scripture - taken from "Help me re: Rosary"

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

John,
I moved the questions here, since it is no longer about the Rosary.
"Tim, you are going to find that NOWHERE does the Bible say that it is the "sole source of spiritual truth." The reason it does not say so is because it is NOT the sole source!" [John]
Okay, remeber when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, was tempted by the Devil in Matt. 4 and Luke 4? In all of His wisdom and power, what did Jesus Christ use to rebuke the Devil? It wasn't Mary, prayer, fasting [although he was] - He only used scripture.
The bible tells us in 1 John 2:16, For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
These were all defeated by Jesus Christ by using ONLY the scriptures.
Lu 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread. [lust of the flesh]
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
[De 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.]
Lu 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Lu 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. Lu 4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. [lust of the eyes]
Lu 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
[De 10:20 Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.]
Lu 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: Lu 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: Lu 4:11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. [pride of life]
Lu 4:12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. [Mt 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. - because we are only to say what is written]
[De 6:16 Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah.]
It is clear to me that if the God of Heaven, manifest in the flesh at the Son Christ Jesus uses the scripture for His final authority, so shall I. Granted it may not say in exact words, but that is clearly what Jesus did.
And as you have asked "show me proof in the Bible", I also inquire of an answer concerning [Mary is an intercessor for us with Jesus].

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

Answers

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the only authority. In fact, it says just the opposite. In 1 Timothy 3:15 it says:
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH.
Traditions of the Church are referred to in various New Testament passages. They all encourage one to stand fast in those traditions taught by the apostles, whether by word or by letter. Even the last part of John's Gospel speaks of all the things that AREN'T written that Jesus said and did. It says that the world could not hold all the books that would be written if one tried to write all that Jesus said and did.
There is much more than Scripture that Our Lord gave us. He gave us His Church. Just as Heaven is a Kingdom with an authoritative organization of leaders, so is Our Lord's Church. One must look to the Church that traces its roots back to Our Lord's lifetime. When He made Peter the first earthly head of His Church, He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. They haven't. Sometimes in spite of her leaders and members, she still survives.
We must look to the Church's teaching, not just what the priests or other leaders and teachers say, to find her perfection. Her official teaching is perfect, just as Christ promised when He gave her the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth. A thorough study of the Bible actually brought me back to the Catholic Church after 30 years in the Baptist and other fundamental traditions. I am home and will remain home.

-- Maraleah Hayden (mlh3473@bellsouth.net), October 28, 2002.

Hi Maraleah,
Thank you for the beautiful sharing and I am glad to hear you say you are home and will remain home. Let us pray for all those brothers and sisters of ours, who have 'left' home that God's graces may touched them and lead them back to Christ and His Catholic Church.
Remember it is your openess to God's grace that brought you back. It is His will not yours.
Our sincere prayers goes to you and your family
God Bless
Vincent and Catherine

-- (vincentkoh@pd.jaring.my), October 28, 2002.

Tim,
In order for your deduction to work, then the Scripture (the Bible) must only contain the first couple of Books of the Old Testament!
In fact, throughout the Bible, Jesus only uses a select few passages from Scripture, which wasn't at all like the Bible you hold in your hands. Thus, since Jesus used only a select few passages, are we only to use those same passages and toss the rest? Furthermore, as it is written in SCRIPTURE at the end of John, "25 And there are also (37) many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." Therefore, we really don't know if Jesus said or did or taught other things that were not in Scripture. It is said in Scripture that the Scripture was written "so that [we] may come to believe"! This doesn't mean that everything required for getting to know Chirst better and better is written, it simply is a starty block or a foundation. But on every good foundation you will find a sturdy building. If the Scripture were meant as a cookbook for the faithful, a manual for the believer, then why is it that John and Paul didn't write everything they wanted to say - they would have prefered to speak face to face? Are we to discount these "face to face" teachings because they were left out of the letters?
Besides for this evidence, we know from history that the Bible wasn't even compiled until the end of the 4th century! Therefore, it was the proclamation of the Gospel by MOUTH that sustained the early Church. And within that 300 year time span, where the Church didn't have Johns Gospel, or Pauls letters, or Johns Revelation, etc., I'm positive that those Apostles and desciples used methodes and prayers NOT FOUND in Scripture to cast out demons and avoid temptation.
In fact, if one looked hard enough, almost ALL Catholic doctrine IS Scriptural anyway. Mary's intercession for instance: Why is it that at the Wedding at Cana MARY first knew about the wine? They could have gone right to Jesus? Likewise, from the OT, Why is it that Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, instead of Solomon?
You might also ask yourself, why is it that for over 1500 years the Church had no problem with Purgatory, intercession from Saints, the Body of Christ, etc. Even Luther had no problem with these! Surely their were great enough minds to detect something "non scriptural" or something that was against the Gospel. Is your paster more knowledgable about Scripture then St. Thomas Aquinas? Was even Luther above St. Augustine?
Tim, to further satisfy your thirst for truth, I would encourage you to read some of the writings of the early Church fathers. Augustine, Aquinas, etc. You would be amazed at how writings of the 2nd and 3rd century mesh real well with Catholic doctrine now.
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

Tim,
Love for the Holy Bible goes hand in hand with faith in God. You see the Bible as the Word of God; therefore, you feel self-sufficient just reading the Bible.
Catholic faith is in step with all the truths written in the Bible. But not all the truth was written for us; the Bible treats of the Holy Gospel, not all and everything. A great deal more is revealed, in line with the written Word, through the Holy Spirit who is living and abiding in Christ's Church.
Our Lord very pointedly explained that the Spirit would remain with His Church. See the words ''they'' and ''them'', those apostles and disciples He had chosen personally, as His eternal Church. In John, 15 :12 Jesus said, ''Many things yet I have to say to you (the Church), but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all the truth . . . whatever He will hear He will speak, and the things that are to come, He will declare to you (V. 13).
He prayed His Father in heaven (John 17, from :6 to :26) ''They were thine, thou hast given them to me, and they have kept thy word. Now they have learned that whatever thou hast given me is from thee . . . the words that thou hast given to me I have given to them.'' (V.6) The first missionaries of His holy Church, Tim. He didn't leave the Church high and dry; He gave her the Holy Spirit forever!
In the gospel of John's epilogue, he writes: ''There are, however (apart from the gospel) many other things Jesus did; but if these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written. Amen.''
If this is true, and they aren't all contained in the Holy Bible, are we to suppose some truths have vanished, and were not preserved for coming generations of Christians? No-- We have them in the form of Sacred Tradition handed down through history in the Catholic Church. It is fairly accurate to say the Holy Spirit Himself continues to preserve truths for us, to become clear only after centuries; didn't Jesus say, ''whatever He will hear He will speak, and the things that are to come, He will declare to you --? Many great truths, including the way Mary and the saints in heaven now have an intercessory role?
They came to light with His help; not by any invention of priests, or bible scholars. They were still to come even a century after those first manuscripts were gathered which would be titled ''Holy Bible''. In the Catholic Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 28, 2002.

AMEN, Eugene! Great insites!
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 28, 2002.

Maraleah
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the only authority." "We must look to the Church's teaching, not just what the priests or other leaders and teachers say, to find her perfection."
To this I say, when man and scripture agree: okay. When man and the scriptures disagree, we must choose the scripture over man. I believe that scripture should precede man, belief, tradition, etc. If not, then we put man over the Word of God.
"He gave her the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth." - I believe that the Holy Spirit leads us - or at least should.
I just wanted to show that Jesus himself chose to use the scriptures to go against the Devil.
----------
Jake
"In order for your deduction to work, then the Scripture (the Bible) must only contain the first couple of Books of the Old Testament!"
I don't understand, that is just verses I chose from the old testament. Jesus wouldn't have quoted the new testament, and said, it is written before it was. Although He knew what it would contain.
"Thus, since Jesus used only a select few passages, are we only to use those same passages and toss the rest?"
Actually, to be literal about it - if you believe in the Trinity, and that the Holy Spirit led Holy men to write what they wrote - then infact Jesus has said it all.
"Furthermore, as it is written in SCRIPTURE at the end of John, "25 And there are also (37) many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.""
Apparently these are unnecessary for the Christian, or else God would have included them in the Bible.
"It is said in Scripture that the Scripture was written "so that [we] may come to believe"! This doesn't mean that everything required for getting to know Chirst better and better is written, it simply is a starty block or a foundation."
I ask then, where else do we turn? To tradition? To man? Where did they get their ideas? From the Holy Spirit? What did the Spirit use to teach them? Audibly?
"Besides for this evidence, we know from history that the Bible wasn't even compiled until the end of the 4th century!"
I do not believe this. Maybe it was not in the exact form (KJV, etc.) that we have today, but the Words of God have been around since they were written.
"Mary's intercession for instance: Why is it that at the Wedding at Cana MARY first knew about the wine?"
As in the last time this was mentioned. This is not a good example. Jesus rebuked Mary here. She was talking earthly and He was talking spiritually. Reread it, He calls her woman, not Mary or even mother [infact, did Jesus ever call Mary, mother?]:
Joh 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Joh 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
The is neither a proof of intercessory prayer or a good example of Jesus doing anything but the command He gives to honor your mother and father.
"Why is it that Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon, instead of Solomon?"
As for this, this has no spiritual meaning for salvation at all???
"Tim, to further satisfy your thirst for truth, I would encourage you to read some of the writings of the early Church fathers."
Where did they get their truths? The scriptures?
-----------
Eugene
"A great deal more is revealed, in line with the written Word, through the Holy Spirit who is living and abiding in Christ's Church."
As long as what is revealed lines up with scripture okay, if it doesn't then it must be thrown out. Therefore, the scripture remains the final authority - or if not, then man does. The Holy Spirit will not contradict the Holy Scriptures.
-------------
So, it has come to this? I must show truth in scripture where the scripture is the final authority, yet you do not prove your point of intercessory prayer of Mary and saints through scripture but through the teachings of man?
-------------
I don't understand the double standard?
I believe all Truth is contained in scripture. Maybe we don't all see it at once, infact every generation sees more truth than the generation before, but it was there all the time.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.

Well, Tim, granting that Jesus used Scripture to defeat the Devil, you will have to concede that the only Scriptures He had available at the time were the Old Testament. And that those were the Scriptures being referred to by the New Testament writers.
So explain where it says in the New Testament that there WILL be such a thing as the New Testament, and that it should be considered on the same level of inspiration as the Old Testament. :-)

-- Christine L. (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.

Christine
2ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Ro 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
Ro 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Do you need more?

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.

You all are being so bold! :-)

:-)

-- (a@a.a), October 28, 2002.

Is any of this a message we never had before in the Catholic Church? You fancy yourself a great evangelist, and all you're doing is quoting passages out of their real context to those who already know them by Catholic doctrine. To you the Church is passe; but every quote you presume to interpret was preached in the beginning by our fathers who raised us in the grace of Christ when there was no other faith. In that age, Catholics were martyrs and saints. You aren't a martyr, much less the saint you pretend to be, Tim.
For you these passages from the scriptures are news. For Catholics, all of them are bred in the bone, preached for ages by our priests and bishops. You came around late, Tim.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 28, 2002.

I have never declared myself a martyr nor a saint. I am a mere servants of the Lord Jesus Christ!
The point of this discussion was for me to prove by scripture about scripture. What else am I suppose to use.
Although I have been held to the standard to prove my point by scripture, most have only proved their point by catecisim or man's thought.
I do not look down to the Catholic or any other religion. We are all sinners, and we all need the grace of God.
Our search should be Truth, that should be the nature of the debate, not to persecute each other.
I chose to use the scripture for my defense, as you choose the caticism and church fathers.
God Bless.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.

Tim,
At the time the above scripture quotes were written, what was considered Scripture at that time? You haven't really addressed this issue yet. When Jesus and St. Paul reference Scripture, they are talking about the Old Testament.
Jake: "It is said in Scripture that the Scripture was written "so that [we] may come to believe"! This doesn't mean that everything required for getting to know Chirst better and better is written, it simply is a starty block or a foundation."
Tim: I ask then, where else do we turn? To tradition? To man? Where did they get their ideas? From the Holy Spirit? What did the Spirit use to teach them? Audibly?
We turn to the Catholic Church as Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will guide Her in Her teachings. Until the end of time.
God Bless.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), October 29, 2002.

I don't want to seem like we're ganging up on you, Tim. I believe your heart and intentions are good, and you've found the right place to be guided.
You wrote:
"To this I say, when man and scripture agree: okay. When man and the scriptures disagree, we must choose the scripture over man. I believe that scripture should precede man, belief, tradition, etc. If not, then we put man over the Word of God."
This IS the Catholic teaching, Tim. There is NO Catholic doctrine or belief that contradicts Scripture. When it seems to do so, it is not because it really does, rather, because the one person's interpretation is off. I would like to reiterate that one more time: There is NO Catholic teaching or doctrine that contradicts Scripture!
"Apparently these are unnecessary for the Christian, or else God would have included them in the Bible."
If it wasn't necessary, why would John make mention of it in the Bible. Why would Paul write in his letters that he wants to say more, but will wait till he is face to face. Yes, the Bible contains the foundation for our faith, but it is these "face to face" details that complete the Scripture and make it sound - that is, these detail are what cause the Catholic Church to hold ONE (1) interpretation of it, while the Protestants hold 30,000 + interpretations of it.
""Besides for this evidence, we know from history that the Bible wasn't even compiled until the end of the 4th century!" I do not believe this. Maybe it was not in the exact form (KJV, etc.) that we have today, but the Words of God have been around since they were written."
But that is just it, Tim, the Word of God was written over a 1,500 year span (between Genesis and Johns Rev.)! And they weren't all together as you hold them until the year 400. And to be even more precise, the Bible you hold wasn't in it's final form until the 1500's, more than 1000 years after Catholics had officially confirmed and stamped their Bible!
If the Bible as you hold it today were the sole source of information on salvation, then everyone prior to the year 400 would be damned, because none of them had the entire Bible you have! To really extrapolate, then no one before the 1500's (ad) would be saved, because they all used the Catholic Bible.
Tim, you expressed your disbelief that the Bible was compiled in the year 400 (at the end of the 4th century), but I implore you to research this. I'm not making it up. Paul didn't intend his letters to be placed with Sacred Scripture that he himself had at the time. It was the Catholics who held onto the letters and epistles. It was the Church that preceded the Bible, and compiled the books of the Bible.
"As in the last time this was mentioned. This is not a good example. Jesus rebuked Mary here. She was talking earthly and He was talking spiritually. Reread it, He calls her woman, not Mary or even mother [infact, did Jesus ever call Mary, mother?]:..."
I hate to say it, Tim, but this is an incorrect interpretation of this passage. It is true, I don't believe that Jesus ever called Mary "mother" in the Scriptures - but I don't believe that the first words out of the infant mouth of our savior (which is not in Scripture) was "woman" rather than "mama". I will have to look the meaning of "woman" up, because to be exact it wasn't really "woman" but the Aramaic equivalent - which might have also meant mother? Aside from this, "woman" also trains our thought process on the "woman" of Genesis who would play a role in crushing the serpents head!
But in any case, this wasn't a rebuke - had it been, would Jesus have transformed the water into wine? Would the perfect God rebuke someone�s request and then fulfill it? Would you also argue that the Child Jesus "rebuked" Mary when she found him in the temple? But he wasn't rebuking her! Jesus wanted Mary to realize what this would mean! It would begin his ministry, which would lead to "His hour" of death. Jesus is constantly bringing Mary (who would suffer as a "sword would pierce her side too") into sink with Him. He wanted her to understand what it would mean. In this case, Jesus wants Mary (his Mother) to know what this miracle would mean. And how did she respond? "Do whatever He tells you to do". She didn't say, "Do it son!" She didn't say, "okay, never mind." She was then in sink with Jesus, and with her words she let Jesus make the decision on "his hour". And He chose to complete her request!
"Solomon�s mother...As for this, this has no spiritual meaning for salvation at all???"
So, if it doesn't have any "spiritual meaning for salvation at all." Why would God have inspired the writer to include it? It might not have a direct salvific meaning, but it helps us to understand the customs of the time. The mother of the King was considered the Queen. And we can see the respect the King had for his mother - he even had a throne for her! Likewise we see that the King CANNOT refuse his mother. Well, if Jesus is our King, then certainly we can consider Mary the Queen.
"Where did they get their truths? The scriptures?"
They got them from the Catholic Church!
"The point of this discussion was for me to prove by scripture about scripture. What else am I suppose to use."
That is an excellent question for a Protestant to ask, because for them, there really is no where else to turn. And that is why there are several thousand splits of the Protestant faith, because there really is no background for the meaning of the Scripture. For everyone else it means something else. Are we to conclude that each and every one of the 30,000 protestant churches are correct? For the Catholic Church not only do we have Scripture, but we have the Traditions that were passed down by the Apostles, and we have the teaching authority of the Church which Christ established and commissioned. Each one of these three aspects of our faith base must check and balance each other. Therefore, as you come to know the Catholic teachings, you will notice that none of the three infringe on any of the other two! So if somehow we lost the Bible, the Catholic Church would still have the Tradition and the Magisterium, which are embodied by and contain the Scripture! Furthermore, because we have the Tradition and Church teachings, we are guaranteed by Apostolic succession that our interpretation of Scripture IS the correct interpretation that the Apostles themselves had. Whereas, the Protestant interpretations are vast and ever-increasing because there is no home base, there is no final authority to give that "correct" interpretation. Would God give us a Bible without the interpretation? Tim, it seems that you think the Bible speaks for itself (and it does in some cases), but if it were that simple why would there be 30,000 Protestant sects? They can't all be right!
I know this was lengthy, but I appreciate your attention.
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 29, 2002.

Glenn
"We turn to the Catholic Church as Jesus promised the Holy Spirit will guide Her in Her teachings."
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.
He doesn't promise to teach us by the Church, but by the Spirit of truth. The Church is not the Spirit of truth, nor is the Spirit of truth the Church. It is the Holy Spirit.
The Church is mere men, and the Church is God is mere men saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. Both have the flesh to contend with until we get to Heaven. The Spirit of Truth does not.
--------
Jake
"If the Bible as you hold it today were the sole source of information on salvation, then everyone prior to the year 400 would be damned, because none of them had the entire Bible you have!"
Wrong - because the old testament saints were saved before the new testament was written. So, they were not judged by the things in the new testament, but the old testament. But, is there any difference anyway. What is covered in the new testament that wasn't covered in the old testament?
"it wasn't really "woman" but the Aramaic equivalent"
Jesus calls a lot of women WOMAN in the bible, so whatever meaning you find, it will be the same for all.
"But in any case, this wasn't a rebuke - had it been, would Jesus have transformed the water into wine?"
Oh come on now, of course it was. Yes, Jesus still turned the water into wine because he obeys his word:
Mt 15:4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
They were his earthly parents.
Joh 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
They never ask Mary to ask Jesus to make more wine.
Joh 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
You don't call this rebuke?
"They got them from the Catholic Church! "
Do you put more faith in the Catholic Church [word of mouth] or the scripture [written]?

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.

Begone bold!!!!
Ahhh

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 29, 2002.

Tim,
Thank you for posting John 16:13. I believe Jesus is talking to His apostles at that time. His apostles. The first bishops of His Church.
Another quote where Jesus promises the Holy Spirit to His Chuch is John 14:25-26.
"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), October 30, 2002.

First off, Tim, I wouldn't rely heavily on your singular KJV translation. You might also look at other Bibles, and read the foot notes.
Here's what the New American Standard Bible says.
"4 And Jesus said to her, "(5) Woman, (6) what does that have to do with us? (7) My hour has not yet come."
So, you see here that Jesus doesn't say "what do you have to do with me", but, "what does this have to do with us". It isn't a rebuke, but a thought provoking question, which will bring Mary into an understanding of what this miracle will begin.
Here is a lengthy essay on the passage that might give you a better insite:
"Since Mariology is being discussed especially in this series, it is fitting that we should consider in this connection the well-known statement of Our Lord recorded in St. John's Gospel: "WHAT IS THAT TO ME AND TO THEE?"
The phrase, "Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come," has been the object of many different interpretations. Some consider it as a rebuke to Mary on the part of our Lord, and appeal to it in their criticism of our filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin. The context in which the passage occurs is the following: "And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. And Jesus also was invited, and His disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to Him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever He shall say to you, do ye" (John 2:1-5).
It is certain that the words, "Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come," do not contain a repulse or rebuke. A rebuke presupposes guilt and Mary - as the Council of Trent teaches - was free from the slightest taint of sin. In fact there was nothing in her request deserving of a rebuke. Her request was prompted by charity and expressed with great prudence. In simple terms
Mary explained the embarrassment of the spouses and left it to her Son to perform a miracle, if He judged opportune. Besides, since she saw her Son heralded by the Baptist and surrounded by disciples, she could prudently judge that the hour of His manifesting Himself through miracles had arrived.
The title "woman" contains nothing disrespectful. In trying to penetrate the meaning of the term we must not take for a criterion our own social code but must place ourselves in the circumstances and social customs in which it was used. Now, in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which Jesus spoke, this was the customary and honorable form of address to any woman. The same usage of the term "woman" prevailed among the Greeks; as Aeschylus tells us, even queens were addressed in that way. Augustus is said to have used this title in addressing Cleopatra. In Spain the word "mujer," "woman," is still used as an affectionate form of address. That Jesus did not consider it in any way offensive is evident from the fact that He used it again on the Cross, when He was entrusting His mother to the care and kind offices of St. John: "Woman, behold thy son." Christ also used it in addressing the weeping Magdalene at the tomb: "Woman, why weepest thou?" Surely our Lord would use only the kindest form of address to a woman who was weeping through great love of Him.
While we know with certainty what the words, "Woman, what is (that) to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come," do not imply, it is more difficult to say what they signify positively. We shall briefly state the principle interpretations as presented by the Belgian Scripturist, F. C. Ceulemans, in his Commentary on St. John's Gospel (p. 35):
A. Some take the words, "What is that to Me and to thee?," as equivalent to saying, "What have I and you in common, O woman, in this work of performing miracles? In these I depend not on the will of man but on the will of My Father." This is held to be the reason, too, why Christ said, "Woman" and not "mother."
Such an answer, however, could hardly be excused from irreverence. It is excluded by the words of Christ Himself. The reason why Christ said, "What is that to Me and to thee?," is not the fact that they have nothing in common in this matter but that "My hour is not yet come." The explanation is likewise excluded by the next verse, which shows that Mary understood that the miracle would be performed.
B. In view of the fact that Christ said: "My hour is not yet come," and nevertheless worked the miracle, some maintain that a considerable period of time elapsed between the words of Christ and the performance of the miracle. Since Mary asked for the miracle at an inopportune time, Christ said to her: "Let Me take care of that; the moment for acting has not yet come." From this answer Mary understood that her Son would provide at an opportune time, and accordingly advised the waiter to do "whatever He shall say to you."
This explanation is unacceptable for two reasons: first, Mary began to petition when the wine had failed or began to fail - at a moment, consequently, which was opportune for the miracle; secondly, only a short time seems to have intervened between Christ's response and the miracle, for the latter could hardly be deferred without embarrassment to the spouses.
C. The Jesuit exegete Knabenbauer maintains that both members of the passage should be followed by a question mark and read as follows: "What is that to Me and to thee? Has My hour not yet come?" The text consequently would convey the following meaning: "What need is there that you urge Me? Has not the hour of My manifestation already come?" In other words, "I am ready to do what you desire, since the moment of manifesting My mission publicly has already come." Several arguments seem to favor this interpretation. Tatian and Gregory of Nyssa punctuated the passage in this way. There are many passages in the Gospels which should be read with an interrogation point but which lack the question mark.
Christ no doubt came to the marriage feast to manifest Himself in a special manner, and Mary understood from Christ's answer that a miracle would be granted. This theory is open to two objections: first, the Fathers of the Church and the oldest codices of the Bible read the passage, "My hour is not yet come," without a question mark; second, this explanation deprives Mary of all share and part in the miracle.
D. The expression, "What is that to Me and to thee?" occurs about twelve times in the Bible. Hence the proper approach to an understanding of the phrase is to study it successively in these twelve contexts and determine the meaning common to all of them. Now, what results does such an inductive study yield? In these contexts the phrase is equivalent to the question why an agent acts in a certain manner. More specifically, it expresses disapproval of some action or line of conduct which another is practicing toward the speaker. The phrase may be used to enemies or friends; when employed to enemies it contains an indignant protest against some action; when employed to friends it indicates that some action proposed or executed was ill-advised and importunate. In what sense the phrase is used is to be determined from the circumstance of the discourse, and from the facial expression, gestures and tone of voice of the speaker. That our Lord pronounced the words gently and kindly is clear from the fact that Mary understood that her petition was heard and was soon to be fulfilled. Taking the phrase, "My hour has not yet come," as referring to the beginning of the series of miracles, we may render the whole passage as follows: "Why dost thou constrain Me by thy prayers? My hour of performing miracles has not yet come."
After having verbally refused to perform the miracle, why does Christ shortly afterward nevertheless do so? Is there a contradiction between His assertion and His action? A parallel event in our Lord's life, narrated in Matthew 15:21-28, helps us to understand the present incident. In that section we read that the Canaanite woman besought the Lord to heal her daughter possessed by the devil. Christ at first seems to ignore her. When the disciples besought Him in her behalf, Jesus answered that He was sent only to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
But because the woman's faith persisted, Jesus finally hears her and heals her daughter. What caused Him to do that which He at first seems to decline? Faith! "O woman, great is thy faith, be it done to thee as thou wilt." Our Lord's initial negative attitude had the precise purpose of bringing out into greater relief - for the instruction and edification of others - the all-important prerequisite of the miracle, namely, faith in His Divine power. Our Lord frequently tested the faith of those nearest to Him: On the lake in the storm Jesus slept until the Apostles cried out to Him in despair; when Martha and Mary sent Him word that their brother was sick, He allowed the man to die, in order to put to a greater test their faith in Him as Author of life.
Now let us transport ourselves to Cana. Our Lord lovingly seems to decline: "What is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come." Why? In order to call attention to that all-important element which made Him advance, as it were, the hour of His miracles - namely, Mary's abiding faith in His Divine Omnipotence. How much faith, indeed, is concealed in those words. "They have no wine;" "Whatever He shall say to you" - although you may not understand the motive of His command - "do ye." It was very important to call attention to this persevering faith in His Divinity, lest it appear that He was performing the miracle from a social motive, for the private benefit of His friends and acquaintances. Since Christ was not testing Mary's faith but rather showing unto us its perfection, He used a Hebraism which conveyed the idea at once of an importunity and an assurance of a request granted."
Found HERE.
"Do you put more faith in the Catholic Church [word of mouth] or the scripture [written]?"
Well, because the Apostles were the first Catholics (belonging to the Universal Church), and becauase they were the ones who WROTE the new Testament Scripture; then I would have to say that I put more faith in the Catholic Church.
However, you will find in you search, that this doesn't mean that I don't have faith in the Scripture. As I had mentioned, because of my faith in the Catholic Church, the ones who wrote the entire New Testament, then that necessatates my faith in their writing! No Catholic Teaching runs contrary to the Scripture! How could it? Would it not be obvious enough for the millions of Catholic who know the Bible and understand the teachings to see?
I was reading the book that I have on the origin of the Bible, and a few good points were brought out:
The emphesis the Protestants put on the written word doesn't align with the emphesis with which the Apostles themselves, nor the early Church had on the written word. The earliest known writing of the NT wasn't till the year 45! That is more than a decade AFTER Christ's death. Had the Apostles and all the desciples of that time NEEDED a Book, they would have certainly written something. And even still that was only the Gospel of Matthew. Mark, Luke, and John didn't write till later.
Now looking at Pauls letters, we see them addressed to a single church at a time. Note then, that these letters were never meant to be read by ALL of the churches! The letters were written for specific situations at certain times in the ever growing faith. Therefore, you may ask yourself, if these letters were not read by ALL the other churches, then how did they learn of the faith! For instance: In Paul's letter to the Corinthians he scolds them for not gathering for the Lords Supper, and eating it incorrectly. That is why many were sick and dying! However, the fact that Paul didn't write this letter to the Ephesians would indicate that they (the Ephesians) WERE gathering for the Lords Supper, and they were eating it correctly. If they weren't, then it wasn't a letter that corrected them, like the Corinthians, but rather by word of mouth!
Granted these letters are of much help to us now in understanding better what the Teachings of the early Church were. However, these letters were not circulated and given to ALL the churches untill they were combined in the late 300's early 400's! It was by WORD OF MOUTH that the teachings were circulated. Jesus said, "go out and PREACH to all nations". He didn't say to write anything!
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 30, 2002.

Dear Jake,
My usual preference is for concise, simple answers, and only with exceptions extends to several paragraphs. Tim goes to even greater lengths to expound on his knowledge; so your reply is very appropriate to the task of persuading him. He maintains there's no ill-will toward us in his preaching. If so, he must be a gentleman and receive your posts with close attention and respect.
Do you think he will? I doubt it. His approach is pharisaical and narrow-minded. He preaches good will and mutual understanding, but when it comes to real responses to challenging questions, he becomes evasive. He papers over the challenge with verbose homilies and sophistry. I don't think he'll give your posts any respect, really.
If I'm wrong, he'll correct me by addressing them with straight answers. For now, I must tell you you're doing a bang-up job of apologetics. He hasn't met many Catholics like you. I hope he sticks around for more of the same.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

To Our Friend Tim:
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the only authority." This was the main bone of contention, earlier in this thread.
He replied: ''To this I say, when man and scripture agree: okay. When man and the scriptures disagree, we must choose the scripture over man. I believe that scripture should precede man, belief, tradition, etc. If not, then we put man over the Word of God.''
A very flawed premise. The apostles and disciples of Jesus were mere men. Yet He commissioned them personally, and Peter for their shepherd, to carry the Holy Gospel to the nations. It is ''men'' who came much later, as in ''reformers'' who disagreed with the original and authentic Word of God; and therefore Tim's stricture should really apply to them. He said we must choose the scripture over man, (--I believe that scripture should precede man, belief, tradition, etc.) above.
But scripture didn't come from protestant reformers. Scripture, which he declares the only recourse, was first seen in the Catholic Church. Who, then, changed its meanings? Not the Church. ''When men and scripture disagree,'' should mean, only scripture as interpreted in Christ's Church has any claim on our faith. Men's teachings have no claim on our faith. Only the first men, Christ's apostles, were entitled to lead His flock. And the apostles had the power of choosing new successors, bishops; to continue on, giving us scripture and Tradition.
Quote: "A great deal more (teachings) is revealed, in line with the written Word, through the Holy Spirit who is living and abiding in Christ's Church."
My words to Tim above, meant to explain why everything is not given to the Church out of written scripture. --''As long as what is revealed lines up with scripture okay, if it doesn't then it must be thrown out.'' says Tim!
I ask you, Tim: By what inspired authority do you say what's kept and what's thrown out??? Are you a new apostle?
No one can throw out what the Church teaches. (That's hard chewing for a protestant, but--) because Christ has personally given all authority to His Church on earth. Besides, what you think ''lines up with scripture'' is pure opinion! It rests only on your say-so. Just as any other heretic might say-so, with complete disregard for the teaching authority of the apostolic Church!
Tim aligns himself, by saying ''throw that out'' with the many false teachers whom Saint Paul pronounced anathema. Who is authorized to ''keep'' and to ''throw out'' for Jesus Christ in this world???
Here's a quick text to show you who, Tim:
''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, 16:19).
We know the Church has this authority. We know the Church has abiding in her the Holy Spirit and His protection. And therefore, we know the Church's teaching is never contrary to holy scripture. Because the Holy Spirit cannot deceive or be deceived.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

ital out

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

Dear Jake,
I would perfer to hold strong with the Word of God (KJV) over the teachings of footnotes. By faith, I believe that the KJV is 100% without error, the Word of God, exactly the way God wants it to be, holding all the truth from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation.
If you perfere to trust in the Catholic Church, that's fine.
But this is my stance.
"So, you see here that Jesus doesn't say "what do you have to do with me",
He was saying, "Why are you telling me this? This isn't my problem. Why should I give these guys some more wine since they are already drunk?"
Then all of a sudden he speaks of his death on the cross, "mine hour is not yet come."
"since she saw her Son heralded by the Baptist and surrounded by disciples, she could prudently judge that the hour of His manifesting Himself through miracles had arrived."
There were Baptist there? Before Catholics? Go figure??? A Baptist don't drink - not real ones anyway...
"Now, in the Syro-Chaldaic language, which Jesus spoke, this was the customary and honorable form of address to any woman."
I still do not recall 1 time Jesus calling Mary mother.
Clearly Jesus puts Mary in the same place as other women then, and not above all like Catholics...
Mt 15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Lu 13:12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.
Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Okay now...
"The text consequently would convey the following meaning: "What need is there that you urge Me? Has not the hour of My manifestation already come?" In other words, "I am ready to do what you desire, since the moment of manifesting My mission publicly has already come." Several arguments seem to favor this interpretation.
The only arguments here are the ones that want to misrepresent the scriptures. This is clearly what Jesus was talking about:
Lu 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
I saw this, Jesus did miracles to lead people to Himself and God. How would helping drunkards drink more wine lead thim to God?
"After having verbally refused to perform the miracle, why does Christ shortly afterward nevertheless do so?"
Jesus never told her that he wouldn't do it.
"I would have to say that I put more faith in the Catholic Church."
Then, by your own words, you have chosen the words of the Catholic church over the Words of God [the scriptures]. What if the Catholic Church mistranslated anything? Then you believe a lie. Of course you believe that they haven't. But, the fact remains - you have chosen to trust in man. Christ never said to trust in the Church, he said to trust in him.
You say Peter is the first Pope, the rock of the Church, yet he denies Christ 3 times. I say Christ is the rock and foundation of the church..
Mt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Is Peter above Christ? Then who is the foundation?
De 32:1-4 Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth. My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass: Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. Let's review Matthew 16:
Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
God revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, Son of the living God. Peter didn't know it in and of himself. Christ calls him blessed, because God only reveals things to his children [the ones which will inherit Heaven].
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
So he is building his Church on Peter, a man, a sinner that also needs Christ for salvation? He is clearly telling Peter that he will build his church on the fact that God will reveal unto those he will the gift of salvation and the understanding of Jesus Christ.
"Would it not be obvious enough for the millions of Catholic who know the Bible and understand the teachings to see?"
Not to bash, but really, do Catholics understand the scriptures or do they think they understand the catacisim and what the church teaches? Honestly, I have talked to a lot of Catholics that never answer anything with scripture, and usually don't understand why they do what they do... But, so do Protestants. Most people [all religions] do not study scripture, but man's interpretation of the scripture. If we compare scripture with scripture, the Spirit of Truth will show us the answer.
"The emphesis the Protestants put on the written word doesn't align with the emphesis with which the Apostles themselves"
Wrong: 2pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
It is clear that they believe they wrote exactly the words that God wanted them to write.
God reveals when he is ready, not all at once: Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
"Now looking at Pauls letters, we see them addressed to a single church at a time."
2ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Looks like scripture is for every man.
"WORD OF MOUTH" is not scripture! Though may be quoting scripture.
------------
My dear friend Eugene,
"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the only authority."
Good grief, what are you looking for? I have shown numerous scriptures that say it is inspired of God and etc...
We are not to add or take away from it... That is written once in the beginning of the bible, once in the middle, and once at the end...doesn't that seem to serve a purpose to you?
BEGINNING
De 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
MIDDLE
Pr 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Pr 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
END
Re 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Re 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
---
I know that you will surely have a reply to this...
"A very flawed premise. The apostles and disciples of Jesus were mere men."
Then you call God a liar by not believing that they were led by the Spirit, as in the verses above.
"But scripture didn't come from protestant reformers. Scripture, which he declares the only recourse, was first seen in the Catholic Church."
Oh really, then why does the Catholic Church do so many things that are neither in the bible or taught by Christ?
"My words to Tim above, meant to explain why everything is not given to the Church out of written scripture. --''As long as what is revealed lines up with scripture okay, if it doesn't then it must be thrown out.'' says Tim!
I ask you, Tim: By what inspired authority do you say what's kept and what's thrown out??? Are you a new apostle?
No one can throw out what the Church teaches. "
I believe you have confused yourself. By your on words from above, are you to say that if the Church and the Scripture disagree we are to believe both??? What blasphemy! You even go so far as to say that "no one can throw what the Church teaches" - even if it disagrees with scripture. You hold too high a lust for Church and not enough for scripture. If the Church and the Scripture disagree if at the smallest level, the scripture remains True and the Church becomes a liar.
Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
And as reguarding Matthew 16, NOTHING CAN GO AGAINST THE WORD OF GOD. GOD WILL NOT CONTRADICT HIMSELF! That is why we can have faith that God CAN NOT LIE - but MAN CAN, AND DOES.
Sorry, I may have come across a little flamed, but my dear Eugene has cause me the grasped my sword [word of God] even closer since he believes I am apparently a dumb hypocrite for believing in the scriptures and not the Catholic Church.
But, humbly I admit, I do not claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim that I am smarter than anyone here or anywhere for that matter. I am a servant of Jesus Christ, and have my hope in that the Spirit of Truth will lead me into all godliness!!!
I pray that is what we are looking for.
God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 30, 2002.

sorry about the bold...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 30, 2002.

Dear Tim,
To tell the truth, I hadn't realised the extent of your blindness and I'd given you credit for some discernment. But by the present post you show how poorly you respond to reason and God's grace. I fear nothing can shake you from your spiritual laziness.
Normally I would wish to continue, and have a good influence on your future development; since I believed you strived to please God. But at this stage, I would only urge you to pray fervently to Our Lord for light and understanding of His divine Will. He alone has the power of persuasion and loving patience necessary for your progress. You are as if innocent. We must pray for you, and I promise I will. My heart goes out to you.
As you persist in preaching to us here hoping to convert Catholics, my concern from now on will just be to neutralize you. But it won't be a sign of my hatred or alienation. Only the reasonable response of a faithful Catholic to presumptuous intrusion by a misguided soul. That's the kindest thing I can offer you.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.

Tim,
I will try to respond to most of what you have written. First it seems that there needs to be some clarification.
The Catholic Church teaches that ALL Scripture IS the WORD OF GOD. We don't deny this! We know that the Bible IS the WORD OF GOD. How many times must we say this. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD! However, the Bible isn't the complete WORD OF GOD! In addition to the Bible, there is the Church which Christ founded, and the Traditions which Christ established. We are told "hold fast to TRADITIONS (oral and written)"! So, within the Catholic Faith there are three (3) separate but equal sources for the WORD OF GOD. And neither (NEITHER) contradict one or the other, but rather BUILD each other UP. Therefore, when I said that I put my faith in the Catholic Church, I put my faith 100% in Scripture, 100% in the Church teachings, and 100% in the Sacred Traditions (not man made traditions but those passed down by the apostles).
You wrote:
"I would perfer to hold strong with the Word of God (KJV) over the teachings of footnotes. By faith, I believe that the KJV is 100% without error, the Word of God, exactly the way God wants it to be, holding all the truth from the beginning to the end, from Genesis to Revelation."
That is good, but what about the New American Standard Bible, or the myriads of other Bibles out there. Your KJV has only seen the press for a little over 400 years! Even so, it may be 100% without error, but your interpretation of it is NOT. If it is so easy to interpret the Bible, as you seem to suggest, then why is it that there are 30,000 PROTESTANT divisions out there? You have to be curious about this: Did Christ intend for this division? If NOT then why would He leave us with a Bible (Scripture) that can be interpreted so differently depending on each individual? Would Christ leave it up to us to interpret the Bible? You may say, �Well he gave us the Holy Spirit to guide us�. This is true, but do not all Protestant sects declare to be inspired by the Holy Spirit? There must be an authority over the interpretation. There had to be! You must agree with this, unless you agree that Christ wanted these divisions! And he didn�t, otherwise Paul wouldn�t have written so many letters calling for unity! So there had to have been established an authority which could interpret and hand down the correct interpretation of the Scripture. Once you agree that there must be ONE INTERPRITATION, and therefore one authority which would guard this interpretation against division, then you must ask yourself, who holds this correct interpretation?
If you answer any of this, Tim, please answer me this ONE question: Help me to understand the Protestant thought process. Why is your church right, and all the other thousands of churches wrong. They all claim to have the �pure Word�. They all claim to be inspired. Yet, they can�t even count their years past the 1500�s! What makes your church the right church?
Next, you write:
�He was saying, "Why are you telling me this? This isn't my problem. Why should I give these guys some more wine since they are already drunk?"�
I don�t recall Jesus saying this in Scripture. If it wasn�t his problem, why would be perform the miracle? And if he really didn�t want to give them more wine �since they are already drunk�, why would he contradict himself and fill up several jugs of wine?
This is just another interpretation (false) that is out there. What makes this any more believable then the ones suggested before?
�There were Baptist there? Before Catholics? Go figure??? A Baptist don't drink - not real ones anyway...�
John the Baptist Herald Jesus at the river Jordan. Mary say Jesus heralded by the Baptist at the river. The author of this passage is referring to what Mary saw BEFORE the wedding.
�I still do not recall 1 time Jesus calling Mary mother.�
So your sticking with the �woman� theory rather than the �mama� theory? When Jesus was an infant I�m sure he didn�t say, �woman, I am thirsty. Please, bring me my milk.� I would think that an infant would be more inclined to speak as one. Jesus used the phrase �Woman� later on because, as it was said, it was a respectful way of referring to women, even MOTHERS.
�Jesus never told her that he wouldn't do it.�
But if it was a rebuke, and he meant what you said, �this isn�t my problem.� Then it would have been hypocritical, to say the least, for Jesus to then perform the act.
�Then, by your own words, you have chosen the words of the Catholic church over the Words of God [the scriptures]. What if the Catholic Church mistranslated anything?�
If the Catholic Church mistranslated anything then you have it too, because the Protestants in the year 1550 took the Catholic Bible to use! The Catholic Church won�t say anything contrary to Scripture.
� Then you believe a lie. Of course you believe that they haven't. But, the fact remains - you have chosen to trust in man. Christ never said to trust in the Church, he said to trust in him.�
And we Trust in HIM. Jesus founded the Church and told us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against her. So, it was Luther and the Protestants who lack trust in Christ, because they failed to trust in the Church that He established. �If anyone denies you, they deny me. And if they deny me, they deny my Father.�.
�You say Peter is the first Pope, the rock of the Church, yet he denies Christ 3 times. I say Christ is the rock and foundation of the church.. �
And this is what we believe. Jesus is the Cornerstone. The Rock that the builders rejected! But Peter is the Rock upon which Christ (The Cornerstone) built his Church. The Church would not exist without Christ, but Christ made sure that the Church on earth would have a leader. If there were no leader, then the floor would be open for misinterpretations of God�s Word. And hey, what do ya know, the Protestants don�t have a leader, and there are over 30,000 interpretations of God�s Word.
If you believe that you�re KJV was passed down for nearly 1500 years without translators (men) mistranslating, because they were lead by the Holy Spirit, then why is it so hard for you to believe that the teachings of the Church could not be passed down. They Both were passed down, but why is it that you think that the Bible is without error and that the Church teachings are not. Both were passed down by mere men (HUMANS). Yet you trust the Holy Spirit to have inspired the men who wrote the Bible, but do not TRUST the Holy Spirit to have inspired the Popes when teaching things. That is the epitome of hypocrisy! Jesus said that his Spirit, the Advocate, would always be with his Church. Jesus also said, through Timothy that all Scripture is inspired. Why is it that you Trust what Timothy said, but you don�t trust what Jesus himself said?
�Not to bash, but really, do Catholics understand the scriptures or do they think they understand the catacisim and what the church teaches? Honestly, I have talked to a lot of Catholics that never answer anything with scripture, and usually don't understand why they do what they do... But, so do Protestants.�
Not all Catholics understand the Scriptures. But to those who do and did, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ignacious, St. Augustine, Scott Hahn, Fr. John Corapi, St. Terese, St. Francis, the list goes one�, I pose to you the same question. Were they all that stupid to believe that the Body and Blood of Christ was real, or that Mary was a virgin and sinless? Were they? Even Luther himself believed in the Body and Blood of Christ. Luther believed that Mary was a virgin and sinless! So, really reformation for you then didn�t begin until after Luther. Real reformation began with whoever came up with the heretical belief that Mary wasn�t a virgin or sinless. The Real reformation began when someone decided that the Body of Christ was simply a �symbol�.
�Most people [all religions] do not study scripture, but man's interpretation of the scripture.�
You have this absolutely correct. And I would like to give you this answer: All protestant religions study �man�s interpretation of the scripture�, because really that�s all they have, and that is what they (that specific sect) was established by � a different interpretation. But! The Catholic Church studies the interpretation of the Spirit. Because Christ gave his Church the Advocate, and those who left the Church, left that interpretation and left the Advocates interpretation.
� If we compare scripture with scripture, the Spirit of Truth will show us the answer.�
This is a lie that you have been taught, because all 30,000 protestant sects believe that the Spirit of Truth has shown them the answer. Has He really? Is the Spirit of Truth divided or confused? Is there more then one Truth? Either all are correct, or all are false except for one. Or do you think that the original ONE interpretation was lost and is yet to be found? It is our belief that we hold the ONE interpretation, and we have the historical lineage to show this. Protestants may claim to hold the one truth, but their history is short and the excuses are plentiful.
Tim wrote to Eugene:
�"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the only authority." Good grief, what are you looking for? I have shown numerous scriptures that say it is inspired of God and etc... BEGINNING � MIDDLE �END ��
Tim, Eugene isn�t saying that the Scripture isn�t the Word of God. All he�s saying is that it isn�t the entire Word of God. Nothing should be added or removed from Scripture, but look at what Luther and the Reformation did to the Bible (that very KJV that you hold!). The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church that has kept the same Bible from its conception in the year 400! We haven�t added or removed anything to the Written Word.
But the Written Word is not all. There is also the Oral Tradition that we hear about IN SCRIPTURE.
Tim, we have told you that we believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but you haven�t shown us ANY Scripture which says it is the ONLY Word of God. Don�t be confused: I didn�t say, �Where does it say it is ONLY the Word of God�. I said, �Where does it say it is the ONLY Word of God�. Not the position of ONLY. We believe that the Bible is ONLY the Word of God. That is, the Bible is the ENTIRE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. However, it isn�t the ONLY Word of God. That is, the Church teachings and Sacred Tradition are also the Word of God.
I really hope that some of this is sticking to you Tim. No offense, but there are a lot of Protestants who post here not to learn, but simply to try and trip us up. So, 1) we will never be tripped up. And 2) I�m super glad that you want to learn.
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

"...you have chosen to trust in man. Christ never said to trust in the Church, he said to trust in him.�
I have just one more tid-bit to add to this statement. Please, show us where Christ says to trust in the Bible. It is fairly hypocritical to say that by trusting in the Church we are trusting in man, but by trusting in the Bible we are trusting in God. You will say, �but the Bible is the inspired word of God�. But we had to trust in man to compile all the inspired Scriptures. So therefore, these men who hand picked the Scriptures to make up the Bible had to have been inspired also in order to know which ones were really the Word of God. Therefore, by putting your faith in the Bible, you likewise have to have put your faith in those who God chose to compile the Bible. And if you trust these men to have been inspired, why is it that you do not trust GOD to inspire our Pope�s when they teach.
In simple terms, if GOD had the power to inspire mere men to write and put together the Bible, then why is it beyond Him to inspire mere men to guide His Church? I do not trust man any more than you do, Tim. I trust God to fulfill his promise to His Church! I trust God and therefore I trust the Catholic Church!
�Let those with ears listen!�
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Jake:
You do a splendid job of solving Tim's problems with Catholic truth; and I wish you more luck than I've had. Tim isn't here to learn, however. He's only interested in proselytizing; under the impression we need his help.
That creates for Tim an enormous blind spot. He can't see around it. The main question, ''NOWHERE does the Bible say that it is the "sole source of spiritual truth." The reason it does not say so is because it is NOT the sole source!" [John]; is evaded by Tim, since he needs sola scriptura to ''save'' the Catholic from his own Church! It's our Church Tim's antagonized by. He's still stuck in the old ''Rome is Babylon'' groove.
At the top of this thread, Tim maintains he is following Christ's example. Because He combatted the devil and his temptations using strictly scriptures, no other means.
Yes, and Tim ignores the simple fact that the devil introduced himself to our Lord quoting from scripture; making Our Lord's responses apropos; and not particularly because Jesus needed quotations from the Old Testament to defeat him. Tim makes a far-left application of this episode in the gospel to justify his own bibliolatry!
I made reference to non-Catholic bibliolatry on a recent thread. It's an unfortunate failing of protestant reasoning. The Bible doesn't deserve our adoration. Though we receive God's word in it, we mustn't idolize it. It is a document open to interpretation, and all men require GRACE to do it justice. It can't be placed on a level with God Himself; and that's what bibliolators do with the Bible. They adore its words, even when they misinterpret them!
I concede that many parts of holy scripture are clear and easy to understand. For instance: ''Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.''
But in far too many passages a clear meaning can be didstorted, skewed to a particular slant which the evangelists didn't write at all. People like Tim want the actual word ''priest'' to be written in the epistles, for instance. Otherwise they'll reach for the moon, ''Nicolaitin'' as a repudiating factor; and doesn't that make Catholics nothing but pagans, and Babylonians??? Lol! To such lengths is Tim driven by the crunch he's in, trying to delegitimize a Church whose saints number in the thousands!
He's up against it; but he won't listen to anyone else's clarifying posts here. It's as if only another protestant could possibly understand him; Catholics aren't impressive because they won't debate by sola scriptura. And, after all, Jesus debated the devil by sola scriptura; so that's that!!! Dream on, Tim /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Eugene
I can't decide whether it is me you dislike or all non-Catholics. It appears that you have achieved the enlightenment equal only to the Catholic's Pope himself. Apparently you have so much knowledge and "spiritual" leadership that any one that uses only the scripture and doesn't believe in the Catholic church is clearly a heretic and worthy of death. Oh ye Pharisee...
"He's only interested in proselytizing; under the impression we need his help." - Is your motive any different to me?
"Yes, and Tim ignores the simple fact that the devil introduced himself to our Lord quoting from scripture; making Our Lord's responses apropos; and not particularly because Jesus needed quotations from the Old Testament to defeat him." - I never said Jesus couldn't use any other method, he could have sent him strait to Hell that instant, I was merely showing the choice of Jesus to use scripture.
"I made reference to non-Catholic bibliolatry on a recent thread. It's an unfortunate failing of protestant reasoning. The Bible doesn't deserve our adoration. Though we receive God's word in it, we mustn't idolize it. It is a document open to interpretation, and all men require GRACE to do it justice. It can't be placed on a level with God Himself; and that's what bibliolators do with the Bible. They adore its words, even when they misinterpret them!"
My dear Eugene, you are on the verge of blasphamy!!! If the Words of God are not on the same level as God then why believe your church?
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
God can not lie, so his Word is as Holy as He is!!!
Mt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
You speak as though you have obtained the perfection of Christ, yet speak without charity...
-------------------
Jake
Thanks for speaking to me as a person, as I hope I do in return.
Although we believe many different things, we both desire to serve God and give him ALL the glory. Where we do the truth we give God the glory, where we fall short we have only ourselves to blame.
Okay, I undersand what you mean about scripture.
"I put my faith 100% in Scripture" - so do I.
"100% in the Church teachings, and 100% in the Sacred Traditions" - I wasn't saying that all the church teachings and all the "sacred" traditions were against the Bible. What I meant was if they were to go against the Bible [I mean if verses clearly taught against them], then they should be thrown out and not the Bible. Understand?
"That is good, but what about the New American Standard Bible, or the myriads of other Bibles out there. Your KJV has only seen the press for a little over 400 years!" - I believe that the KJV and only the KJV is the bible that God wants for his people in English.
"If it is so easy to interpret the Bible, as you seem to suggest, then why is it that there are 30,000 PROTESTANT divisions out there?"
This is a very good question. And, to be honest, I really don't know how we have gotten so far to have so many different religions. Some of them have minor differences, and some have major differences. All have to say is this. The Spirit of Truth leads us into all Truth, but if we reject the spirit for our own ideas, then we do not get the Truth or the whole Truth...
That is really where the "battle" lays with our debates... Let's be honest, I believe that the Catholic Church is not 100% right, and Catholics do ont believe 100% (if any) that any other church is right (whether a little or not at all). Everyone is not right - that is for certain. Although we may all be wrong (but neither of us agree with that - or we shouldn't be what we are). That is why the bible tells us to try the spirits, and that there are different christs and different gospels out there that we must not believe in and we must beware of.
"So there had to have been established an authority which could interpret and hand down the correct interpretation of the Scripture." - Do you have such an infallible man? We never see in the bible an sinnless made or perfect man - but Christ.
"Why is your church right, and all the other thousands of churches wrong."
Okay - this is my belief, but may be different for others. I have chosen a religion and church to be in because of what I believe the Spirit of God has showed me. I do not believe the religion is infallible nor the church, but God! The problem is most Protestants do not let the Spirit lead them and do not read the bible. Whatever comes from the pulpit is "gospel". This is incorrect. We are to try everything we hear concerning God. This means I must always bring what the church teaches and what the preacher preachers to God - pray - and ask him to show me in scripture whether to believer or not believe it. I do not look at myself as the final authority, if I can clearly see 100% in the scripture whether what is said is true or false, I choose sides - if I can't, then I keep studing and keep praying till I believe God shows me.
As for Peter we will have to put to rest this case, for it is the foundation of the Catholic Church. I, however, do not believe that Christ would build his church on a man, which sins, and is unable to obtain perfection here on earth, and is capible of being misled. Didn't Paul have to set Peter strait on some things?
"They Both were passed down, but why is it that you think that the Bible is without error and that the Church teachings are not."
Another very good question. Because 1. I do not believe that Christ established the church with Peter, and 2. I do not believe that the Catholic church teaches 100% scripture without error. I am just being honest to your question, starting a war... :)
"Why is it that you Trust what Timothy said, but you don�t trust what Jesus himself said?"
I very much trust Jesus, and do not trust Timothy, that is why I continuously search the scriptures and match my beliefs with it. I can be wrong, but Jesus can't and isn't! Praise God - that is why we can have faith in Him and not man.
"Mary was a virgin and sinless?"
I believe Mary was a virgin! That is biblical.
I do not believe Mary was sinless. I do not find that in the bible.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." - no exceptions!
If she was sinnless, the Jesus Christ didn't die for her. Therefore she does not need him as a Saviour, and is equal with him, because she is the only man ever to live sinless, besides Christ.
"� If we compare scripture with scripture, the Spirit of Truth will show us the answer.� This is a lie that you have been taught." - then why read it at all, if the Spirit can't show us truth from it?
Thanks Jake for your time, and Christian attitude!
God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

The word was with God? Yes, His Word, the eternal Son. But not the books of the Bible, dear Tim. We aren't supposed to adore a book; even though God's Word can be preserved in print. Your subjective understanding of God's Word isn't sacred or inerrant. You can and do misinterpret the Bible and adore it along with your faulty understanding. That's idolatry, because God's Word must be above reproach; absolutely inerrant. No other version is holy.
The very fact the so-called reformers abridged and corrupted Holy Scripture to suit private agendas leads me to believe you can't be trusted with God's Word. You will corrupt it all to dispute the Church, if she disagrees with your spin. And after you corrupt it, you'll say it's ''God's equal'' and on the same level as Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible is only as holy as its interpreters; and of the lot only Christ's Church has apostolic authority to support her interpretation. The rest usurp that authority, and lose the grace to understand that Word. I can tell you of several truths written in the Bible which you will insist are not valid truths. In so doing, you will disparage and NOT trust the Word of God.
But it won't work that way if I do it. Because I have the Magisterium of Christ's Church as the authority for my interpretation, it isn't a free-lance job like yours. You simply must have the Holy Spirit to safely guide you; in every passage of every chapter of every book. The Church DOES.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

�"100% in the Church teachings, and 100% in the Sacred Traditions" - I wasn't saying that all the church teachings and all the "sacred" traditions were against the Bible. What I meant was if they were to go against the Bible [I mean if verses clearly taught against them], then they should be thrown out and not the Bible. Understand?�
I do understand, Tim. But that is just it. The Catholic Church teaches this also! Once again, the Catholic Church has NO traditions or teachings that are contrary to Scripture. Remember, however, that teachings outside the Scripture don�t necessarily run contrary to Scripture. The Assumption of Mary for instance. It is not Scriptural, but we know from Scripture that Elijah was assumed into heaven (or before heaven was open � that place in Hades where those Holy Souls rested). And if Elijah was assumed, why not Mary. It doesn�t say in Scripture that she wasn�t assumed into heaven either. Also noteworthy is the fact that when certain Catholic persons (as apposed to the Church) have taught contrary to Scripture, they were either corrected or excommunicated.
�"That is good, but what about the New American Standard Bible, or the myriads of other Bibles out there. Your KJV has only seen the press for a little over 400 years!" - I believe that the KJV and only the KJV is the bible that God wants for his people in English.�
I would just like to know why KJV and not any other. Is there a particular reason? KJV wasn�t the first Bible, I hope you realize. In fact, the KJV wasn�t bound until the 1500�s. Whereas, a Catholic Bible (any one) has the same exact text it did when it was bound in the year 400! Several Counsels have since confirmed their position towards the authenticity of the Scriptures.
�"If it is so easy to interpret the Bible, as you seem to suggest, then why is it that there are 30,000 PROTESTANT divisions out there?" This is a very good question. And, to be honest, I really don't know how we have gotten so far to have so many different religions. Some of them have minor differences, and some have major differences. All have to say is this. The Spirit of Truth leads us into all Truth, but if we reject the spirit for our own ideas, then we do not get the Truth or the whole Truth...�
Bingo! Tim, That is exactly right. And that is exactly what Luther and all the other Reformers � including your pastor � did. They rejected the Spirit for their OWN IDEAS. They each had a different idea about what Scripture meant! Ask your pastor where he got his ideas about. At the very best he will say Luther! Ask a Catholic (one that knows the faith anyway) and they will give you a long list of Popes who ALL taught the very same interpretation of Scripture all the way to Peter! �That is really where the "battle" lays with our debates... Let's be honest, I believe that the Catholic Church is not 100% right, and Catholics do ont believe 100% (if any) that any other church is right (whether a little or not at all). Everyone is not right - that is for certain. Although we may all be wrong (but neither of us agree with that - or we shouldn't be what we are). That is why the bible tells us to try the spirits, and that there are different christs and different gospels out there that we must not believe in and we must beware of.�
It is true that we must �try the spirits�, but a problem lies in thinking that this means ON YOUR OWN. Because, like I�ve been saying, every one of the Protestant sects thinks that they are lead by the Spirit, but this can�t be true! And they will tell you, �Well, read the Scripture and try the spirit�, but that just leads you to come up with your own interpretation and lo-and-behold a whole other sect has popped up. What makes you sure you are really lead by the spirit? If a passage in the Bible is made clear to you � it is simply clear to you, but it might be clear in a wrong way. All the sects are clear and sure that they are right! And they will use Scripture to prove that they are right! Are they all right, and all lead by the Spirit? NO! But the Catholic Church has been teaching the same things about the Scriptures, the same interpretation of the Scripture, since the very beginning of the Church! And we have the history to prove it!
�"So there had to have been established an authority which could interpret and hand down the correct interpretation of the Scripture." - Do you have such an infallible man? We never see in the bible an sinnless made or perfect man - but Christ.�
Tim, there is a difference between sinless and infallible. Man can be infallible, not sinless. It is good for you to know that our Pope goes to daily confession! He himself will tell you he�s a sinner. But when he teaches ex-Cathedra, that is infallibly, he is guided by the Holy Spirit and guarded against error in the very same exact way those who wrote and compiled the Sacred Scripture you hold were guided by the Holy Spirit and guarded against error.
If man can be infallible in writing and compiling the Bible, the very Bible you use, then why can�t you believe that man can be infallible in teaching that same Scripture or teaching? And do you doubt the words of our Lord Jesus, when he said that the Holy Spirit would reveal things to his disciples when the time was right?
�"Why is your church right, and all the other thousands of churches wrong." Okay - this is my belief, but may be different for others. I have chosen a religion and church to be in because of what I believe the Spirit of God has showed me. I do not believe the religion is infallible nor the church, but God!�
So, if your church is not infallible, then why is it you chose that particulare church? If all are infallible, and all can teach error, was it because yours was teaching less errors? And have you even researched all 30,000 Protestant sects to know that the church you attend teaches the least amount of errors? How are you sure that it was the Holy Spirit that lead you to your Church?
�The problem is most Protestants do not let the Spirit lead them and do not read the bible. Whatever comes from the pulpit is "gospel". This is incorrect. We are to try everything we hear concerning God. This means I must always bring what the church teaches and what the preacher preachers to God - pray - and ask him to show me in scripture whether to believer or not believe it.�
But, Tim, that is exactly what Luther did! That is exactly what the 30,000 founders of the different sects did! They took what the Catholic Church taught them and read the Bible and �prayed� about it. And guess what? All of them were lead by the �Spirit� in different directions! Is that the fruit of the Spirit? What makes you different from them? Please, don�t end up in the same errors they made! If you become �convinced� that you know the truth, you will just make it 30,001!
�I do not look at myself as the final authority, if I can clearly see 100% in the scripture whether what is said is true or false, I choose sides - if I can't, then I keep studing and keep praying till I believe God shows me.�
But this �belief� in what �God shows [me]� is erroneous! All of the founders of the Protestant sects believed that God showed them something! But He didn�t otherwise they would have ALL come to the same conclusion! They forgot that God gave them the teaching authority of the Church to fall back on. Would God leave us on our own to decifer the Scriptures? Even the Eunuch in the Acts had to ask Philip, because how could he know if �someone doesn�t teach�. Who gave your Pastor authority to teach? A degree at a seminary that�s all. We believe that God gives our Priests the Authority to teach, and this is based in Scripture � it�s called Apostolic authority!
�As for Peter we will have to put to rest this case, for it is the foundation of the Catholic Church. I, however, do not believe that Christ would build his church on a man, which sins, and is unable to obtain perfection here on earth, and is capible of being misled. Didn't Paul have to set Peter strait on some things?�
Yet you believe that God would �build� his Bible on a man, �which sins, and is unable to obtain perfection her on earth, and is capable of being misled�. The Bible was written by men. Yes they were inspired by God, but they were men. This is how we believe that God established His Church; on men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit!
�"Why is it that you Trust what Timothy said, but you don�t trust what Jesus himself said?" I very much trust Jesus, and do not trust Timothy, that is why I continuously search the scriptures and match my beliefs with it. I can be wrong, but Jesus can't and isn't! Praise God - that is why we can have faith in Him and not man. �
But you didn�t really catch my point, Tim. Jesus said, �the gates of Hell will not prevail against [my Church]�. So why is it that you don�t believe that there is One True Church in existence, if Christ himself said it wouldn�t be destroyed? I know you will probably say, we are all Christ�s Church, but this cannot be so, because they all believe in different things!
�"Mary was a virgin and sinless?" I believe Mary was a virgin! That is biblical. �
Amen to that!
�I do not believe Mary was sinless. I do not find that in the bible. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." - no exceptions! If she was sinnless, the Jesus Christ didn't die for her. Therefore she does not need him as a Saviour, and is equal with him, because she is the only man ever to live sinless, besides Christ.�
There is a thread, �Sin offering�, that has a couple of helpful links to this topic. I thought we already discussed the fact that Mary DID need a savior. Just like I�ve been saved from the sin of taking drugs, but have not yet done so. So too, Mary was preserved from sin, before she was born. She still was saved and needed a Savior, but she didn�t sin.
"� If we compare scripture with scripture, the Spirit of Truth will show us the answer.� This is a lie that you have been taught." - then why read it at all, if the Spirit can't show us truth from it?�
Actually it is true that one should NOT read the Bible at all with the intent of finding truth ON THEIR OWN. This is what we call individual interpretation! And the fruit of individual interpretation has been the massive division amongst all Christians and the erroneous belief that Rome is Babylon, Mary was a sinner, the Pope is the Anti-Christ, some don�t even think Jesus was God!, etc., etc.. We should read the Bible only when we have a strong foot hold one what the truth really is! And it is the Catholic Church with the apostolic tradition that can teach us the Truth! They know the ONE INTERPRETATION of Scripture that the Apostles had! That is how it was for the Apostles. They had PREACHED the truth to all the Churches before all the Churches had Scripture! And just like the Eunuch that Philip taught, he couldn�t read without someone there to teach him! What makes us different from the Eunuch?
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 31, 2002.

Tim; as you seem to have endless time to whip up new arguments and you stack them five-high in every post of yours, you're out- pacing me. But not with real substance, Tim. Only with buzzing and confused thoughts.
No, you're wrong here--- > ''Apparently you have so much knowledge and spiritual leadership that any one that uses only the scripture and doesn't believe in the Catholic church is clearly a heretic and worthy of death. Oh ye Pharisee...''
It isn't a dislike of anyone. I have a strong attachment to the truth, and you fail to see the truth. Pharisee? I hope not. I haven't been hypocritical; every point I've made was honest and direct, without subterfuge. I also stated I think you are as if ''innocent'' by reason of invincible ignorance. And I said I would surely pray for you. I counselled you in the most friendly way I can, to pray fervently to Our Lord for light; that you could discern His divine Will. Is all that a Pharisee's way?
You aren't ''clearly a heretic deserving of death'', either. Tim, you are a wayward lamb. Christ is searching for you in the wilderness; you went off from the fold of the Good Shepherd. How do I know?
You followed after preachers of false doctrines. It's almost too easy to show you. If you are of anglo-saxon or any other European ancestry except non-caucasian, your own ancestors were faithful Catholics. That's a no-brainer, because all the population of western countries prior to 1500 was Catholic. Go back some generations and it will hit you in the face. That means your ancestors at some point in time left the original Church of the Holy Apostles. Likely under coercion, or for political reasons. The only other possibility is you could be descended from heretical ancestors, such as Albigensian, Huguenots (sp), etc.; some sect excommunicated from that Catholic past. But even there, following the family tree still further backward, you will come to more faithful Catholics in your own family. You may well be descended from Crusaders, even martyrs to the faith. I know I am.
It won't matter to you, maybe. But it might make you think: Why am I no longer a Catholic? Were my ancestors living in ''Babylon'', and I've never known till now?
You were separated from Peter's lambs, Tim. --Recall Our Lord asking Peter three times, ''Do you love me?'' and after each YES LORD, saying to him: "Feed my lambs.'' (John 21, :15-:17.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Good evening Gentlemen:
Tim, I wonder if you have heard of the New Oxford translation that is just hot off the presses? Apparently, it has scoured the Bible of references to homosexuality -- completely rewriting those scripture passages! And as you know, "Oxford" is a well-known publisher, very well-reputed. Their latest endeavor will probably sell like hotcakes!
That's what happens -- anyone can, now, translate the Bible however they see fit! Perhaps that's why the church throughout the centuries were ZEALOUS in keeping translations under their tight control!
If the KJV you use now does not have the apochrypha, then it is missing 7 books that were in the ORIGINAL KJV printing!
There's always two sides,
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2002.

Eugene
"The word was with God? Yes, His Word, the eternal Son. But not the books of the Bible, dear Tim. We aren't supposed to adore a book; even though God's Word can be preserved in print. Your subjective understanding of God's Word isn't sacred or inerrant. You can and do misinterpret the Bible and adore it along with your faulty understanding. That's idolatry, because God's Word must be above reproach; absolutely inerrant. No other version is holy."
Do you believe that the Bible is the Words of God?
Do you believe God can and did preserve his Words, in scripture form?
Idolatry? Must I mention the kissing of statues, etc...
Remember at the Mt. of transfiguration and God spoke from heaven, what did they say that was there? "We have a more sure word..." A more sure word than God speaking?
I don't worship my book, which contains the scripture...I take the scripture to be the inerrant Word of God. How can all 'versions' be holy, if they are not 'exactly' the same?
Is the Catholic Bible inerrant? If you say yes, then you fall into the same category you same I am. If you say no, then you leave open the idea that the Church maybe teaching falsehoods.
"The Holy Bible is only as holy as its interpreters;" - then you equal the Words of God to a man, and that is blasphamy!!! May God have mercy on you for believing that his Word is only as good as the man that interprets it. The Spirit interprets it...
"I have the Magisterium of Christ's Church as the authority for my interpretation"<\b> - a group of men that do not need the Spirit of God, because the Catholic bible is only as inerrant as these men have interpreted it to be....What a shame you believe this...
-------------
Jake
"And if Elijah was assumed, why not Mary. It doesn�t say in Scripture that she wasn�t assumed into heaven either." - it also doesn't tell us that Joseph wasn't assumed - maybe he was too. Why not? By your teaching it is possible...
"I hope you realize. In fact, the KJV wasn�t bound until the 1500�s. Whereas, a Catholic Bible (any one) has the same exact text it did when it was bound in the year 400!" - the KJV was 1611. The Catholic Bible was printed in English in 400? True, some English versions were printed before that, but they were a not a translation into English, but a word for word Greek to English written, from one document - probably corrupt. And the men were persecuted and killed by the Catholic Church...Not bashing, just the history I have read.
"Ask your pastor where he got his ideas about. At the very best he will say Luther! Ask a Catholic (one that knows the faith anyway) and they will give you a long list of Popes who ALL taught the very same interpretation of Scripture all the way to Peter!" - why do you admit that the Catholic ideas come from man...they should come from God and his Word, that better be what my pastor says.
But this �belief� in what �God shows [me]� is erroneous! - but this is exactly what you are saying the Pope does...Then you trust the Pope, because God isn't going to show you anything?...
Who gave your Pastor authority to teach? - God.
Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
1ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
2pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Pastor is pural meaning more than more, but I fail to see in the scripture where Christ gave us 1 Pope to rule over the Church...
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
1co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Yet you believe that God would �build� his Bible on a man, �which sins, and is unable to obtain perfection her on earth, and is capable of being misled�. The Bible was written by men. Yes they were inspired by God, but they were men. This is how we believe that God established His Church; on men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit!
God did not build his Bible on man, but used man to give the Word. God did not build the Chruch on man, but uses man to build the church by bringing in his children - not being the foundation.
Jesus said, �the gates of Hell will not prevail against [my Church]�. So why is it that you don�t believe that there is One True Church in existence, if Christ himself said it wouldn�t be destroyed? - I believe this to be the spiritual church of made of the souls of all the Believers that will be in heaven, not an earthly church (Catholic or Baptist) that is filled with both believers and unbelievers.
Mary was preserved from sin, before she was born. - wrong, she was born with the seed of man therefore having the sin passed down to all from Adam...There is no way you can prove that case using any verse in the bible! She was a sinner and sinned! I believe she was a Christian and is in Heaven now, but never was sinless - but now is because she is in Heaven.
Actually it is true that one should NOT read the Bible at all with the intent of finding truth ON THEIR OWN. - then why are we told to "Study" - 2 Tim 2:15? "All scripture is given for..."?
How is it that all the apostles were teaching, yet a lot of the churches (like the Protestant ones you keep recalling) were not exactly right???? Were they Catholic churches or Protestant churches?
--------
Eugene
I admit, I have never been a history buff - and indeed this has hindered me. I am recently started reading more, and have some books on the way about history of the bibles...this should help me. I should have been reading all alone, but haven't. That is my fault. What is the Catholic Bible? Name I mean? Like the KJV, what is the Catholic one called if I were going to buy one to look at it?

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

Gail
"If the KJV you use now does not have the apochrypha, then it is missing 7 books that were in the ORIGINAL KJV printing!"
Okay, in 1611 when the KJV was printed the apochrypha was in the middle of the bible, not connected with the old or new testament.
The Hebrew Scriptures are broken down into 3 groups:
1. Law
2. Prophets
3. Psalms
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Where is the apochrypha?...
I think I heard a little of the new bible, but not much. Doesn't matter - I'll stick with the KJV.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

Tim, you said:
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
THERE'S NO MENTION OF THE NT IN THIS PASSAGE, Tim! Why does your Bible have the NT and Jesus says NOTHING about a NT -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! (Ha! -- I got you BIG TIME on this one!)
But nevertheless I do love KJ! You can get the KJV with the apocrypha printed just like it was in the 1600's! I ordered one last year. It's a beautiful small, calfskin leather, with India paper. It's printed by Cambridge (just in case you're interested). The Wisdom books of the apochrypha are literarily exquisite and promote holiness and love for God -- which we all want!
Love,
Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 31, 2002.

Tim,
You're falling back on sophistry. Your attempt to pin a blasphemy on others betrays the weakness of your position. You're perfectly aware I would never blaspheme against the Word of God.
I'm only saying an erroneous interpretation defeats the purpose of God's Word; making it false. That way, you are who determines the power of God's Word, not the Holy Spirit. It goes over your head. That's my context. You have all the typical false info so many anticatholic ''scholars'' and ministers have gleaned. To you reading the bible can become a snare. Therefore, you render it ''not so holy.'' But by trusting in the Church of Christ and the apostles, we only interpret exactly that which the Holy Spirit renders infallible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Gail,
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
------- KJV
I have a 1611 Edition KJV by Thomas Nelson Publishers... the thing that gets me is the Roman Numberals...ha
-----------------------
Eugene
You believe:
If the Chruch says it, that settles it...
Then we can go no further...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

Gail
Let me make myself clear about the Roman Numberals...
I meant that they are hard to follow, because I am sure not used to using V X and such...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 31, 2002.

Dear Tim:
Correction: ''The Church of Jesus Christ and His apostles says it. I believe it, that settles it.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.

Hi, Gail.
I strongly encourage you (and all other Christians) to avoid referring to the seven books that are missing from most Protestant Bibles as "apocrypha."
That word was wrongly assigned to those books by 16th-century Protestants. The word "apocryphal" has a very bad connotation in the English language -- meaning "false" or "appearing to be what it really is not" (i.e., inspired by God, in this case). Since the seven books are most assuredly inspired by God, they certainly should not have the disrespectful term "apocrypha" applied to them. We should never strengthen the hand of Protestant proselytizers like Tim by calling the books by that name.
The actual "apocryphal books" are a different set of writings entirely. They are books that purported to by inspired, but were not placed on the Old or New Testament canons by the Catholic bishops and popes of the early first millennium (e.g., 3 and 4 Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas).
My congratulations to you, Gene, and Jake for your admirable defense of the truth on this thread. Tim has his head cluttered with an almost incredible multitude of wrong ideas -- but the three of you are teaching him well. Little by little, your corrections and the grace of the Holy Spirit are helping him to see that he is living in a house of cards. The floor boards are creaking badly, signalling an imminent collapse.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 01, 2002.

�Do you believe that the Bible is the Words of God? Do you believe God can and did preserve his Words, in scripture form? Idolatry? Must I mention the kissing of statues, etc...�
I think that Eugene�s point was the emphasis you put on the actual Paper and ink. Anyone can read what is on paper in ink, but the Word of God is LIVING and not merely the words (lower case).
And there are plenty of scriptural references to statues (The Lords House build by King Solomon had statues, the Lord commanded Moses to make a bronze serpent, the Ark of the Covenant had Statues and imagery on it�) and reverence for creation. Idolatry is the placing of a created object (Paper and ink for instance) above or at the level of God.
I don�t necessarily think that you idolize your Bible, per se. But Eugene�s point (and he will correct me if I�m wrong) is that you place so much emphasis on the paper and ink, rather than the one true interpretation that is and was taught.
�Remember at the Mt. of transfiguration and God spoke from heaven, what did they say that was there? "We have a more sure word..." A more sure word than God speaking?
I don't worship my book, which contains the scripture...I take the scripture to be the inerrant Word of God. How can all 'versions' be holy, if they are not 'exactly' the same?�
They can�t all be holy if they are not exactly the same. When I say exactly, I mean in context. Example: The sky is pale blue, and the sky is light blue mean the same thing. But the KJV that you hold has completely removed several books! Only one �version� can by Holy and True, because the Truth is singular!
�Is the Catholic Bible inerrant?�
Yes, because after it�s compilation in the year 400, several counsels have since confirmed its authenticity up till the present day. Whereas the KJV has never been confirmed and has only been in existence for a little under 400 years!
�If you say yes, then you fall into the same category you same I am.�
That is not true, Tim. The category you are in is that your translation is only 400 years old, its missing several books, and several books are mistranslated to fit Protestant doctrine � which came into existence only 500 years ago. The category we are in is that our Bible was first created in the year 400, that is over 1600 years earlier. Though it has undergone translations into English and several other languages it still holds all the Books and all the equivalent passages that the Protestants have tainted.
� If you say no, then you leave open the idea that the Church maybe teaching falsehoods.�
That is just it, Tim! The Catholic Bible is the inerrant copy that you fail to understand exists. Your KJV is an errant copy that was translated by heretics. What makes your copy different from ours is that we have the history to show ours was the first one!
Please answer this one question: Do you think the text (The Inerrant Word of God) in your Bible is the same as it was for the early Church in the year 600, or 700, or even 1400? IT IS NOT! Please Tim, why is it that you think the KJV is the inerrant Word of God, when it is missing several books, and parts of the remaining books were altered? Do the research, Tim. Don�t take our word for it.
"And if Elijah was assumed, why not Mary. It doesn�t say in Scripture that she wasn�t assumed into heaven either." - it also doesn't tell us that Joseph wasn't assumed - maybe he was too. Why not? By your teaching it is possible...�
You�re right Tim to an extent. Because the Bible says Elijah was assumed, we know it to be true. Since we can gather from Scripture and Church tradition that Mary was sinless, we know that her Body was Pure and therefore fit to go into heaven. Joseph, however, although he was holy, was not without sin. Therefore, whereas with Mary we know that her body was pure and fit to go into the presence of God, we cannot make the same statement about Joseph.

�"I hope you realize. In fact, the KJV wasn�t bound until the 1500�s. Whereas, a Catholic Bible (any one) has the same exact text it did when it was bound in the year 400!" - the KJV was 1611.�
That supports my point even more. Why do you think that the �complete Word of God� as you have it in the KJV didn�t exist, at least in the �complete form�, until the 1600�s. Your Bible IS NOT the same as the earlier English Bibles!
�The Catholic Bible was printed in English in 400?�
No, but the translations that were made later into different languages contained the same 73 Books and all the same equivalent text that was in the original Bible in teh year 400. We know this to be true because several counsels since the 400�s have confirmed the authenticity of the Catholic Bible.
�True, some English versions were printed before that, but they were a not a translation into English, but a word for word Greek to English written, from one document - probably corrupt. And the men were persecuted and killed by the Catholic Church...Not bashing, just the history I have read.�
Let�s clear this up. The Catholic Church has never promoted killing anyone. On the contrary the Catholic Church has been a huge promoter of LIFE. However, early history shows that the Church and the State were one and the same, or very close. The Catholic Church teaches that all authority is given from God, and this is true. But a select few Kings and temporal authorities have taken advantage of this God given authority. Any one who kills in the name of Catholicism is a heretic! Therefore, the Catholic Church has never had anyone killed. It were those inside the Church who took the name of the Lord in vain and proclaimed to kill in the name of good.
�"Ask your pastor where he got his ideas about. At the very best he will say Luther! Ask a Catholic (one that knows the faith anyway) and they will give you a long list of Popes who ALL taught the very same interpretation of Scripture all the way to Peter!" - why do you admit that the Catholic ideas come from man...they should come from God and his Word,��
They do, because God gave his word to the first Apostles, and so the teachings of all the Popes are from God himself, being passed down from those original 11 that were with Jesus.�
�that better be what my pastor says.�
But your pastor can only claim this on his OWN authority! He has no other successor to back up his teachings. And if he does have a successor, he or she cannot go beyond the 1500�s because then you�re running into Apostolic succession found in the Catholic Church. I guess that is what I originally should have made clear. We got our �ideas� from the list of Popes, who got their �ideas� from Jesus! You pastor can only self proclaim his �ideas� coming from God.
Does that really sound like it is from God? Would God allow anyone to be able to self proclaim, in His name, authority to teach? Would you believe me if I told you that last night God told me to tell you that you should become a Catholic? No! Yet you believe that your pastor was selected by God, based on your pastors word, to teach you. This is erroneous! Jesus Selected His Apostles and said, �as the Father has sent me, so I send you.� His Apostles selected Apostles and so on until the present day!
�But this �belief� in what �God shows [me]� is erroneous! - but this is exactly what you are saying the Pope does��
Not exactly. The Pope doesn�t self proclaim his authority from God. The Pope was selected by the Apostles of Christ, who selected them and appointed them.
�Then you trust the Pope, because God isn't going to show you anything?...�
God shows us what we need to know, but it will never be contrary to those teachings He gave to His Apostles, who have passed down these very same teaching till now.

�Who gave your Pastor authority to teach? - God.�

So than any infant in the faith can come up and teach and say that God gave him the authority? This is obserd, Tim, to say the least! How can he prove to you that God gave him the authority? Catholic priests, deacons, etc. CAN prove it, because it is Scriptural and those Apostles which the Apostles of God chose became there successors. And those Apostles chose their Apostles. Jesus himself handpicked our earliest Priests, and commissioned them to do as he had done. Does your pastor claim to have been selected by God through his own authority, or could he show you how exactly he, as apposed to Joe Shmow of the street, has authority? Can he show you that he is a successor of Peter, without self proclamation? None of our Priests profess themselves to be priests! They are fist trained in the infallible teachings of the Church, the Scripture, and in the Sacred Traditions passed down. Then the Bishops � those who have succeeded the Apostles, proclaim them to be priests.

Don�t you see, Tim? Would God leave us so blind and abandoned. Why can�t you become a Pastor? Because you don�t �feel� called. But that�s just silly, because any heretic or looney can claim to have been called (like your Pastor � not saying he�s a looney) to be a pastor, and then teach falsities. And that is what has happened! (30,000 sects, Tim).
�Ro 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 1ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. �
That is right, Paul was an Apostle, selected by Jesus and confirmed among the other original Apostles. Your pastor can claim to have been selected by God, but he was not confirmed among the Apostles of Christ, which are the Catholic Priests and Bishops.
�2pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;��

It was different, because he was a Prophet of God, not merely a self proclaimed person who God spoke to. Others could confirm his authority given by God. Can others confirm your pastors authority? Can anyone confirm the authority of the 30,000 + pastors of all the denominations? Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; �
The question to ask here is, �Who is the he that they are talking about�. The he St. Paul is referring to is Christ Himself. Christ appointed the Apostles and prophets and evangelists and pastors and teacher! They weren�t self proclaimed pastors, like your�s!
�Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: �
But the Pastors conceived during the Reformation have only served to destroy the body of Christ, and this is visible through the fruit of the reformation. That is, the thousands of slits in the Church!
�Pastor is pural meaning more than more, but I fail to see in the scripture where Christ gave us 1 Pope to rule over the Church... Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.�
He is talking about the household here, and not about the Church. From this logic, then, all husbands should be head of the Church? Nah�
�1co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. �
This is true! Christ is the head of every man, which includes the Pope. Find me the Catholic teaching where it said that the head of every man is the Pope? We don�t teach this. The Pope is the head of Christ�s Church on earth!
You didn�t include the Passage, �You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.�
Not to that Peter is virtually the only one who speaks for the Apostles! Who do the people say that I am? Peter answered� Who do you say that I am? Peter answered? Peter, feed my sheep� Acts 4: But Peter, taking his stand with (19) the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 "For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, (20) for it is only the [2] third hour of the day;� Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, (50) what shall we do?" 38 Peter said to them, "(51) Repent� It is clear that Peter is the head of the Church. He speaks for the Apostles!
�Yet you believe that God would �build� his Bible on a man, �which sins, and is unable to obtain perfection her on earth, and is capable of being misled�. The Bible was written by men. Yes they were inspired by God, but they were men. This is how we believe that God established His Church; on men, but inspired by the Holy Spirit! God did not build his Bible on man, but used man to give the Word. God did not build the Chruch on man, but uses man to build the church by bringing in his children - not being the foundation.�
Jesus said, �you are Peter and upon this Rock I will BUILD my Church�. God did build the Church on man! And he uses man to continue to build the Church by bringing in his childrent.
�Jesus said, �the gates of Hell will not prevail against [my Church]�. So why is it that you don�t believe that there is One True Church in existence, if Christ himself said it wouldn�t be destroyed? - I believe this to be the spiritual church of made of the souls of all the Believers that will be in heaven, not an earthly church (Catholic or Baptist) that is filled with both believers and unbelievers.�
Then what exactly do you believe Jesus was talking about with Peter. There must be one earthly Church which teaches the One Truth that Christ gave to his Apostles. It is The Catholic Church. The Spiritual Church you talk about is a part of the Catholic Church! Christ extended His Church to the earth, and thus we have the Catholic Church on earth. Would Christ want such confusion? Several thousand different teachings? Your �belief� that Christ did not establish and earthly Church to guide his people doesn�t match with what the Apostles taught, or what the early Church was! Look into history! Would so many people up until the 1500�s believe that Christ really meant an earthly Church? Are they all wrong, and you right?
�Mary was preserved from sin, before she was born. - wrong, she was born with the seed of man therefore having the sin passed down to all from Adam...There is no way you can prove that case using any verse in the bible! She was a sinner and sinned! I believe she was a Christian and is in Heaven now, but never was sinless - but now is because she is in Heaven.�
Would you say these things in front of Christ? Are you so sure that she was a sinner, that you would risk offending God Almighty? I�m not an angry person, but you should not talk this way about the Mother of Our Lord! She was not a sinner, and neither can you prove from scripture that she was! You think that Jesus didn�t have the Power to save Mary from sin prior to her birth? You believe Jesus to be God, yet you deny that God has the authority and Power to supercede time. Christ�s death WAS for Mary, but that she would be preserved at conception from sin. Had Mary not given birth to Jesus, Jesus would not have become man, suffered, and died! Therefore, the death that Jesus suffered for us was suffered for Mary prior to her conception. In other words, Mary�s conception was sinless due to the fact that her Son would Die for Her. I would encourage you to read some Catholic Teachings on Mary, found everywhere near you, and you will begin to see how this all makes perfect sense and in no way contradicts Scripture.
�Actually it is true that one should NOT read the Bible at all with the intent of finding truth ON THEIR OWN. - then why are we told to "Study" - 2 Tim 2:15? "All scripture is given for..."? � Actually it was 2 Tim 3:16, but I would suggest reading the entire passage starting with 2 Tim 3 (Three):15 -16: 15 and that (42) from childhood you have known (43) the sacred writings which are able to (44) give you the wisdom that leads to (45) salvation through faith which is in (46) Christ Jesus. 16 (47) All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ��
From Childhood! Did children in those days know how to read Scripture? NO! It was taught to them.
Therefore this passage isn�t referring to the Bible itself teaching someone, by them reading it by themselves. This passage is telling us that for those Apostles of Christ, for those teachers selected by Christ or his Apostles, the Scriptures are to be used as training material! That is, the Apostles would use the Scripture to teach others! It wasn�t the written Scripture itself that taught, but those Apostles, which used the Scripture to teach. Therefore, still, only those selected by Jesus or by the succession and approval of those Apostles were the ones who were to teach. And they were to teach using Scripture, which is profitable for training in the faith. But it doesn�t tell the Apostles to ONLY use the Scripture, simply that the Scriptures are profitable to use for training.
�How is it that all the apostles were teaching, yet a lot of the churches (like the Protestant ones you keep recalling) were not exactly right???? Were they Catholic churches or Protestant churches?�
Catholic churches (as apposed to the Catholic Church, which embodies the Faith of Catholics) can be mislead or in error � like that of Corinthia or Thesolonica . But they are still under the authority of the Bishops (the Apostles) and are to be corrected accordingly, like Paul did to those churches. The Protestant churches on the other hand have completely separated themselves from the Apostles of Christ (the Bishops) and have trashed several of the age-ole doctrines of the original Apostolic faith. Example: The Body and Blood of Christ, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Tradition, and Church authority. Therefore, while some Catholic Churches need reproof, they are under the guidance of the Bishops and can be corrected, like that of the Corinthians. Whereas, the Protestants have separated themselves to the extent that any reproof of corrections offered by the Bishops is rejected. Let me know when your pastor is corrected by anyone, okay? He will never allow himself to be corrected (he might, but it is on his own authority that he allows himself to be corrected), because as you mentioned he believes that he was divinely selected to teach. Any correction offered to him, is subject to his interpretation. For instance, if you go to him and express the fact that he is teaching in error about the Body and Blood of Christ, then it is left to his discretion to either accept or reject your reproof. In other words, only when he himself feels as though he himself had made and error will he correct himself. But when a Catholic Priest of layperson makes an error, they are not the authority of their own. A Bishop (like Paul) must correct them, and show them why and how they are wrong, and what the Church has always taught.
Tim, your question was asked to Eugene, but I will respond as well. I currently use the New American Standard Bible, but you will find that all Catholic Bibles are the same. Some are translated word for word � which makes it harder to read but still maintains the correct point. Others are translated to more colloquial verbiage as to allow one to read more smoothly, yet still presents the intent of the Apostles. You will also find footnotes and helpful hints in these Bibles, which cross-reference history and other passages to lead you to a more solid understanding of what the Apostles or Prophets wanted to convey.
And to follow up with John: I have been reading a history on the origin of the Bible, and I will confirm that the 7 missing books are wrongly called apocrypha. The Protestants wrongly grouped these books with the earlier (correctly called) apocrypha. But who were they 1000 years later to say that other books of the Bible were not inspired. Hey maybe I should toss a few books out and start my own cult. It will be called Jakeians. What do you think? Am I not as capable as Luther to determine which books are inspired or not. The same 73 books that were compiled in 400, were later confirmed by several other counsels up till now! Those 73 books are inspired! Not just the 73-7 = 66 books. Here are a few links for quick reference, Tim. LINK_1 LINK_2
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 01, 2002.

Woops! This "They are fist trained in the infallible teachings of the Church,..."
Should be "...FIRST trained..."
Doesn't sound to good eh. Fist trained? LOL. Spell check only goes so far.
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 01, 2002.

Thanks once again, Jake. You've produced here a labor of love. It has all the power of your convictions; I hope Tim won't ignore you.
We haven't failed to read his bruising arguments, distasteful as (I) we find them. But it's hard to weed out all the relevant ones from the smoke & mirrors he keeps posting. I wish I had your patience. For instance, you've gone to the trouble of researching the outstanding editions, and where the various Bibles have their origin. I'm content to reflect on my Bible as simply the approved Catholic version. It's what I need, I don't care what Tim thinks. You did go the extra mile, though.
Just as a concluding thought: Tim is anxious to show me how little I respect God's Word, because I said the Bible is only as holy as its interpreter. He called that blasphemy. The truth is, I love the Holy Bible. Just as you do, I stand for the reading of the gospels in Holy Mass. But even at home, where I keep 2 Catholic editions, the old Confraternity of Christian Doctrine edition which bears Cardinal Spellman's imprimatur of 1957--with the Douay version of the Old Testament; a Spanish language copy (very beautiful) translated from the Vulgate by the Society of Jesus.
These are treated in my house with the deepest respect. I never allow any other object or book to be placed on top of any Bible, (anywhere I may see one) or dropped just anywhere. Only a place of honor is proper for the holy book. When I've read it for even the briefest interval, I close it only after kissing the last page I read.
Not out of idolatry. My heart loves only the Word. The word as Christ's apostles passed it on, NOT as I interpret it. Because I'm not the Church.
In most non-Catholic churches, the same love is offered, I'm sure. Yet, with erroneous slants, misinterpretation and disregard for apostolic authority which some attach to the Word, they reduce our Bible to a substitute for the truth! It becomes for them merely an icon.
That was not the intention of the holy apostles, writing the gospels and epistles. When there's doubt or controversy about the proper meaning of any scripture, the Church is our only interpreter of the truth. God the Holy Spirit is dwelling in her as our Advocate and Comforter.
As you very well pointed out, Jake, with all the pretenders preaching error at large, the Holy Spirit is ignored. He is subjected to all the whims of self-ordained ministers and is prevented from correcting their error. He simply has no control over their churches. I'm glad you underscored that fact for Tim.
We must pray for these churches and individual believers congregated in them. That by grace they'll return to the guardian of the infallible Word, in Christ's True Church.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 01, 2002.

Eugene
"The word was with God? Yes, His Word, the eternal Son. But not the books of the Bible, dear Tim." - the Words of the Bible are the Words of God, and the Word, Jesus Christ, is the living Word. God isn't what He says? Why is he called the Word then?
"You can and do misinterpret the Bible and adore it along with your faulty understanding. That's idolatry, because God's Word must be above reproach; absolutely inerrant. No other version is holy." - So for me to trust God that He has indeed preserved his Words in a book call the Bible, King James Version, in English and believe that his spirit can show me the truth within it; this makes me an idolator - but for you to believe that you hold the inerrant bible, that God only speaks to the [Catholic] Church (which is made of individual men), that kissing statues of saints, Mary, and Christ (which no one knows what Christ looks like), wear crossez with and without Jesus around the neck, using the Rosary as a prayer tool, granting annulments (after God said let no one put apart what he has put together) - and I am the idolator???? Come on now, get the moat out of your eye, before the splinter out of mine.
Where I place the scripture as my final authority, you place the teachings of man...
"The Holy Bible is only as holy as its interpreters; and of the lot only Christ's Church has apostolic authority to support her interpretation." - so you believe that the Catholic Church (individual men) are as holy as God? If yes, then you make them equal with God - if no, then you make their interpretations vain, and not holy enough to be accurate.
Tell me, what do these verses mean?
1ti 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
"Because I have the Magisterium of Christ's Church as the authority for my interpretation, it isn't a free-lance job like yours." - Again, you choose to trust in man, and not in the Spirit to guide you into all truth.
Correction: ''The Church of Jesus Christ and His apostles says it. I believe it, that settles it.'' - so now you become the final authority. CORRECTION: The Truth is the Truth regardless who believes it or doesn't believe it.
------------
Jake
"But Eugene�s point (and he will correct me if I�m wrong) is that you place so much emphasis on the paper and ink, rather than the one true interpretation that is and was taught." The Words of God is true (the paper and ink as you call it - I do not worship the paper and ink, but I believe what is written is exactly what God wanted written) - the intrepretation is what the Holy Spirit gives us when we receive the understanding from him that the scriptures holds more meaning that the human mind will ever comprehend. We could never figure it all out - it is from the mind of God. That is why the Spirit has to lead us.
"But the KJV that you hold has completely removed several books!" - the only books "removed" were books that were never considered scripture anyway, and were put in the middle of the old and new testament. Why not add the Dead Sea Scrolls?
�Is the Catholic Bible inerrant?� Yes" - then that goes back to Eugene's point to me - "The Holy Bible is only as holy as its interpreters;" - so the Catholic's are inerrant? Perfect? Which ones, all of them, just the pope?
What language is your bible in? Hebrew, Greek?
"Since we can gather from Scripture and Church tradition that Mary was sinless, we know that her Body was Pure and therefore fit to go into heaven. Joseph, however, although he was holy, was not without sin." - From scripture - NO, from the Church tradition taught by men probably. Men are not equal to scripture! The Church traditions taught by men that are not contained in the scripture is worse than Eugene calling me a liar by me searching the scripture and allowing the Spirit of Truth to show me the Truth in scripture.
"We know this to be true because several counsels since the 400�s have confirmed the authenticity of the Catholic Bible. " - What are counsels? Are they made up of men? Then why is it any different that men believing that the KJV is inerrant?
You attack me, but have done the same thing that you claim makes me in error. Can't you see that?
"Let�s clear this up. The Catholic Church has never promoted killing anyone." - This is a lie, history proves it, and not just Anti-Catholic history...Study who brought the men before the Kings...Remember who brought Jesus before Pilot?
"Any one who kills in the name of Catholicism is a heretic!" - be careful claiming this statement till you know....
"so the teachings of all the Popes are from God himself," - it is never mentioned in the Bible once, that their will be one man over the entire church called a pope or anything - only Christ.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
"But your pastor can only claim this on his OWN authority! He has no other successor to back up his teachings." - we have Christ and the Spirit of Truth...
"Would you believe me if I told you that last night God told me to tell you that you should become a Catholic? No! Yet you believe that your pastor was selected by God, based on your pastors word, to teach you." - we are to try the spirits, to make sure they are of God - to put 100% faith in man, as you do in the Catholic Church, leaves God out of the picture. Why does he need to speak to you? He'll just tell the pope to tell you? No, if you are open to God, he will show YOU his will for your life.
"The Pope was selected by the Apostles of Christ, who selected them and appointed them." - not found in scripture.
Jesus indeed handpicked the 12, because they were given to him by God, reread it and see - and the only reason he picked Judas was so that the scriptures would be fulfilled. You say man picks priests and popes, this doesn't match up with Jesus picking. Jesus knows our heart, man doesn't.
"Would God leave us so blind and abandoned." - this is what you fail to understand. God has given us his Word (the scripture) and the Spirit of Truth to help us discern the difference between a real man of God and a fake. We make the wrong discission when we don't pray, read, and seek God with our whole heart, mind, and soul.
"Apostles of Christ, which are the Catholic Priests and Bishops" - Apostles had to be hand picked of God, they had to physically walk with Christ, and be taught of him for at least 3 years. Check out the Book! It's all in there. I doubt that any of the priests, bishops, or popes have seen Christ face to face - or been literally taught by him for 3 years...
"body of Christ" - Again, the Body of Christ is only Believers, therefore if can not mean the physcially, earthly Catholic Church. It is spiritual!
"From this logic, then, all husbands should be head of the Church?" - wrong, pay attention to the verse below:
Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
The husband is the head of his wife. Christ is the head of his Church.
The problem is where we put the pope between the man and Christ. You do that by saying God doesn't show individuals (man) the scriptures.
"It is clear that Peter is the head of the Church. He speaks for the Apostles!" - Christ also looks at Peter and says, Get thee behind me satan - so does that me he is also the anti-christ?
"Jesus said, �you are Peter and upon this Rock I will BUILD my Church�. God did build the Church on man!" - NO, you misread the verse by not taking the context.
Again:
Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
So, God built the Church on a man, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against man???? No, the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ, the Son of the living God.
"Would you say these things in front of Christ? Are you so sure that she was a sinner, that you would risk offending God Almighty?" - Yes! Because God can not lie, and he said:
Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
So is God a liar? You claim yes, if Mary wasn't a sinner. This verse leaves no "special" person.
I believe Mary was a rigtheous woman and God allowed her to have his Son here on Earth, but she was never sinnless...Why must she be sinnless? None of the other people that found grace in the eyes of the Lord were sinnless. David (a man after God's on heart) was an adulterous and murder. A sinnless Mary, would not have needed a Saviour:
Mr 2:17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
As concerning the Catholic bibles - "intent" is not the same as inerrant. If their is 1 difference in the bibles that the Catholics use, then either both contain errors, or one contain errors. They are not both inerrant. Impossible. To be inerrant it has to be - exactly - the way God wants it.
I appreciate your time and effort in giving me the understanding into the Catholic doctrine, but I still fail to see where it lines up with the scripture as you claim...Where I give scripture, you give teachings... You do seem to be very honest and do study your belief, it bothers me more to see the people (both Catholic and Protestant) that say they are this or that, but have no idea of what to believe...
God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 03, 2002.

Tim, You quoted "Ro 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;".
I believe when Paul wrote this, he was mainly referring to the Romans. But there are a couple of problems with your applying this to Mary.
1. First off, do you believe Jesus was both fully human and fully divine? Did He sin?
2. Second, what about those adults that are severly mentally handicapped. Enough so that they can not make a moral decision. Do they sin?
3. What about all the children under the age of reason? Have they sinned?

So you see, there were commonly known exceptions to the blanket statement "all have sinned". St. Paul did not need to specify these in his letter as they were well known and understood during his time. That being the three examples above and Mary.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 04, 2002.

Tim would like us to accept he ''follows'' the Holy Spirit as he kow-tows to sola scriptura, which denies the Spirit's instruction.How have you tried the spirit, and made sure you are in the truth? Tim, all you have is the blanket denial of any apostolic authority; the Church-- to support sola scriptura. Since it's an unscriptural way of interpreting the written Word, you cut yourself off from the Spirit's guidance. Nowhere in the Bible was it written you will follow exactly and ONLY that which is contained within it. If you know of a passage saying sola scriptura is the way of the Holy Spirit, show it, please.
You betray your insecurity by reliance on your own wisdom. Look at your false statement: ''to put 100% faith in man, as you do in the Catholic Church, leaves God out of the picture.''
Who puts 100% faith in man? You. Your faith is in yourself. Your faith in yourself equated all you interpret from the Bible as infallible! Your faith is in the ''reformers'' who entered the picture 1,400+ years AFTER the holy apostles; and dismantled the authority of Christ and His Church. These are mere men.
Your claim Christ's own Church is guided by men only is to make the Holy Spirit someone you can ignore. He is within the Catholic Church; men can't operate in his place. That's why the Church denounced heretical teachers; because they denied the Spirit's authority over the Church. Just as you do now, saying we place 100% faith in men. It's faith in the Holy Spirit, not men. He speaks through and for His Church. This is completely biblical and try as you might, you can't say it isn't. God never gave us sola scriptura. It's the teaching of MEN. Tim says, ''No, if you are open to God, he will show YOU his will for your life.'' But Tim isn't completely open to God. Tim rejects the authority of the Holy Spirit, in favor of his own wisdom. His ''knowledge'' of scripture.
Tim; would you tell me who ''Pilot'' is? I never heard of that one. Lol!
I haven't ignored the snide remarks about statues, the rosary, anullment-- but I won't waste my time rebutting such childish accusations. You may not accept these. Ask me if I care.
It's a sign of your insecurity you fall back on stock Catholic-bashing like that; which has been discredited for a hundred years by men of good will. You saw it in a bashing tract way back. You swallowed it to the corruption of your soul; a soul given to bigot's arguments and prejudice. This is your pathetic legacy from the age of demagogues in the ''revival tents.''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

Tim, here's a sample of your ''wisdom''; that same wisdom that guides you interpreting holy writ: ''I believe you have confused yourself. By your on words from above, are you to say that if the Church and the Scripture disagree we are to believe both??? What blasphemy! You even go so far as to say that "no one can throw what the Church teaches" - even if it disagrees with scripture. You hold too high a lust for Church and not enough for scripture. If the Church and the Scripture disagree if at the smallest level, the scripture remains True and the Church becomes a liar.''
You had a ''lust'' for calling faith lust, in that paragraph.'' Suppose I say yor ''lust'' is for casting out every Catholic belief simply to justify anticatholicism, and without regard for the truth? This is precisely the lust that drives you.
''If Church and scripture disagree???'' What about agree? You haven't produced a scriptural truth which Catholic faith denies. You've condemned what isn't in scripture as an emphatic statement; regarding it as false because it wasn't written. You thereby claim ONLY that which was written can be true; or sola scriptura as an appendage to the Bible. This is a false premise, false teaching, and never had any currency except among heretics!
''. . . the scripture remains True and the Church becomes a liar,'' you say. There's your lust once more, Tim. If you deny the Catholic Church, how is it you uphold the inerrancy of the Holy Bible? The scriptures are a work of the Holy Spirit which came down to us in that very Church. If you toss the Church, you toss her legacy, which is the Bible. Every bit as precious is her Tradition; stemming from the same sources as that Bible!
You won't find me denying any truth out of scripture. But you do. You won't follow the teachings of the apostles. Christ commissioned THEM, not Luther, not Henry VIII, not Calvin, or Wesley or Darcy, nor the queen of England. Not Jimmy Swaggart, not Oral Roberts, not Billy Sunday.
Those misguided men are YOUR teachers, all anticatholic. It is their version of the scriptures, your version, which you think ought to make the Church a liar. Not the Bible as the Spirit brings to light in Christ's Church, Tim.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

Glenn
You are corrupting the Word of God...
If Romans is only written to the Romans, then the entire Bible is not written to any of us... That means we have no law, therefore no sin????
Define sin: "a missing of the mark" - what is that? The missing of the perfection set forth by God. example: 10 commandments.
To be sinnless, one has to perform the entire law, and every command God has given (including doing all the good things) to perfection. The only man to ever do this was Jesus Christ.
1. First off, do you believe Jesus was both fully human and fully divine?
Yes
Did He sin?
No
God [Christ] did not come through the seed of Adam - every man and woman ever born came through the seed of Adam, therefore are a sinner. Remember in Ge 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
2. Second, what about those adults that are severly mentally handicapped. Enough so that they can not make a moral decision. Do they sin?
Are you limiting God to say that he can not work in the mind of a mental person inwhich he has created? I have seen many handicapped people that serve the Lord and worship him the best they can.
3. What about all the children under the age of reason? Have they sinned?
What is the age of reason? I do not find an age in the bible. If you wish to believe that there is an age of reason [I do not wish to argue either way], there is a difference of knowledge of sin and commiting sin. If you tell a baby [let's say 1 years old] not to throw their food, and they do so - that is a sin, because they are not obeying their parents. But, they don't really understand that they are sinning. So, it is a sin. If a man in a tribe across the world, that has never heard the gospel kills someone. Is it sin? Yes. I admit, that this question has crossed my mind and I have search for an answer for this, and children that die do to abortion and such. I pray that God would let them all into heaven, but I still believe the verses, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and "ye must be born again". We are all sinners, because of Adam, and we all need the blood of Jesus Christ.
So you see, there were commonly known exceptions to the blanket statement "all have sinned".
So, you have failed to convince me that there are exceptions to the "blanket statement". You apparently have been taught that, the Spirit will not contradict the scripture. All have sinned, regardless of how the Lord works with babies and mentally handicapped people. And Mary was neither a baby or mentally handicapped.
-------------- Eugene
How have you tried the spirit, and made sure you are in the truth?
I have to match up my beliefs and the teachings of others to the scripture. If they match the scripture they are correct, if they do not match the scripture they are wrong. I, myself, have had to change my views on some things I once believed, because as the Spirit showed me, they didn't line up with scripture teachings. I have never claimed to be perfect or have all of the answers. All of the answers are in scripture though.
Since it's an unscriptural way of interpreting the written Word, you cut yourself off from the Spirit's guidance.
The only way to cut yourself off from the Spirit's guidance is to ignore him and trust in man.
2ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Ga 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Da 10:21 But I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
Mt 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Lu 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Lu 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
scripture - 53 times in the KJV
Who puts 100% faith in man? You. Your faith is in yourself. Your faith in yourself equated all you interpret from the Bible as infallible!
You are incorrect. I do not put any faith in myself!
You put 100% trust that the Spirit of God will give the Catholic church all of the answers, not none to you? Who in the Catholic church gets the answers? 1 man, 2 men, how many? It is the scripture and the Holy Spirit which interprets itself.
I believe this:
2ti 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
2ti 1:14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.
1jo 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1jo 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Ephesians 2 ---
Your faith is in the ''reformers'' who entered the picture 1,400+ years AFTER the holy apostles; and dismantled the authority of Christ and His Church.
This is a lie, their have been Protestants before your so called 1400. Have you ever heard of Anabaptist?
Tim rejects the authority of the Holy Spirit, in favor of his own wisdom. His ''knowledge'' of scripture.
Incorrect, I reject the teachings of the Catholic Church, because they do not following the scripture. Anyone's 'knowledge' of the scripture.
Tim; would you tell me who ''Pilot'' is? - see, I have never claimed to be perfect...ha
It's a sign of your insecurity you fall back on stock Catholic- bashing like that;
The remarks I made were to show that, though you call me an idolator and curse me because I use only scripture, your beliefs you hold so dear are not contained anywhere in scripture. It is to show you that I try to judge things by scripture, and you choose the teachings of the Catholic church, regardless of the what the scripture teaches.
As for insecurity, I have none. I am saved by the blood of Jesus Christ because of the grace of God and I KNOW 100% I am bound for heaven.
1jo 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
1jo 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1jo 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Do you know 100% that if you were to die today that you will go directly to Heaven?
2co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
I pray you do. I really do. I'm not saying you don't know, I just hope you do. I wish everybody would get saved and know 100% they were going to Heaven.
Where does Christ every tell us to put our faith in the Church? We are to put our faith in Christ.
If you deny the Catholic Church, how is it you uphold the inerrancy of the Holy Bible? The scriptures are a work of the Holy Spirit which came down to us in that very Church.
Okay, Jesus Christ nor his apostles were a member of the or a Catholic Church ever! The inerrancy of the Bible is through the perfect will of God to give his children the pure Word of God. The scriptures are a work of the Holy Spirit which is given to the church of Christ, which is made of spiritual believers and not earthly buildings. Christ doesn't tell us to put faith in the church that he will make one man over.??? He tells us to trust in him, and that the Spirit of Truth will lead a saved man to the truth.
The foundations we choose is this.
I believe the scriptures are 100% true and hold all the Words of God to teach us and guide us to Him.
You believe the scriptures are 100% ture, but that the God only shows the Church the truth, therefore if we can't find the Chruch's teachings anywhere in the bible, it just means it is an addition to the bible.
But what do you do when they contradict???? They do.

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 05, 2002.

Tim, You missed my point. When St. Paul wrote those words, he and all the others at the time were aware of the exceptions since they were commonly known.
First, Jesus never sinned.
Second, a severely mentally handicapped person CAN NOT sin. In order to sin, you must CONCIOUSLY decide to do evil. Please do not try to blow off this statement like last time.
Third, can a 1 year old sin? Can a 2 year old sin? How about a 3 year old? Nowhere in the Bible are the words "age of reason", but again common sense and the Holy Spirit should tell you that there is some point when children purposely decide to do wrong.
Fourthly, it was also well known during that time that Mary never sinned either. So it was not necessary for St. Paul to specify her or the other three examples.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 06, 2002.

CONCIOUSLY = CONSCIOUSLY

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), November 06, 2002.

Dear Oliver: You collected many passages, but I've read them all many times. You still haven't learned from the Holy Spirit.
I said: --Since it's an unscriptural way of interpreting the written Word, (sola scriptura) you cut yourself off from the Spirit's guidance.
Here you said:
''The only way to cut yourself off from the Spirit's guidance is to ignore him and trust in man.'' --But Christ founded His Church and gave her His authority to teach men. You fail to interpret scripture under her guidance when you rely on sola scriptura. The Bible doesn't support sola scriptura, so it's unscriptural. Furthermore, you aren't trusting in men and ignoring the Spirit until you depart the Church! The Holy Spirit guides the Church.
After you leave the Church and her spiritual authority, you are trusting in man. That man is yourself, with no Holy Spirit! You exalt your own wisdom, as if YOU were privately tutored by the Holy Spirit. Your wisdom is the wisdom of men.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.

I'm very sorry-- I addressed you as Oliver. You're TIM. Dear Tim, look at the post above please. Dear Oliver-- you look too.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.

Glenn,
Tim might be confused to believe that by saying a 1 year old, or a handicapped person, cannot sin they don't need salvation.
Tim,
There are 2 types of sin. Actual sin, which is done with the persons knowledge of it's being a sin; and original sin, that original stain that Adam and Eve left us with, which seperates us to an extent from God. Handicapped persons, and young children cannot commit actual sin because they have no idea about the "Law". However, these same people do have original sin, which is the tendancy to act outside the Will of God.
Paul was speaking of actual sin, which Mary or a handicapped person or young children were the exception to.
Mary had neither actual or original sin because of the perfect enmity that he placed between satan, and Mary and Jesus.
In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 06, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ