God.(Proverbs 2:1-5).
NO mention an interpreter is required.
Proverbs 14:8 says, "The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way,But the folly of fools is deceit."
Proverbs 8:17 says, "I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me."
Hebrews 11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."
NO mention of an interpreter in these passages either. Why is that the case?
Then Eugene writes, "We read the Bible because the Catholic faith is contained in the pages of the Bible, and her doctrines are all in line with it."
No Eugene, the Catholic faith has strayed far from the pages of the Bible. If the Catholic faith was contained in those pages it would not have to go run and hide under the false doctrine of "tradition" or "infallibility" when their errors are exposed.
Then Eugene boasts, "Yours are false, and don't have any scriptural support."
Let's see if that is true.
God says that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation. (Romans 1:17).
Eugene and the Catholic Church say the Church is the power of God unto salvation. (Scripture??????).
Eugene writes, "Have I an obligation to spotlight this for you? NO. I'm content that your own posts are enough to sink you. Without bubbles! Lol!"
Anyone who reads what I have written and is willing to understand and read the Word of God without any preconceived beliefs would see where this is NOT the case. You see that is the problem today, men want to make Scripture fit their preconceived beliefs and are not concerned about the truth.
Jesus says "If you love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15).
The apostle John said in 1 John 2:4, "He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."
This is explained in verse 5, "But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him."
Please notice it is "whoever KEEPS HIS WORD". This word is WRITTEN down for us in the NT.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.
Dear Dash,
You may argue, but all you can rightly claim to be is a protestant. That's because you basically believe Christ saves us. Since you're in rebellion against the Church of Christ and his apostles, you are a protestant. Unless you're a Greek Orthodox, or some other schismatic. But they aren't known as Bible-Christians, so the protestant persuasion you come under is any one of a number of sects. If not, then you're a free-lance ''Bible-Christian'' or ''Born again'' type protestant. This term by now is accepted as generic-- all Christians opposed to the Pope.Yes, the Catholic Church is definitely the one mentioned throughout New Testament scripture. It is the Church of Peter and Paul, the holy apostles. Paul's epistles are all written to Catholics. In the beginning this appellation wasn't written; but always understood as THE Church. Your quote here: ''Ephesians 5:17, "Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is." Is the writing of a Catholic bishop to other Catholics. How do we know? Simple observation of the historical record. No other Church came under the heading of Christian in those first 300 or so years. It was the universal, ONLY Church.
This was the same Church of Rome which exists to this day. One for whom Paul wrote his epistle to the ''Romans''. You are assimilating Catholic letters and attempting to use them as the work of your sects. It isn't; everyone knows this. Peter, Paul, James, Titus, and all the ones mentioned in Acts and the epistles were priests of the Catholic faith. It's the Catholic Church who has canonized them as saints and martyrs. They are not ''protestant saints.'' In their day your church didn't exist. But Rome did. In fact, Paul praised Rome as the most faithful of all the congregations of the One True, Catholic Apostolic Church. It is to this day the see of Peter; who was martyred there as her bishop. Plain history; look it up in the Encyclopaedia.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 25, 2002.
Very interesting points - Dashman!hmmmm!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 25, 2002.
Dashman,What is your religious "preference", if not Protestant? It appears that you do love the Word of God. Do you perfer a particular version?
I do not write to post against your answers - just wondering.
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 25, 2002.
Eugene can scan through the pages of the Word of God and NOT ONCE will he ever find where a Pope or where a successor to an apostle was ever mentioned.In fact, if Peter was the first pope and head of the apostles, don't you think that when the great city of God [which by the way is the CHURCH], was mentioned in the book of Revelation beginning in chapter 21 verse 9 that ONE apostles name would be elevated over the other 11? (Rev. 21:14).
This is NOT the case because this verse most certainly mentions 12 foundations, NOT ONE as Catholics claim. Tim, I would like to answer your question, but for now I am only inclined to say that I am non-denominational.
I prefer to use the NKJV.
-- -- --- (--@---.net), November 25, 2002.
----,Your a very interesting person to read, and quite entertaining I might add. However, I do have a few questions for you, if you don't mind. I am curious as to where the bible came from, and don't tell me God, that is a given, I mean the actual text of say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, or even John. Further, If Matthew and Luke share certain passages, or, in technical terms, pericopes, that are exclusive to them, and Mark does not contain these, then where did Mt and Lk get their material? Finally, if we are to approach the bible as the only source of faith, then where did it originate? Did it merely fall out of the sky? If not, then how did the bible come to be what it is today? If there wasn't a succession, if even in an oral form, than how did the bible originate?
I am curious and, personally, you can try to offend me and enrage me all you want, as you seem to have successfully accomplished here, if that is what it takes to get an answer. I have professors that do twice the damage, especially with regard to biblical studies.
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 25, 2002.
My guess would be "Church of Christ".Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 25, 2002.
----,12 foundations, NOT ONE as Catholics claim.
How many Apostles were there?
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 25, 2002.
Sorry, little hasty on the reply button there, misread what you said, sorry bout that.God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 25, 2002.
What, When, How and Why we got the Bible really doesn’t make any difference unless you are an athiest and need to be taught that the Bible is the Word of God.I wrote this on another thread, the same applies.
Jude 3 states that the “faith was once for all delivered for the saints.” What other inspiration is needed or required? If men are inspired today, that means that they speak directly for God. If this is the case, then why are their words NOT written down for us and canonized like the books of the New Testament?
The Bible teaches that all the influence of the Spirit upon the human mind for man's salvation is ONLY through the word, His gospel message.
In conversion, the Holy Spirit DOES NOT operate independent of the word on the sinner's heart by a direct impact to bring about his salvation.
The Bible DOES NOT teach that the word, unless accompanied by a direct influence of the Spirit, is dead, and therefore has no power to convert or turn sinners to God.
Paul clearly stated in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"
The gospel is God's ONLY power to save!!!
It is the ONLY means that God has appointed to save sinners (Isaiah 55:10-11; Jeremiah 23:29).
The Holy Spirit is the agent in EVERY conversion, and whenever the word of God is faithfully preached, the Spirit works THROUGH THE WORD upon the mind and heart of the hearer for the purpose of making him a child of God.
ONLY those who receive the Spirit's teaching and become OBEDIENT to it, are saved. (Romans 16:26).
Man has the moral freedom to accept or reject the word (Acts 7:51).
I re-post from above:
The truth CAN be known if one SEARCHES for it. (Proverbs 2:1-5).
The parable of the sower says that it is possible for us to UNDERSTAND the truth. (Matt. 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:11-15).
God says that His Word WILL NOT return to Him void. (Isa. 55:11).
We are BORN AGAIN through the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).
If one is forced to the conclusion that God's Word is not enough and the seed of the Kingdom will not do what God said it would do, this betrays pitiful ignorance of God's Word or a denial of inspiration, or both.
If this is the case, then one is guilty of calling God a liar.
Now, how about an answer to this question:
If Peter was the first pope and head of the apostles, don't you think that when the great city of God [which by the way is the CHURCH], was mentioned in the book of Revelation beginning in chapter 21 verse 9 that ONE apostles name would be elevated over the other 11? (Rev. 21:14).
This is NOT the case because this verse most certainly mentions 12 foundations, NOT ONE as Catholics claim.
-- Dashman (dasmnan20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.
Dashty:
The plain, perfect, powerful words we believe are, ''. . . and I say to thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt 16:18--''You're raising bugaboos against the words of Jesus Christ. I saw nothing about twelve sets of keys or twelve different heavens. Do you?
The same holy apostle who wrote the book of Revelations records Our Lord's words to Peter: *Simon son of John, dost thou love me more than these do? He said to Him, ''Yes Lord, Thou knowest that I love thee.'' He said to him, ''Feed my lambs.'' He said to him a second time, ''Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?'' He said to Him, ''Yes, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee.'' He said to him, ''Feed my lambs.'' A third time He said to him, ''Simon, son of John, dost thou love me?'' And he said to Him, ''Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee.'' --He said to him, ''Feed my sheep.''*** (John 21:15-:17.)
You claim to know the Word of God. In the passages above is seen clearly the Primacy given Peter by the Founder of the Catholic Church. There is no other Christian church extant during the events recorded here; and Jesus' sheep are meant to be the faithful of his Church from then onwards. Peter is named the head shepherd of Christ's flock; shortly before Christ ascended to His glory. We didn't appoint Peter shepherd, or Pope. Jesus Christ did; and Saint John knew this, he wrote it at the conclusion of his gospel.
What he later wrote as a part of Revelation has no bearing on the Church here in the world, where Peter-- the Pope, is Christ's holy Vicar. You're denying holy scripture.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Eugene,The church was built on Jesus Christ, NOT on Peter.
God says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11)
Sorry, No room for Peter.
Please notice what God says in Ephesians chapter 2 verses 19-21:
19 "Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
20 having been built on the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES [not of Peter] and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the CHIEF CORNERSTONE,
21 in whom the whole building [the Church], being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
Once again, God says the Church is built on the foundation of the APOSTLES (plural) not Peter, with Jesus being the CHIEF cornerstone.
Eugene's comment on Revelation 21:9 and 21:14 does not surprise me, it just shows his lack of respect for God's Word. The passage in question does not speak of twelve sets of keys or twelve different heavens, that is just a figment of Eugene's imagination. This most certainly speaks of the Church and I defy Eugene to prove otherwise.
By the way, all Jesus did when he spoke to Peter about feed my sheep and feed my lambs was to restore him after he denied Jesus. Peter denied Jesus 3 times, Jesus asked Peter 3 times if he loved him, get it?
In the passages that Eugene quotes, there is NO primacy of Peter given, this is just what Eugene is reading into these passages. Peter is NEVER mentioned as head shepherd of Christ's flock, this is another false statement that does NOT have New Testament support.
If Peter was the first pope then why was the gospel for the gentiles committed to Paul and not Peter in Galatians 2:7?
Why are James, Peter and John seen as Pillars in Galatians 2:9? Once again, no mention of the primacy of Peter.
If Peter was the first pope, then why was James the judge in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15:19 and not Peter?
Now who is guilty of denying Scripture?
-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.
Sorry to break in, but I have to say this Eugene -If Peter was such a great Pope and the "rock" of the Church then what is he doing out fishing, instead of serving God? He lead the disciples with him in vs. 2 to go fishing instead of serve.
Joh 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.
John had to tell him it was Jesus there. [more spiritual?]
Joh 21:4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.
Christ is basicially telling Peter, "You say you love me, but you aren't serving me."
And check this out: Joh 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
Is that Peter? Nope! It's John.
Is the Church built on Peter or on Christ? Which is the rock? Both?
2sa 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.
Why would Christ build a church on Peter and contradict his own Book?
Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Jer 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
When you claim Peter as the ONE shepherd OF THE CHURCH [POPE] you take the "role" of Christ and give it to Peter.
Christ is my shepherd, and the shepherd of the Beleivers!
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Peter - an Apostle and Preacher, yes!
The rock and/or shepherd of the Church of Christ, no!
Just me 2 cents, for what it's worth!
God Bless...
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 26, 2002.
Tim:You go from the ridiculous to the farcical. ''Christ is basicially telling Peter, "You say you love me, but you aren't serving me."
You're joking, I see; I understand, Deep Thinker.And check this out: John 21:20 ''Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following''. I don't think Jesus was making John the shepherd, do you? John was used to describing HIMSELF this way; the device of a discreet narrator.
Your point can't be considered relevant to Peter's primacy. This is what's called ''fishing''. Not getting out the nets as in Galilee; stabbing in the dark, like in the Bible Belt.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Tim's: --Joh --(write the 'n' why not?) JOHN 10:11, ''I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.''-- Nobody denies it. Catholic truth.Peter - an Apostle and Preacher, yes! The rock and/or shepherd of the Church of Christ, no! -- Here's a believer who CAN'T believe! Doesn't believe the Holy Bible. Can't believe the words of Jesus Christ in John's gospel nor the words ''Feed my lambs''. They're too abstract for him.
He has no translation in English for the word FEED. Nor the word LAMBS, nor SHEEP. It has to mean, ''Fall down dead, Peter.'' Can't mean anything like, ''Be my shepherd over these lambs, my Church.'' Too ambiguous! OK, Tim. It's easy to see the profundity of your faith.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
schnorrer.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Just not clear enough for the average Bible-reader:'' and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'' Matt 16:18--
Maybe Christ was appointing Peter a captain over at the local synagogue. That must be it.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Eugene,You don't have to "consider" my post, but that doesn't discredit it.
"Tim's: --Joh --(write the 'n' why not?)" - I copy my verses out of my Bible program to keep me from having to type them too. Sorry, if you count that as lazziness...
You have proven nothing by trying to bash my words into my face. You have made NO points or proofs - just blah, blah, blah.
Is Christ or Peter the shepherd of the Church of Christ?
Mt 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Joh 10:14-16 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Heb 13:20-21 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Give us some meat Eugene, and not all this chitta-chatta...
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 26, 2002.
Our Lord is the good Shepherd. He is the One who appoints Peter and his succesors as Pastors, shepherds in the world. The Pope is Christ's head shepherd on earth, Tim. Vicar of Christ on earth is his title. The Church is the flock.He doesn't supercede the Good Shepherd; he works for His sheep, who have been entrusted to his care in this world.
''Feed my lambs,'' Jesus said. ''Be my pastor over these lambs, my Church, - -or be my shepherd on earth, till my return.''
It's a ministry; and ministers don't take over. Ministers obey the Lord.
/ / / /
I hope you don't object to this chitta- chatta. It's for your spiritual upbringing, if God's willing.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Give us some meat Eugene, and not all this chitta-chatta--''. . . and I say to thee, thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt 16:18--''
Is this passage somewhere in your Bible program? You like meat: --Chew on that.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Peter was given the keys and the shepherd's mantle, clearly in scripture. He was mentioned in the N.T. three times more often than any of the others. He was PRE-imminent.Eusebius, the Church Historian says this:
"But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome . . . Ante-Nicene Fathers.
Then we have dozens of quotes from the records of antiquity (posted on another thread) but since I don't really believe you will read them, here is one of the best:
"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5 (Primacy Text,A.D. 251/256),NE,228-229 Tim, you are like an ant throwing a piece of sand at an elephant!
Give it up!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 26, 2002.
Dashman, (you finally broke down and let yourself be called that)I want to thank you for your response, you did hold up your end of the bargain, you did try to insult me, however, you then proceeded to throw one Scripture passage after another at me, all relevant points. Problem is, you completely avoided my questions. You seem to believe that only an atheist would need to know, as you so eloquently put it, the What, When, How and Why we got the Bible yet I find it strange that you think it unimportant to know these things yourself. Let me ask you another question, how many authors of the bible are there and, based on this, how does authorship become irrelevant?
You can continue to call me a sinner and one unenlightened to the Word of God (my paraphrase, not yours) but I would appreciate some educated response to my inquiries. Granted, the Word of God does take precedence but aren't you the least curious as to where the bible originated? I find it quite interesting that the one thing you hold in the highest esteem is the one thing you know very little about. Yes, you know the passages, pretty cold I might add, but you don't seem to know it's history. How is that irrelevant?
I responded to a few of your questions below:
If men are inspired today, that means that they speak directly for God. If this is the case, then why are their words NOT written down for us and canonized like the books of the New Testament?
Well, let me ask you a question before answering that one, who created the canon of Scripture in the first place, and what were its original requisites?
The Bible teaches that all the influence of the Spirit upon the human mind for man's salvation is ONLY through the word, His gospel message.
Where does it teach that?
In conversion, the Holy Spirit DOES NOT operate independent of the word on the sinner's heart by a direct impact to bring about his salvation.
Rightly so, but what kind of conversion are we talking about here? I have a feeling you and I have two very different definitions of conversion. It is important to define terms before using them as precedence.
The Bible DOES NOT teach that the word, unless accompanied by a direct influence of the Spirit, is dead, and therefore has no power to convert or turn sinners to God.
Paul clearly stated in Romans 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek"
The gospel is God's ONLY power to save!!!
Which Gospel is Paul referring to here? If you believe all Gospels, where does he explicitly say that?
It is the ONLY means that God has appointed to save sinners (Isaiah 55:10-11; Jeremiah 23:29).
This says "word," where does it say Gospel?
The Holy Spirit is the agent in EVERY conversion, and whenever the word of God is faithfully preached, the Spirit works THROUGH THE WORD upon the mind and heart of the hearer for the purpose of making him a child of God. Agreed. Although, I think we have different views toward the word, "faithfully."
ONLY those who receive the Spirit's teaching and become OBEDIENT to it, are saved. (Romans 16:26).
Again, this is the Spirit's teaching, where does it specifically refer to the Gospel?
Man has the moral freedom to accept or reject the word (Acts 7:51).
Indeed he does. However, I don't see your point. If you trying to insult me, try harder :)
I re-post from above:
The truth CAN be known if one SEARCHES for it. (Proverbs 2:1- 5).
Right
The parable of the sower says that it is possible for us to UNDERSTAND the truth. (Matt. 13:18-23, Mark 4:13-20, Luke 8:11- 15).
Ok.
God says that His Word WILL NOT return to Him void. (Isa. 55:11).
Yes.
We are BORN AGAIN through the Word of God. (1 Peter 1:23).
Again, I agree, but I am not seeing your point here.
If one is forced to the conclusion that God's Word is not enough and the seed of the Kingdom will not do what God said it would do, this betrays pitiful ignorance of God's Word or a denial of inspiration, or both.
Indeed, as St. Jerome has said, "ignorance of Scripture, is ignorance of Christ." Ok, now I understand, you are showing me how you have the right to solely interpret Scripture without the aid of anyone else or, in this case, a Church. This is where your non- denomenational leanings are coming out :)
Ok, but what about 2 Tim 2:1-3? or 1 Tim 1:18? All of these allude to a handing down of intstruction, kind of, you might say, like an unbroken tradition. My question is two-fold, what is Paul handing down, and if it is important, why does he feel the need to preserve it? Also, what About Acts 1:1 where Luke alludes to another work he has written, (Gospel of Luke) telling Theophilus that he is handing down what Jesus has said. In fact, in the prologue of Luke he says that " Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed. This kind of sounds to me like a passing on, or a tradition. I am also inclined to include 1 Peter 1:10-12. I am still trying to find the other one about the guy that needed an interpreter, can't remember where that was, thinking it might be Acts.
Sorry, I went a little long, I will answer your other question later, or at another time. I would rather just keep the discussion to one topic as opposed to ten. Thanks :)
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 26, 2002.
Tim, you are like an ant throwing a piece of sand at an elephant!Oh man, now that is funny! LOL, great analogy. Tim, no offense, I know you mean well and I commend you for that. You have to admit though, that was funny.
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 26, 2002.
The Word of God does an effective job of cutting down the Catholic Church. (2 Cor. 10:4-5). Your doctrines are defeated by the very book that you claim to follow. Is this what Catholics do to people when they can't answer questions from the Word of God? --Do they just ''bash'' people and call them ignorant?You asked Gail. I'll answer for her: ''Only if you are ignorant, Sir.'' Incidentally, you aren't the Word of God. How you can ask at all; who knows?
Strange you find that 2 Cor. 10 :4-5 ''cuts down the Catholic Church.'' It was written by a Catholic to his Catholic converts. Saint Paul was a Catholic bishop and martyr. He was beheaded in Rome for his Catholic faith. They couldn't crucify Paul, he was a Roman citizen. The poor Galilean Pope Peter was crucified. Did your own church make martyrs for Christ, Dashman?
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 26, 2002.
Seminarian,You wrote, ?Let me ask you another question, how many authors of the bible are there and, based on this, how does authorship become irrelevant??
What does the Word of God say?
Paul wrote to Timothy: "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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
The Bible is the plenary, verbally inspired, infallible, Word of God. The word "inspired" means the Bible came from God, not man. The word "infallible" means the Bible cannot teach error. The word "plenary" means all parts of the Scriptures are inspired. The word "verbal" means the very words (not just the thoughts) were given by God to the writers.
The Bible clearly claims it came from God. Peter wrote: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20, 21).
You wrote, ?Well, let me ask you a question before answering that one, who created the canon of Scripture in the first place, and what were its original requisites??
Please see answer above.
I said, ?The Bible teaches that all the influence of the Spirit upon the human mind for man?s salvation is ONLY through the word, His gospel message.?
To which you replied, ?Where does it teach that??
God says, ?In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,? (Eph 1:13).
You asked, ?what kind of conversion are we talking about here? I have a feeling you and I have two very different definitions of conversion. It is important to define terms before using them as precedence.?
Conversion is a turning or a change that brings one into a right relationship with God.
I quoted Romans 1:16 and said, ?The gospel is God?s ONLY power to save!!!?
To which you replied, ?Which Gospel is Paul referring to here? If you believe all Gospels, where does he explicitly say that?
Is there more than one gospel? If there is, please enlighten me.
God says in Ephesians 4:4-6, ?There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.?
I only see one faith here.
The apostle Paul said in Gal. 1:8, ?But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.?
This means that there can be only ONE gospel.
I quoted Isaiah 55:10-11 and Jeremiah 23:29.
To which you asked, ?This says ?word?, where does it say Gospel?
Okay, now I see you want to play word games.
God says in Ephesians 1:13, ?In Him you also trusted, after you heard the WORD OF TRUTH, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,? (Emphasis mine).
I quoted Romans 16:26 and you said, ?Again, this is the Spirit?s teaching, where does it specifically refer to the Gospel?
Once again, you seem to want to argue over words.
You are correct, this passage doesn?t refer to the gospel however, it does mention ?for obedience to the faith?
Now just what does that statement ?for obedience to the faith? mean?
God says in Romans 6:16, ?Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness??
This passage says that there is OBEDIENCE LEADING TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Which is exactly what Romans 16:26 says. Please continue to read verse 17, ?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.?
They OBEYED that form of doctrine which they were delivered.
What was that form of doctrine that they obeyed?
It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they obeyed that form of doctrine which Paul described with his words concerning the ?burial? with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the gospel. ?Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, BY WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, IF YOU HOLD FAST THAT WORD which I preached to you--unless you BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: 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,?
Paul also told us that those who do not obey the gospel would be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9).
The gospel according to Paul is a set of facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and raised from the dead. How then can anyone obey facts to be believed? How can one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? The answer is clear. For the gospel also has commands to be obeyed that allows us to obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ by being ?buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. The only way we are given in the scriptures to obey the gospel is by imitating the death burial and resurrection of Christ as Paul explained in two places by being buried with Him by baptism. (Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:27).
There is NO other way given in the scriptures that anyone can ?obey? the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And this is the reason that immersion is commanded for we are expected by God to obey the gospel of Christ or be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:7-9).
You wrote, ?Ok but what about 2 Tim 2:1-3? or 1 Tim 1:18? All of these allude to a handing down of intstruction, kind of, you might say, like an unbroken tradition.?
What does God say? "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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Paul's words vividly teach that the Scriptures thoroughly equip us for EVERY good work and, NO other standard is NEEDED.
You wrote, ?Also, what About Acts 1:1 where Luke alludes to another work he has written, (Gospel of Luke) telling Theophilus that he is handing down what Jesus has said.?
Please read Luke 1:4. Luke WROTE in order that ?YOU MAY KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH YOU WERE INSTRUCTED.?
This is NO proof that Oral Tradition would continue to be handed down, on the contrary, it proves why it had to be written down.
You wrote, ?I am also inclined to include 1 Peter 1:10-12.?
This passage mentions NOTHING of oral tradition.
Let Peter, who was at the end of his life (2 Pet. 1:12-14), speak for himself. He said, "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior..." (2 Pet. 3:1-2).
Now, give the verses where Paul, Peter, or any other inspired writer, plainly revealed that "apostolic oral traditions" would equip us to every good work or remind us of the commandment of the Lord.
-- Dashman (dashman20022003@yahoo.com), November 26, 2002.
Dashman,I see you like to write :) I also noticed that you still avoided my comments that preceeded the questions you highlighted. Why is that?
Seminarian, You wrote, ?Let me ask you another question, how many authors of the bible are there and, based on this, how does authorship become irrelevant??
What does the Word of God say?
Paul wrote to Timothy: "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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16,17).
What doctrine would he be referring to here?
The Bible is the plenary, verbally inspired, infallible, Word of God. The word "inspired" means the Bible came from God, not man.
According to whom?
The word "infallible" means the Bible cannot teach error.
Your right, you inherited that word from the Catholic Church btw ;)
The word "plenary" means all parts of the Scriptures are inspired.
I never denied that they were inspired, it is just that your definition of inspiration and my definition do not cohere well.
The word "verbal" means the very words (not just the thoughts) were given by God to the writers.
Again, according to whom?
The Bible clearly claims it came from God. Peter wrote: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20, 21).
You know though, it does mention "holy men of God," how does that not make them an author, if even a secondary one? How did the words in the bible come to be transcribed?
You wrote, ?Well, let me ask you a question before answering that one, who created the canon of Scripture in the first place, and what were its original requisites??
Please see answer above.
I did, and I am unclear how it is relevant to a canon, being that a canon is loosely a rule by which to judge our faith.
I said, ?The Bible teaches that all the influence of the Spirit upon the human mind for man?s salvation is ONLY through the word, His gospel message.?
To which you replied, ?Where does it teach that??
God says, ?In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,? (Eph 1:13).
Funny, it doesn't say ONLY in this passage ;)
You asked, ?what kind of conversion are we talking about here? I have a feeling you and I have two very different definitions of conversion. It is important to define terms before using them as precedence.?
Conversion is a turning or a change that brings one into a right relationship with God.
By what means, and what changes, and how does that change occur?
I quoted Romans 1:16 and said, ?The gospel is God?s ONLY power to save!!!?
To which you replied, ?Which Gospel is Paul referring to here? If you believe all Gospels, where does he explicitly say that?
Is there more than one gospel? If there is, please enlighten me.
Well, there is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the way Paul refers to it is in the singular. Perhaps it might be good to check out a definition of Gospel = according to Catholic Encyclopedia (www.newadvent.org) Gospel is a written record of Christ's words and deeds. Is he referring to all four Gospels, or one in particular?
God says in Ephesians 4:4-6, ?There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.?
I only see one faith here.
Faith is Gospel?
The apostle Paul said in Gal. 1:8, ?But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.?
This means that there can be only ONE gospel.
Which Gospel?
I quoted Isaiah 55:10-11 and Jeremiah 23:29.
To which you asked, ?This says ?word?, where does it say Gospel?
Okay, now I see you want to play word games.
Not me, I figure if you want to quote these passages as precedence for your point, you might as well take it to it's logical conclusion.
God says in Ephesians 1:13, ?In Him you also trusted, after you heard the WORD OF TRUTH, the GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,? (Emphasis mine).
I quoted Romans 16:26 and you said, ?Again, this is the Spirit?s teaching, where does it specifically refer to the Gospel?
Once again, you seem to want to argue over words.
You are correct, this passage doesn?t refer to the gospel however, it does mention ?for obedience to the faith?
Now just what does that statement ?for obedience to the faith? mean?
God says in Romans 6:16, ?Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness??
This passage says that there is OBEDIENCE LEADING TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. Which is exactly what Romans 16:26 says. Please continue to read verse 17, ?But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered.?
They OBEYED that form of doctrine which they were delivered.
What was that form of doctrine that they obeyed?
It is clear that they were made free from sin WHEN they obeyed that form of doctrine which Paul described with his words concerning the ? burial? with Christ in baptism in Romans 6:3-6.
Where does "doctrine" become "Gospel" I missed that leap. Also, what is the definition of doctrine if we are going to use it in the discussion?
Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 defines the gospel. ?Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, BY WHICH ALSO YOU ARE SAVED, IF YOU HOLD FAST THAT WORD which I preached to you--unless you BELIEVED IN VAIN. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: 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,?
Hey, look at that, they received it, there is that allusion to some kind of passing on there. Kind of curious, from whom did they receive it, since bible's were a commodity back then, and most, if not all were chained since it was so valuable? Also, who was Paul speaking to since a majority of those in his day could barely read?
Paul also told us that those who do not obey the gospel would be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power. (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9).
The gospel according to Paul is a set of facts to be believed (1 Cor. 15:1-4) that Christ died for our sins and that he was buried and raised from the dead. How then can anyone obey facts to be believed? How can one obey the death, burial and resurrection of Christ? The answer is clear. For the gospel also has commands to be obeyed that allows us to obey the death burial and resurrection of Christ by being ?buried with him in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. The only way we are given in the scriptures to obey the gospel is by imitating the death burial and resurrection of Christ as Paul explained in two places by being buried with Him by baptism. (Romans 6:3-6, Galatians 3:27).
True. Actually, it is kind of interesting you almost sound like a Catholic here, what with our veneration of the cross, Lent, and Easter.
There is NO other way given in the scriptures that anyone can ? obey? the death burial and resurrection of Christ. And this is the reason that immersion is commanded for we are expected by God to obey the gospel of Christ or be eternally lost. (2 Thess. 1:7-9).
see above.
You wrote, ?Ok but what about 2 Tim 2:1-3? or 1 Tim 1:18? All of these allude to a handing down of intstruction, kind of, you might say, like an unbroken tradition.?
What does God say? "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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Paul's words vividly teach that the Scriptures thoroughly equip us for EVERY good work and, NO other standard is NEEDED.
Not just good works, also doctrine, correction, and reproof. What kind of doctrine are we talking about here?
You wrote, ?Also, what About Acts 1:1 where Luke alludes to another work he has written, (Gospel of Luke) telling Theophilus that he is handing down what Jesus has said.?
Please read Luke 1:4. Luke WROTE in order that ?YOU MAY KNOW THE CERTAINTY OF THOSE THINGS IN WHICH YOU WERE INSTRUCTED.?
Actually, he seemed to be talking to Theophilus, what with his "it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed." The you in this case is actually referring to Theophilus.
This is NO proof that Oral Tradition would continue to be handed down, on the contrary, it proves why it had to be written down.
You wrote, ?I am also inclined to include 1 Peter 1:10-12.?
This passage mentions NOTHING of oral tradition.
Interesting logic shift there, you speak about needing to be written down, an allusion, as it were of oral tradition, then condemn me for citing a passage that brought that same idea to your mind. :)
Let Peter, who was at the end of his life (2 Pet. 1:12-14), speak for himself. He said, "Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior..." (2 Pet. 3:1-2).
"spoken before by the holy prophets." Hmmm....before what? And, if they were speaking about some important words, what were those words? Sounds to me like you just Scripturally proved my point about oral tradition. Thanks :)
Now, give the verses where Paul, Peter, or any other inspired writer, plainly revealed that "apostolic oral traditions" would equip us to every good work or remind us of the commandment of the Lord.
Sure, after you tell me where we got the bible from :) Besides, I think you found some pretty good passages yourself with regard to oral tradition. And, before you accuse me of implicitly reading these passages, then tell me where you explicitly find the word "bible." Actually, it might be interesting to find the words, "inspiration" "canon" and even "infallible." ;)
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 27, 2002.
Dashman,I will be out of town for a couple of days, if you post, I probably won't see it until, the earliest, Saturday. Just thought I would let you know, since I know how frustrating it can be to begin a discussion with someone only to have silence for days on end from the other side.
Happy Thanksgiving
and
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 27, 2002.
BTW, I apologize for the sarcasm, it is just that I find in these situations it is good to keep the discussion light to a certain degree, since these are the kind that have resulted in wars, persecutions, violence, and many deaths. I should be more alert to "do unto others." Besides, we are merely having a discussion about a very heated topic, that doesn't mean were sworn enemies. Even Christ taught to "love our enemies."God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), November 27, 2002.
STOP IT!!!!!!It is all vanity and vexation of spirit!
Neither one of you hold the truth without spot. You are stumbling blocks and pits to one another. The revealer of secrets is the one who speaks the truth with authority and you both have TWO ears to hear it. God called out to Abraham and said, "Abraham, Abraham". He also called out to Moses and said, "Moses, Moses". Does God have a stuttering problem? Did Abraham and Moses have trouble hearing him? Doubtful! Did they hear him in truth and in spirit? YES! God has given us the truth- the commandments, and the the spirit- the testimony. Hear the commandments and hear the testimony and you can rightfully divide the word of truth and speak with your one mouth. The sword has two edges and without both, you can not divide it. The Father and the son called out to Abraham and Moses. The two greatest commandments testify to it. You are called to be both son and brother, but you can not be a brother if you are not a son.
Shame on you, you both throw dung at each other. You both take that which does not profit the soul and toss it back and forth and never realize that the truth is that which you do not throw.
Sit back and think a little. The Catholic church cannonized the New testament yet only one book in it was commanded to be written. So which one of you are the fool? You both sing the song of fools and the devil is your conductor. When you dance with the devil you are a whore and produce harlot daughters and are in chains to Babylon. Loose the chains and GET OUT OF HER!
-- man (blank @unknown.com), November 27, 2002.
Man-Blank-Unknown, Sir:
In Acts 5:34 you may read, ''There stood up one in the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law respected by all the people . . . and he said, Men of Israel, take care about what you're about to do to these men; (Here read Catholics--)''''For some time ago there rose up Theodas, claiming to be somebody and a number of men (Here read protestant sects--)
''. . . But he was slain, all his followers dispersed, and he was brought to nothing . . . (Gamaliel also mentioned other sects) --''So now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone. For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God.''
Is that a wise man??? You bet. If you think the Catholic Church is the work of men, leave her alone. Her work will have been for nothing after two millennia and she will die.
Your sects, might be survivors; and then you can say, ''We told you so, Catholics!'' Find out for yourselves.
''Loose the chains???'' I say get out of your false churches and come back to the Church your blessed ancestors were faithful to. You are now in the strong chains of pride and obstinacy. Sit back and think a little!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 27, 2002.
Seminarian's last statement was a statement of charity, not vanity and vexation.So the 'stop it' response didn't seem to fit in at all. But note the message: "Leave the Church"... huh?
Oh well.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 27, 2002.
Mr. Chavez,Where you paste "here read Catholics" is plainly "Israelites". Where you paste "here read protestants" clearly is "false teachers". You defy your own teaching claiming that protestants were there at the account. You know as well as I that protestants didn't exist untill the reformation in the 1500's. Yes, Gamaliel was a wise man. He knew that truth can overthrow the false teachings and to give ear to these teachers is of no profit. You are correct in your statement that my ancestors were faithful to the Catholic church. My ancestors as well as yours and even Jesus and Mary's included Cain and Able. Ancestory means nothing and you should be greatfull for it. Since, if it had or does mean anything you would be a dog, a Gentile in which you eat the scraps that fall from the Israelites table and would find yourself unworthy to recieve the inheritance and blessings of God. Thank God ancestory has it's place in the pit. Arise for the honorable Judge Mental. You will be judged by your own judging and ancestory will judge you right in the pit. The king came and laid the foundation of his city, which are men who bare witness, and his walls and gates will be made from heaven. These men wander the wilderness and continually seek the city knowing that it will not be found until he returns. And like the king they have no place to call home until it arrives. The revealer of secrets has let men know that if they seek him they will reside temporarily in the wilderness and their brothers who do not hear his voice will make their own city. Babylon is their city and on silver platters will they be served and in velvet jails with golden chains will they be in bondage hiding in the shadows of their shame. And time which is contrary to patience will find it's way in the pit as well. Mr. chavez, your two millenia is a drop in the pan to the six thousand years of the making of Babylon and in one hour she is destroyed. ALL men have their ancestory and have laid their bricks in the city of destruction and we all are called out of her. Mr. Chavez you call out to me trying to seduce me in to your city. You use ancestory as diamonds and gold lures. Your teaching has been overthrown, it is not of God.
Man-Blank-Unknown, Sir: In Acts 5:34 you may read, ''There stood up one in the Sanhedrin, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the Law respected by all the people . . . and he said, Men of Israel, take care about what you're about to do to these men; (Here read Catholics--)'' ''For some time ago there rose up Theodas, claiming to be somebody and a number of men (Here read protestant sects--)
''. . . But he was slain, all his followers dispersed, and he was brought to nothing . . . (Gamaliel also mentioned other sects) --''So now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone. For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God.''
Is that a wise man??? You bet. If you think the Catholic Church is the work of men, leave her alone. Her work will have been for nothing after two millennia and she will die.
Your sects, might be survivors; and then you can say, ''We told you so, Catholics!'' Find out for yourselves.
''Loose the chains???'' I say get out of your false churches and come back to the Church your blessed ancestors were faithful to. You are now in the strong chains of pride and obstinacy. Sit back and think a little!
-- man (blank@unknown.com), November 28, 2002.
--Man!
You are awfully dense if you fail to see I was making an analogy; which definitely serves the purpose. To boot, ''these men'' Gamaliel spoke of were the early Church. That makes them Catholics.You're right, your sectarian free-lance Christians were not even on the horizon in the scriptures. Neither did Christ or any apostle EVER prophesy any coming ''reformation'' by so- called Bible Christians. The false prophets here and there spoken of were men who fell away from the Church of the apostles; heretics. But the Church herself was assured of a secure & inviolable journey through the history of mankind. By Jesus Christ, not by you or any other Bible-reader.
He gave to her the Spirit of truth, our Paraclete. That's why Gamaliel's words were prophetic. He stated, ''For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. --Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God.''
He was right; the work and plan was the Catholic Church. Christ's Holy Church, which neither Jews, the Roman Empire, the ''reformation'' or any heretic has been able to overthrow. Scripture is fulfilled in the Catholic faith, which continues after 2,000 years to win souls for Jesus Christ! And you, Man???
[--Else perhaps] you may find yourselves fighting even against God.'' --No ''may'' about it!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 28, 2002.
--Man!
You are awfully dense if you fail to see I was making an analogy; which definitely serves the purpose. To boot, ''these men'' Gamaliel spoke of were the early Church. That makes them Catholics.You're right, your sectarian free-lance Christians were not even on the horizon in the scriptures. Neither did Christ or any apostle EVER prophesy any coming ''reformation'' by so- called Bible Christians. The false prophets here and there spoken of were men who fell away from the Church of the apostles; heretics. But the Church herself was assured of a secure & inviolable journey through the history of mankind. By Jesus Christ, not by you or any other Bible-reader.
He gave to her the Spirit of truth, our Paraclete. That's why Gamaliel's words were prophetic. He stated, ''For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it. --Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God.''
He was right; the work and plan was the Catholic Church. Christ's Holy Church, which neither Jews, the Roman Empire, the ''reformation'' or any heretic has been able to overthrow. Scripture is fulfilled in the Catholic faith, which continues after 2,000 years to win souls for Jesus Christ! And you, Man???
YOUR WORDS: ''You are correct in your statement that my ancestors were faithful to the Catholic Church. My ancestors as well as yours.'' But now? --Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against God.'' --No ''may'' about it!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 28, 2002.
Mr. Chavez,A question for you: You make claim that this ancestory is of some importance. You have my ear, Is it of God?
-- man (blank@unknown.com), November 28, 2002.
Sir:
It isn't, at bottom. I know that because one of my finest, most devout Catholic friends is a lady born a Hindu, in Delhi; she is great musician who played for us at our wedding. Naturally, her ancestors had nothing to do with the Christian faith, she's a convert.Yours were Catholics until something brought that to an end. I don't presume to know how; but I know for certain the ones who left the Church couldn't have done it for doctrinal reasons. Catholic doctrine, you see, is scripturally sound, theologically superior to ANY sectarian variation of Bible scholarship; and above all-- the faith is holy. So clearly and evidently holy to the believer as to destroy all doubt.
To take away from someone this LOVE for God and His saints, it needed one of two things:
The person would have to be a recalcitrent sinner and simply not care about faith in a personal way. These people exist, Catholic or protestant, doesn't matter. They give God only lip service; so when their faith is challenged, or they feel pressure, it's OVER.
The other way is plain. They must be forced, under pain of death and/or ruthless persecution, to abandon the Catholic faith. For every martyr willing to die for Christ, there are two or three souls who will trade the faith for liberty or to keep their property and stay alive. England had been one of the most fervently Catholic countries in the world. Many Catholics died for the faith.
But many capitulated to tyranny and their descendents are protestants today. Through no personal betrayal of their own.
I brought up the question of ancestors so you would ask yourself; didn't my forebears ever hear the true Gospel? Well, they did; and they believed; and the blessed ones persevered and have a heavenly crown, each one, for eternity.
They never had Babylon for their Church, but the living Church of the holy apostles. Revelations calls Imperial Rome the harlot; not the Roman Church. Paul praised the Church in Rome (Rom 1, :8) lavishly. He never called her Babylon.
You have not met Our Lord in the place where His glory dwells. If you ever do, you'll see why I've called His Church HOLY. Every faithful Catholic adores our glorious Saviour Jesus Christ. If you only knew what real faith is!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 29, 2002.
-- (^@^.^), December 02, 2002.
man,Thank you for your comments.
I would ask though that next time you reply you keep in mind that it is easy to anonymously judge from afar based on one conversation between Dashman and myself, and you are entitled to do so. I would ask, however, that if you are to do so again that it be a little less pejorative. We are all adults on this forum, engaged in conversations trying to understand the differing views of each. We may not always agree, sometimes our arrogance may shine through, but that does not mean that we become "stumbling blocks" to each other, nor does it mean that we don't hold the truth "without spot." Rather, it means that we need to learn to be more humble, and more Christlike in our approach.
Ultimately, discussions on this board are to lead to some kind of understanding, granted, not all achieve that goal, but some do. However, that understanding comes in all forms, shapes, and sizes, sometimes even through frustrations, anger and the like. Is it prudent? Of course not, but it is a human response, and one not always controlled by being rooted in Christ.
I have admitted my fault, and you are free to parade it for all to see again and again, however, that does not mean that we are to give up the discussion because things got a little out of hand. Rather, it has taught (me, at least) to be more prudent, more charitable, and more aware of the person on the other end with whom I am having the discussion. You may feel that to be vain, vexation, and self- seeking, but the reason for such an admittance is because of my awareness of falling short of Christian charity in the midst of the discussion, not of my own self-worth.
Sometimes it is easy to forget the reasons we undertake such discussions in the first place, eager to win, rather than to understand, but I think it is important to put things back into perspective when they fall short of their goal. I was merely trying to do just that. The true goal, the ultimate goal is union with the Trinity in Heaven, however, I find it painful and sometimes sad when people attack those persons that inhabit the Heavenly landscape. It is akin to someone attacking my own mother, father, sister, or brother, something that I am sure would be painful to anyone. Sometimes that pain manifests itself in a defensive manner, and things can easily get out of hand, even if the intention is good.
Granted, Mr Dashman wasn't really attacking those heavenly beings as much as he was defending his sola scriptura stance of the Bible. However, his approach wasn't always the most cordial. As a result, I figured, since his approach was really annoying people, it would be better to take a lighter stance against him. This approach has seemed to work, and, as a matter of fact, it has blossomed into a very interesting conversation. So, call it what you will, but I am rather pleased with the discussion, and have learned a lot.
Thank you for your insights
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 03, 2002.