Why waste the energy?

[Guest stray bullet]

Really? Where?

"Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." - John 20:23

To put men on the same level of Christ? God forbid!

That's like saying preachers put themselves on the same level as God for teaching the Gospel. All a preacher or minister is doing is saying the same things Jesus said when reading from the Gospel, although that doesn't mean he's as good as Jesus. In the same way that men now spread the good news as Jesus did, so also does Jesus grant men the power to hear confession and through Christ's forgiveness, absolve them of their sins.

Christ was not a man, He is God. The men who "forgive" sins are just men, and there is no biblical basis that says they can forgive sins.

Sure there is. If Jesus didn't want people to confess in person, then He might be misleading by hearing confessions in person, rather than privately. Remember that people confessed to him and in front of the apostles at the same time. The bible also speaks of confessing your sins to one another.

"Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good, but God alone. You know the commandments; Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother."

not to mention the whole 6th commandment thou shalt not kill.

The Inquistion was not about killing, it was about addressing people that mislead others on things of faith. The Church didn't kill people, however, it is true local governments grossly abused the Inquistion to get rid of people they didn't like.

Really? Where?

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." - 1Cr 3:15

"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come." - Mat 12:32

Why did Jesus say it wouldn't be forgiven in this world or the next unless sins could be forgiven in the next?

Funny you should mention the whole body analogy; Christ is the head of the church. Not men, not the popes, but Christ:

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. - EPHESIANS 5:23

Thank you for pointing this out. Just as the husband is the head of the family, so is the Pope the head of the Church, while at the same time Christ is the head of the whole family including over the husband, such as He is over the Church and Pope.

Christ/God is the head of the entire Church, while the Pope is the human head, like a husband is a human head over the family.

Not a single mention of Lent. Who made it up then, er, perhaps men?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited August 30, 2005 by stray bullet

[Guest stray bullet]

The Catholic Church contradicts itself all the time.  In fact, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are primitive proof of that.

The Catholic Church has never made a single error in doctrine in its 2000 years, no have they ever retracted any doctrine.

I don't see what the Orthodox church has to do with anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"The sun revolves around the earth"

"The heavens are stable (comets don't exist)"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you have evidence otherwise, post away.

[Guest stray bullet]

But, you might say, "Jesus is the only mediator between man and God".

Yes, yet many still pray for their friends, in effect, "mediate" for them.

We can only be "secondary" mediators thru the power of Jesus, the Primary mediator.

That makes it clearer and actually makes sense.

I personally find that there are a lot of things with the Catholic Church that I disagree with. I believe Constantine started it with evil intent and some of the administration over the years have done some very evil things (like outlawing the Bible and the Inquisitions). I don't believe the Popes are infallable and I don't believe the wine and bread change to Jesus actual blood and body.

However, I do think that there are very good Christians out there who happen to be Catholic. They see things one way, I see things another way. I think debating the differences are okay, if it's done in a spirit of love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1) The Catholic Church was not created by Constantine. The Catholic Church was created by Jesus with Peter the apostle as the head. Peter went to Rome and established an Apostolic See. Just as Jesus predicted, Peter was martyred. The successors of Peter stayed in Rome and lived under deep persecution until the 4th Century when Constantine lifted the ban on Christianity and we were allowed to practice our faith openly.

2) The Pope is not infallible, he is only capable of having the Holy Spirit speak through him under certain conditions, which is called ex-cathedra. This is the same means by which we got our bible- God speaking through the prophets and apostles.

3) John 6 makes it perfectly clear that "this is my body" means "this is my body". Jesus' followers actually walked away from Him because it was too much to handle for Him. The Gospels show that He didn't correct them, nor say He was only speaking symbolically.

Not only that, but the bible says people became sick from receiving the Eucharist unworthily.

4) The Catholic Church never outlawed the bible.

5) The problems we associate with the Inquisitions are related to local governments at the time, not the Catholic Church.

[Guest stray bullet]

The modern messianic movement began with a Bulgarian rabbi who visited Israel in the late 1800s. He had absolutely ZERO ties to Catholics or Protestants when he began the first messianic jewish synagoge since the 13th Century.

Which books of the bible did he use then? Where did he get those books from the bible?

He read the Bible.

It is an almost exclusively jewish book. If one tries to read it outside of that context they will never fully understand what it is saying.

Oh, we have a Messianic Jew here? I don't have a problem with them, but i love the ones that think that their denominatoin somehow gives them clarity to understand the bible more than anyone else.

I didn't ask if he read the bible, I asked which books from the bible did he use and where did he gets those books from the bible.

You see, he either got them from Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic or Protestant sources and used the series of books accordingly.

The bible is a collection of books, not a static book in and of itself. Therefore, he either the bible from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Coptic, Protestantism and that's what Messianic Judaism came from.

Sorry man...I don't accept any of the "church fathers" as credible. You can not proclaim anything from extra-biblical sources until you can prove something...anything....using the Bible

 

Show me in the bible that Messianic Judaism is true.

Show me in the bible Jesus establishing His Church on some 13th Century rabbi. I'll show you him establishing it on Peter, the first Pope.

The so-called church fathers were gnostics. They were trying to establish a new religion by reading latin translations of greek texts translated from the hebrew & aramaic languages.

That's not at all true. Parts of the bible were originally written in Greek. Secondly, Latin was only used in the western half of the Church. The east used Greek and still does to this day.

Lastly, Gnostics are a completely different religion than Christianity and Catholicism. They have their own texts, their own bible.

They were the very people who led the revolt against the ORIGINAL church with their bigotry against jews...which caused the first denominational split...which eventually became the Catholic church.

Oh really, and which Pople did that occur under?

Who is the true head of the Church?

The Catholic Church began as a rebellions anti-semetic institution. They cut christians off from the foundation of our faith. After all, salvation is of the jews...not of Rome

The Catholic Church was created by Jesus Christ. Our first Pope was a Jew, Peter.

Edited August 30, 2005 by stray bullet

[Guest yod]

Oh, we have a Messianic Jew here?

no..I'm not jewish.

I don't have a problem with them, but i love the ones that think that their denominatoin somehow gives them clarity to understand the bible more than anyone else.

Be fair. Those people are in every denomination including yours. Bless their little hearts...they will never be as clever as you and I, huh?

I didn't ask if he read the bible, I asked which books from the bible did he use and where did he gets those books from the bible.

He used the Torah to find his Messiah. It was in hebrew.

What translation of the new testament did he read when he started reading that? I don't know. If you are sincerely interested in hearing the story I'll find it and post it.

Protestantism and that's what Messianic Judaism came from.

The messianic movement began with jews in Jerusalem and the advent of the King of Israel. "The Way" was an almost exclusively jewish faith for the first 50-70 years. There were huge numbers of jews coming to faith. What do you think happened to them?

The actual descendants of the Apostles were persecuted by the Romans, the leaders of Israel, and even the early gentile church by the turn of the first century. An overview of the Book of Romans shows that there were already tensions in the church of Rome. Writings of the church fathers show there was no tolerance for jews in their churches.

Admittedly, it was the evangelical protestant matrix that made it possible for messianic jewish congregations to exist because the church at Rome was NEVER gonna let a jewish revival happen...as proven over 1,700 years of history.

Many messianic congregations are charismatic....many are fundamentalist. Many are pentacostal...many are conservative. The only thing they all have in common is that the roots of their teaching and worship structure comes from the ancient synagogue...and the ancient original church.

A lot of American jewish kids were giving their life to the Lord in the 60's and 70s but being treated a little weird in the church because they still honored the Sabbath or avoided eating pork. So they took the traditions they had grown up with in the synagogue and applied "messianic" (christian) meanings to them.

The synagogue first appeared in 600 B.C. as local houses of worship in a land far from home. This is where the whole idea of church comes from.

Show me in the bible Jesus establishing His Church on some 13th Century rabbi. I'll show you him establishing it on Peter, the first Pope.

What are you talking about?

We would never idolize any rabbi and make him "king" of the church!? We would never proclaim any man to be the "vicar" (voice) of God by virtue of a vote of other mortal men!? We would certainly never bow and kiss the ring of any man!? That is repulsive to our psyche.

Yeshua's church is established on Him alone.

And the jew known as Kefa (English: Peter) would have felt the same way and therefore was never a pope. That is another fairy tale.

That's not at all true. Parts of the bible were originally written in Greek.

I am well aware of that.

But it is not the language when it originally happened in Israel so you have the "big gun" church fathers like Augustine were only able to read Latin translations of Greek texts which were originally spoken in Hebrew and Aramaic.

They were making doctrines and theology up 3 steps away from the original languages! Do you not see the potential for a problem here?

Of course not...you have the RCC circular reasoning. "Everything we say is true because we say that it is true somewhere in our own writings and, of course, we have always been infallable!"

Lastly, Gnostics are a completely different religion than Christianity and Catholicism. They have their own texts, their own bible.

Funny...that's not what the gnostics say.

Hereis a quote from a gnostic site;

The Gnostic Church is a Christian church and considers itself as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Ecclesia founded by the Logos and His apostles.

Does that sound like anyone you know?

They were the very people who led the revolt against the ORIGINAL church with their bigotry against jews...which caused the first denominational split...which eventually became the Catholic church.

Oh really, and which Pople did that occur under?

There were no popes then.

Who is the true head of the Church?

Jesus is....duh?

The Catholic Church was created by Jesus Christ.

I would not go so far as to say that it wasn't...but so were the messianic jews of the ORIGINAL church which were outlawed by the roman church.

Our first Pope was a Jew, Peter.

I don't believe it.

[gypc]

This page comes from myfortress.org

"We constantly hold that purgatory exists, and that the souls of the faithful there detained and helped by the prayers of the faithful."

(Council of Trent, The New Encyclopedia of Christian Quotations, p. 896)

"It is holy and wholesome to pray for the dead to loose them from their sins."

(2 Maccabees 12:46)

When And Why Were The Apocryphal Books Added?

The Roman Catholic Church added 11 books to the Cannon of Scripture called the Deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) in 1546. These books were added during the Council of Trent to defend their doctrines of purgatory, Sola Scriptura, and prayers for the dead among others.

The Protestant Reformers viewed the Apocrypha as not inspired by God due to their spurious content, historical errors, legends, and doctrinal errors, in fact the book of Maccabees even states that it is not a prophetic book (1 Maccabees 9:27). For example;

"Tobit..contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (Tobit 1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (Tobit 14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares....Judith cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains... In 2 Maccabees there are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ingnorance or confusion."

(John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Facts on Roman Catholicism, pg. 43)

How Many Apocryphal Books Were There?

There were actually 14 apocryphal books, yet all 14 were not included, only 11, For example; 2 Esdras 7:105 says, "No one should ever pray for the dead."

The Catholic Church selectively chose books that supported their doctrines, yet denied the one's that contradicted it. For 1,500 years no Roman Catholic was required to believe that the Apocrypha was Scripture, until the Council of Trent made its fateful decree. Unfortunately, the Council adopted its position 'for reasons of expediency rather than evidence.' Thus, it was 'unmindful of the evidence, of former popes and scholars, of the Fathers of the church and the witness of Christ and the apostles' in making its decision to include the Apocrypha as Scripture.

Dr. Pache points out that one of the reasons Trent accepted the Apocrypha was merely in response to the arguments of the Reformers who were attempting to defend the principle of 'sola sciptura'--that the Bible alone is the believer's authority.

"Why, then, did Rome take so new and daring a position? Because, confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that the Apocryphal books supported such doctrines as prayers for dead (2 Maccabees 12:44); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the Mass, 2 Maccabees 12:39-46); alms giving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; Bar. 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (2 Maccabees 12:42,46).

("Facts on Roman Catholicism," John Ankerberg and John Weldon, pg. 43)

What Is The Big Deal?

The Apocrypha undermines the doctrine of inerrancy because these books contain historical and other errors. Thus, if the Apocrypha is considered Scripture, it identifies error with God's Word. This is why the Jews, Jesus, apostles, nor most of the early Church fathers never accepted the Apocrypha as Scripture.

What Does The Bible Say?

Here are some scriptures that refute prayers for the dead.

2 Samuel 12:18-23

"And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?"

But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.

"Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.

Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.

And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?

But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

King David wept and prayed for his child when he was alive, yet when the child died he washed his face and ate. David did not pray for his dead child but said I shall go where he is [heaven].

John chapter 11

Jesus wept for the dead and prayed for the living.

Luke 16:26

"And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."

Lazarus could not move between the great gulf, once you are in hell that is it, no second chances.

Hebrews 9:27

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

Luke 23:39-43

"And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Conclusion

If anybody needed such a thing as "Purgatory," it would have been this murderous thief on the cross, yet he was not baptized or did any works except believe on Jesus as his savior. Jesus did not tell him to get baptized or to do some good works in order to get to heaven, rather Jesus told him, "Today you shall be with me in Paradise."

It is abundantly clear, we die then comes the judgment if we are unbelievers and if we are believers we go to heaven, there is no such thing as Purgatory. Will you follow man's tradition (Mark 7:1-13, Matthew 15:3-9) or the Bible?

Ten Reasons Why The Apocrypha Should Not Be Included In The Bible

1) These books do not claim to be inspired.

2) They were not written by prophets.

3) They were not confirmed by miracles.

4) They contain no new supernatural prophecies.

5) They contain false teachings and errors.

6) They were never accepted by Judaism as inspired by God.

7) They are never quoted as Scripture in the New Testament.

8) Jesus accepted and confirmed the Jewish canon, which was called the Law and Prophets (Matthew 5:17-18; Luke 24:27).

9) They were rejected by most major church fathers in the early church, including the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar Jerome.

10) The grounds on which the Roman Catholics accepted them was faulty--claiming Christian usage rather than their being written by a prophet or apostle as the reason (see John 14:26; 16:13; Ephesians 2:20; Hebrews 1:1; 2:3-4).

Dr. Norman Geisler

[gypc]

............more quotes.

"If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification...Let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Cannon 9)

"If anyone says that men are justified either by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ alone, or by the remission of sins alone, or even that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God...Let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Cannon 11)

"If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sess. 6, Cannon 24)

"If anyone says that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed [ex opere operato, lit., "the work worked"] but [says] that faith alone in the divine promises is sufficient for the obtaining of grace, let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Cannon 8)

"If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation but are superfluos, and that without them or without the desire of them men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of justification, though all are not necessary for each one, let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sees. 7, Cannon 4)

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, That is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema."

(Council of Trent, sess. 7, Cannon 4)

"If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."

(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8)

"If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, let him be anathema."

(Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1)

"If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified...let him be accursed."

(Council of Trent, Cannon 12)

[halifaxchristian]

Stray bullet...may I be totally honest with you??? Permit me so...

I believe that you are a Jesuit...and for good reason. If this is an "insult" to you...then maybe you should give up that order. Just a thought.

I see that you come on this board and within one day are trying to establish and uphold doctrines that many of us at Worthy have proven un-Scriptural in past threads. I would answer each of you points one-by-one if I perceived that you were merely ingorant of Catholic devices and were an honest seeker...as I perceive Fiosh is, to a certain extent. I do not pride myself in having special abilities or gifts above anyone else here...but I do consider myself to have the gift of common sense...which God gave unto all men.

If you are sincere about finding the truth, or defending it with sincere integrity...and are not simply on a mission to thwart true Protestantism in these last days...I will engage most happily with you.

But let's do this the right way...start a new post for every topic you wish to handle...and we will do this one by one in an orderly fashion. It is most confusing to everyone on this board, and certainly not edifying, if we jump around from issue to issue without clearly establishing a base or foundation of clarity first.

I will deal with each and every point you bring up...one at a time, if you so choose.

I hesitate in debating with you in the present form because I do not believe in my heart that you have the right motivations in the labours you are taking on. I have reason to believe that you are a Jesuit, sent to defend the faith of your fathers, and are not open to honest, and intellectual conversation.

I hope that you will prove me wrong. Please understand my purposes here...we have dealt most extensively with many of the points you bring up. You jump onto this board in one day as if you can shake the foundations of Protestantism in a handful of posts...and that just does not fly around here.

If you wish to converge with Messianic Jews...do so in a respectful and orderly way...with an open mind to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit's leading. There are many Messianic Jews on this board who are both godly and knowledgeable in the faith...and I do not appreciate your ignorance in so dealing with them.

God bless.

[halifaxchristian]

Good posts gypc!!!!!

[halifaxchristian]

Stray bullet...you are bullet on a mission alright...but you definitely are not stray...you knew exactly what you were getting into the minute you signed up. Am I wrong??? Reveal my stupidity if that is what it is...but own up if that is what you are. Do the right thing.