Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
. . . the
Bible was written by Catholics, for Catholics,
for [use in] Catholic worship.
In reality, the Bible is inspired and has
authority, not because a church declared it
so, but because God made it so. God delivered
it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and
declared that it would abide forever.
". . . Holy men of God spoke as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21
"Heaven and earth will pass away,
but my words will not pass away." Matthew 24:35
"The grass withered, and the flower
has fallen — but the word of the
Lord endures forever." 1 Peter 1:24-25
The Catholics are wrong in their
assumption that the Bible is authoritative
only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible
does not owe its existence to the Catholic
Church, but to the authority, power and providence
of God.
It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic
Church to make the boastful claim of giving
the Bible to the world when both it and so-called
Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation
from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken
the Bible as the sole authority, and to replace
it with their man-made church.
If it is true that we can accept the Bible
only on the basis of the Catholic Church,
doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior
to the Bible?
This is exactly what Catholic officials want
men to believe. Their only problem is that
their doctrine comes from their own human
reasoning, rather than from God. Their logic
is a classic example of their "circular reasoning". They try to prove the Bible
by the Church (can accept the Bible only on
the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove
the Church by the Bible ("has ever grounded
her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd
reasoning which proves nothing. Either the
New Testament is the sole authority or it
is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot
be the Church, and if it is the Church, it
cannot be the New Testament.
Catholics often boast that the Bible was
written by Catholics, e.g., "All the
books of the New Testament were written by
Catholics". (The Bible is a Catholic Book) When
we consider the word "catholic" as
meaning "universal", we readily admit
that the writers were Catholic in that sense;
they were members of the church universal — the
Church of Christ which is described in the
New Testament Scriptures (Colossians 1:18; Romans 16:16). However, we firmly deny that
the writers of the New Testament were members
of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it
today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully
developed until several hundred years after
the New Testament was written. It is not the same
institution as was disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members
of the Lord's Church, but they are not its
author. God Himself is the author of the New
Testament.
The Catholic officials claim, that without
the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible.
They argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures
only on the basis of the Catholic Church,
which gathered the books and determined which
were inspired. Surely, the Catholic Church
cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament
Scriptures. The Old Testament came through
the Jews (God's chosen people of Old), who
had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul
said,
"1 What
advantage then remains to the Jew, or what
is the use of circumcision? 2 Much
in every respect. First, indeed, because
the oracles of God were entrusted to them."
The Old Testament books were gathered into
one volume and were translated from Hebrew
into Greek, long before Christ came to Earth.
The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy
scholars at Alexandria, Egypt, around the
year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ
and His Apostles used. Christ did not tell
the people, as Catholics do today, that they
could accept the Scriptures only on the basis
of the authority of those who gathered them
and declared them to be inspired. He urged
the people of His day to follow the Old Testament
Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because
man or any group of men, had sanctioned them
as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore,
He understood that God-fearing men and women
would be able to discern by evidence (external
and internal) which books were of God, and
which were not.
Thus, He never raised questions and doubts
concerning the gathering of the inspired books.
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does
it nowhere mention the Catholic Church?
Why is there no mention of a Pope, a cardinal,
an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun,
or a member of any other Catholic order?
If the Bible is a Catholic book, why are:
auricular Confession
indulgences
prayers
to the saints
adoration of Mary
veneration
of relics and images, and
many other rites
and ceremonies of the Catholic Church,
left out of it?
If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics
account for the passage,
2 A bishop then, must be blameless,
married but once, reserved, prudent, of
good conduct, hospitable, a teacher 3 . . . 4 He
should rule well his own household, keeping
his children under control and perfectly
respectful. 5 For if a man cannot rule his
own household, how is he to take care of
the church of God?"
The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop
to marry, while the Bible says he must be
married.
Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic
book, why did they write the Bible as it
is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes
at the bottom of the page, in an effort
to keep their subject from believing what
is in the text?
the Council of Hippo (in 390 A.D.) proclaimed which books
were actually inspired, and
then placed
them in one volume
then all are indebted
to the Catholic Church for the New Testament,
and can accept it only on the authority
of the Catholic Church.
There are several things wrong with this.
First, it cannot be proven that the church
which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D.
was the same Church, which is now known, as
the Roman Catholic Church.
For example, the
church of 390 A.D. had no crucifixes and images,
because, "The first mention of Crucifixes
are in the sixth century", and "The
whole tradition of venerati[ng] holy images
gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church
of 390 A.D. administered Communion under both
kinds, because that was the prevailing practice
until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D.
(See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 A.D. was
a church altogether different from the Roman
Catholic Church today.
Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention, nor
give the slightest hint, that they were for
the first time "officially" cataloging
the books of the Bible for the world. It was
not until the fourth session of the Council Of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) that the bishops,
and high ranking officials of the Catholic
Church, "officially" cataloged the
books they thought should be included in the
Bible, and bound them upon the consciences
of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).
Secondly, God did not give councils the authority
to select His sacred books, nor does He expect
men to receive His sacred books only because
of councils, or on the basis of councils.
It takes no vote or sanction of a council
to make the books of the Bible authoritative.
Men were able to rightly discern which books
were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical
councils, and men can do so today. A council
of men in 390 A.D., with no divine authority
whatever, supposedly took upon itself the
right to state which books were inspired,
and Catholics argue that they, "Can accept the Bible only on the authority
of the Catholic Church."
Can we follow such reasoning?
Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic
Church is solely responsible for the gathering
and selection of the New Testament books.
In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament
books were gathered into one volume and were
in circulation long before the Catholic Church
claims to have taken its action in 390 A.D.
at the Council of Hippo.
New Testament books were in existence in their
present form at the close of the Apostolic
age. As a matter of fact, the Apostles themselves
put their writings into circulation.
"And when this letter has been read
among you, see that it be read in the church
of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves
read the letter from Laodicea."
Colossians 4:16
"I charge you by the Lord that this
epistle be read to all the holy brethren."
1 Thessalonians 5:27
Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the
Bible to the world cannot be true, because
they have not been the sole possessor of the
Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable
Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed
down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.
A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus,
which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine
(of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai
in 1844 A.D. and is now in the British Museum.
It contains all of the books of the New Testament,
and all but small portions of the Old Testament.
Scholars are certain that this manuscript
was made early in the fourth century, not
later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found
by a German scholar named Tishendorf, who
was a Protestant, and
is the most complete of all of them, has never been
in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.
Another valuable manuscript that has never
been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church
is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now
on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British
Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch
of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church)
to Charles I in 1628 A.D. It had been in possession
of the Patriarchs for centuries, and originally
came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it
gets its name. Scholars are certain that this
manuscript was also made in the fourth century,
and along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought
to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned
to be copied by Constantine.
The boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church:
that it has been the sole guardian and preserver
of the Sacred Scriptures down to the present,
is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is
not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write
it, nor do their doctrines and Church meet
the description of the doctrines and Church
of which it speaks. The New Testament was
completed before the end of the first century,
A.D. The things in it do not correspond to
the Catholic Church, which hundreds of years
after the death of the Apostles, slowly evolved
into what it is now. The Catholic Church is
not the original and True Church, but a "church" born
of many departures and corruptions from the
New Testament church. It still remains that
the Catholic Church is not following the Bible,
and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore,
even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively
that it alone is responsible for gathering
the books, it does not prove that the Catholic
Church is infallible, nor does it prove that
it is the author of the Bible. God has, at
times, used evil agents to accomplish His
purpose Jeremiah 27:6-8; Jeremiah 43:10; Habakkuk
1:5-11; John 11:49-52).
The Catholic Church argues that since one
of its councils in 390 A.D. selected the sacred
books, one can accept them only on the basis
of its authority. We have answered by showing:
The Bible is inspired
and has authority, not because a church
declared it so, but because God made it
so.
Jesus did not teach the
people in His day that they could accept
the Old Testament Scriptures only on the
basis of those who placed the books into
one volume.
It is a mere assumption
that the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was
a Council of the church which is now the
Roman Catholic Church.
God did not give councils
the authority to select His sacred books,
nor does He expect men to receive His books
only on the basis of councils.
The Catholic Church is
not solely responsible for the gathering
and selection of the New Testament books.
The Catholic Church has
not been the sole possessor of the Bible
at any time.
Even if it could be proven
that the Catholic Church gathered the books
into one volume, it still remains that
it is not following the Bible today.
Shalom,
Bill
{ Can I rebut your claim: the Bible was written
by Catholics, for Catholics, for use in the Catholic Church? }
Eric
replied:
Hi Bill,
You said: In reality, the
Bible is inspired and has authority,
not because a church declared it
so, but because God made it so.
You are correct.
However, how would we know and
trust the writings in the Scriptures
to be inspired unless we had the
Church to tell us?
How would we have sorted out
all the myriads of competing 1st
century books which claimed to
be Apostolic?
The books have their own authority
being the written Word of God, but
does not the question arise:
Which books represent the written
Word of God, and
Which of those, that claim to
be the Word of God, are false?
Quoting part of your question:
". . . Holy men of God spoke as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21
"Heaven and earth will pass away,
but my words will not pass away." Matthew 24:35
"The grass withered, and the flower
has fallen — but the word of the
Lord endures forever." 1 Peter 1:24-25
To be fair, each of these quotes
pertains, not to Scripture, but to
the spoken Word of God.
You also left out the last portion
of verse 25: 1 Peter 1:25:
25 That word is the good news which
was preached to you.
Quoting part of your question: The Catholics
are wrong, therefore, in their assumption
that the Bible is authoritative only
because of the Catholic Church.
That is not our assumption. The argument
is that without the Church, we would
not have an infallible list of infallible
books. I would say that the Canon
is authoritative only because of
the Catholic Church (who was guided
by the Holy Spirit, the ultimate
authority), not that the Bible itself is.
Quoting part of your question: The Bible does
not owe its existence to the Catholic
Church, but to the authority, power
and providence of God.
We would not see these as opposed.
The authority, power, and providence
of God were manifested through the
Church, which is the Bride of Christ.
The Church is merely the instrument;
God is the authority.
Quoting part of your question: It would seem
unnecessary for the Catholic Church
to make the boastful claim of giving
the Bible to the world, when both
it, and so-called Protestantism, accept
the Bible as a revelation from God.
Yes, but, to be
frank, you only accept it as a
revelation from God because we
told you it was.
Quoting part of your question: However, it is
an attempt to weaken the Bible as
the sole authority, and to replace
it with their man-made church.
If it is true that
we can accept the Bible only on
the basis of the Catholic Church,
doesn't that make the Catholic
Church superior to the Bible?
No.
Can we accept the Gospel only
on the basis of the testimony
of the Evangelists?
Yes.
Does that make the Evangelists
superior to the Gospel?
No. The fact is, Bill, humans were
involved in authenticating the Bible;
the inspiration and contents of the
Bible are not revealed to each one
of us by a personal epiphany from
God.
That does not make the humans who
are, essentially, custodians of the
Bible, superior to it.
"Yet this Magisterium is
not superior to the Word of God,
but is its servant. It teaches
only what has been handed on to
it. At the divine command and
with the help of the Holy Spirit,
it listens to this devotedly,
guards it with dedication and
expounds it faithfully."
Quoting part of your question: This is exactly
what Catholic officials want men
to believe. Their only problem is
that their doctrine comes from their
own human reasoning, rather than
from God.
No, the doctrine comes from the Word
of God, both Written and Oral. (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Quoting part of your question: Their logic
is a classic example of their "circular reasoning". They try to prove the Bible
by the Church (can accept the Bible only on
the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove
the Church by the Bible ("has ever grounded
her doctrines upon it").
Not really. We try to prove the Church
to you by the Bible, not because
we think the Church's authority truly
depends on it, but because it's the
only thing you consider authoritative,
and the only thing you believe.
We try to prove the Bible by the
Church — or rather show that
the Canon of the Bible depends on
the Church — in order to demonstrate
the absurdity of putting so much
trust in the '"Bible alone",
while demonizing the only reliable
witness to the fact that the Bible
is trustworthy. We also try to prove
the Bible by the Church to show that
you accept a Canon determined by
a Church that, at the time, believed
many things you would reject as "unbiblical".
It seems odd that a Church would
admit books to the canon that so
contradicted its teachings . . . much
less get the canon right in so doing.
From your perspective, the
fact that the Church in 390 A.D.
got the Canon perfectly right, despite
its ostensibly grossly corrupted
doctrine, should be proof that
the decision was miraculous!
Circular reasoning is pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16 and claiming that
proves that 2 Timothy is inspired.
If that's true, all I need to do
is say,
"This e-mail is inspired of
God, and suitable for correction,
reproof, and training in righteousness,
so that the man of God may be
complete, equipped for every good
work"
and BOOM, it would be inspired, just
like that.
Obviously, 2 Timothy 3:16 is meaningless
unless you already trust
that 2 Timothy is inspired. (Never
mind the fact that the verse tells
you that Scriptures are inspired,
but never mentions what those Scriptures
are.) The way to prove 2 Timothy's
inspiration is outside of the Scriptures. There
is nothing within the Scriptures
that can prove their inspiration.
Quoting part of your question: Such is absurd
reasoning which proves nothing. Either
the New Testament is the sole authority
or it is not. If it is the New Testament,
it cannot be the Church, and if it
is the Church, it cannot be the New
Testament.
Why can't they both be authorities,
each in their own way?
We're not denying that the Scriptures
are inspired, nor claiming that the
Church is the sole authority (although
it is the ultimate authority for
interpretation).
Quoting part of your question: The Roman Catholic
Church was not fully developed until
several hundred years after the New
Testament was written. It is not
the same institution as was disclosed
in the New Testament.
Obviously, we'd take issue with that,
but that's another argument. I'd
encourage you to study what the early Christians actually believed,
beyond the testimony of the Scriptures.
Quoting part of your question: The New Testament
books were written by members of
the Lord's Church, but they are not
its author. God Himself is the author
of the New Testament.
Agreed.
Quoting part of your question: The Catholic officials claim, that without
the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible;
they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures
only on the basis of the Catholic Church,
which gathered the books and determined which
were inspired. Surely, the Catholic Church
cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament
Scriptures. The Old Testament came through
the Jews (God's chosen people of old), who
had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul
said,
1 What
advantage then remains to the Jew, or what
is the use of circumcision? 2 Much
in every respect. First, indeed, because
the oracles of God were entrusted to them.
Insofar as it set the Canon for the
Old Testament, and insofar as it
is the New Israel, it did give us
the Old Testament, but I understand
your point.
Quoting part of your question: The Old Testament books were gathered into
one volume and were translated from Hebrew
into Greek, long before Christ came to Earth.
The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy
scholars at Alexandria, Egypt, around the
year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ
and His Apostles used.
Yes, and did you know that the Septuagint
included several books that we accept,
but that you do not?
The Apostles used and authenticated
this Bible; yet you reject books
in the Septuagint that the Apostles
accepted.
Why is that?
Quoting part of your question: Christ did not tell
the people, as Catholics do today, that they
could accept the Scriptures only on the basis
of the authority of those who gathered them
and declared them to be inspired. He urged
the people of His day to follow the Old Testament
Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because
man, or any group of men, had sanctioned them
as such, but because they came from God.
How did they know they came from
God?
Because men told them so!
Quoting part of your question: Furthermore,
He understood that God-fearing men and women
would be able to discern by evidence (external
and internal) which books were of God, and
which were not.
Thus, He never raised questions and doubts
concerning the gathering of the inspired books.
OK, Bill — describe to me the
process by which you discerned that
the 66 different books of the Bible
were inspired and inerrant, and no
others — without reference
to the Early Church.
Quoting part of your question:
If the Bible
is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere
mention the Catholic Church?
Because it wasn't called that until
around 110 A.D.
Quoting part of your question:
Why is there
no mention of a Pope, a cardinal,
an archbishop, a parish priest, a
nun, or a member of any other Catholic
order?
Question for you.
Do you look the way you looked
when you were born? (No)
Are you the same person? (Yes)
What does a mustard seed look
like when it is planted?
What does it look like when
it grows?
Do the mustard seeds in the previous
two bullets look the same? (No)
Why does it surprise
you that the Church in Acts doesn't
look like the Catholic Church
today?
It was an infant; a seed then.
There were seeds.
Peter was the first Pope, although
obviously he lacked the trappings.
Bishops are mentioned.
Priests, whose root word comes
from presbyter, the Greek
word in Scripture often translated "elder",
are mentioned.
The enrolled widows were the
forerunners of our nuns.
Acts says that all the believers
lived in common and shared everything,
which describes a religious order.
Quoting part of your question: If the Bible is a Catholic book, why are:
auricular Confession
indulgences
prayers
to the saints
adoration of Mary
veneration
of relics and images, and
many other rites
and ceremonies of the Catholic Church,
left out of it?
You've covered a lot of ground.
First,
I'd say we do not "adore" Mary.
Worship is due to God alone. We venerate her,
but we do not worship her. Many of
the things you mentioned are there,
in one form or another.
Quoting part of your question: If the Bible
is a Catholic book, how can Catholics
account for the passage,
2 A bishop then, must be blameless,
married but once, reserved, prudent, of
good conduct, hospitable, a teacher 3 . . . 4 He
should rule well his own household, keeping
his children under control and perfectly
respectful. 5 For if a man cannot rule his
own household, how is he to take care of
the church of God?"
The Catholic Church
does not allow a bishop to marry,
while the Bible says he must be
married.
No, you are misreading it. It says
that he cannot be married more than
once. Paul was a bishop and was not
married.
Do you think he violated his
own rule?
Quoting part of your question:
Furthermore,
if the Bible is a Catholic
book, why did they write the
Bible as it is, and feel the
necessity of putting footnotes
at the bottom of the page,
in an effort to keep their
subject from believing what
is in the text?
Both Protestants and Catholics publish
Bibles with footnotes, because:
"His letters contain some
things which are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people
distort, as they do the other
Scriptures, to their own destruction."
(2 Peter 3:16)
Quoting part of your question: If the Bible
is a Catholic book,
I don't see how this condemns clerical
dress. Note that it does not condemn
tassels and phylacteries, just ostentatious
ones. The point of clerical dress
is more to remind the cleric of how
to conduct himself, and to hold him
accountable, rather than to impress
men.
Quoting part of your question:
Why
does it teach the adoration
of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28)
Well, we do not teach the adoration
of Mary, so that is not a problem.
Quoting part of your question:
Why
does it show that all Christians
are priests? (1 Peter 2:5, 9)
We affirm that all Christians are
priests. See the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: # 784 and
# 786.
Paragraph 2. The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit.
A priestly, prophetic, and royal people.
.
.
784 On entering the People of God through faith and Baptism, one receives a share in this people's unique, priestly vocation: "Christ the Lord, high priest taken from among men, has made this new people 'a kingdom of priests to God, his Father.' The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 10; cf. Hebrews 5:1-5; Revelation 1:6)
Paragraph 2. The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit.
A priestly, prophetic, and royal people.
.
.
786 Finally, the People of God shares in the royal office of Christ. He exercises his kingship by drawing all men to himself through his death and Resurrection. (cf. John 12:32) Christ, King and Lord of the universe, made himself the servant of all, for he came "not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28) For the Christian, "to reign is to serve him," particularly when serving "the poor and the suffering, in whom the Church recognizes the image of her poor and suffering founder." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8; cf. 36) The People of God fulfills its royal dignity by a life in keeping with its vocation to serve with Christ.
The sign of the cross makes kings of all those reborn in Christ and the anointing of the Holy Spirit consecrates them as priests, so that, apart from the particular service of our ministry, all spiritual and rational Christians are recognized as members of this royal race and sharers in Christ's priestly office. What, indeed, is as royal for a soul as to govern the body in obedience to God? And what is as priestly as to dedicate a pure conscience to the Lord and to offer the spotless offerings of devotion on the altar of the heart?
823 "The Church . . . is held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy. This is because Christ, the Son of God, who with the Father and the Spirit is hailed as 'alone holy,' loved the Church as his Bride, giving himself up for her so as to sanctify her; he joined her to himself as his body and endowed her with the gift of the Holy Spirit for the glory of God." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 39; cf. Ephesians 5:25-26) The Church, then, is the holy People of God, (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 12) and her members are called saints. (Acts 9:13; 1 Corinthians 6:1; 16:1)
Quoting part of your question:
Why
does it condemn the making and
adoration of images? (Exodus 20:4-5)
Actually, Scripture commands the
making of images: Exodus 25:18-19, Numbers 21:8. It is not the making
of images that is condemned; it is
the adoration of images, which we
do not do.
The Catechism states:
IV. "You Shall Not Make For Yourself A Graven Image . . ."
.
.
2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it. (St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18,45:PG 32,149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 126; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 67) The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.
Why
does it teach Baptism by immersion instead
of by pouring?
(Colossians 2:12)
The preferred form of Baptism is
by immersion, but if not feasible,
Baptism by pouring is acceptable
— see Ezekiel 26:25. Also see
the first century document the Didache,
Chapter 7, verses 1-3:
"But concerning Baptism,
thus shall ye baptize. Having
first recited all these things,
baptize in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit in living (running) water.
But if thou hast not living water,
then baptize in other water; and
if thou art not able in cold,
then in warm. But if thou hast
neither, then pour water on the
head thrice in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit."
19 So
then you are no longer strangers
and sojourners, but you are fellow
citizens with the saints and members
of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets, Christ
Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in
whom the whole structure is joined
together and grows into a holy
temple in the Lord; 22 in
whom you also are built into it
for a dwelling place of God in
the Spirit.
Why
does it teach that there is one
mediator instead of many?
(1 Timothy 2:5)
We do not teach that there is any
other mediator between God the Father
and man, except Jesus Christ.
Quoting part of your question:
Why
does it teach that a bishop must be
a married man? (1 Timothy 3:2; 4-5)
I covered this one.
Quoting part of your question:
Why
is it opposed to the
primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27)
You're getting ridiculous now.
Quoting part of your question:
Why
does it oppose the
idea of Purgatory? (Luke 16:26)
Hmmm, how does this "oppose" Purgatory?
Seems to me, this whole verse *proves*
Purgatory, as the rich man cannot be in
Hell, because he shows love for his
family, and men in Hell cannot love.
Why
is it completely silent about
infant Baptism, instrumental
music in worship, indulgences,
Confession to priests, the Rosary, the Mass, and many
other things in the Catholic
Church?
Why is it completely silent about:
altar calls
"accepting Jesus as
my personal Lord and Savior"
referring to "Father-God"
the four spiritual laws,
and "quiet times"
forbidding polygamy and
wedding rings
the Trinity, and so forth?
Is it totally forbidden to do
things that are not explicitly
permitted by Scripture?
But to answer your question, infant
Baptism is justified for several
reasons.
First, Baptism is the New
Testament circumcision (Colossians 2:12), and since infants could be
circumcised, they can be baptized.
14 Let the children come to
me, and do not hinder them; for
to such belongs the kingdom of
Heaven.
(Remember that for us, Baptism saves
us, 1 Peter 3:21.) Third, the Bible
gives many instances of whole households
that were baptized, which likely
included children (Acts 16:15, Acts 16:33, and 1 Corinthians 1:16).
Why would it say "household" if
only adults and older children
were baptized?
With respect to Confession, it's
implied in John 20:22, and auricular
Confession is commanded in James 5:15-16.
Does your church fulfill this
command?
With respect to the Rosary, besides
the fact that it's absurd to suggest
that a prayer is invalid, unless
it is printed in Scripture, it is
comprised mostly of the Our Father
(which is in Scripture) and the Hail
Mary, which comes from Scripture
as well.
I am not sure what your point is
about the Mass. Clearly, the Eucharist
is Scriptural. If you've ever been
to a Mass, most of the text comes
from, or alludes to, Scripture. The
only descriptions of Christian worship
in the New Testament are in Revelation 5 and Hebrews 12, and both of these
are mystical descriptions. If our
Mass is not in Scripture, then neither
is your service.
Quoting part of your question: Catholics argue
that since the Council of Hippo, in
390 A.D., proclaimed which books were
actually inspired, and then placed
them in one volume, then all are
indebted to the Catholic Church for
the New Testament, and can accept
it only on the authority of the Catholic
Church.
There are several things
wrong with this. First, it cannot
be proven that the church which held
the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D.
was the same church which is now
known as the Roman Catholic Church.
For example, the church of 390 A.D.
had no crucifixes and images, because, "The
first mention of Crucifixes are in
the sixth century", and "The
whole tradition of venerati[ng] holy
images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic
Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667).
Well, what's interesting is that
several churches separated from the
Catholic Church in 425 A.D. (as far
flung as Egypt, Syria, India, Ethiopia,
and Armenia), and all of these churches
use, and venerate, images. Either something
very sudden happened worldwide in
that 35 years, or images were in
use in 390 A.D. as well. Given that
images are found in the Catacombs
in Rome, I doubt images were foreign
to Christians in 390 A.D.
The fact that the first mention of
crucifixes we can find, is in the
6th century, is no proof that there
were no crucifixes prior to the 6th
century, any more than the fact that
the word Trinity did not appear for
several hundred years after Christ,
proves that the first century Christians
did not believe in the Trinity.
"We preach Christ crucified:
a stumbling block to Jews and
foolishness to Gentiles"
(1 Corinthians 1:23).
The Galatians did not see the Crucifixion.
They were a thousand miles away when
Jesus was crucified.
Why does it
say "clearly portrayed as
crucified" instead of "crucified"?
If early Christians used no images,
and the Galatians could not witness
the Crucifixion, what does this verse
mean?
Quoting part of your question: The church of
390 A.D. administered Communion under
both kinds, because that was the
prevailing practice until it was
formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs,
Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390
A.D. was a church altogether different
from the Roman Catholic Church today.
That doesn't mean it's not the same
Church. People change; their appearance
changes, and so forth, but they are
the same people.
What difference does it make
whether they administer Communion
in the same way then as they do
now?
Do you really think that's essential
to the Gospel?
Quoting part of your question: Furthermore,
in the proceedings of the Council
of Hippo, the bishops did not mention,
nor give the slightest hint, that
they were for the first time "officially" cataloging
the books of the Bible for the world.
Why would you expect them to?
What difference does it make
whether it was the first time
it was "officially" decreed?
Trent didn't give any hints that
its Canon was the first time an "official" catalog
of the Old Testament was made, but that
didn't make any difference.
Quoting part of your question: It was not until
the fourth session of the Council
of Trent (1545-1563 A.D.) that the
bishops, and high ranking officials
of the Catholic Church, "officially" cataloged
the books they thought should be
included in the Bible, and bound
them upon the consciences of all
Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent,
pp. 17-18).
That's at least true for the Old
Testament; I'm less sure it's true
for the New Testament.
Quoting part of your question: Secondly, God
did not give councils the authority
to select His sacred books, nor does
He expect men to receive His sacred
books only because of councils, or
on the basis of councils.
And on what basis *does* he
expect men to receive His sacred
books?
Quoting part of your question: It takes no vote
or sanction of a council to make
the books of the Bible authoritative.
Men were able to rightly discern
which books were inspired before
the existence of ecclesiastical councils,
and men can do so today.
Oh? And how might men do so today?
Please explain.
What do you make of all these
people who claim today that the
Catholic Church "hid" and
suppressed certain inspired books
of the Bible?
Do you think they are credible
claims?
Quoting part of your question: A council of
men in 390 A.D., with no divine authority
whatever, supposedly took upon itself
the right to state which books were
inspired, and Catholics argue that
they,
"Can accept the Bible only on
the authority of the Catholic Church."
Can we follow such
reasoning?
Absolutely.
Quoting part of your question: Thirdly, it cannot
be proven that the Catholic Church
is solely responsible for the gathering
and selection of the New Testament
books. In fact, it can be shown that
the New Testament books were gathered
into one volume and were in circulation
long before the Catholic Church claims
to have taken its action in 390 A.D.
at the council of Hippo.
That may or may not be true, depending
on your definition of "long".
It's quite well established, historically,
that the New Testament Canon was
fluid for centuries. Even after Hippo,
in the East, the debate still raged
over the canonicity of Revelation,
such that to this day, the book is
not publicly read in the Orthodox
churches.
If you want to argue that the Canon
of the New Testament was pretty much
set by the early to mid 4th century,
I'd buy that. If you want to argue
it was sealed and circulating as
a book by the end of the 1st century,
you just don't know your history.
Quoting part of your question: New Testament books were in existence in their
present form at the close of the Apostolic
age. As a matter of fact, the Apostles themselves
put their writings into circulation.
"And when this letter has been read
among you, see that it be read in the church
of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves
read the letter from Laodicea."
Colossians 4:16
"I charge you by the Lord that this
epistle be read to all the holy brethren."
1 Thessalonians 5:27
Yes, that is not in doubt. The question
is which writings in circulation
were authentic, since there were
many books which claimed to be Apostolic,
but weren't.
Quoting part of your question: Fourthly, the
Catholic claim of giving the Bible
to the world cannot be true, because
they have not been the sole possessor
of the Bible at any time. Some of
the most valuable Greek Bibles and
versions have been handed down to
us from non-Roman Catholic sources.
A notable example of this is the
Codex Sinaiticus, which was found
in the monastery of St. Catherine
(of the Greek Orthodox Church) at
Mount Sinai in 1844 A.D. and is now
in the British Museum. It contains
all of the books of the New Testament,
and all but small portions of the
Old Testament. Scholars are certain
that this manuscript was made early
in the fourth century, not later
than 350 A.D. This manuscript found
by a German scholar named Tishendorf,
who was a Protestant, and this manuscript
which is the most complete of all
has never been in the hands of the
Roman Catholic Church.
You forget that the Greek Orthodox
Church and the Roman Catholic Church
were the same Church until 1054 A.D.
So this *was* in
possession of the Roman Catholic
Church.
Quoting part of your question: Another valuable
manuscript that has never been possessed
by the Roman Catholic Church is the
Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is
now on exhibit in the manuscript
room of the British Museum in London.
It was a gift from the Patriarch
of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox
Church) to Charles I in 1628 A.D.
It had been in possession of the
Patriarchs for centuries, and originally
came from Alexandria, Egypt from
which it gets its name. Scholars
are certain that this manuscript
was also made in the fourth century,
and along with the Codex Sinaiticus,
is thought to be one of the fifty
Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied
by Constantine.
Again, these were originally part
of the one united Catholic Church
before the Great Schism. These weren't
people who came up with the Scriptures
independently from the Catholic Church.
They were *part* of
the Catholic Church in 390 A.D.,
and so accepted the decision.
In any case, I don't see what difference
it would make if other churches are
in possession of the Scriptures.
You'd have to prove that they independently
came up with the Scriptures, apart
from any influence from us. After
all, Protestants merely copied the
New Testament from us; you didn't
independently verify the inspiration
of the books (although Luther tried).
Quoting part of your question: The boastful
claim of the Roman Catholic Church,
that it has been the sole guardian
and preserver of the Sacred Scriptures
down to the present, is nothing but
pure falsehood. The Bible is not
a Catholic book. Catholics did not
write it, nor do their doctrines
and Church meet the description of
the doctrines and Church of which
it speaks. The New Testament was
completed before the end of the first
century, A.D. The things in it do
not correspond to the Catholic Church,
which hundreds of years after the
death of the Apostles, slowly evolved
into what it now is. The Catholic
Church is not the original and True
Church, but a "church" born
of many departures and corruptions
from the New Testament church.
I challenge you again to study the early Church— the Church
before the legalization of Christianity
in 325 A.D., during the persecutions — and
see that the doctrines you think
are "Biblical" are contrary
to the doctrines they took for
granted as "Biblical".
Read:
For example, the fourth bishop of
Rome, Clement, wrote a letter in
80 A.D. to the Corinthians, rebuking
them for overthrowing their presbyters.
(Why could he do this? He was Pope.)
He wrote,
"And our Apostles knew through
our Lord Jesus Christ that there
would be strife over the name
of the bishop's office. For this
cause therefore, having received
complete foreknowledge, they appointed
the aforesaid persons, and afterwards
they provided a continuance, that
if these should fall asleep, other
approved men should succeed to
their ministration. Those therefore
who were appointed by them, or
afterward by other men of repute
with the consent of the whole
Church, and have ministered unblamably
to the flock of Christ in lowliness
of mind, peacefully and with all
modesty, and for long time have
borne a good report with all these
men we consider to be unjustly
thrust out from their ministration.
(44:1)
This demonstrates that Apostolic
succession was operating from the
very beginning.
He also wrote of the distinction
between clerics and laity:
"For to the high priest [bishop]
his proper ministrations are allotted,
and to the priests the proper
place has been appointed, and
on Levites their proper services
have been imposed. The layman
is bound by the ordinances for
the laity." (40)
St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about the
Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
in 110 A.D.:
"Take note of those who
hold heterodox opinions on the
grace of Jesus Christ which has
come to us, and see how contrary
their opinions are to the mind
of God ... They abstain from the
Eucharist and from prayer because
they do not confess that the Eucharist
is the flesh of our Savior Jesus
Christ, flesh which suffered for
our sins and which that Father,
in his goodness, raised up again.
They who deny the gift of God
are perishing in their disputes."
It is allowed to no one else to
participate in that food which
we call Eucharist except the one
who believes that the things taught
by us are true, who has been cleansed
in the washing unto rebirth and
the forgiveness of sins and who
is living according to the way
Christ handed on to us. For we
do not take these things as ordinary
bread or ordinary drink. Just
as our Savior Jesus Christ was
made flesh by the word of God
and took on flesh and blood for
our salvation, so also were we
taught that the food, for which
thanksgiving has been made through
the word of prayer instituted
by him, and from which our blood
and flesh are nourished after
the change, is the flesh of that
Jesus who was made flesh.
Note not only that he says that the
bread and wine are not "ordinary",
but are "changed" into
the flesh and blood of Christ, but
he also calls Baptism the "washing
unto rebirth". In other words,
being born again refers, not to an
emotional conversion experience,
but to Baptism.
He elaborates on this in Apology
I, 61:
For indeed Christ said, "Unless
you be reborn, you will not enter
into the Kingdom of Heaven." . . .
For thus was it said,
"Wash,
make yourselves clean, remove
the evils from your souls, defend
the orphan and do justice for
the widow; and come let us converse
together, says the Lord. And if
your sins are like purple, I will
make them white like wool; and
if they are like scarlet, I will
make them white as snow." (Isaiah 1:16-20)
We learned this doctrine from
the Apostles. In our first birth
we were born unconscious, according
to necessity, out of the human
seed from the intercourse of our
parents, and we grew up in evil
customs and bad habits. But in
order that we may not remain children
of necessity and ignorance, but
of election and understanding
and may obtain remission of sins
previously committed, the name
of God the Father and Master of
the universe is invoked in the
water over the one who has chosen
to be reborn and who has repented
of his sins.
This name alone is the one which
he invokes who is leading the
candidate to the washing.... This
washing is called "enlightenment",
since those who have learned these
things are enlightened in their
minds.
So the early Church believed that
being born again meant being baptized.
Quoting part of your question: It still remains
that the Catholic Church is not following
the Bible, and is contrary to the
Bible.
The Church is following the Bible,
and this is clear when you understand
the Bible as it was understood by
the early Christians.
Quoting part of your question: Furthermore,
even if the Catholic Church could
show conclusively that it alone is
responsible for gathering the books,
it does not prove that the Catholic
Church is infallible, nor does it
prove that it is the author of the
Bible. God has, at times, used evil
agents to accomplish His purpose
(Jeremiah 27:6-8; 43:10; Habakkuk
1:5-11; John 11:49-52).
You are correct, it does not prove
that, but what it does prove is that
you must, in part, rely on the Church
rather than the Bible alone.
The Catholic Church is not the author
of the Bible, God is.
"For holy mother Church,
relying on the belief of the Apostles
(See John 20:31; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16), holds that the books
of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety,
with all their parts, are sacred
and canonical because written
under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, they have God as their
author and have been handed on
such to the Church herself [1]."
Quoting part of your question: The Catholic
Church argues that since one of its
councils in 390 A.D. selected the
sacred books, one can accept them
only on the basis of its authority.
We have answered by showing:
The Bible is inspired
and has authority, not because
a church declared it so, but because
God made it so.
Jesus did not
teach the people in His day that
they could accept the Old Testament
Scriptures only on the basis of
those who placed the books into
one volume.
Actually, Jesus never discussed the
Old Testament Canon at all. (I don't
mean to imply that Jesus never referred
to the Old Testament.) You're making
certain claims about Jesus and the
Old Testament Canon, but He never
commented on how we know which books
belong in the Hebrew Canon.
Shalom,
Eric
Bill
replied:
Eric,
Yahshua
Reinforces All YHWH's Commandments given
to Moses all through the New
Testament!
In Matthew chapter 22:35, a lawyer
who was well versed in the law, proposed
a question to Jesus.
35 Then
one of them, which was a lawyer,
asked him a question, tempting
him, and saying. 36 Master,
which is the great commandment
in the law?
37 Jesus
said unto him, Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. 38 This
is the first and great commandment. 39 And
the second is like unto it, Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On
these two Commandments hang all
the law and the prophets.
Now Jesus was asked for the great
commandment, and He responded by
stating the same Commandments which
had been given to Israel by Moses.
In verse 37, Jesus in his reply quoted
the same commandment written in Deuteronomy.
5 And
thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart, and with
all thy soul, and with all thy
might.
The Commandments given by Jesus encompass
the Ten Commandments because if
you love God, you will not have any
gods before Him, nor make any graven
images to worship, nor use His name
in vain. You will remember to keep
the Sabbath day holy and you will
honor your father and mother. And
if you love your neighbor, you will
not steal from him, nor lie to him
or commit murder against him. You
will not commit adultery, nor covet
that which belongs to another.
Note how Jesus replied when questioned
about obtaining eternal life.
16 And,
behold, one came and said unto
him, Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal
life? 17 And
he said unto him, Why callest
thou me good? There is none good
but one, that is, God: but if
thou wilt enter into life, keep
the commandments.
Now Jesus told the individual that
to obtain eternal life, he must keep
the Commandments. Now this person wanted Jesus to be
specific, so he asked which commandments.
18 He
saith unto him, Which? Jesus said,
Thou shalt do no murder, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou
shalt not steal, Thou shalt not
bear false witness, 19 Honor
thy father and thy mother: and,
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.
Here once again, Jesus gave instruction
to keep the same Commandments that
YHWH had given Moses. Look at Jesus'
response in the Gospel of Luke, when
He was asked about how to obtain
eternal life.
25 And,
behold a certain lawyer stood
up, and tempted him, saying Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal
life?
Jesus is asking him, does he not
know the writing of Moses? The lawyer
responds in the following verse.
27 And
he answering said, Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy strength, and
with all thy mind; and love thy
neighbor as thyself.
Once again, Jesus confirms that one
should follow the laws given to Moses.
Contrary to the belief of many, Jesus
did not do away with the laws of
Moses, or with the fact that one
has to be obedient. This is evidenced
in the following verse. Here Jesus
tells you what you should do if you
love Him.
The question one may have is which
Commandments? The same Commandments
given to Moses. This applies to all
of Gods laws, His Royal Laws, which
are the Ten Commandments, as well
as His Dietary Laws and Moral Laws
found in the Old Testament. Jesus'
First Coming did not do away with
the laws. What Jesus did was to emphasize
the spirit of the law.
Jesus Magnified
The Commandments.
Jesus did not do away with the Commandments,
or our role of obedience to those
laws, but He intensified His laws
in His teachings. Note what he says
in the following verses.
27 Ye
have heard that it was said by
them of old time, Thou shalt not
commit adultery: 28 But
I say unto you, That whosoever
looketh on a women to lust after
her hath committed adultery with
her already in his heart.
Jesus did not remove the law, but
He is saying, it is not enough for
you to refrain from committing a
sinful act. He is saying it is wrong
for you to even entertain the thought
of committing an act of sin. Your
heart is your mind, and if you allow
a sinful thought to originate and
fester there, you may be unable to
exercise restraint when confronted
with a situation of temptation. Jesus
goes on further to emphasize this
in the following verses.
29 And
if your right eye offend thy,
pluck it out, and cast it from
thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole
body should be cast into Hell. 30 If
your right hand offend you cut
it off, and cast it from thee:
for it is profitable for thee
that one of thy members should
perish, and not that thy whole
body should be cast into Hell.
Here he is saying, it is better for
you to destroy that member of your
body that you use to commit a sinful
act with, rather than risk condemning
your soul to Hell. He also tells
you in Matthew
5:43-47, to love your enemies, to
bless them that curse you, and to
do good to them that hate you. In
verse 48, he tells you why you should
operate in this manner.
48 Be
ye therefore perfect, even as
your Father which is in Heaven
is perfect.
Eric, Jesus tells us to be perfect
and the question one should have
is: perfect according to what? The
answer is simple. One should strive
to be perfect in following Man's
instruction manual given to him by
YHWH, the laws given to Moses by
YHWH. These are not Moses laws, but
YHWH's laws, and they are eternal.
Jesus does not want us to abandon
the laws, instead he wants us to
operate in the spirit of the laws.
160 All
your words are true; all your
righteous laws are eternal.
These are just a few of the Scriptures
in the Gospels where Jesus discussed
keeping the laws YHWH gave Moses.
My hope is that all who believe that
the Old Testament is no longer relevant, and that we no longer have to operate
under its laws, will reconsider their
position. No
man or Church has
the right to change them. You probably
will not learn this truth until after
you die.
I really don't think you will see
this, Eric. For you prize the church
and its doctrine over the word of
YHWH. When the Scriptures say He
(YHWH) honors His Word above His
name, He means
it! You cling to a church that claims
to have the "right" to
change His word, and make doctrine
contrary to the Scriptures, like:
making priests celibate
when the Scriptures say a bishop
must be married
changing the Sabbath from the
7th day to the first day, and
changing the celebrations from
Passover to Easter, etc.
You cannot argue these facts, and
many other changes your organization
has made. My point is that Moses
never taught that salvation came
by just keeping the laws. Moses taught
salvation came by faith in YHWH.
This principle has not changed, and
Jesus did not change it either,
as James His brother proclaims.
14 What
doth it profit, my brethren, though
a man say he hath faith, and have
not works? Can faith save him? 15 If
a brother or sister be naked,
and destitute of daily food, 16 And
one of you say unto them, Depart
in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not
those things which are needful
to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even
so faith, if it hath not works,
is dead, being alone. 18 Yea,
a man may say, Thou hast faith,
and I have works: show me thy
faith without thy works, and I
will show thee my faith by my
works. 19 Thou
believest that there is one God;
thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble. 20 But
wilt thou know, O vain man, that
faith without works is dead? 21 Was
not Abraham our father justified
by works, when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest
thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith
made perfect? 23 And
the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and
it was imputed unto him for righteousness:
and he was called the Friend of
God. 24 Ye
see then how that by works a man
is justified, and not by faith
only. 25 Likewise
also was not Rahab the harlot
justified by works, when she had
received the messengers, and had
sent them out another way? 26 For
as the body without the spirit
is dead, so faith without works
is dead also.
The keeping of the laws YHWH gave
Moses, of course! There are 613 of
them in the Torah, they are eternal,
and I am not talking
about the sacrificial laws, only
the laws pertaining to how we are
to live our lives before YHWH, and
with our fellow man. They are not
for salvation, for that is by faith
in Christ and His work on the Cross,
but if you know Him, then you will
desire to keep His laws, and not change
them. It is that simple.
You need not reply to this e-mail.
I don't wish to argue with you over
Scripture. We are worlds apart. You
honor your church over Scripture.
I honor not the
body (church) of Christ over YHWH's
word. For Yahshua is the word. You
cannot separate them. You will not
change your views, and neither will
I.
You shall not add to the word
which I command you, nor take
from it, that you may keep the
commandments of the LORD your
God which I command you.
Eric, you will say, this is Old Covenant,
we are under a New Covenant. This
is where you are wrong, dead wrong.
All of YHWH's covenants are everlasting.
Your church believes in replacement
theology, which is also false teaching.
The New Covenant is taking the laws
of the Old Covenant, and simply writing
them on our heart by His Holy Spirit.
They are the same eternal laws.
31 "The
time is coming," declares
the LORD, "when I will make
a new covenant with the house
of Israel and with the house of
Judah. 32 It
will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand to
lead them out of Egypt, because
they broke my covenant, though
I was a husband to them," declares
the LORD. 33 "This
is the covenant I will make with
the house of Israel after that
time," declares the LORD. "I
will put my laws in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they
will be my people.
Yahshua accomplished this at His
Passover meal; the same laws.
The fact is Eric, that if you are
in Christ, you have been grafted
into a vine that is Hebrew.
You don't make the vine or the branch
Gentile; you become a new creature,
you become Hebrew. Yahshua didn't
die on that Cross so that you could
continue to be a Gentile. The word
Hebrew means to "cross over",
and that is what happens to us when
we are born again. That is what happened
to all the Gentiles who sojourned
with the Hebrews out of Egypt; there
was one law (Exodus 12:49) for all of them and
the Gentiles were grafted into the
Hebrew tribes. They didn't
start their own thing, separate from
the twelve Tribes. They learned to
worship the way the Hebrews did.
If you are in Christ, you may not
be a Jew, that is only one Tribe,
but you do belong to one of those
other eleven Tribes. After all, think
about this: there are twelve gates
into the new Jerusalem in Heaven.
None of them are named by any Gentiles'
church names. There is no Catholic
gate or Protestant gate.
Which one will you walk through
Eric?
Shalom,
Bill
Eric
replied:
Dear Bill,
Quoting part of your reply: Eric,
Yahshua Reinforces
All YHWH's Commandments given
to Moses all through the New Testament!
I am not denying this. I am denying
that Jesus gave us any guidelines
for how to determine which books
were part of the Canon of the Hebrew
Scriptures, beyond quoting from a
subset of them and alluding to a
superset of them.
Quoting part of your reply: These are just
a few of the Scriptures in the Gospels
where Jesus discussed keeping the
laws YHWH gave Moses. My hope is
that all who believe that the Old
Testament is no longer relevant,
and that we no longer have to operate
under its laws, will reconsider their
position. No
man or Church has
the right to change them. You probably
will not learn this truth until after
you die.
I'm not sure what you mean. You went
on at length about things I totally
agree with. If you think you're contradicting
Catholic teaching, I'm not sure how.
Quoting part of your reply: I really don't
think you will see this, Eric. For
you prize the church and its doctrine
over the word of YHWH.
It may seem that way to you — and
I don't think you are in a position
to make such a judgment — but
if you knew:
how I studied the Word
of God
how I formerly doubted Catholicism
how I listened to many Protestant
interpretations
how I struggled
earnestly to understand the Word
of God, and
then came to realize
that:
"no prophecy of Scripture
is a matter of one's own interpretation" 2 Peter 1:19-21,
but that the
"Church of the living God
[is] the pillar and foundation
of the truth" 1 Timothy 3:15,
you would understand that I do prize
the Word of God above all things — both
the oral and written Word of God.
(cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Quoting part of your reply: When the Scriptures
say He (YHWH) honors His word above
His name, He means it!
You cling to a church that claims
to have the "right" to
change His word, and make doctrine
contrary to the Scriptures, like:
making priests
celibate
when the Scriptures
say a bishop must be married
changing the Sabbath
from the 7th day to the first
day, and
changing the celebrations
from Passover to Easter, etc.
We don't claim the "right" to
change His word. You may think we
have, but we do not presume to "change
his word."
You still haven't explained how being
married is a "requirement" for
being a bishop, given that Paul
was a bishop but not married (1 Corinthians 7:7), or why his requirements
state that "he must be married
but once" rather than simply "he
must be married". As I said,
this means he should not be married
more than once, not that he must
be married.
By the way, do you know what
the word for the feast of the
Lord's Resurrection is in Latin,
Greek, and in most languages other
than English and German?
It's identical to the word for "Passover".
If you want to argue, we should use
the Jewish calendar and celebrate
it on the 15th of Nisan, fine, but
don't tell me we "changed" the
celebration from the Passover to "Easter". I have a question for you, incidentally.
Quoting part of your reply: You cannot argue
these facts, and many other changes
your organization has made. My point
is that Moses never taught that salvation
came by just keeping the laws. Moses
taught salvation came by faith in
YHWH. This principle has not changed,
and Jesus did not change it either, as James His brother proclaims.
Yeah, I agree.
Quoting part of your reply:
14 What doth it
profit, my brethren, though a
man say he hath faith, and have
not works? Can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked,
and destitute of daily food, 16
And one of you say unto them,
Depart in peace, be ye warmed
and filled; notwithstanding ye
give them not those things which
are needful to the body; what
doth it profit? 17 Even so faith,
if it hath not works, is dead,
being alone. 18 Yea, a man may
say, Thou hast faith, and I have
works: show me thy faith without
thy works, and I will show thee
my faith by my works. 19 Thou
believest that there is one God;
thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt
thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead? 21 Was
not Abraham our father justified
by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his
works, and by works was faith
made perfect? 23 And the scripture
was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed
unto him for righteousness: and
he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works
a man is justified, and not by
faith only. 25 Likewise also was
not Rahab the harlot justified
by works, when she had received
the messengers, and had sent them
out another way? 26 For as the
body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead
also.
The keeping of the
laws YHWH gave Moses, of course!
There are 613 of them in the Torah,
they are eternal, and I am not talking
about the sacrificial laws, only
the laws pertaining to how we are
to live our lives before YHWH, and
with our fellow man.
Ummm, we have a problem here, Bill.
James mentions three "works" as
examples, and none of them are among
those 613 laws: feeding the hungry,
Abraham's sacrifice of his son, and
Rahab hiding the spies.
James is referring to works of Christian
love. While many of the 613 laws
may be examples of love, James is
not restricting himself to the Law
of Moses.
Quoting part of your reply: Eric, you will
say, this is Old Covenant, we are
under a New Covenant. This is where
you are wrong, dead wrong. All of
YHWH's covenants are everlasting.
Your church believes in replacement
theology, which is also false teaching.
The New Covenant is taking the laws
of the Old Covenant, and simply writing
them on our heart by His Holy Spirit.
They are the same eternal laws.
Quoting part of your reply: The fact is Eric,
that if you are in Christ, you have
been grafted into a vine that is Hebrew.
You don't make the vine or the branch
Gentile; you become a new creature,
you become Hebrew. Yahshua didn't
die on that Cross so that you could
continue to be a Gentile. The word
Hebrew means to "cross over",
and that is what happens to us when
we are born again. That is what happened
to all the Gentiles who sojourned
with the Hebrews out of Egypt; there
was one law (Exodus 12:49) for all
of them and the Gentiles were grafted
into the Hebrew tribes. They
didn't start their own thing, separate
from the twelve Tribes. They learned
to worship the way the Hebrews did.
If you are in Christ, you may not
be a Jew, that is only one Tribe,
but you do belong to one of those
other eleven Tribes. After all, think
about this: there are twelve gates
into the new Jerusalem in Heaven.
None of them are named by any Gentiles'
church names. There is no Catholic
gate or Protestant gate.
Which one will
you walk through Eric?
We believe there is one Israel: the
new Israel, the Church of Christ.
The Jews who do not believe are no
longer part of Israel; they have
been cut off (Romans 11:20).
Shalom,
Eric
Post
Script from Eric:
Hi, Bill —
I neglected to make a point about
the verse that ostensibly forbids
us from calling men "father".
You see several instances in the
New Testament where the Apostles
specifically call men "father":
"Even though you have ten
thousand guardians in Christ,
you do not have many fathers,
for in Christ Jesus I became your
father through the gospel."
"To this he replied: 'Brothers
and fathers, listen to me! The
God of glory appeared to our father
Abraham while he was still in
Mesopotamia, before he lived in
Haran."
If we take your verse strictly literally,
then there is a contradiction here.
If, however, we understand it in
the sense that we should not give
men the honor that belongs to God
alone, the contradiction is resolved
and it makes sense.
It also resolves the problem of what
to call the men who raised us.
Eric
Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey