Skip to comments.Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
Posted on 11/21/2009 4:02:44 PM PST by NYer
One of the more commonly shared experiences of Protestant converts to the Catholic Church is the discovery of verses we never saw. Even after years of studying, preaching, and teaching the Bible, sometimes from cover to cover, all of a sudden a verse we never saw appears as if by magic and becomes an Aha! mind-opening, life-altering messenger of spiritual doom! Sometimes its just recognizing an alternate, clearer meaning of a familiar verse, but often, as with some of the verses mentioned below, it literally seems as if some Catholic had snuck in during the night and somehow put that verse there in the text!
The list of these surprise verses is endless, depending especially on a converts former religious tradition, but the following are a few key verses that turned my heart toward home. This article is a reprint from the topic I covered on the July 31, 2006 broadcast of The Journey Home on EWTN.
1. Proverbs 3:5-6
Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
Ever since my adult re-awakening (read born-again experience) at age 21, this Proverb has been my life verse. It rang true as a guide for all aspects of my life and ministry, but then during my nine years as a Presbyterian minister, I became desperately frustrated by the confusion of Protestantism. I loved Jesus and believed that the Word of God was the one trustworthy, infallible rule of faith. But so did lots of the non-Presbyterian ministers and laymen I knew: Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Congregationalists, etc., etc., etc . . . The problem was that we all came up with different conclusions, sometimes radically different, from the same verses. How does one trust in the Lord with all your heart? How can you make sure your not leaning on your own understanding? We all had different opinions and lists of requirements. A verse I had always trusted suddenly became nebulous, immeasurable, and unreachable.
2. 1 Timothy 3: 14-15
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
Scott Hahn pulled this one on me. So, Marc, what is the pillar and foundation of truth? I answered, The Bible, of course. Oh yeah? But what does the Bible say? What do you mean? When he told me to look up this verse, I suspected nothing. I had taught and preached through First Timothy many times. But when I read this verse, it was as if it had suddenly appeared from nowhere, and my jaw dropped. The Church!? Not the Bible? This alone sent my mind and essentially my whole life reeling; the question of which Church was one I was not ready to broach.
3. 2 Timothy 3:14-17
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Verses 16-17 were the texts I and others had always turned to buttress our belief in sola Scriptura, so to this I quickly turned my attention. Among many things, three important things became very clear, for the first time: (1) when Paul used the term scripture in this verse, he could only have meant when we call the Old Testament. The New Testament canon would not be established for another 300 years! (2) All scripture does not mean only scripture nor specifically what we have in our modern bibles. And (3), the emphasis in the context of this verse (vereses 14-15) is the trustworthiness of the oral tradition Timothy had received from his mother and othersnot sola Scriptura!
4. 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
This was another too-hot-to-handle verse Scott threw in my lap. The traditions (Dare I say, traditions) that these early Christian were to hold fast to were not just the written letters and Gospels that would eventually make up the New Testament, but the oral tradition. And even more significant, the context of Pauls letters indicates that his normal, preferred way of passing along what he had received was orally; his written letters were an accidental, sometimes unplanned add-on, dealing with immediate problemsleaving unsaid so much of what they had learned through oral teaching.
5. Matthew 16:13-19
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say that I am? Simon Peter replied, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
There is so much to discuss in this verse, so much I never saw. I always knew that Catholics used this to argue Petrine authority but I wasnt convinced. To the naively ignorant, the English words Peter and rock are so different that its obvious that Jesus was referring to the faith Simon Peter received as a gift from the Father. For the more informed seminary educated Bible students, like myself, I knew that behind the English was the Greek, where one discovered that Peter is the translation of petros, meaning little pebble, and rock is the translation of petra, large boulder. Again an obvious disconnect, so so for years I believed and taught specifically against Petrine authority. Then, through the reading of Karl Keatings wonderful book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, I realized the implications of something I knew all along: behind the Greek was the Aramaic which Jesus originally spoke, in which the word for Peter and rock are identicalkepha. Once I saw that Jesus had said essentially You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church, I knew I was in trouble.
6. Revelation 14:13
And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth." "Blessed indeed," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!"
For years, as a Calvinist preacher, I recited this verse in every funeral graveside service. I believed and taught sola fide and discounting any place for works in the process of our salvation. But then, after my last funeral service as a minister, a family member of the deceased cornered me. He asked, with a tremble in his voice, What did you mean that Bills deeds follow him? I dont remember my response, but this was the first time I became aware of what I had been saying. This began a long study on what the New Testament and then the Early Church Fathers taught about the mysterious but necessary synergistic connection between our faith and our works.
7. Romans 10:14-15
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent?
I had always used these verses to defend the central importance of preaching and why I, therefore, had given up my engineering career for seminary and the great privilege of becoming a preacher of the Gospel! And I was never bothered by the last phrase about the need of being sent, because I could point to my ordination where a cackle of local ministers, elders, deacons, and laymen laid their hands on my sweaty head to send me forth in the Name of Jesus. But then, first through my reading of the history and writings of the Early Church Fathers and second through my re-reading of the scriptural context of Pauls letters, I realized that Paul emphasized the necessity of being sent because the occasion of his letters was to combat the negative, heretical influences of self-appointed false teachers. I had never thought of myself as a false teacher, but by what authority did those people send me forth? Who sent them? In this I realized the importance of Apostolic [those who have been sent] succession.
8. John 15:4 and 6:56
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
The book of the Bible I most preached on was the Gospel of John and my most preached on section John 15, the analogy of the vine and the branches. I bombarded my congregations with the need to abide or remain in Christ. But what does this mean? I always had an answer, but when I saw for the first time the only verse where Jesus himself defines clearly what we must do to abide in Him, I was floored. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. This led me to study a boatload of verses in John 6 I had never seen before, and in the end, when it came accepting Jesus at His word on the Eucharist, I had only one answer: Where else can we go? Only you have the words of life.
9. Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
I dont know if I purposely avoided this or just blindly missed it, but for the first 40-years of my life I never saw this verse. And to be honest, when I finally saw it, I still didnt know what to do with it. Nothing in my Lutheran, Congregationalist, or Presbyterian backgrounds helped me understand how I or anyone could rejoice in suffering, and especially why anything was needed to complete the suffering of Christ: nothing was lacking! Christs suffering, death, and resurrection were sufficient and complete! To say anything less was to attack the omnipotent completeness of Gods sovereign grace. But then again, this was the apostle Paul speaking in inerrant, infallible Scripture. And we were to imitate him as he imitated Jesus. It took a reading of Pope John Paul IIs encyclical on the meaning of suffering to open my eyes to the beautiful mystery of redemptive suffering.
10. Luke 1:46-49
And Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed; for he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.
Finally the hardest hurdle for so many Protestant converts to get over: our Blessed Mother Mary. For most of my life, the only place Mary came into the picture was at Christmasand dare I say, as a statue! But I never referred to her as blessed. Yet Scripture says all generations will call her blessed. Why wasnt I? This led me to see other verses for the first time, including John 17 where from the cross Jesus giave his mother into the keeping of John, rather than any supposed siblings, and by grace I began, in imitation of my Lord and Savior and eternal brother Jesus, to recognize her, too, as my loving Mother.
nice post on a bad day :) thx.
This is an interesting commentary on how a person can “see, but not see.” Surely Mr. Grodi had actually read through the Scriptural texts he cited many times, but he didn’t “see” them until something changed in his inner view.
My family reads the Bible steadily - a chapter or more a day, in addition to the daily lectionary - but I’m sure there are places where I’m reading the words, but not really assimilating what they should mean to me.
Then I would say that your biblical education was sorely lacking and very little effort was placed on apologetics.
Sadly, Christians (meaning both Catholic and Protestant) often neglect this important area of scripture, tending only to feed “milk of the word” to gain new believers. And for want of attention, the “meat of the word” gets neglected. Until someone else comes along with some new “insight” and sways those not ground in their faith, biblical understanding, and historical facts.
Amazing what you can find in the Bible if one actually READS it.
I would recommend to everyone to get a copy of the Chronological Bible and faithfully and prayerfully read it EVERY day.
That way you don’t miss anything and you’ll be surprised by nothing.
Almost as if a veil had be taken away. Like it says in 2 Corinthians 3.
I responded that she was one of a handful of people whose existence was foretold in the Bible, which made her very special.
BTW, neither one of us were Catholics ~ but the evening before I'd been reading Isaiah in The New American Bible (the authorized Catholic edition) and the exact same thought occurred to me then ~ that Mary was not just special, but very special.
His response was along the lines of "Did you notice that all the prophesies of a Messiah could as easily have applied to Mary as to Jesus"?
Which has been a question I've pondered for a very long time.
The Crucifix appears to be required as well ~ but I belong to a church that doesn't bother with belltowers and steeples, so we'll get to that one way down the road eh!
the key for most of our more strident separated brethern is the usual litany of:
1.out of context.
2. reinterpreted incorrectly by the catholics
3. repeat points one and two continuously.
Seeing that it took Protestant lives burning at the stake to print the Bible in english and distribute it to the masses, one now wonders if the Word shows that the same Protestants should now convert to the Roman Catholic Church?
Um...I’l pass. I grew up Catholic and it was the Protestant church that showed me what salvation was. The Catholic church only offered ritual.
Then there was ....That ole Martin Luther...never read the New Testament until he was preparing for his Doctorate in Theology....not that church either...
Well what church....the one in 2009? Must be that one cause the other churches are a bit flawed....I should have said charred.
Written by a person who has a shallow familiarity with
the Bible. One example.
The author makes 1 Timothy 3: 14-15 into a defense
of the Church over the Bible. By doing so, he is
implying the passage is referring to the Catholic
Unfortunately for this view, it completely misses
that the context of I Timothy 2:1-4:5 is instructions
concerning THE LIFE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH - not the
This is one more posting that attempts to say, the
Catholic Church is the only one, see! It would be
far better to simply go to God’s Word and accept
what it says without all the theatrics.
When that scripture was written, there was only one church - the Catholic Church. Hence, it applies to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The person who wrote the article is far from shallow. He was an Evangelical minister who graduated from one of the top US seminaries.
The author complains about variations in interpretations, and then bases his whole premise on another variation of interpretation. Rather inconsistent, if you ask me...a pastor and retired evangelical Army chaplain of 30 years.
I do think that many Protestants find that the Catholics have erroneous taught of praying to Mary, the Apostles and the Saints. I would even call error on many Protestants who pray to Jesus.
Why? Simply put, I am a Christian. My faith follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and he taught us to pray to God (Lord's prayer). Not to himself, not to the Angels, not to Mary, not to anyone else. And given the choice between Jesus word and some old guy in Rome, I will side with Jesus each and every time.
Many Catholics and some Protestants take umbrage with that belief and then project a strawman argument that somehow, I believe that those that do not pray as I do ... somehow I believe that they are not saved. That is simply not true. Each will have to account for their own.
I believe that each and every person will answer for their own life and beliefs. No Pope, pastor or priest will intercede on my behalf and even if they did, it would do no good. I will not be able to intercede for my children, my friends or even my neighbors. I will have a hard enough time accounting for my own life and actions. The good news is that the only intercessor that I need, the only one that will count on Judgment Day, is that of my savior Jesus Christ.
ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!!--Where pray tell does it EVER say that Mary would be bruised for ALL our inequities?????
You are right. The Crucifix is required for it was there that Mary stood in painful witness to the promises made by Simeon at the time of Christ's presentation in the Temple:
and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."
(NOTE: Always look for the word "sign" ~ sometimes that's meant quite literally, not metaphorically.)
There's room for debate but I'm not debating that point ~ we are, instead discussing previously overlooked but very important scripture, and how it happens that we suddenly realize what was said.
Someday we'll discuss your question but this is not the time.
Sometimes we just can't keep the guys out but attempts are made to keep it pure.
Many people don't understand that ~
Then there are the relatives who don't believe in marking graves with headstones ~
Sometimes we just can't keep the guys out but attempts are made to keep it pure.
Many people don't understand that ~
Then there are the relatives who don't believe in marking graves with headstones ~
Peter wasn’t a Catholic.
“When that scripture was written, there was only one church - the Catholic Church. Hence, it applies to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Oh, and not the Orthodox Church?
There was one Church. There still is. But Paul was
writing about the local Church’s role in truth. I
believe what he wrote was absolutely true - and not
more than that.
“The person who wrote the article is far from shallow. He was an Evangelical minister who graduated from one of the top US seminaries.”
I read your article. If he really wrote it, his understanding
of God’s Word is indeed shallow - regardless of which
seminary branded him. He should ask for a refund.
“Seeing that it took Protestant lives burning at the stake to print the Bible in english and distribute it to the masses, one now wonders if the Word shows that the same Protestants should now convert to the Roman Catholic Church?”
1) No Protestant was ever burned at the stake by Catholics for printing Bibles and distributing them to the masses.
2) Catholics mass produced Bibles IN THE VERNACULAR NO LESS on the moveable type presses before Protestantism was even invented.
“Um...Il pass. I grew up Catholic and it was the Protestant church that showed me what salvation was. The Catholic church only offered ritual.”
And if that is your belief, then it shows you never paid attention during any of those rituals.
“Then there was ....That ole Martin Luther...never read the New Testament until he was preparing for his Doctorate in Theology....not that church either...”
(sigh) Luther read the scriptures since he was a child as all literate children did.
1) Children in schools were taught scripture when they studied Latin.
2) He would have had to read all of scripture when he was an undergraduate and master’s student in theology to say the least.
3) As a cleric, and especially as a deacon, he would have read scripture at Mass.
This nutty idea you’re putting forward is based upon the false claims of Luther. You are apparently even mistating even those claims. If I am not mistaken, Luther claimed he saw his first Bible (perhaps meaning a one volume great Bible) when he was at Erfurt. He would have been age 20 and not studying for his doctorate.
And if you actually read the works of Luther himself, you would know that he claimed years later that he was given a Bible in his first year in the monastery - as a novice - and YEARS BEFORE HE STARTED HIS DOCTORAL WORK - and that was apparently standard practice to give a Bible to EVERY NOVICE.
Read Luther’s Works, volume 54 if you don’t believe me. That’s why the Lutherans admit: “Luther’s most intensive early exposure to the biblical text came after he was accepted as a novice by the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt, Germany. In a strict monastery life, the whole Psalter would be prayed in the course of every week. In penitential seasons Bible reading was a regular part of an Augustinian friar’s personal devotion. We know that as a novice, Luther enjoyed the rare luxury (for his time) of having a Bible just for his own.”
Actually the church was completely Jewish at that time (except for a few gentiles who also recognized the Jewish messiah). The universal (or catholic) church and in particular the ROMAN catholic church did not begin until a few hundred years later.
I’m not going back.
Thanks for the ole college try.
You might be interested in this:
“Actually the church was completely Jewish at that time (except for a few gentiles who also recognized the Jewish messiah). The universal (or catholic) church and in particular the ROMAN catholic church did not begin until a few hundred years later.”
Catholic Church. “Roman Catholic” is a term essentially invented by jealous Protestants in the 16th century. Christ founded the Catholic Church and that is our Church.
Geez, not this garbage again....
Catholics do not pray to Mary, Angels or Saints.....
They ask for intercession.....
That is for them (Mary et al) to pray for them on their behalf......
“Im not going back.”
That’s ultimately between you and God.
“Thanks for the ole college try.”
I didn’t try anything nor will I. What I did do was accurately state the truth. Accept truth or believe your errors. The choice is yours - for all eternity.
“You might be interested in this:”
No, actually I wouldn’t be. I read several reputable biographies of Tyndale and they all admit the truth - he was not executed for his Bible translation. After that Tyndale’s story is largely unimportant in these matters. what you might want to ask yourself is, “why, if professional and reputable Protestant historians like David Daniell admit that Tyndale’s execution had nothing to do with his Bible, then why do anti-Catholics ignorantly insist or outright lie and say the opposite”?
“The Church!? Not the Bible? This alone sent my mind and essentially my whole life reeling...”
He sure panics easily! The Church is the “pillar and buttress of the truth”...but not truth itself. And what is truth? “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” - John 17
“Verses 16-17 were the texts I and others had always turned to buttress our belief in sola Scriptura, so to this I quickly turned my attention. Among many things, three important things became very clear, for the first time: (1) when Paul used the term scripture in this verse, he could only have meant when we call the Old Testament. The New Testament canon would not be established for another 300 years! (2) All scripture does not mean only scripture nor specifically what we have in our modern bibles. And (3), the emphasis in the context of this verse (vereses 14-15) is the trustworthiness of the oral tradition Timothy had received from his mother and othersnot sola Scriptura!”
Why yes, Paul was specifically referring to the Old Testament, which he preached out of at every synagogue before he preached to Gentiles. Unless the writer believes the NT is NOT scripture, it applies to the NT as well. And Paul’s letters were also accepted as authoritative from the beginning. The oral teaching is what he also put in writing - even the Catholic Church doesn’t pretend there is a separate ‘sacred tradition’ passed down in whispers from Bishop to Bishop for 2000 years. That is NOT the meaning of ‘sacred tradition’! As Peter put it, “I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.”
And notice what Paul told the Ephesian elders: “ I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.” The WHOLE counsel. He didn’t leave anything out - but Purgatory, Indulgences, Priests, Transubstantiation - not there!
And so it goes. I hate to break the news to this guy, but John Calvin wrote commentary on every one of these verses. They are NOT ones Protestants ignore, nor are the ones that Protestants come up with bizarre, unjustified interpretations of...we just don’t feel the need to synchronize our interpretations with 2000 years of developing ‘sacred tradition’, which makes our job much easier.
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I understood for the first time that by trusting in Jesus Christ as my savior, I could KNOW that I was going to heaven when I died. Not hope, wish, think, but know! I did not look back. I am not a Catholic, anymore, but a born-again, redeemed, sanctified child of God and a member of the universal (small "c" - catholic) body/church of Jesus Christ. Praise be to the Lord who is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.
It goes back to my other statement. Once the reformation took hold an equally corrupt anti-Catholic movement took form and it was just as bad as the one it was fighting.
This only proves that neither side had Yeshua as their guide, it was all about power and politics.
So ask yourself. Why are priests celebate? They weren’t always?
Why the huge push to make Mary the co-redemptrix? Please don’t tell me that is dead or over hyped.
What about medjordge? (sp) countless apparitions, it’s like voodoo lite.
There are many things that the Catholic church does very very well and I applaud it, there are many things they do miserably.
I just refute and refuse with every fiber in my Holy Ghost indwelt Spirit to ever acknowledge that the Catholic Church is Truth....NO SIR
Truth is Jesus the Christ.
again, God Bless.
Let’s celebrate in heaven.
I’m sorry you were led astray. Christ is waiting for you to come back.
- Jesus Christ
Prayers to Mary, or even prayers from Mary won't help; Jesus is the only way. He said it, not me.
There was no other church. The church existed before the Bible.
Your own Catechism says you do not even need to know the words of Christ to be saved; why should you consider him “led astray”, or wait for him to “come back”? According to your own infallible teachings (the Catechism), Christ and His words are not needed for salvation. Thus neither is the Church.
Does it include non-Catholic (i.e.: those who do not acknowledge the spiritual leadership of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope) christian churches?
So when Jesus read from Isaiah 60 in the temple (before his crucifixion).......?
A wonderful testimony - thank you! And God bless you!!!
(your Protestant sister in Jesus Christ)
You should preface your every post this honestly.
The love of Christ radiates through you...
That was sarcasm, in case you didn’t know.
I guess no Communion for you tomorrow, unless you get to confession tonight? After all, tearing down others is not a very Christian act, and Catechism 1849 calls you out on it.
So you can ask for forgiveness from the one you have attacked without reason, or you can go see your priest next week, or you can forgo Communion...
“It goes back to my other statement. Once the reformation took hold an equally corrupt anti-Catholic movement took form and it was just as bad as the one it was fighting.”
Your statement contains two errors:
1) You are making the mistake of believing the common meme - an derroneous one - that the Catholic Church was oh so corrupt. Was there corruption? Yes. Where you find people you find corruption. It was not as corrupt as anti-Catholics like to imagine.
“From a historical point of view, the idea that the medieval church was corrupt is based on a couple of methodological fallacies, such as disrespect for the peculiarities of medieval religion, arbitrary use of historical evidence, and ignorance of the situation in the medieval church. To represent “the medieval Church” as a corrupt institution lumps one thousand years of Church history together with a complete disregard for any form of historical development, and also applies the label “medieval” somewhat arbitrarily.” http://www.the-orb.net/non_spec/missteps/ch11.html
2) The Catholic Church at least preached the truth. Protestants did not. It is better to have a Church - even one rife with corruption (if that were true) - then to have one that simply teaches error as if it were truth.
“This only proves that neither side had Yeshua as their guide, it was all about power and politics.”
Nonsense. You’re making another error. You’re conflating personal transgressions of people in the Church with the Church herself.
“So ask yourself. Why are priests celebate? They werent always?”
Yeah, actually some of them ALWAYS were - just like Jesus and St. Paul.
“Why the huge push to make Mary the co-redemptrix?”
There is no huge push. How many articles do you ever see about it here, for instance? A few a year?
“Please dont tell me that is dead or over hyped.”
It’s overhyped. As I said, how often do you even see anything about it here where we have articles every day?
“What about medjordge? (sp) countless apparitions, its like voodoo lite.”
So you say. Others say differently. I don’t worry about recent apparitions because they don’t have to be believed by anyone and have nothing to do with me.
“There are many things that the Catholic church does very very well and I applaud it, there are many things they do miserably.”
No. Individuals fail. Not the Church.
“I just refute and refuse with every fiber in my Holy Ghost indwelt Spirit to ever acknowledge that the Catholic Church is Truth....NO SIR”
I understand. Your heart is hardened. I get it. That’s not my problem. You might want to ask yourself, however, “If I am making all of these errors about history and theology, am I really in a position to know what I’m talking about?” The answer seems obvious to me.
“Truth is Jesus the Christ.”
“again, God Bless. Lets celebrate in heaven.”
I hope to be there. I am not assuming everyone posting in this thread will be.
“Prayers to Mary, or even prayers from Mary won’t help; Jesus is the only way. He said it, not me.”
Jesus did say He was the way. What He didn’t say is that prayers from a holy person were of no worth. The Bible, in fact, says the exact opposite. Prayers from Mary are a good thing.
Good thing I didn't do that.
We’re being besieged by jihadists on one side and Maoists on the other and some of you want to perpetuate an internecine war amongst believers. What motivates you is beyond me.
You violate both the FR rule against mindreading and the 8th Commandment as seen in Exodus 20:16.
So, defense of the Catholic Church against lies...that's beyond you?
Jesus said that you cannot buy your way into Heaven, that you cannot work your way into Heaven, that only your relationship with Christ - asking Him to be your Savior - will save you. Nothing else.
Sorry, those are the rules that Jesus laid down. They trump anything from anyone - or thing - else.
Brother, you have a real problem with anger and attacks. You may not think so, but we're called in the Bible to hold each other accountable. Personal attacks aren't Scriptural or Biblical. Your statement was meant to be derogatory and defamatory.
Feel free to disagree, it says more about your faith than you can imagine...
“Your own Catechism says you do not even need to know the words of Christ to be saved;”
No, actually it doesn’t say that - if you’re refering to the invincibly ignorant.
“...why should you consider him led astray, or wait for him to come back? According to your own infallible teachings (the Catechism), Christ and His words are not needed for salvation. Thus neither is the Church.”
Okay, post the Catechism section that says that. See, I know the CCC well enough to know this is what it actually says: “those who through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - THOSE TOO MAY ACHIEVE ETERNAL SALVATION”.
Notice the CCC says people who are INVINCIBLY IGNORANT may, THAT’S MAY, still be saved if they seek God with a sincere heart and obey His commands. The chances of that happening are slim, but we can’t rule it out because God is merciful. I guess you believe everyone who isn’t a Christian of a certain stripe will burn in hell forever (and that would include all babies who die since they can’t believe), right?