Okay, so I couldn't stay away... :)

I have been back a few times to the forum, but have reframed from posting. If I didn't believe in my heart what I believe, then I guess it wouldn't bother me. Of course, I realize that where I believe the doctrines of the Catholic Church are not correct, most here would say the same for my beliefs. I understand. We all believe that we hold the truth, because if we didn't, then why should we believe what we believe? Agreed? Why should one be a Catholic if they don't believe it is the truth, as why should one be a Baptist if they do not believe it is the truth? That would be hypocrisy for sure, and there would be no honor in that! So even through debates, the Truth is made known...

I did not give my "Farewell Address" because I was mad, but that I was spending too much time, when I needed to spend it elsewhere. However, I feel it necessary, not to give up totally talking with you here [if for nothing else, my own spiritual walk]. So, when I am able to write, I will do so - I just want to let you know that if you reply to one of my post, it may take a while for me to reply. Don't think that I am just not responding or avoiding the subject.

Okay, now that I have said all of that blah, blah, blah, I believe Jake is owed the first response...

Jake - Let's begin, [coming from Tim.Continuing]

1. "in reality the Scripture is BY the teachings of man."

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.

Scripture was not by man, but by the Holy Ghost moved man to write exactly what God wanted written.

2. "Do you have a hard time believing that God could inspire someone today?"

No, I believe that God inspires man by the reading, preaching, and teaching of the Scriptures. But, I do not believe that He gives man or men an "insight" to teachings [or additions] that are not covered in Scripture. I believe God has put in the Scriptures all there is necessary for us to know and do.

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures to test what Paul was preaching. If it doesn't line up with Scripture, it is wrong.

3. "The Catholic Church is the Living Body of Christ which is expressed through the FAITH, not men! The men make up the Body, but they do not control the Body. Just as those men who wrote and compiled the Bible were not acting on their own, but under the influence of the Holy Spirit; so too is the Catholic faith taught by men who are not acting on their own, but by the Power of the Spirit!"

The men that wrote the Bible, were individually inspired [moved] by the Holy Ghost to write exactly what God wanted written in the Bible [2 Peter 1:21]. With the Catholic Church, who does the Holy Ghost move to teach them? You keep say that it isn't one man, but the entire body. So, the Holy Ghost moves on every member at the same time to let them know a teaching that is true, but may not be recorded in the Bible? Who does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to? You say that "men make up the Body, but do not control the Body", but yet you believe what ever they say is gospel? Whether it is in the Bible or not, whether the Holy Ghost has revealed it to you or not.

4. "The Catholic Church doesn't "forbid" anyone to marry!"

Okay, so it is only a requirement for a priest. Why?

5. "And abstaining from meat is simply fasting!"

Okay - this verse [1 Timothy 4:3] was thrown in with hast, and I apologize. And with it, I deserved the reply you gave.

"Tim, do you (or your pastor) read the Scripture for its wonderful fruit? Or do you simply read it in order to find sentences (out of context) that seemingly run contrary to the Catholic Faith?"

I indeed search and read the Scripture for the Spirit to show me the Truth, and not to just search for reasons to lash out against other religions. It properly appeared that way with my statment. Sorry.

6. "Because I have the Magisterium of Christ's Church as the authority for my interpretation, it isn't a free-lance job like yours."

As stated above, you believe [according to this] that the Spirit can lead the Church to the Truth [which is made of individual men, but haven't told me who gets the Spirit's words], but can not lead individuals into the Truth. We contrast in that you trust that the Spirit has given the Catholic Church the correct interpretation, therefore you take it but trust - whereas I trust, if I am faithful and ask God to show me the Truth, the Spirit will show it to me [individually].

1pe 1:9-12 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

The Spirit of God testified to the Old Testament writers of the sufferings and glory of Christ, the Spirit reveals it unto us by those who preach the gospel. What is the gospel? Where does it come from?

1co 15:1-4 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

7. "If all Protestant sects believe that they have the "correct" interpretation, because they think that they understand the Scripture, then how is it that they all have DIFFERENT interpretations? Obviously the Spirit of Truth is not divided!"

Very good question, and true that the Spirit of Truth is not divided - He lines up with Scripture everytime, it is man that falls short.

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.

Ps 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

What do you mean all Protestants have "DIFFERENT interpretations"? You are grouping too many together. That is like saying all Americans opinions or all Louisiana's opinions. Divide the groups into:

A. Ones who don't use the Bible.

B. Ones who use the Bible - plus something else.

C. Ones who use only the Bible and nothing else - What are the major differences of this group? usually minor things.

Again, if what a Protestant says doesn't line up with scripture - God is True and they are a liar!

And, why is it that because something comes up "anti-Catholic" that it is always wrong, but the Catholic Church is always right? Admit it - it is because you "choose" to believe that the Catholic Church is always right. Whether you can find it in written Scripture or not. When the Catholic Church teaches something that is not found in Scripture, it is always said that it was past down through tradition or such... Where is the proof that the tradition came from Christ or God?

What does the Bible say about tradition?

Mt 15:2-3 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

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

But, remember in Acts 17:11? "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

So, Godly traditions should be found in scripture, and not just the teachings of men.

God puts His Word over His Name, so I know He puts it above traditions:

Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

8. "Tim, show me how these seven (7) books were never considered Scripture!"

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html -- according this site, the Catholic Church excluded "the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh" - why those?

I tried to read at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm, but it sounded like Greek to me...ha!

9. ""Is the Catholic Bible inerrant?" Yes. -- The Catholic Bible is inerrant because it contains all the original 73 books, and they are all translated to reflect what REALLY was written in the ancient languages."

What does inerrant mean? incapable of making a mistake, containing no mistakes.

A Bible can not be considered inerrant just because it has the "original 73 books".

So, you believe "they are all translated to refect what REALLY was written in the ancient languages." Okay. Does is every Catholic Bible exactly the same? Word-for-Word? Then either the Bible in the 4th century is inerrant, or the modern Bibles are inerrant, or neither are inerrant. Unless all the modern Catholic Bibles are EXACTLY WORD-FOR-WORD, you can not claim that they are all inerrant. If you say only the one in the 4th century, then all the modern ones are corrupt?

10. "Is the Birth of Jesus, God made Man, not Scriptural enough for you. The Perfect and ever living God came forth from an untainted womb. And the enmity between Mary (the woman) and her offspring (Jesus) and the serpent cannot go unnoticed!"

Enmity = enmity, hatred [Strong's Hebrew & Greek], the extreme ill will or hatred that exists between enemies [Encarta.com]

So, by definition, the verse could be read as follows:

Ge 3:15 And I will put [hatred] between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is nothing to do with Mary and Christ being sinnless. The most you could pull from "enmity" is that God would be a hatred in Marry and Christ has against Satan. I believe that she hated the Devil, because she was a righteous woman, but it doesn't proved she was sinnless.

11. "How can Mary take part in defeating the serpent, if she has cooperated with him through sin?"

She defeats the serpent as all Christians do, through the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

Ro 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

Ephesisians 6 - The Whole Armour of God.

12. [Men are not equal to scripture] "What! But was it not inspired MEN who wrote the Scripture? Why do you lack trust in the Holy Power of God to inspire men now, when he did in order to write the Scripture. Is God not Powerful enough NOW to inpsire men to teach"

See # 1 and # 2

God puts His Word over His Name, so it is ABOVE man:

Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

13. "The Catholic Bible is the same translation as the original, with all 73 Sacred Books! The Protestant Bible is errant because it lacks these 73 books plus some of the remaining books are tampered with."

See # 9

14. "The Catholic Fatih proclaims Life, the Gospel of Life. If anyone teaches against the faith, in the name of faith, has disowned their faith!"

Are you saying that all the Catholics [regardless how high they were] are non-Catholics because they killed people for reading the Bible in English, learning Scripture, and for just not being Catholic?

15. "Is Trinity ever mentioned in Scripture, Tim?"

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

16. "The Leadership of Peter was apparent through Scripture."

Where, you have 1 verse?

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.

17. "The hierarchy of the Church became known through the Acts of the Apostles, through the Letters of Paul, and also have been passed down from the Traditions of the Church since the beginning!"

Paul mentions what the church is made of, and does not include Popes or Priest?

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

1co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Where do the Popes and Priest come in? Why did he mention Peter as the first Pope?

If it has been taught from the beginning, surely it would have been included in the Scriptures.

1th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

Why didn't they claim [followers of the churches of Peter in Rome]?

18. "We have Christ and the Spirit of Truth, and we have the line of Apostles from John Paul all the way to Peter, to prove that our teachings come from Christ Himself, and not just an interpretation of his written Word."

Why is Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians 2? [Maybe men aren't always 100% right]

Apostles? The Pope is not an Apostle. Sorry. Do you know what it takes to be an Apostle?

A. Have to be personally chosen by Christ. [Matthew 10:1-8]

B. Have to be personally taught by Christ for 3 1/2 years. [Acts 1:21-22; John 15:27]

So, how did Paul do this?

A. Chosen by Christ. [Acts 9:3-6, Acts 26:12-16]

B. Taught by Christ. [Acts 26:16, Galatians 1:15-18]

19. "Tim, Jesus would not leave us without an authority to help us "test the spirits".

He didn't, we have scripture.

See # 2

20. "Tim, please WE DO NOT PUT OUT FAITH IN MAN!!!! God gave us his Church to guide us, and we put our faith IN HIM to lead those who he has chosen to be our guides."

So, why do you say I am trusting in man?

You say - You trust God that He will guide the Church [which is made of men] to Truth, so you trust what you hear from them.

I say - I trust God that He will guide me [as a member of the Church of Christ] to Truth, so I can trust reading the Scripture.

We both claim the Truth is coming from God and the Spirit is doing the leading... The difference lies in what we find and do not find in Scripture. Where I believe only Scripture, you believe there are other teachings.

21. "But only 12 were Chosen as Apostles, and when Christ died, those Chose other Apostles, but not all were apostles Tim."

I know, we are all disciples, but there are NO more Apostles.

See # 18

22. "When Luther left the Church he opened the gates of hell against the Protestants. They no longer have the protection against the gates of hell that the Catholics have, and it is manifest through the great multitude of interpretations each Protestant has."

??? The gates of hell will not prevail against the church - which is made of the BELIEVERS of Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church. Again, it is a spiritual body, not the religion.

This means that when someone gets born again, they become a son of God and CAN NOT GO TO HELL!

23. "You would think then that the Eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles would have been able to understand the Scripture on his own, right? Even thought the words of the Scripture were the same to him and Philip, only Philip could teach it, because Philip was sent by the Apostles of Christ to teach. And don't say it was because the Eunuch wasn't baptized..."

Salvation and baptisim are 2 different things. Not being baptized was not why the Eunuch could not understand.

He wasn't saved, so he couldn't understand...Once he got saved, he understood...

1co 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1co 2:11-14 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

24. "Because Mary held the Son of God in her womb, and nurtured him through her own flesh and blood. Would not God, who is all sinless, be rejected by a sinful body! The woman and her son would have enmity between them and the serpent!"

See # 10

Ge 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Adam and Eve was in the image and likeness of God, sinned, and bore children in their [I believe a fallen state, not as before sin] likeness...

Ge 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Ro 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

What? Jesus came to earth, "in the likeness of sinful flesh".

Sin is passed through the male seed - the woman has an egg. Therefore, Christ could was sinless in Mary, because their was no man seed involved.

But, we [even Saved people] still have the sinful flesh. That will not go away until we are changed to enter Heaven.

25. "The greater miracle is how you can believe that for 1500 years everyone was wrong about her."

I believe in the days of Noah, the whole world perished except for 8. How did they all get so bad, if we all came from Adam? Didn't they know about God? ha!

Just because something has been passed down for 1 year, 6 years, 6000 years, doesn't make it fact! Look at evolution...

26. "Mary DID need a Savior. For if Jesus had not died, neither would he have been born. And the fact that Jesus needed to be born in order to die, puts Mary in position where the Birth and Death of her Son saved her at her conception!"

A. Christ didn't have to be born or die. He was with and was God before the foundation of the world.

B. Christ only chose to die, so save man from Hell.

C. Remember the Old Testament saints and anyone who died before Christ did? They went to Paradise in the heart of the earth. They were not fit for Heaven till after the resurrection of Christ. Because they could not be perfect till the blood of Christ had been shed for their sins. So, if Mary had been saved, as you say, before she was born, she still wasn't fit for heaven. Our flesh is corrupt, all flesh, including Mary's. And what does the Bible say:

1co 15:53-54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

I believe John the Baptist was saved before he was born - there is more proof of that than with Mary. But, he still sinned during his lifetime.

Lu 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Okay, Jake, I hope I have answered all of your points to me.

Again, if you [anyone] replies, I will write back. It may take me some time, so please be patience...

God Bless!

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 11, 2002

Answers

Eugene, Don't bust his bubble. Let the air out nice and slow.

-- - (.@...), November 11, 2002.

Holy Cow !
That's no bubble. It's a giant bladder. I'm reminded what Hemingway once said about Norman Mailer. ''He has diarrheia of the typewriter.''

It was to be expected Tim had to come back. He fancies himself an evangelist. I'm available. But He was addressing Jake, who has all the truth at his command. Go, Jake!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 11, 2002.

Ha! I knew you couldn't stay away!

The above post is too voluminous for me!

How about this, Tim.

Do you agree that the Greek Septuigent was the text used as "biblical" during the apostles' day, (Jesus as well)?

I am assuming you do, since that is pretty much an established fact. So then, when Timothy says that "All scripture is inspired . . ." would he not have been referring to the bible he was using at the time? i.e, the Greek Septuigint?

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 11, 2002.

Sorry, so lenghty, but it was a reply to the post for me from Jake...

Gail,

http://www.redeeminggrace.org/SermonNotes/SermonNotes19991003.htm

"With the last prophet there were 400 - 500 years of silence from God prior to the coming of Christ. The Apocrypha was accumulated during that time. Apocrypha means hidden or secret and the included books are: Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the Letter of Jeremiah, and the 4 books of Maccabees. Later was added: Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah (or Manasses), and the Song of the Three Young Men (or Three Holy Children). The Jews in Egypt took great value in the Apocrypha. The Jews in Jerusalem (Orthodox Jews) did not place value on the Apocrypha. In about 285 B.C. in Alexandria the Apocrypha was translated from Hebrew to Greek and this is called the Septuigent. Later the Septuigent was translated from Greek into Latin, about 400 A.D., and this translation is called the Vulgate. In about 1000 years the Vulgate became standard in the Roman Catholic Church."

There is more than 1 Greek text...

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 11, 2002.

But my question is not what the orthodox Jews believed or didn't believe. I really couldn't care less about what the orthodox Jews believed. I am concerned about the text the early Christians used. Here's the council of Carthage on the subject.

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). (The English text below is from Bruce Metzger (well-known Protestant theologian).

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

And then again at the Council of Hippo:

"That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books." Council of Hippo,Canon 36(A.D. 393),in NPNF2,XIV:453-454

Furthermore, here are but of few of the MANY MANY quotes the early church used in their writings from the deuterocanicals. I tried to choose quotes that were Pre-Hippo and Carthage to prove that the Greek Septuagint was in use with the Apochrypa all the way along.

"Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5(c A.D. 80),in ANF,I:12

"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death.'[Tobit 4:10,12:9] Be all of you subject one to another?[1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,'[1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed![Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct. Polycarp,To the Phillipians,10(A.D. 135),in ANF,I:35

" 'Be just in your judgement':[Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving'[Sirach 4:31]" Didache,4:3-5(A.D. 140),in ACW,VI:17

"What, then, again says the prophet? 'The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,'[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and 'upon my garment they cast lots.'[Ps. 22:19] Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, 'Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves,[Isa. 3:9] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us.'[Wisdom 2:12] And Moses also says to them, 'Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware [to give] to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey.'[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24]" Epistle of Barnabas,6(A.D. 74),in ANF,I:140

"Those, however, who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts, and, do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt towards others, and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat, and work evil deeds in secret, saying, 'No man sees us,' shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance (secundum gloriam), nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words, to be found in Daniel the prophet: 'O thou seed of Canaan, and not of Judah, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust perverted thy heart.'[Daniel 13:56-Susanna] Thou that art waxen old in wicked days, now thy sins which thou hast committed aforetime are come to light; for thou hast pronounced false judgments, and hast been accustomed to condemn the innocent, and to let the guilty go free, albeit the Lord saith, The innocent and the righteous shalt thou not slay.'[Daniel 13:52-53-Susanna] Of whom also did the Lord say: "But if the evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite the man-servants and maidens, and to eat and drink and be drunken; the lord of that servant shall come in a day that he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.' [Matt 24:48] " Irenaeus,Against Heresies,IV:26:3(A.D. 180),in ANF,I:497

"Our instruction comes from 'the porch of Solomon,' who had himself taught that 'the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.'[Wisdom 1:1]" Tertullian,Prescription Against the Heretics,7(A.D. 200),in ANF,III:246

"For they remembered also the words of Jeremias writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: 'And now ye shall see borne upon (men's) shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that ye also do not be altogether like the foreigners, and be seized with fear while ye behold crowds worshipping those gods before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship Thee, O Lord.'[Baruch 6:3] Tertullian,Scorpiace,8(A.D. 205),in ANF,III:246

"At this stage some rise up, saying that the Lord, by reason of the rod, and threatening, and fear, is not good; misapprehending, as appears, the Scripture which says, 'And he that feareth the Lord will turn to his heart;'[Sirach 21:6] and most of all, oblivious of His love, in that for us He became man. For more suitably to Him, the prophet prays in these words: 'Remember us, for we are dust;'[Ps 103:14] that: is, Sympathize with us; for Thou knowest from personal experience of suffering the weakness of the flesh. In this respect, therefore, the Lord the Instructor is most good and unimpeachable, sympathizing as He does from the exceeding greatness of His love with the nature of each man. 'For there is nothing which the Lord hates.'[Wisdom 11:24] For assuredly He does not hate anything, and yet wish that which He hates to exist Nor does He wish anything not to exist, and yet become the cause of existence to that which He wishes not to exist. Nor does He wish anything not to exist which yet exists. If, then, the Word hates anything, He does not wish it to exist. But nothing exists, the cause of whose existence is not supplied by God. Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one--that is, God. For He has said, 'In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.'[John 1:1]" Clement of Alexandria,The Instructor,I:8(A.D. 202),in ANF,II:225

Catholics did not add in the apochrypha at the Reformation; the Reformation took out texts that had always been deemed scripture by the Church! By what authority? Their own!

Lots of love,

Gail

P.S. Deuterocanical quotes provided by Joseph A. Gallegos © 1999 All Rights Reserved. (He sites his source as indicated)

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 11, 2002.

Okay Gail, I admit, I am not that smart when it comes to history, but I am learning in my current studies...

I have learned this...

There were Roman Catholics (western) and Greek Catholic (Eastern Orthodox Church).

Between these Churches, there has been different translations and belief of Scriptures.

I will let you know if I come across anything [besides what you have shown here] with the Apocrypha.

Of course you side with the Catholic Church and teachings, but there were other people running around at the same time.

Later, Tim

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 11, 2002.

Just a slight clue for you, Tim:

All the churches of the era recognised one authority, up till the split into east and west.

This was the See of Peter. Only after the eastern churches went independent was there any other than One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church. The eastern bishops are now ''Metropolitans''. Orthodox and closely united in faith with the first Church in doctrine, but not loyal to the successors of Saint Peter. Peter is where the Church may be found.

Get some history, Tim. But first, cast off your prejudice and be honest with your soul. All your ancestors confessed the Catholic faith, just as mine did. Investigate.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 11, 2002.

Jmj

Hello, Tim.

You have just made the KEY admission -- the one that should guide all your future actions here. You stated:

"I admit, I am not that smart when it comes to history, but I am learning in my current studies..."

The problem with not knowing the early history of Jesus's Church -- not knowing what those folks believed, not knowing how they worshiped, not knowing who led them, etc. -- means that you are not aware that the earliest Christians were obviously Catholics!

When you get to know Christian history from reliable historians (not anti-Catholics) and from reading the earliest non-biblical Christian works (late 1st century through 5th century), you will smack your forehead and say, "My gosh, they were Catholics! They believed what Catholics believe today. They attended worship service that is just like the Catholic Mass today. They had bishops and popes who succeeded the Apostles and St. Peter, just like Catholic bishops and popes today. They did not follow the 'sola scriptura' that I follow, but rather relied on both scripture and oral teaching. They did not believe in salvation by faith alone (as I do). They lived within a structured, visible, hierarchical Church -- not a nebulous, invisible, Jesus-and-me kind of church (as I do). Etc., etc."

Tim, if you only knew how many Protestants have converted in the last century after learning about Christian history and reading the works of the earliest Christians, it would make your head spin. Those converts are praying for you right now to join them some day!

You stated: "There were Roman Catholics (western) and Greek Catholic (Eastern Orthodox Church)."
If your history class taught you that, it is not a good enough class. Actually there were Western and Eastern Catholics, but those in the East were not officially called the "Eastern Orthodox churches" until they broke away from the pope definitively after the year 1000.

You stated: "I will let you know if I come across anything [besides what you have shown here] with the Apocrypha."
Since this is a Catholic forum, please do not refer to the seven books as the "apocrypha." That term has always been used by Catholics to refer to a group of non-inspired books that have never been in anyone's canon. It is insulting to Catholics to have the word "apocrypha" misapplied to the seven "deuterocanonical" books that we are certain were inspired by God himself.

You stated: "Of course you side with the Catholic Church and teachings, but there were other people running around at the same time."
We don't "side" with anything. We simply have total faith and trust. Because we know some basic history, we also know that the only "other people running around at the same time" were non-Christians. There were Jews, pagans of various kinds, Gnostics, and ex-Christian heretics (e.g., Arians and Nestorians).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 11, 2002.

Hey Tim:

I am one of those John is referring to. After I found out that I had been lied to about the origens of the deuterocanicals I began to study the ACTUAL writings of the early church -- and not what someone 'says they said.' I no longer trusted ANYONE! Had to see it for myself. What I found was astonishing, gut-wrenching, mind- boggling, and yet strangly settling. I literally couldn't sleep for months, not only in terror, but excitement -- I finally was getting the answers to questions no one could satisfy. Where? The horse's mouth so to speak, our ANCESTORS!

The early church DID NOT believe in sola scriptura. Anyone holding that view was declared a heretic or schismatic. I can provide quotes, but you better hold on to your hat!

The early church DID believe in purgatory. Again, I can provide quotes in abundance.

The early church DID venerate the saints and Mary, requesting their prayers and petitions. Quotes, again, in abundance can be provided.

The deuterocanicals was a biggie for me. The Reformers, by their own authority, committed a horrible sin -- they tampered with the Word of God! Why, because they "wanted to do it their own way." Protestantism is still vamping that course.

So after agonizing prayer, ceaseless discussions with my husband, begging the Lord to give me light, I have protested the Protesters and have switched sides. I am home!

Bless the Lord,

Gail

P.S. "To study the Early Church Fathers is to cease to be Protestant." Cardinal John Henry Newman.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 12, 2002.

Gail, got any books you recommend on that topic?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 12, 2002.

Okay, Tim. I hope I don't blow up this thread. Take your time reading it, and God bless you as you do.

“Scripture was not by man, but by the Holy Ghost moved man to write exactly what God wanted written.”

That was the point I was trying to get across. It was BY men who were moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, you can say it was BY the Holy Ghost. In the same way, the teachings of the Church have been spoken and written BY men who have been moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, likewise, you can say that the teachings of the Catholic Church are BY the Holy Spirit.

“No, I believe that God inspires man by the reading, preaching, and teaching of the Scriptures. But, I do not believe that He gives man or men an "insight" to teachings [or additions] that are not covered in Scripture.”

He gave Paul and John and the other Gospel writers “insights to teachings [or additions] that [were] not covered in Scripture” at the time. Remember, the Scriptures weren’t compiled until the end of the 4th century. It was the Catholic Church in that year, who declared that no more Scriptures would be added to the Bible. It was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit that chose exactly which Books to add and which to reject. It was the Catholic Church, which said that after that point, no other writings were to be added to the Bible. However, nowhere is it said or written that no more teachings would NOT be inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church in the 400’s decided that the Bible was complete, not because it contained every single detail of Christ’s life, but that it contained all that was required for one to be believe! Had it contained everything about Christ, His mother, His family, etc. “there would not be enough room in the world…”

“I believe God has put in the Scriptures all there is necessary for us to know and do.”

Tim, this is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches us. Everything that is necessary for us to know and do IS in Scripture. However, there are things that we, as best friends of Christ, should yearn to know! The Bible won’t tell you how Jesus liked his steak, nor is it necessary to know, but as someone who wants to know Him better, it would be of benefit to me. So to is it of much benefit to know Jesus’ Mom better. Although certain things are mentioned in Scripture, the Traditions and knowledge that the Apostles had of Jesus’ mother, have been preserved and passed down in the Catholic Church, and they have brought me (and many) to a better understanding and knowledge of Christ! It isn’t necessary for salvation to know that Mary was assumed into Heaven, and the Catholic Church is aware of this. However, as the One True Church, who’s main goal is to Love and Serve God and know God to the fullest, the Catholic Church is constantly researching, praying, and contemplating the life of not only Jesus, but His mother, best friends, etc. Tim, if you are married (or going to be) you’ll understand this: To know your wife better, you get to know her parents, or her best friends. It says a lot about your wife! Same with the Catholic Church and Jesus. We want to know Him better, and so we read Scripture, refer to Tradition, pray, contemplate, and research into the Life of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, St. Peter, St. Paul, etc.

“Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

They searched the Scriptures to test what Paul was preaching. If it doesn't line up with Scripture, it is wrong.”

First of all, this is out of context. Acts isn’t making a statement about Christians learning more and more about the Faith. Paul was talking to Jews and Pagans, and trying to convince them of Christ. It is more than obvious that Paul isn’t teaching a Catechism Class or speaking about Christ’s mother! They had a hard time accepting Jesus as Christ, let alone wanting to hear how his Mother was sinless, etc. So, then, Paul was telling them about how Christ was born of a virgin, suffered and died, and in three days He rose. Those who were “more noble” would look to the OT Scripture to see if it matched up!

Second, Acts couldn’t be referring to EVERYTHING that Paul and the Apostles would proclaim or write in the future! How could people check with Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians, when it hadn’t even been written yet! Unless everything that Paul says in all of his letters was not already written in the Bible, then how would they be able to “check” it?

This is how it went: Paul proclaims that Jesus is Christ. The “nobles” check with the OT to make sure he isn’t pulling a fast one on them. They become believers and want to learn more. They start attending the churches (lower case ‘c’ indicates building, upper case ‘C’ indicates the religion), which are the Catholic Church. Paul then, once they are already believers, can start talking specifics. Things that are written in Paul’s letters, although they should be “in accord” with the other Scriptures, needed NOT to be IN the Scriptures. If what Paul wrote in his letters was already in Scripture, he wouldn’t have needed to write the letter.

So, the things that are taught by the Catholic Church that aren’t specifically IN Scripture ARE however in accord with Scripture. And furthermore, there isn’t much that the Catholic Church teaches that isn’t in Scripture anyway! There are only a handful, if that, of infallible statements! Tim, you still haven’t given us a specific doctrine or teaching that is AGAINST Scripture.

“The men that wrote the Bible, were individually inspired [moved] by the Holy Ghost to write exactly what God wanted written in the Bible [2 Peter 1:21]. With the Catholic Church, who does the Holy Ghost move to teach them? You keep say that it isn't one man, but the entire body. So, the Holy Ghost moves on every member at the same time to let them know a teaching that is true, but may not be recorded in the Bible? Who does the Holy Ghost reveal the truth to?”

Good question, Tim. Sorry I wasn’t more specific for you. It is obvious that the Apostles were under the influence of the Holy Spirit (that’s Scriptural) not only when they wrote the Gospel, but also when they proclaimed it to those people who would later accept their teachings and become a member of the Body of Christ (the Catholic Church). So, it all started with the Apostles. Now, the Apostles knew everything: they knew what was in the Scriptures, what was going to be in the latter scriptures (they wrote it), and also what was not in scripture (like how Jesus liked his steak, if His mother was sinless, etc.). And so, they, the Apostles, were the teachers and leaders of the Church (capital ‘C’). That is to say, they knew it all and were commissioned by Christ to lead His Church and teach others. Now, Christ told the Apostles, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” This would indicate that as Jesus had picked them to guard his Church (he gave them the key), the Apostles, when the time came, would also have to pass down the authority to others who would guard his Church and hold the keys. The Apostles didn’t just die and leave every man for himself. There had do be an authority, and especially so because there was no SET compilation of “inspired Scripture”. They existed, for sure, but the letters that the Apostles were writing, and also books from the OT were floating around outside of the same two covers. Now, we, the Catholic Church, believe that the Apostles followed through with Jesus’ command to do as He had done, and so the Apostles picked their Apostles, who then picked their Apostles, etc. This is traceable! In fact, we have writings form early Church leaders indicating who the Bishop of Rome was (the Pope). Now, as you believe that the Holy Spirit was with those who wrote the Bible, as well as with those who would translate the Bible, thus preserving the integrity of it; likewise we, Catholics, believe that the Holy Spirit was with the Apostles, and still remains with the successors of those first Apostles (just as Christ promised, and commanded), thus preserving all the details of Christ’s life.

Now, that said: The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ. It consists of “living” stones, each individual who is a believer in Christ and keeps all his commandments and sacraments exists in the Body of Christ. The Teachings of the Catholic Church, the Magisterium, aren’t the Teachings of “the individuals within the Church”. The Teachings of the Catholic Church refer to all the teachings that have been passed down by those original Apostles (either by writing or word of mouth), and whose successors were commissioned to guard and preserve them. Everything that the Catholic Church Teaches already existed since the time of the Apostles! There is no “new” individual revelation. Therefore, the Assumption of the Blessed Mother isn’t something that was “revealed” to any one particular Pope. This Truth, although it has no salvific value (or it isn’t necessary for one to be saved), has been preserved and handed down from the original understanding and knowledge of the first Apostles. So, there is nothing NEW per say that the Catholic Church teaches, that wasn’t taught by the first apostles. However, there have been extensive DEVELOPMENTS in certain areas of these teachings. The Word of God is a Living Word, and one would expect this Living Word to grow and reveal itself more fully with time! Therefore, although the Catholic Church doesn’t teach any NEW ideas, it may teach something that is perceived to be new because the idea has become better understood with time.

Thus, Tim, when we put our faith in the teachings of the Catholic Church, we are merely saying that we put our faith in the full teachings (written and oral) of the first Apostles who got their information from Jesus Himself. When I said that it was the Holy Spirit working through our Priests and Bishops, the Holy Spirit isn’t giving them MORE NEW info, but the Holy Spirit is and has PRESERVED the original knowledge handed down by the Apostles. So, just as you believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the integrity of the Bible, we believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the Teachings (both written and oral) of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit has preserved, in the Catholic Church, not only Scripture, but all the teachings and traditions (from Mary’s virginity to the intersession of the saints in heaven!) The Holy Spirit never will ADD new material to the Apostolic teachings (because it all came from Christ), however, the Holy Spirit will reveal new insights into certain aspects of Christ’s life. An example would be: We already know Christ was Crucified, but by prayer and contemplation, the Holy Spirit might reveal just how terrifying and painful it was! It isn’t a revelation of new material, rather a revelation of new insight into that material.

Tim, as a side question(s) to this: Why is it that you believe that the seven books that were removed from your Bible, were not inspired and meant to be in the Bible? Just curious, because for 1500 years they all were in the Bible, and since the original compilation of the Bible in the 4th century, these seven books have been accepted as Scripture. Also, under who’s authority were they removed? If you say, by diving inspiration Luther knew that they weren’t, why then would I not be able to remove a book and start my own religion? And if you would accept that Luther was inspired to remove those books, when would you accept it if someone else removed more books? If you believed that those who compiled the Bible in the 4th century were inspired by God to select those Books, why would you “take back” your belief on seven of those Books?

“You say that "men make up the Body, but do not control the Body", but yet you believe what ever they say is gospel? Whether it is in the Bible or not, whether the Holy Ghost has revealed it to you or not.”

I hope that it is clearer after what I had written. We do not accept everything and anything that comes from the mouth of the Bishops, or even the Pope, just on a whim. You must note that for this exact reason we have a hierarchy of authorities, so that if one Bishop says something out of line, it isn’t propagated to the laity. Just like Peter was corrected by Paul. The leaders of the Church, that is those that have succeeded the Apostles, serve to check and balance themselves against Scripture, Tradition, and earlier Teachings! If your pastor tells you something out of whack, it is up to you to search it. But even then, if the Pastor is good with words, he might twist the meaning of the Scripture to suit his ideas. And when you look at it, since the “Scripture” he quotes seems to be correct with what he teaches, it might go unnoticed. This is what has happened to John 6! Whereas, with the Catholic Church, if a Pastor tries to slip something in, it has to coincide with Scripture, Tradition, AND previous teachings which are all documented. The Holy Spirit was sent to be with the Church. And it is through the Power of the Holy Spirit that these teachings have been preserved and better understood.

“4. "The Catholic Church doesn't "forbid" anyone to marry!"

Okay, so it is only a requirement for a priest. Why?”

The reason becomes clear when you read about the Apostles. It is said that all of them left what they were doing and followed Jesus. Now, if they left what they were doing, it goes without saying that IF any of them were married (like Peter) then they would no longer have been able to support their families. James and John left their father. They all left everything and followed Jesus. Why did they have to leave EVERTHING? Because how would they have been able to follow Jesus everywhere, cure the sick, take care of the poor, etc., if they were tied down by anything. In the same way, Catholic priests don’t marry because they give their lives for the service of God. This service goes far beyond Sunday Mass! Most priests, you will find, get less sleep then you or I. How could they possibly do what they do AND support a family?

“As stated above, you believe [according to this] that the Spirit can lead the Church to the Truth [which is made of individual men, but haven't told me who gets the Spirit's words], but can not lead individuals into the Truth.”

The fact of the matter, as stated above, is that the Truth has already been revealed! It was given to the Apostles and they were given the key to guard the Truth. The Holy Spirit can help us, or you, to understand better what that Truth means, but it isn’t as thought the Truth was never there. The Spirit has already led the Church to the Truth! This happened 2000 years ago. But the Spirit has preserved these Truths through the centuries through his Holy Apostles! The Catholic Church holds the Truths NOT because they are revealed to her on a continuous basis, but rather because she has always had the Truth and guards it.

“We contrast in that you trust that the Spirit has given the Catholic Church the correct interpretation, therefore you take it but trust - whereas I trust, if I am faithful and ask God to show me the Truth, the Spirit will show it to me [individually].”

But that is just it, Tim, the Holy Spirit has already shown the Truth to those who must guard it. Otherwise, anyone who is baptized can claim to understand the Truth. It is based on this believe that 30,000 protestant divisions can exist! The Holy Spirit CAN and does reveal Truth to some people, but it will not be contrary to what the Spirit has already revealed to the Apostles! And that Truth is guarded in the Catholic Church. The whole reason there has been divisions from the Church is because of those individuals who thought that the “spirit” had revealed something to them that didn’t match with the Catholic Church. But how could that be true. The Spirit, is the same Spirit that gave the info to the Apostles, who handed it down to us.

Therefore, when the Holy Spirit reveals something to you (like that Mary had children), this flat out contradicts what the Holy Spirit had already revealed to the Apostles. We can find early Church writings on this as early as the first few centuries! So, while the Spirit can and does reveal Truth, it will not contradict what has already been known as Truth by the Apostles, and that is guarded and preserved in the Catholic Church.

“7. "If all Protestant sects believe that they have the "correct" interpretation, because they think that they understand the Scripture, then how is it that they all have DIFFERENT interpretations? Obviously the Spirit of Truth is not divided!"

Very good question, and true that the Spirit of Truth is not divided - He lines up with Scripture everytime, it is man that falls short.”

The Spirit of Truth also “lines up” with what He had previously shown to the Apostles. These are preserved in our Teachings of the Catholic Church.

“What do you mean all Protestants have "DIFFERENT interpretations"? You are grouping too many together. That is like saying all Americans opinions or all Louisiana's opinions. Divide the groups into: A. Ones who don't use the Bible. B. Ones who use the Bible - plus something else. C. Ones who use only the Bible and nothing else - What are the major differences of this group? usually minor things.”

To be honest, I don’t know which divisions believe similar things. But it is certain that they don’t believe the exact same thing, otherwise why would they have divided? And if they are divided in even the smallest belief it is testimony to the fact that the Spirit is either with one, and not with the other, or with neither, because pure and simple the Holy Spirit is not divided.

“Again, if what a Protestant says doesn't line up with scripture - God is True and they are a liar!”

That’s just it, Tim. I’m positive that all of what the Protestants claim DOES line up with the TEXT of Scripture, but not with the intention of it.

You believe that the Body and Blood that Jesus commanded us to eat are not really the Body and Blood of Jesus. We believe it was! How can we now go to Scripture to prove it either way? It is obvious that theologian after theologian (protestant and Catholic) have studied their tooshes off, but yet neither can prove it either way simply by scripture! That is where the Protestants fall flat. Because several Scriptural verses can “go either way”. But where is the Spirit of Truth? It was revealed to the Apostles that it really was the Body and Blood he was refereeing to, and this tradition has been passed down and believed in the Catholic Church. There’s the proof! Apostolic succession!

“And, why is it that because something comes up "anti-Catholic" that it is always wrong, but the Catholic Church is always right? Admit it - it is because you "choose" to believe that the Catholic Church is always right. Whether you can find it in written Scripture or not. When the Catholic Church teaches something that is not found in Scripture, it is always said that it was past down through tradition or such... Where is the proof that the tradition came from Christ or God?”

First, it isn’t because I “choose” to believe that the Catholic Church is always right. I MUST believe this, because when Christ told his Apostles to do as He did, and when he gave them the Key to heaven and earth and told them that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (His Church), He gave them His Word that the Holy Spirit would give them recollection of what they had forgotten, that they wouldn’t need to worry. Those Apostles then handed down everything that they had (written and orally)!

Secondly, really, how many things are taught by the Catholic Church that cannot be found in Scripture? You have a bit of a disadvantage because of the seven books that were taken out, but even then, the Church still can back up 99% of her teachings without even getting into Apostolic Traditions.

“What does the Bible say about tradition?

Mt 15:2-3 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?”

There is a difference, Tim. What they are referring to here are traditions of man. God neither instituted nor commissioned these “traditions”. The Traditions of the Church were handed down by the Apostles who had been given these Traditions by Christ.

“2th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. But, remember in Acts 17:11? "in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."” Not the same context, Tim. In Acts 17:11 they weren’t even refereeing to traditions. They were “searching” the basic OT accounts to assure themselves that Christ was the Messiah. 2The cam later and it was written to those who already believed and would accept their teachings!

“So, Godly traditions should be found in scripture, and not just the teachings of men.”

Not so, as I showed you, they were the non-believing Jews who had to use the OT to make sure what Paul was saying meshed. But the Traditions of God given by the Apostles was for those who had already been baptized and believed!

“God puts His Word over His Name, so I know He puts it above traditions:

Ps 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.”

And His Word isn’t just Scripture! His Word was Jesus Christ, who spoke and taught a lot more than what is written.

“8. "Tim, show me how these seven (7) books were never considered Scripture!"

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html -- according this site, the Catholic Church excluded "the books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh" - why those?”

It is apparent that this is a (crock) to say the least. The seven books mentioned never were called Apocrypha until the Protestant Church started describing them as such. Moreover, the “apocrypha” that this site says “have been variously included and omitted from bibles over the course of the centuries” were never omitted until the 16th century! Since you weren’t able to follow the “newadvent” info, I would suggest doing a little further search into this. The truth is out there. A good book is “Where we got the Bible: our debt to the Catholic Church” By. Henry G. Graham – who also included his conversion story in this book. He converted from the Presbyterian Church to become a Catholic Bishop!

“What does inerrant mean? incapable of making a mistake, containing no mistakes. A Bible can not be considered inerrant just because it has the "original 73 books".”

You are right, it has to have all 73 books with the text translated to reflect the intent of the original writers.

“So, you believe "they are all translated to refect what REALLY was written in the ancient languages." Okay. Does is every Catholic Bible exactly the same? Word-for-Word? Then either the Bible in the 4th century is inerrant, or the modern Bibles are inerrant, or neither are inerrant. Unless all the modern Catholic Bibles are EXACTLY WORD- FOR-WORD, you can not claim that they are all inerrant. If you say only the one in the 4th century, then all the modern ones are corrupt?””

Actually we can claim that all of them are inerrant, because even though there are different Catholic versions worded differently, they all have the 73 books, and all are written to convey the meaning that those who wore the Bible meant.

“Enmity = enmity, hatred [Strong's Hebrew & Greek], the extreme ill will or hatred that exists between enemies [Encarta.com] So, by definition, the verse could be read as follows: Ge 3:15 And I will put [hatred] between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. This is nothing to do with Mary and Christ being sinnless. The most you could pull from "enmity" is that God would be a hatred in Marry and Christ has against Satan. I believe that she hated the Devil, because she was a righteous woman, but it doesn't proved she was sinnless.”

Actually, if there were a perfect hatred for Satan by both Mary and Jesus, than that would reflect their perfect hatred and contempt for sin. If Mary had cooperated with Satan (sin) to some extent, then she could not have been included in the same sentence as her Son, who hated Satan (sin) perfectly.

“11. "How can Mary take part in defeating the serpent, if she has cooperated with him through sin?" She defeats the serpent as all Christians do, through the saving blood of Jesus Christ. Ro 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. Ephesisians 6 - The Whole Armour of God.”

This is wrong, none of us will DEFEET Satan, with the Armour of God we can only send him away or defend ourselves from him. Jesus, with the cooperation of Mary, and His angels will DEFEET and destroy Satan for good.

“14. "The Catholic Fatih proclaims Life, the Gospel of Life. If anyone teaches against the faith, in the name of faith, has disowned their faith!"

Are you saying that all the Catholics [regardless how high they were] are non-Catholics because they killed people for reading the Bible in English, learning Scripture, and for just not being Catholic?”

If a Catholic ordered someone to kill someone else, or did it themselves, then they cannot be taken to represent the teachings of the Catholic Church.

“15. "Is Trinity ever mentioned in Scripture, Tim?" Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 1jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.”

Exactly, Tim. The word Trinity doesn’t exist in the Bible. We can deduce that the Trinity exists from the text, as you have done, but the word itself doesn’t exist! Same with Purgatory. The word itself is not in Scripture, yet from several passages (some of which are contained in the seven removed books), not to mention the Tradition or teachings, we can deduce that purgatory does exist.

“16. "The Leadership of Peter was apparent through Scripture."

Where, you have 1 verse? 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.”

I thought I posted several verses. Every time Jesus asks his Apostles a question Peter answers for them. Peters name is always mentioned as such, “Peter and the Apostles” or “the Apostles and Peter”. You’ve read, I don’t think I need to go into detail.

“17. "The hierarchy of the Church became known through the Acts of the Apostles, through the Letters of Paul, and also have been passed down from the Traditions of the Church since the beginning!"

Paul mentions what the church is made of, and does not include Popes or Priest? Where do the Popes and Priest come in? Why did he mention Peter as the first Pope? If it has been taught from the beginning, surely it would have been included in the Scriptures.”

It wasn’t included in the Scripture, because Scripture wasn’t written to describe how one builds a Church, Christ did that! You can however find writings which date earlier than when the Bible itself was compiled that talk about Priests and Bishops. The OT makes mention of priests quite a few times, and remember that Christ came not to abolish the OT but to fulfill it!

“1th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Why didn't they claim [followers of the churches of Peter in Rome]?”

Because, we ARE followers of the Church of God! They were followers of the Church of God! But who was leading and teaching them? Paul, Peter, etc. They were the leaders who were teaching HOW to follow the Church of God (the Catholic Church).

“18. "We have Christ and the Spirit of Truth, and we have the line of Apostles from John Paul all the way to Peter, to prove that our teachings come from Christ Himself, and not just an interpretation of his written Word." Why is Paul rebuking Peter in Galatians 2? [Maybe men aren't always 100% right].”

That is true. No where do we claim that they are ALWAYS 100% right. But the teachings of the Church are ALWAYS 100% right because they came from the Apostles, and preserved by the Holy Spirit. The Pope can make mistakes, but the Holy Spirit has preserved and does preserve him from making mistakes while teaching on Morals, and things that have been handed down by his predecessors.

““Apostles? The Pope is not an Apostle. Sorry. Do you know what it takes to be an Apostle?”

Well, this is what Webster has to say:

“Etymology: Middle English, from Old French & Old English; Old French apostle & Old English apostol, both from Late Latin apostolus, from Greek apostolos, from apostellein to send away, from apo- + stellein to send Date: before 12th century 1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group 2 a : a person who initiates a great moral reform or who first advocates an important belief or system b : an ardent supporter : ADHERENT 3 : the highest ecclesiastical official in some church organizations 4 : one of a Mormon administrative council of 12 men - apos·tle·ship /-"ship/ noun”

But we’ll see what the Bible says.

A. Have to be personally chosen by Christ. [Matthew 10:1-8]”

This is a given though! They were His FIRST twelve. But Jesus then said to them, “As the Father has sent me [to spread the Gospel, and pick apostles], so I send you [to spread the Gospel, and pick predecessors(i.e. apostles)].

“B. Have to be personally taught by Christ for 3 1/2 years. [Acts 1:21-22; John 15:27] “

-Acts 1: 21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that (43) the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 (44) beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He (45) was taken up from us--one of these must become a (46) witness with us of His resurrection."

This says nothing of the NEED to be taught by Jesus in order to be an Apostle, let alone for 31/2 years.

John 15: and (42) you will testify also, because you have been with Me (43) from the beginning.

But yet, Paul wasn’t “with” Jesus from the beginning!

“So, how did Paul do this? A. Chosen by Christ. [Acts 9:3-6, Acts 26:12-16]” B.

Right, he was Chosen By Christ, just like your pastor was chosen by God. But lets see what follows.

Acts 9: 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after (27) laying his hands on him said, "(28) Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be (29) filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

Paul was confirmed by a disciple of the 12 Apostles, baptized and right after that he started preaching and being an Apostle! It doesn’t say he spent 31/2 years with Jesus studying! He got all his info from a revelation from Christ, but confirmed it among other disciples and even spent 15 days with Peter, whom he began to collaborate with!

“B. Taught by Christ. [Acts 26:16, Galatians 1:15-18]”

He was given his information in a “revelation by Christ”. But it doesn’t say that he was taught by Christ for 31/2 years! Of course the information comes from Christ! The 11 Apostles got their info from Christ also. But remember in Acts 1 when they picked Matthias as a replacement for Judas? Matthias was chosen by God also, but it was through the 11 Apostles, who had drawn lots to see if it was Gods will Matthias. And then Matthias, like Paul, was confirmed among the disciples.

So, in order to be an Apostle, one must be Chosen (or Called) by God, which priests are, and then confirmed among the other Apostles and disciples, which priests are also.

“19. "Tim, Jesus would not leave us without an authority to help us "test the spirits". He didn't, we have scripture. See # 2”

But Tim, what kind of authority is Scripture without the Correct interpretation? It is obvious that the Scripture alone wasn’t the FINAL authority. Look what happens when it is: 30,000 splits.

“20. "Tim, please WE DO NOT PUT OUT FAITH IN MAN!!!! God gave us his Church to guide us, and we put our faith IN HIM to lead those who he has chosen to be our guides." So, why do you say I am trusting in man? You say - You trust God that He will guide the Church [which is made of men] to Truth, so you trust what you hear from them. I say - I trust God that He will guide me [as a member of the Church of Christ] to Truth, so I can trust reading the Scripture.”

But when an interpretation of the Bible has been passed down and confirmed among ALL the clergy of the Catholic Church it is a little more solid, than a private interpretation, which is self proclaimed. God wouldn’t leave us to our own devises. Paul constantly had to write to the churches to keep them in order, because many of the laypeople had their “own” interpretation. That is what our clergy does, it keeps the True Gospel.

“We both claim the Truth is coming from God and the Spirit is doing the leading... The difference lies in what we find and do not find in Scripture. Where I believe only Scripture, you believe there are other teachings.”

But even in the Scripture it is apparent that NO one is left to read the Scripture and interpret it by themselves. No where in Scripture does it say that Scripture is the Soul Source of Information for preaching the Gospel! It only says that the Scriptures are a good source of info, but not the ONLY source!

“21. "But only 12 were Chosen as Apostles, and when Christ died, those Chose other Apostles, but not all were apostles Tim." I know, we are all disciples, but there are NO more Apostles. See # 18”

An Apostle is one who is appointed to proclaim the Gospel. So if there is no more Apostles, then what is your Pastor doing?

“22. "When Luther left the Church he opened the gates of hell against the Protestants. They no longer have the protection against the gates of hell that the Catholics have, and it is manifest through the great multitude of interpretations each Protestant has." ??? The gates of hell will not prevail against the church - which is made of the BELIEVERS of Jesus Christ, not the Catholic Church. Again, it is a spiritual body, not the religion.”

The Spiritual Body of Christ IS the Catholic Church.

“This means that when someone gets born again, they become a son of God and CAN NOT GO TO HELL!”

What! So since I am born again, I cannot falter and end up in hell? This is heretical. Judas was baptized and born again, and “it would have been better for him had he never been born!” Any human, whether they call themselves Catholic, Protestant, Pagan, or Born again has a free will, and in the end may choose life or death. When one Truly is a Catholic – that is belongs to the Body of Christ and proclaims and does all that is written and taught by Christ, one may be saved.

“23. "You would think then that the Eunuch in the Acts of the Apostles would have been able to understand the Scripture on his own, right? Even thought the words of the Scripture were the same to him and Philip, only Philip could teach it, because Philip was sent by the Apostles of Christ to teach. And don't say it was because the Eunuch wasn't baptized..."

Salvation and baptisim are 2 different things. Not being baptized was not why the Eunuch could not understand. He wasn't saved, so he couldn't understand...Once he got saved, he understood...”

Are not ALL protestant Pastors “Saved”? If they are, that would mean that they “should” understand, according to your belief. However, if they ALL understood, wouldn’t they ALL have the same interpretation? They ALL claim to be “saved”, just like you do! But how can they all be saved (including you) if you don’t ALL have the SAME understanding?

“1co 1:23-24 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”

But it isn’t by their wisdom that they “understand Scripture”! Paul says “WE preach Christ crucified”. Paul and the Apostles are teaching them the Scriptures.

“1co 2:11-14 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

Again, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth…” Paul is teaching under the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit. It is by this that those who are taught understand; not on their own!

“But, we [even Saved people] still have the sinful flesh. That will not go away until we are changed to enter Heaven.”

But Mary was redeemed by God’s Grace and Christ’s death PRIOR to her conception.

“25. "The greater miracle is how you can believe that for 1500 years everyone was wrong about her." I believe in the days of Noah, the whole world perished except for 8. How did they all get so bad, if we all came from Adam? Didn't they know about God? ha!”

So then, if we are SOOO corrupt, how is it you pick the other side? Isn’t it just as likely (if not more) that they could be wrong also? The fact is, for over 2000 years the Catholic Church has believed and understood Mary to be sinless. There are countless writings by countless great minds (many protestants even admit to the great understanding of the “Church Fathers”). The protestant reformers for one reason or another in the 1500’s felt like they understood better (or they wanted to re-visit and re-invent) the Scripture, AND the traditions that were left behind.

“Just because something has been passed down for 1 year, 6 years, 6000 years, doesn't make it fact! Look at evolution...”

This is true, however, we cannot look upon God’s Holy Church in the same way! Jesus promised the Guidance and presence of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages, even until He comes again. He told us that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church (There was only ONE Church with ONE mind and ONE belief!).

“26. "Mary DID need a Savior. For if Jesus had not died, neither would he have been born. And the fact that Jesus needed to be born in order to die, puts Mary in position where the Birth and Death of her Son saved her at her conception!"

A. Christ didn't have to be born or die. He was with and was God before the foundation of the world.” B.

What! Christ DID have to be born and die for our salvation! How else would we have been redeemed!? This is one of the clearest teachings of the Church.

“B. Christ only chose to die, so save man from Hell.”

But for us, he HAD to die. He chose it, but for us, in order that we may live, He had to die. And since he Chose to die – he also Chose to be born, which brings us back to the fact that Mary was redeemed and Saved at her conception.

“C. Remember the Old Testament saints and anyone who died before Christ did? They went to Paradise in the heart of the earth. They were not fit for Heaven till after the resurrection of Christ. Because they could not be perfect till the blood of Christ had been shed for their sins. So, if Mary had been saved, as you say, before she was born, she still wasn't fit for heaven.”

But Mary only went into Heaven after Christ, her Son, died. So she was Pure enough to enter Heaven, but the Gates of Heaven weren’t opened until Christ Died and Rose!

“Our flesh is corrupt, all flesh, including Mary's. And what does the Bible say: 1co 15:53-54 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. I believe John the Baptist was saved before he was born - there is more proof of that than with Mary. But, he still sinned during his lifetime. Lu 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.”

But John didn’t need to be pure, like Mary. Mary bore and participated in her Son’s Salvific Life, Death, and Resurrection.

Thanks, Tim, for taking the time to write.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), November 12, 2002.

Well Jake, I believe we have completed Volume 1... :)

1. "He gave Paul and John and the other Gospel writers “insights to teachings [or additions] that [were] not covered in Scripture” at the time." - What? I would be willing to say that the major of the things covered in the New Testament, were covered in the Old Testament. Only Christ changed or added things - what was added, in scripture, after His resurrection into Heaven for the last time? Even Revelation was written with Him.

2. "However, nowhere is it said or written that no more teachings would NOT be inspired by the Holy Spirit." - but no "new" teachings will be contrary or add to doctrine already established by scripture.

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

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

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

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

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

6. "Christ told the Apostles, “As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”" - Okay, but let me ask this... I'm not bashing, just asking...

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. "You believe that the Body and Blood that Jesus commanded us to eat are not really the Body and Blood of Jesus. We believe it was! How can we now go to Scripture to prove it either way? It is obvious that theologian after theologian (protestant and Catholic) have studied their tooshes off, but yet neither can prove it either way simply by scripture! That is where the Protestants fall flat." - No, I believe this is where the Catholics go wrong by "adding" to Scripture when they can't understand something, then claim it has been passed down from the Apostles. Who can ask the Apostles? Is this true?

Mr 14:24-25 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

So, Jesus Christ will drink His own blood with us in Heaven?

13. "Actually we can claim that all of them are inerrant, because even though there are different Catholic versions worded differently, they all have the 73 books, and all are written to convey the meaning that those who wore the Bible meant."

What happened in the Garden?

God said, one thing - the Devil added something - Eve added something. It all sounded about the same, but was not the same. I doubt if ever version of the Catholic Bibles are "the same".

14. "This is wrong, none of us will DEFEET Satan, with the Armour of God we can only send him away or defend ourselves from him. Jesus, with the cooperation of Mary, and His angels will DEFEET and destroy Satan for good." - What?

Through the blood of Jesus Christ, the Devil can not beat us and bring us to Hell. Jesus does not need Mary to DEFEET Satan. Where do you get that? God cast Satan out of Heaven, without Mary. Christ beat the Devil's temptations with Scripture, without Mary. Christ will judge the righteous, without Mary. God will judge the unrighteous, without Mary. The Devil will be cast into the Lake of Fire, without Mary. Mary was not, is not, and never will be equal to Jesus Christ - or - able to hold the power which He has. The world was created by Him, without Mary, and He only "needed" Mary so that He could be born of a virgin to fulfill Scripture, not for a "side kick". I am not belittleling Mary, but bringing in reality. Christ NEVER put Mary as high as the Catholic Church does, never in Scripture does He ever do so... So, you can not convince me that after He died, then the Apostles decided to do so.

15. "It wasn’t included in the Scripture, because Scripture wasn’t written to describe how one builds a Church, Christ did that!" - then what does this verse mean?

Eph 4:11-12 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

If the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers are "for the perfecting of the saints...for the edifying of the body of Christ", then what are the popes and priest for - that are clearly not mentioned in the New Testament anywhere concerning Christ appointing such.

16. "He was given his information in a “revelation by Christ”. But it doesn’t say that he was taught by Christ for 31/2 years! Of course the information comes from Christ! The 11 Apostles got their info from Christ also. But remember in Acts 1 when they picked Matthias as a replacement for Judas? Matthias was chosen by God also, but it was through the 11 Apostles, who had drawn lots to see if it was Gods will Matthias. And then Matthias, like Paul, was confirmed among the disciples." - How long was the ministry of Christ with His Disciples? How long was Paul "missing" and being taught? You give me the math. Matthias was there with them the entire time, but wasn't an Apostle until then.

Ac 1:21-22 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

17. "So, in order to be an Apostle, one must be Chosen (or Called) by God, which priests are, and then confirmed among the other Apostles and disciples, which priests are also." - What?

An Apostles is not a priest, and a priest is not an Apostle. Where do you get that. The priest were Old Testament [Levi's] which peformed scarcrifices for the people - BEFORE - the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Heb 10:1-14 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

I believe this Scripture anwswers two questions:

A. The priest of the Catholic Church are of the Old Testament and perform the sacrifices as they did [Mass], but Christ has put the Old away, and established the New.

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

18. "So if there is no more Apostles, then what is your Pastor doing?"

Joh 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

And also, Ephesians 4:11-12

19. "What! So since I am born again, I cannot falter and end up in hell? This is heretical. Judas was baptized and born again, and “it would have been better for him had he never been born!”" - When was Judas baptized? Who said that baptisim saves someone? Judas was of the Devil.

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

2th 2:3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Is it any wonder that Judas is call the son of perdition? And it is only mentioned 2 times in the KJV? This could be a new subject..ha!

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

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

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

23. "Mary bore and participated in her Son’s Salvific Life, Death, and Resurrection."

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

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

-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 12, 2002.

Dear Tim--
Why don't you pick a subject, give it your all, and wait for the reply?

It's such a disappointment to see these overwhelming stacks of words-- a literal FIELD of argumment, with such little substance in it! Did you want to BURY the Catholic faith this way? Do you know the meaning of modesty? Economy? Brevity?

The only thing you produce this way is FATIGUE. Isn't it your aim to persuade? What a boring post you let loose!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 13, 2002.

Timmy,

Did you just start studing about relegion last month? I think the previous poster was generous with his word, "boring". COME ON TIM!

@

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

OK, Looking over a LARGE thread, I realise Jake our Catholic is also guilty of OVERWHELMING volumes of words. What a sorry way to serve God! Name just one passage, please, from the Bible--

In which Jesus produced a flood of language and explanations, a river of speech, or the length you two are travelling, to say what you want to say? I know you don't compare yourselves to Our Dear Lord. But come ON! Make your point, just as Jesus made a point; without pouring out your guts! ( Forgive my impatience!)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 13, 2002.

I can't possibly read through all of Jake and Tim's posts.

Tim, in the last paragraph you wrote, "Mary bored Christ. End of Mary. She didn't do anything else concerning the duties of Christ, the salvation of the Believer, or the casting of Satan into the Lake of Fire"

According to you, and other Protestant anti-Marians, Christ used Mary for her body and for her motherly tenderness, and then cast her away when he was done with her! Oh, how cold is your Jesus! Your Jesus is barely human, if at all. He uses people and then casts them away with no more than a passing glance. He had no familial relationship whatsoever with his mother. His mother meant nothing to him. The fact that she dedicated her entire life to him from beginning to end means nothing! The fact that she nursed him, changed his diapers, cleaned the baby dribble off his cheeks, watched him grow into an incredible young man, watched him perform miracles, heal the sick, raise the dead. The fact that she watched as sinners spat upon him, watched his flesh be torn from his precious body, the body she nurtured and cared for since birth; watched as the nails were driven in his hands and feet. And then, when the final humiliation was over, and the crowd had spent their anger upon her son, as she locked her eyes upon his and saw his suffering, he was unable and unwilling to share in HER suffering. Oh No, he looked upon her as if she were a stranger, he gazed at her in cold silence. After all she was NOTHING to him!

Yet Simon prophesied to her, "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." Simon's prophesy drew Mary into the drama of all dramas in a way none of us can comprehend.

Oh, there can be no greater insult to a son, than to besmirch His mother!

Shame on you, Tim,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 13, 2002.

I like the translation I have in book form here better than this copy/paste translation, but I have to run to work, and it'll do...

Blessed Mary of Agreda, 17th century Spain:

"It was revealed to me that through the intercession of the Mother of God, all heresies will disappear. This victory over heresies has been reserved by Christ for His Blessed Mother. In the last times the Lord will especially spread the renown of His Mother: Mary began salvation and by her intercession it will be concluded. Before the Second Coming of Christ, Mary must, more than ever, shine in mercy, might and grace in order to bring unbelievers into the Catholic Faith. The powers of Mary in the last times over the demons will be very conspicuous. Mary will extend the reign of Christ over the heathens and Mohamedans and it will be a time of great joy when Mary a Mistress and Queen of Hearts is enthroned."

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), November 13, 2002.

Eugene -

This post was for a reply to ALL the questions and/or statements posting to me from Jake.

What was I supposed to do. Answer 1 and just forget the rest? Is it that you have nothing better to do but complain?

----------

Gail -

I don't mean to say that Jesus just used Mary and cast her aside. I believe He cared for her as a son does a Mother, but He was here to do the will of His Father [God] - to brings sinners to repentence - not to be a son to Mary. Remember He said that we should leave father, mother, sister, brother, etc.. and follow Him.

I just don't believe that Christ held Mary in the same light the Catholic Church does...

--------

Emerald -

Thanks for the quote. Still not Scripture...

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

Hi Tim, you can NEVER understand what Catholics believe about Mary unless you understand what Catholics believe about ALL the saints who are with the Lord!

Prior to the Reformation, it was ALWAYS believed that saints were with the Lord, "working and building His kingdom," through their prayers and intercessions. Even Luther believed this. (Of course, I can provide quotes out the ying-yang.)

Protestantism eventually DIVORCED Jesus from his family -- the family he died for! When Hebrews says "we come to the spirits of dead men made perfect," that includes ALL the saints that are with Him! The saints EDIFY the body of Christ along with Mary. Their prayers and intercessions are great gifts to us still left here on earth. It is a terrible tragedy that Protestantism succeeded in not only dividing the body here on earth, but has sought to divide the body in heaven as well! There is NO END TO THE DIVISIONS, Tim! Think about that. How does that answer Jesus' prayer "that they all be one"?

Gotta run,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 13, 2002.

If Tim chooses to address each and every point of Jake's then he can do so. I find it rather sad and hypocritical that people get on Tim's case about his long posts. I have read through many threads and I have seen each of you do the exact same thing. Eugene, if you get tired, then you probably shouldn't be sitting in front of the computer, go and take a rest.

Quit with the ad-hominem attacks. If you have the Lord's speaking in you, you will not treat a brother in such a way.

And if you are sick of the thread, don't bother reading it, go to another thread.

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 14, 2002.

Dear Tim,
Jake is the Catholic who makes longer posts, and he wasn't left out. You don't have him crying.

Look, we can't read an outsized post as comfortably. I'm not piling on you, I want you to communicate efficiently, and I'm sure you try to.

Sometimes after 30-40 words, eyes will glaze over. I'm advising a truer method; you will actually benefit! People will continue with the train of thought you are advancing. I'm making a suggestion, that's all. The same to Jake, my friend. Don't get the wrong impression.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 14, 2002.

Dear Oliver,
You seem defensive today. ''I find it rather sad and hypocritical that people get on Tim's case about his long posts.'' Oh, well. You got an ad hominem dig in, so I afforded you the opportunity. I'm ''hypocritical''. No hard feelings; at least I didn't have to read far to find it. Thanks!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 14, 2002.

The point I'm making is that you condemn Tim for making long replies, addressing each and every point of a thread, and yet you do the same exact thing as do many of the people here. If it's too much strain for you, just don't bother with it rather than whine on the thread. It's not Christ-like the way you speak to Tim. Show you are Christian by your love.

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 15, 2002.

Oliver,
I ''condemned'' no one. I speak from love for them. I speak to you from love. Now, why is your admonition loaded-- with words like 'condemn'', and ''whine''? Love is answered with love. You already implied I was hypocritical. But, I'm nothing if not frank. My love isn't a disguise, and when I have something direct to say, I don't sugar-coat it. You are usually sugary; and that's your style. But as you give ME this constructive criticism, you sneak in a few disparaging details. Hypocrisy, condemnation, whining. Even so, I forgive you for this. I want to be good to you; --and to Tim.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 15, 2002.

Olly,

Get off of Eugene's back! You follow him around thread-thread like a "rabid dog". What is it you realy have against Eugene bro? Getting nervous about the wedding coming up soon?

-- - (.@....), November 15, 2002.

Follow Eugene around ? No, actually the threads I visit have nothing to do with who is posting them. If I see that Eugene (or anyone) starts criticising someone for the very thing that he himself does then I can speak up about this can I not ?

What's the problem ? Eugene, can't you drop the pride and just admit when you are in the wrong ?

Let's look at Eugene's words in love :

I'm reminded what Hemingway once said about Norman Mailer. ''He has diarrheia of the typewriter.''

The only thing you produce this way is FATIGUE. Isn't it your aim to persuade? What a boring post you let loose!

Eugene do you also deny that you have done the very thing you accuse Tim of doing ? Answering each point in such long posts ? Are you the master of thread replies ?

Now I'm a sugar-coater. I'd like to know in which way.

Yes you whine, you whine about how the posts are too long and make you tired.

Yes you condemn by comparing his writing to diarrheia of the typewriter.

Yes you are hypocritical because you do the same thing with your long drawn out posts. Would you like me to give you some examples ?

No, you do not speak in love.

No, you do not speak in Christ.

Humble yourself bro. Do you really think you have the Lord's approval ?

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 15, 2002.

"We are afraid to abandon ourselves totally into God's hands for fear He will not catch us as we fall. It is the ultimate criterion, the final test of all faith and all belief, and it is present in each of us, lurking unvoiced in a closet of our mind we are afraid to open. It is really a question of our ultimate belief in His existence and His providence, and it demands the purest act of Faith"

"I had little need to speak much of the power of evil to these prisoner-priests. It was tangible. It was all about us. That there was a force of evil loose in the world, doing battle for the minds of men, was as realistic as the barbed wire that fenced us in and the propaganda that bombarded us daily. So this was their battlefield, this was where Christ had seen fit to place them, this was where they must labor and suffer and perhaps die. They had to convince themselves, these prisoner-priests, of the need to renew their faith in the belief that God's victory was the gaurantee of their victory... that is how the Kingdom of God has been spread from the time of Christ's coming until now. It depends on the faith and commitment of every man, but especially of the priest, every day of his life."

"A spirituality based on complete trust in God is the surest guarantee of peace of soul and freedom of spirit. The sould must learn to act not on its own initiative, but in response to whatever demands are imposed by God in the concrete circumstances of each day. Accepting whatever comes or happens as the will of God, no matter what it costs spiritually, psychologically or physically, is the surest and quickest way to freedom of soul and spirit that surpasses all understanding and explanation."

"God in His providence does not leave men at peace until they are converted in a crisis that, sooner or later, must come to every heart. God's grace demands the total transformation of man, for man belongs to God. Only in faith, only by a change of heart, can man enter the Kingdom of God."

--Fr. Walter Ciszek, S.J. "He Leadeth Me"

-- (larry@curly.moe), November 16, 2002.

Dear Ollie:
You ask: ''you have the Lord's approval ?

Our lord's approval? I suppose not. I've been a sinner all my life. You are an upright man; and I congratulate you. You come from outside the fold and yet are given courage to tell me my faults.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 16, 2002.

Oh I most certainly have my faults bro. I'm a rotten sinner as well. I just don't like to see Tim being scolded for something that is done by the scolder as well as many others here. Bro, I won't go any further than that.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 16, 2002.