Martin Luther special on PBS

Christ designed all things to be ordered, including His Church, which needs a visible human head and an heirarchical government.

Christ did design all things to be ordered and need a head. The Word of God leaves us with no doubt as to who this head is:

Col.1:18 And He [CHRIST] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

Eph.5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also CHRIST is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Nowhere is Peter or any other person other than Christ called the head of the church in Scripture. Peter himself called Christ the rock on which the church was founded, not himself:

1 Peter 2:6 "Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed."

221 posted on 08/04/2003 1:24:36 PM PDT by razorbak

In the Gospel of Matthew we read:

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it." —Matthew 16:13-18

The Roman Catholic Church interprets Jesus here to say, "You are Peter, and upon you, Peter, I will build My church." Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built [552, 586, 881]. He would be the "prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church."

There are several problems with this interpretation. The first is that someone reading Matthew’s Gospel in Greek, the original language of the New Testament, would not have immediately concluded that Peter was the rock. In the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus said to Simon, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18), His choice of words was significant. Though Peter’s name means rock (petros), Jesus did not say, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build my church." What He said was, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church."

The word Jesus chose to use for rock, petra, is a feminine noun that refers to a mass of rock. The New Testament uses this word in Matthew 7:24,25 to refer to the bedrock upon which a wise man built his house. Petra is also found later in Matthew’s Gospel with reference to Jesus’ tomb, which workers had carved out of solid rock (Matthew 27:60).

Peter’s name, Petros, on the other hand, is masculine in gender and refers to a boulder or a detached stone. Greek literature also uses it of a small stone that might be picked up and thrown.

What Jesus said to Peter could be translated, "You are Stone, and upon this bedrock I will build My church." His choice of words would indicate that the rock on which the church would be built was something other than Peter.

Anyone reading the Gospel of Matthew in the original Greek language would have noticed the difference. The reader would have had to pause and decide what was meant by "upon this rock" (Matthew 16:18). The reader would not immediately have equated the rock (petra) with Peter (Petros), because the words are different.

To determine the best interpretation, the reader would have had to look more closely at the context. This is the second and greatest weakness with the Roman Catholic interpretation: It fails to give proper emphasis to the context.

The context of Matthew 16:13-20 is not about Peter; it is about Jesus. It starts with a question that Jesus raises about His identity: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" (Matthew 16:13). It reaches a climax with Peter’s declaration: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). It concludes with the Lord warning His disciples "that they should tell no one that He was the Christ" (Matthew 16:20).

When Peter correctly answered Jesus’ question as to His identity, the Lord remarked, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Peter’s insight into Jesus’ true identity was a revelation from God. In this context, Jesus, making a play on words, says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church" (Matthew 16:18).

The context argues for interpreting "this rock" as referring back to the revelation and its content. In other words, the Lord Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) would be the solid rock upon which the Christian faith would rest. Every doctrine and practice would be founded upon Him. Every true believer would hold to a common conviction: Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16).

The cultural context of the passage also supports interpreting "this rock" as referring to Jesus in His identity as the Son of God. Matthew wrote his Gospel for a Jewish audience. He expected his readers to be familiar with Old Testament imagery.

How would a Jewish reader interpret "upon this rock"? G. Campbell Morgan answers, "If we trace the figurative use of the word rock through Hebrew Scriptures, we find that it is never used symbolically of man, but always of God." For example:

There is no one holy like the Lord; Indeed, there is no one besides Thee, Nor is there any rock like our God. —1 Samuel 2:2

For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God? —Psalm 18:31

Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. —Isaiah 44:8

The wider context of the New Testament also confirms that Jesus, not Peter, is the rock. For example, Peter himself wrote of Christ as a rock (petra):

For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very corner stone," and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense." —1 Peter 2:6-8

Paul also refers to Christ by the Greek word petra. In Romans he wrote of Christ as "a rock (petra) of offense" (Romans 9:33) over which the Jews had stumbled. In First Corinthians he wrote of a spiritual rock encountered by Israel in the wilderness. He identified that rock, saying, "...and the rock (petra) was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).

Interpreting Christ as the rock upon which the church would be built also harmonizes well with other statements in Scripture. Paul warned, "No man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11). Here he emphasizes that Christ is the foundation upon which the church is built. In Ephesians, Paul speaks of the church as "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). Here Paul pictures Christ as the principal stone and the apostles and prophets as secondary stones.

Roman Catholic proponents, aware that Matthew’s use of the word petra in the phrase "upon this rock" does not help their cause, counter by arguing that Jesus taught in Aramaic, not Greek. They claim that when Jesus spoke the words recorded in Matthew 16:18, He did not change His words but repeated Peter’s Aramaic name Kepha. What Christ said, they claim, was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." And so, they say, it is clear that Peter was to be the foundation upon which the Church would be built.

What is clear is that Rome’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 cannot bear the scrutiny of close examination. Consequently, Roman Catholic defenders must move the discussion off the inspired page and onto the field of speculation.

The inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. What Jesus might have said in Aramaic is conjecture. Furthermore, if, as some contend, the Aramaic is clear but the Greek inadequate or confusing, why did not the Holy Spirit simply import the Aramaic words? There are many such examples in the New Testament. There are even nine places where the Scriptures refer to Peter as Cephas, the Aramaic form of his name. Or why did not the Holy Spirit just repeat the word petros, as Catholic defenders speculate He did in the Aramaic? Then Matthew 16:18 would read, "You are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petros) I will build My church."

But rather than speculate, why not let the passage speak for itself? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek text of the New Testament, He made a distinction between Peter (Petros) and the rock (petra). The reason for the difference is clear from the context.

222 posted on 08/04/2003 1:25:27 PM PDT by razorbak

As to the longevity of the Roman Catholic church, Judaism has been around much longer. Longevity does not equal legitimacy. The autocratic Roman Catholic church with the pretender in Rome lording it over the other churches developed slowly over a period of hundreds of years, aided by forged documents, the Isidorian Decretals and the Donation of Constantine.

To support authoritarian claims, the popes tried to build a documentary tradition for their position. The popes produced a series of documents, now known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, to keep Carolingian nobles at arm's length. These documents first appeared between 833 and 857. A few actually recorded the works of early Roman bishops. Other documents contained a core of truth but included spurious additions. Still other documents were outright forgeries. The name came from a Spanish bishop, Isidore of Seville. The popes used these documents for one purpose: to prove the antiquity of their authority.

Pope Nicholas I (858-867) used the Decretals first when John, the Archbishop of Ravenna and a personal friend of Emperor Louis II, stood accused of graft, theft and inefficiency. Nicholas summoned him to Rome but John refused to come. Nicholas then deposed him. Rebellious clergymen chose to challenge Nicholas's action. In 864 Nicholas crossed paths with Hincmar of Rheims, a strong European cleric. Hincmar had excommunicated a bishop in his area. The disgruntled bishop appealed to Nicholas for support. Drawing on the Isidorian Decretals for his authority, Nicholas successfully reversed Hincmar's decision. In time Nicholas became the ninth century's strongest pope.

The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals gave bishops the right to appeal directly to Rome. This allowed bishops to bypass their Archbishops. The Roman bishop now controlled all other church leaders.

In 756 A.D. the Italian Papal States (much of the city of Rome and major areas in western Italy) were officially acquired by the Catholic Church. This land transfer was legitimated on the basis of a document supposedly written by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 337 A.D. which granted all of these regions to Pope Sylvester I (Pope from 315-335 A.D.) and his successors.

For many centuries the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine was not questioned. However, in 1440 Lorenzo Valla published his Declamitio de falso credita et ementia donatione Constantini (Discourse on the Forgery of the Alleged Donation of Constantine). In this declamation, Valla argued that the donation was a fraud. He noted that not only was there no record indicating that Pope Sylvester I had been aware of such a gift, but also that the text of the Donation contained a number of historical anachronisms. For instance, it referred to Byzantia as a province when in the fourth century it was only a city. It referred to temples in Rome that did not yet exist; and finally, it referred to 'Judea' which also did not yet exist. Also, The Donation of Constantine quoted from St. Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible. St. Jerome wasn't born until 26 years after the Donation of Constantine was supposed to have been written.

As usual, the Catholic church only stopped the pretense when their deception was exposed for all the world to see.

223 posted on 08/04/2003 1:41:22 PM PDT by razorbak

You cannot get around this fact when you read the Book of Acts and see a Council in Jerusalem, you read about Bishops, presbyters, meaning priest). We also read about Deacons, Church elders. We see Paul traveling hundreds of miles to attend the coucil in Jerusalem. We see debate over doctrine, and we see Peter "speaking and silencing the whole crowd".

Gal.2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

The Greek word for bishop, episkopos, is not the same Greek word that is translated priest, unless you are reading from a mis-translation. If bishop does mean "priest" then the Roman Catholic church is violating Scripture with its celibacy rule, because the Apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy 3 that bishops must be the :

"husband of one wife"

224 posted on 08/04/2003 2:01:42 PM PDT by razorbak

As for your continual attacks against "Mary, the mother of Jesus", it might just be advisable to stop attacking her purity. She was, after all, the human arc of our Saviour. Do you really believe it pleases Jesus in any way when His own mother is spoken of as a sinner? Do you imagine Him smiling when you say such things? Mary was not the only woman born without sin in the Bible. Eve was the first to have this distinction...The Bible that you profess to know and love says that "all generations shall call me, (Mary), blessed", (Luke 1:48). I call her blessed, you call her a sinner. Elizabeth exclaimed whe she saw Mary: "BLESSED are you among women,...

I never "attacked" Mary. Eve was born without sin because the Fall of mankind into sin had not yet occurred. Since then, Romans 5 says that death has passed upon all mankind. To call any descendant of Adam a sinner is not to "attack" them but to agree with what the Bible says:

The Bible, not me, says that Mary was blessed, and a sinner.

Rom.3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

The message to all of mankind is this:

1 John 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

Mary called God HER SAVIOR. All mankind, like Mary, needs a Savior. Mary is in heaven, not because of her righteousness, but because Christ died for her sins, like he died for mine.

Jesus Christ was the one who was sinless, and the only one. He is the one we should exalt, and pray through, not Mary. The New Testament is devoid of any mention of a believer praying to Mary or claiming she was sinless or that she ascended into heaven. When others tried to exalt Mary, Jesus countered their error:

Luke 8:19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

225 posted on 08/04/2003 2:20:28 PM PDT by razorbak

"I never "attacked" Mary. Eve was born without sin because the Fall of mankind into sin had not yet occurred."

You've just hung yourself on your own tree of non-biblical theology. The Bible does not tell us why Eve was born without sin. You just keep making it up as you go along. In fact, the Bible does not even tell us that Eve was born without sin; the Catholic Church does.

"Since then, Romans 5 says that death has passed upon all mankind. To call any descendant of Adam a sinner is not to "attack" them but to agree with what the Bible says:"

Correction, you mean it is to agree with what you think the Bible says. The Bible clearly teaches us that death has not passed itself on to all men, and all of Christianity teaches that both Enoch and Elijah passed from this life into Heaven without dying:

"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him." (Hebrews 11:5).

"And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

"The Bible, not me, says that Mary was blessed, and a sinner."

The Bible says no such thing - again, I hold to your own brand of theology, "Bible only". You have failed to show the verse that says Mary was a sinner.

"Rom.3:23 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

And even the angels of Heaven give reverence to Mary, and greet her with angelic dignity: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!", the angel Gabriel greeted Mary. As we know that Mary was full of grace, there could be no room for sin to co-exist within a being full of grace. The word "angel" means 'messenger'. Hence, it was God himself who first spoke those beautiful words to Mary, "Hail, full of grace, I am with you", through the message of his angel Gabriel. Perhaps your teddy bear, smiley faced Jesus could live and grow within a womb of sin, but the Jesus Christ of the true Christian faith, the Catholic Church, is far more dignified that that.

(Saint Ephrem the Syrian - 306 A.D. - 373 A.D.), called in his day "the pillar of the Church", and "the Lyre of the Holy Ghost". This great early Christian Saint, ordained by Saint Basil, written of by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and a man who fought vigorously agaisnt the heresies of his day, the gnostics, the Arians, the Manicheans, wrote of Mary:

"Verily indeed, Thou and Thy Mother, alone are you, in being in every respect altogether beautiful. For in Thee, Lord, is no spot, nor any stain in thy mother", (Carmina Nisibena, n. 27). ~~~ The earliest Christians were already reverencing the Mother of God as being sinless, (due to God's grace, not by her own virtue.).

"Mary called God HER SAVIOR. All mankind, like Mary, needs a Savior. Mary is in heaven, not because of her righteousness, but because Christ died for her sins, like he died for mine."

What a profound half truth. Yes, Jesus died for Mary too, and she reigns as Queen of Heaven because of Christ's mercy. But Mary, and Mary alone, could proclaim her salvation before the birth of Jesus Christ due to her being born without the stain of sin. There is no other possible reason why Mary could, or would, make this declaration while Salvation had yet to come into the world. You fail to address this Biblical reality.

"The New Testament is devoid of any mention of a believer praying to Mary or claiming she was sinless or that she ascended into heaven."

I think it's about time you stopped embarrassing yourself with this pretentious claim to Biblical understanding. The Bible also does not use the terms "Trinity", or "Incarnation". These are Christian theological extractions that were developed only later on in Christianity at the various Councils. The Bible also does not refer to John the Baptist as being the last Old Testament Prophet, yet he was just that, according to all Christian theology. The Bible is not the Church, but a book within the teaching Church that Jesus founded. Jesus never wrote a word, Jesus never gave the Apostles a book to study. Jesus taught orally, and the Apostles taught orally. They did not carry any books off onto their worldwide evangelistical ventures, they carreid the Word of God, as they heard it. Christianity flourished all over the world long before the New Testament was even completed.

When others tried to exalt Mary, Jesus countered their error: "Luke 8:19 Then His mother and brothers came to Him, and could not approach Him because of the crowd. 20 And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You." 21 But He answered and said to them, "My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it."

Am I to take this to mean you think Mary was not Jesus' mother? I won't even debate such idiocy. As for Jesus' "brothers", two things. There is no Hebrew term for cousin, hence, brothers, cousins, and sometimes even uncles were all called "brothers". Another meaning for "brothers" is 'followers'. Notice also that the Bible never once called these people "the sons of Mary", yet it does refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary and Joseph".

You are way too deep into Biblical fundamentalism, taking a line here and there and then conveniently self-interpreting it to mean whatever you want it to mean. I"ll pray for you.

226 posted on 08/04/2003 4:49:06 PM PDT by TheCrusader

227 posted on 08/04/2003 4:58:28 PM PDT by agarrett

"Eve was born without sin because the Fall of mankind into sin had not yet occurred."

Eve was born without sin because God created her that way. And if God can create one woman without sin, He can create another. As Saint Paul called Jesus "the new Adam", it reveals that a sinless One had to assume this role, and that sinless One was Jesus Christ. It follows then, that Mary was the "New Eve", for as the sinless Eve said 'yes' to the devil and brought death into the world, a sinless Mary, "full of grace",, said 'yes' to the angel, and brought Salvation into the world.

This is the classical/historical/ perrennial teaching of the Christian faith since the early centuries. The oldest Christian liturgies on earth are the Eastern liturgies, ("Orthodox", Syrian, Coptic, etc). These particular liturgies actually predate the Roman/Latin liturgy of the Catholic Church. And all of these ancient Christian Churches revere and venerate the Virgin Mary as being free from Original Sin, as being a perpetual Virgin, and as dying sinless. ALL OF THEM. There is just no escaping the truth, it always has a way of making itself known, (if we seek it).

228 posted on 08/04/2003 9:45:07 PM PDT by TheCrusader

My earlier comment: "Eve was born without sin because the Fall of mankind into sin had not yet occurred."

The Crusader's reply: Eve was born without sin because God created her that way. And if God can create one woman without sin, He can create another. As Saint Paul called Jesus "the new Adam", it reveals that a sinless One had to assume this role, and that sinless One was Jesus Christ. It follows then, that Mary was the "New Eve", for as the sinless Eve said 'yes' to the devil and brought death into the world, a sinless Mary, "full of grace",, said 'yes' to the angel, and brought Salvation into the world. This is the classical/historical/ perrennial teaching of the Christian faith since the early centuries. The oldest Christian liturgies on earth are the Eastern liturgies, ("Orthodox", Syrian, Coptic, etc). These particular liturgies actually predate the Roman/Latin liturgy of the Catholic Church. And all of these ancient Christian Churches revere and venerate the Virgin Mary as being free from Original Sin, as being a perpetual Virgin, and as dying sinless. ALL OF THEM. There is just no escaping the truth, it always has a way of making itself known, (if we seek it).

Eve was born without sin – this is before the Fall. After the Fall, all mankind inherited a sin nature, original sin and commit personal sins. Christ was the only exception, because He was the Son of God, literally God in human form. He had the divine nature, and an unfallen human nature. And because He was the only virgin born person who ever existed, He had not even the taint of original sin. God, not Joseph, was His Father. Mary, however, did have a human father. Thus she inherited a sin nature and the taint of Orginal Sin. And, although she was a very godly woman, she was not sinless. Eve was not sinless her entire life, and neither was Mary. How do I know this?

Rom.5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind, because all sinned;

Of course God CAN create another woman without sin. The issue is not what God CAN do, it is what His Word says He DID do. Jesus is called the “new" or "second Adam.” But Eve is never called the new Eve or the second Eve in Scripture.

If the Bible doesn’t teach it “it does NOT follow then.” The Bible never says that Eve’s sin brought death into the world. It ascribes that to Adam’s sin. Adam was the federal head of the human race, not Eve. Again, note:

Rom.5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind, because all sinned;

The Bible teaches explicitly that Jesus was sinless. The Bible says He "knew no sin" [2 Cor.5:21], that He was "without sin" [Heb.4:15], and that He was "separate from sinners" [Heb.7:26] It nowhere says, or even alludes to Mary being sinless. You are astounded that I don't ascribe sinlessness to Mary, even though the Bible supports my position, not yours.

What part of ALL do you not understand?

Rom.3:23 For ALL have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

Mary rejoiced in God and called him her Savior. Why? Because Christ had come to die for her sins as well as the sins of the rest of mankind.

Isa.53:6 ALL we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, EVERY ONE, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us ALL.

The last time I checked, Mary was a Jew. Since she was a Jew, and the Bible nowhere declares her sinless, she falls under the scope of the Apostle Paul’s statement:

Rom.3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged BOTH JEWS AND GREEKS THAT THEY ARE ALL UNDER SIN.

And Mary did not bring Salvation into the world, Christ did. Mary was the mother of Christ’s humanity, not His deity. He was God for an eternity past before His birth. He is the only person every born who, at His birth, was as old as His Father, and older than His mother. This is why Jesus could say, “before Abraham was, I am,” and it could be said of Him, "In the beginning was the Word."

If the Catholic dogma of Mary’s supposed sinlessness is so ancient and universal, why was it not declared by the Roman Catholic church until 1850?

And as for Mary being considered sinless because she is called "Blessed," by that line of reasoning I am sinless because Jesus said of future believers who would come after His death:

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Mary was not called "blessed" because she was sinless, she was called blessed because the great honor of being the woman chosen to bear the Messiah had been given to her. You undercut your own position concerning Mary when you said:

And all of these ancient Christian Churches revere and venerate the Virgin Mary as being free from Original Sin, as being a perpetual Virgin, and as dying sinless. ALL OF THEM. I thought Roman Catholic dogma claimed that Mary did not die at all, but that she ascended directly into heaven. This ancient doctrine as dogma goes way back to 1950.

By the way, I’m glad you realize that the Greek Orthodox church actually predates the Catholic church. But liturgy is supposed to be based on biblical doctrine. Our doctrine is not supposed to based on liturgy.

Even during the Apostolic age, Paul saw many professing Christians being drawn away from the original and only divinely revealed Gospel that Paul had first preached to them:

Gal.1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ. 11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Jesus himself left no room for misunderstanding concerning any attempt to exalt Mary to a position above any other believer:

Luke 8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Matth.12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

You did make one statement with which I agree:

There is just no escaping the truth, it always has a way of making itself known, (if we seek it).

NOTE: About the only people now posting on this thread are me and you. It is apparent that we are not going to convince each other, so this may be my last post. I hold no ill will against you and I'll pray for you. My words cannot convince anyone of any spiritual truth. Only the Word of God can do that. The Word is so crucial that God has even elevated it above His name:

Psa.138:2 I will worship toward Your holy temple, And praise Your name For Your lovingkindness and Your truth; For You have magnified Your word above all Your name. 2 Tim.3:13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Acts 17:10 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

229 posted on 08/05/2003 9:42:49 AM PDT by razorbak

Catholic debating techniques (version 4.7)

1. Rubberstamp technique ~ Regurgitate Catholic doctrine without the least hint of concern as to providing a scriptural proof. Otherwise, known as propaganda.
2. Cut-and-paste technique ~ Find the closest doctrinal defense on "Catholic Answers" website, stick it into your clipboard and post away. Upon receiving a scriptural rebuttal, switch the topic to Catholic infallibility and then utilize the rubberstamp technique.
3. Accusation of hate technique ~ Insist vehemently that your opponent is full of hate. It is always advisable to paint your opponent as hateful. This technique should always contain a reference to your extreme caringness and the limitless bounds of your great humility.
4. Mystery interpretation technique ~ Any text can mean anything when interpretated under the mystical interpretation technique. Use this to your advantage then utilize the rubberstamp technique. Most often used with Eucharistic defenses. Symbolic? No! Literal? No! Mysterious? What else can you do?
5. Words without meaning technique ~ If you are receiving any roadblocks by any particular word you previously gave in your apologetic, or if what you've described is the definition of a word detrimental to your defense, simply deny the basic word meaning of the troubling term. Due to its effectiveness, this apologetic has become so popular that it has been adopted by the President.
6. Bait and Switch technique ~ If your apologetics are being shot down repeatedly, it is because you are staying on one topic for too long. In the Catholic apologetics arena, it is always a good idea to present a moving target. If your perpetual virginity defense is becoming an embarrassment, switch it to a virgin birth defense, pretend your opponent has denied it and act outraged at his heresy.
7. Attack Sola Scriptura technique ~ Put forth that scripture is only one of the sources of God's revelation. However, due to the overwhelming levels of contradictory doctrines, this will usually have to be accompanied with the rubberstamping technique.
8. Attack Martin Luther technique ~ This can be used as a companion apologetic to the Attack Sola Scriptura technique. Always refer to your opponent as a Protestant to imply that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation." Insist the opponent is a follower of Martin Luther. Do not accept any denials of this. Rubberstamp him as a follower of Martin Luther if they refute this accusation.
9. Stalking technique ~ Harrass the Christian until he becomes a Catholic. Can utilize any of the other above methods. The object is to fill their e-mail and guestbooks daily with Catholic apologetics. When your opponent will no longer respond to you, insist that he is afraid to debate you. Continue to harrass them until they denounce speaking out against Catholicism or you are at risk of losing your ISP account for a second time. If you are about to lose your ISP a second time, pass the baton over to a fellow Catholic apologist.
10. Babbling technique ~ Remember when you were a kid. If you closed your eyes, danger would go away. This technique is a variation on that theme. When backed into a corner, begin babbling about anything remotely related to the topic on hand and the opponent may forget that you were ever engaged in a debate in the first place. With all the other fine Catholic apologetic techniques available, this one is usually not advised.

230 posted on 08/05/2003 2:21:26 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican

To: RedBloodedAmerican

Another item that I felt needed a rebuttal was this charge:

I take it then that you are a fundamentalist, a new-age form of "Christianity" that was born in the 20th century.

The Fundamentalist movement was a theological reaction to the liberal drift in some Protestant denominations in the late 19th and throughout the 20th century. The Roman Catholics also reacted against the inroads of what they called "modernism" in their own denomination at about the same time.

The Fundamentalist movement did not begin as a mindless reaction by ignorant bigots to the modern world, as its critics would like us to believe.

It originated as a movement within the Protestant academic community, primarily among seminary professors and well educated ministers and filtered down to the laity and the small church pastors in Protestant denominations. A wealthy laymen paid for the printing and distribution, free of charge to the recipient, to every Protestant minister in the United States, of a set of books containing scholarly articles affirming the basic doctrines of the Christian faith.

The "fundamentals" of the faith, from which the label "fundamentalist," often used pejoratively, is derived was a simple statement of adherence to the basic doctrines of the Christian faith that believers have held since New Testament times, such as:

1. The truth of Virgin Birth of Christ, and the other miracles in the Bible

2. The literal physical resurrection and future return of Christ

3. The inerrancy of Scripture

4. The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

5. The Deity of the Christ, and God as a Triune being

6. Salvation from man's sins by grace through repentance and faith as the only hope of man to escape Hell and enter Heaven

Those who ridicule the beliefs of "fundamentalists" are ridiculing the above doctrines. I have a hard time understanding why any professing Christian would question or ridicule these "fundamental" doctrines of Christianity.

Baptist and Protestant beliefs and confessions of faith have insisted upon the truth of these doctrines for many centuries. These doctrines originated with the New Testament, not the Protestant Reformation, or the 20th century "fundamentalists." The largest non-Catholic denomination in America, and the world for that matter, the Southern Baptist Convention is a fundamentalist denomination. The SBC, from 1979 to the present, reasserted its adherence to the "fundamentals" and the liberal SBC professors, agency employees, missionaries, churches and pastors were either fired, left of their own accord, were disfellowshipped, or simply had to deal with their total loss of power in the denomination. Fundamentalists such as Southern Baptists are also strong supporters of Israel, and a higher percentage of them vote Republican than Catholics.

In Florida, where Bush won the state and the presidency by 534 votes, our church provided at least 700 net votes for Bush. Out of a Sunday morning attendance of approximately 1500, we have less than two dozen Democrats as far as we know. We don't officially campaign for candidates, or tell our members who to vote for, but conservative biblical theology just naturally leads to conservative politics.

And by the way, I appreciate the work of Catholics in fighting the abortion industry. They were quicker than fundamentalists and other Protestants to organize against the consequences of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court fiasco.

231 posted on 08/05/2003 11:04:51 PM PDT by razorbak

To: RedBloodedAmerican

Here, for your enlightenment, are quotations from just a few of 'the Fathers' on key Roman Catholic dogmas, doctrines and Traditions. See for yourself that Rome is not telling the truth about the origins of things, and the
so-called 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' :

Rome's Declarations on 'the Fathers'

"I also admit the holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures: neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of The Fathers."

Pope Pius IV, Profession of the Tridentine Faith, Article 3

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (the Council of Trent) decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals. . . . presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother church, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. . ."

Augustine on Mary

Augustine declared that Mary's flesh was "flesh of sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).
"Mary, springing from Adam, died because of sin; and the flesh of our Lord, derived from Mary, died to take away sin." (De Peccatorum Meritis, ii, c. 24).

Augustine on Peter

First Citation: In his interpretation of Matthew 16:18, St. Augustine wrote, "Because thou hast said unto me, 'thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.' For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is also called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore he saith, 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock' which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God' will I build my Church' that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, 'will I build My Church.' I will build thee upon me, not myself upon thee . . . For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I am of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said,'But I am of Christ.' And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, 'Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?' And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ.; that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter." (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, Volume VI, St. Augustine, Sermon XXVI.1-2, p. 340)

Second Citation: (Augustine, Volume VI, Sermon XXVI)

"Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven." Then He added, "and I say unto thee." As if He had said, "Because thou hast said unto Me, 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.'" For before he was called Simon.For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

2. For men who wished to be built upon men, said "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

Third Citation: Augustine, Tractates on John; Tractate 3, CXXIV

"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed. I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus." (Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series: Volume VII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.

St. Jerome on Confession

Circa. Fifth Century, St. Jerome wrote numerous letters to his peers and friends on living the Christian life. Those letters encompass five volumes! Nowhere in all of Jerome's letters, will you find support for the confession as now practiced by Rome. Rather will you find a condemnation of it, as in the following excerpt from a letter to a priest named Nepotianus, in Volume II, on Page 203, Jerome says:
"Never sit in secret, alone, in a retired place, with a female who is alone with you. If she has any particular thing to tell you, let her take the female attendant of the house, a young girl, a widow, or a married woman. She cannot be so ignorant of the rules of human life as to expect to have you as the only one whom she can trust those things."

St. Jerome on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written (in Scripture)" (Adv. Helvid).
"These things which they invent, as if by Apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites." (In Aggari Proph. Cap. I, II).

St. Chrysostom on Confession

"We do not request you to go to confess your sins to any of your fellow-men, but only to God!" (Crhysostom, Homily on 50th Psalm)
"We do not ask you to go and confess your iniquities to a sinful man for pardon - but only to God." (Ibid.)
"You need no witness of your confession. Secretly acknowledge your sins and let God alone hear you." (Chrysostom, De Paenitentia, Volume IV, Col. 901)
"Therefore, I beseech you, always confess your sins to God! I, in no way, ask you to confess them to me. To God alone should you expose the wounds of your soul, and from him alone expect the cure. Go to Him, then, and you shall not be cast off, but healed. For, before you utter a single word, God knows your prayer." (Chrysostom, De Incomprehensibili, Volume I, Homily V)

St. Basil on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"If custom is to be taken in proof of what is right, then it is certainly competent for me to put forward on my side the custom which obtains here. If they reject this, we are clearly not bound to follow them. Therefore, let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." [Basil of Caesarea, Letter CLXXXIX; A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), Page 229]

St. Cyprian on Peter

"I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume V, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Clement on Peter

'And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, " if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God. And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

[The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.]

'But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught.

But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it."'

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus on Peter

"Let us hear the words of the great Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for "On this rock," He says, "I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. "I," he says, "as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation," [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume III, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

St. Gregory the Great on having one supreme pontiff

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled (Luke xiv. 11; xviii. 14), I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offence by the appellation of a frivolous name. . . " [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume XII, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Iraeneus on Peter

[Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. SOURCE: Iraeneus Against Heresies, Volume I, Book III, Para 3: "A Refutation of the heretics, from the Fact That, in the Various Churches, a Perpetual Succession of Bishops Was Kept Up."]
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. . . . . To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [St. Ingatius, Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis Chapter IV; Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.]

Note that Iraeneus clearly states that Linus was first bishop of Rome - NOT Peter. Iraeneus then gives us the identity of the first twelve Bishops of Rome:

1. Linus
2. Anacletus
3. Clement
4. Evaristus
5. Alexander
6. Sixtus
7. Ignatius (Telephorus)
8. Huginus
9. Pius
10. Anicetus
11. Sorer
12. Eleutherius

Cyril of Jerusalem on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

"This seal have thou ever on they mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on its heads, and if the Lord grat, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [The Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril, Lecture 4.17; A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, Oxford, Parker, 1845]

Origin on Peter

FIRST CITATION: (Origin: Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Book XII, Para 10 Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume X, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997.)
"And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, " if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive "the spirit of the wisdom and revelation" of God. And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God."

"Because thou hast said unto Me, 'Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto thee, 'Thou art Peter.'" For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Origin on Worship: on Queen of Heaven

"As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in consequence of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us point them out to the best of our ability, and show that although Celsus considers it to be a Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and the angels in it, such a practice is not at all Jewish, but is in violation of Judaism, as it also is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and stars, as well as images. You will find at least in the book of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by the mouth of the prophet the Jewish people for doing obeisance to such objects, and for sacrificing to the queen of heaven, and to all the host of heaven. The writings of the Christians, moreover, show, in censuring the sins committed among the Jews, that when God abandoned that people on account of certain sins, these sins (of idol-worship) also were committed by them." [Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume IV, Book V, Chapter VIII: Origin against the Heresy of Celsus [Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.] 1997.]

Gregory of Nyssa on the Supreme Authority of Scripture

we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises "on the Soul and the Resurrection", P. 439. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume V.]

Marian enthusiasts, such as the current pope, have always pushed for Mary's sinlessness; dissenters have argued vociferously against it. The Dominicans were against; the Jesuits fiercely for. Thomas Aquinas felt that the immaculate conception violated accepted Christology. St Bernard of Clairvaux and St Thomas Aquinas both argued that Mary was tainted by original sin, and did commit sins. But in 1854, the debate about Mary's sinlessness finally ended in the Roman Catholic church by papal decree. Pius IX issued a Bull, Ineffabilis Deus, stating: "We declare, proclaim, and define that this dogma is revealed by God and therefore to be firmly and unremittingly believed by all the faithful: namely the dogma which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, from the very first moment of her conception, was kept free of sin.

In 1869 Pius IX went on to proclaim the doctrine of papal infallibility. He convened the First Vatican Council primarily for that purpose. Some saw his declaration of papal infallibility as a strategy for confirming his dogma of the immaculate conception. Others saw it the other way around: Pius exalting Mary in order to exalt his troubled, besieged, papacy.

Rome bases most of her dogmas, doctrines, and practices on her own, extra-biblical Tradition. She then demands that her Tradition has equal authority to Scripture. She further says that her teachings using her interpretation of Scripture have the 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' which, by this point, you should recognize as completely false. Those same 'Fathers' contradict her over, and over, and over again.

How many white crows does it take to prove that not all crows are black? How many contradictions does it take to prove beyond any doubt that the Roman Catholic Church is caught in a bold, bald-faced lie when she claims support from 'the unanimous consent of the Fathers?!' Just one Father who contradicts one of Rome's doctrines is sufficient disprove Rome's claim.

I don't base my faith on "the Fathers" but on Scripture. But those who claim to be Roman Catholic because "all the church fathers" agree with their current doctrines are either dishonest or ignorant of what the Fathers really taught.

232 posted on 08/06/2003 1:01:55 AM PDT by razorbak

A study of the way in which the Roman Catholic doctrine of the supposed Immaculate Conception of Mary provides an instructive example of how a completely unscriptural doctrine makes its way through the RCC from initial speculation by a minority within the church, to dogma which all Catholics are required to believe and confess:

While the Papal Bull declaring Mary's Immaculate Conception [1854] may have finally determined the issue as a dogma within the Roman Catholic Church, the final promulgation of the doctrine as dogma "to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful" was actually a crowning of the medieval success of Duns Scotus and the Franciscans in gaining formal theological acceptance for a doctrine that finds it's roots not in the bible or even in the writings of the Church Fathers, but rather in the tidal wave of popular devotion to Mary. A careful analysis of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception reveals that far from being "constantly believed by all the faithful", the doctrine was uniformly denied by the vast majority of theologians in the early and medieval church.

As far as scriptural support is concerned, even the commission appointed by Pope Pius IX to investigate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception could find no scriptural support for it, and instead reported that no scriptural evidence was necessary. The commission went on to say that tradition alone would be sufficient to dogmatically declare the doctrine, and that even tradition need not be shown to extend in an unbroken line to the apostolic age.

Perhaps out of a feeling that it would be inappropriate to publish the bull without any supporting scripture the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15 was eventually included as scriptural evidence for the doctrine. The Hebrew text, however, makes it clear that Christ and not His mother is being referred to in the passage. The scripture used for support is the faulty vulgate translation. Here the vulgate mis-translates the Hebrew word for "he or it" (hu') as "she" ("and she shall crush thy head").

To say that there is little or no evidence for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the early church would be a major understatement, for, on the contrary, the evidence present in the early church militates against the doctrine. There simply was no perceived theological need for the doctrine and no popular Cult of the virgin powering the drive for the development of extrabiblical teachings regarding her nature. This lack of excessive popular veneration is evident both in the written witness and, what is more important to indicating the condition of popular sentiment, in the artwork of the early church:

"The Catacombs witness to the freedom of the early Church from any idolatrous veneration of the Virgin Mary. There is no apparent attempt to exalt her above the place which would naturally and necessarily be assigned to her in a full list of biblical representations. 'In those earliest decorations of the Catacombs,' says Mariott, 'which De Rossi and other Roman antiquarians believe to be before the age of Constantine, representations of the Virgin Mary occur only in such connection as is directly suggested by Holy Scripture."

As one source put it "there was no tendency before the end of the fourth century to promote a regular cultus of the virgin, or even to address prayers to her."

It was the Christological debates of the 4th and 5th centuries that were to provide the catalyst for change in this situation. As the importance of the Virgin birth of Christ grew in the consciousness of the church, so too did the importance of Mary. "The more the awe and reverence of the early Church for the God-Man attempted to find adequate expression, the more natural it was that a portion of it should be transferred to his mother, the vehicle of his redeeming incarnation."

This desire to venerate Mary was to lead to the formation of cult devoted to her veneration and exaltation. And it was this cult that has from its inception been one of the leading factors in the development of doctrine concerning her.

One of the most distressing tendencies in the growth of the Marian Cult which followed the declaration that she was rightly called theotokos (God-bearer) at the council of Ephesus (431) was the gradual adoption of elements of the apocryphal literature concerning Mary as traditions of the church. This happened in spite of the fact that Pope Galesius I had forbidden the use of this material. Many of the traditional beliefs regarding Mary such as the names of her parents, her education at the temple, the idea of her nominal marriage to Joseph - supposedly aged and with children from a previous marriage, and her assumption, are only to be found in documents that the Church had already condemned.

What seems clear however, is that while they might have already begun to develop other questionable doctrines regarding Mary, the early church did not speculate on the conception of Mary, because it did not feel the need to do so. Mary was indeed particularly blessed among women, because she was chosen to bear the Redeemer, but the early church fathers obviously did not see her as playing a vital role in the redemption outside of this. Neither did they feel that for Christ to be sinless, Mary would need to have been sinless as well. Tertullian in his De Carne Christi says that "Christ, by putting on the flesh, made it his, and made it sinless. Irenaeus notes that "Christ made human nature pure by taking it" and Athanasius notes in On the Incarnation of the Word that "Christ sanctified his own body." In the middle ages it became unthinkable to speak of the Virgin Mary as having actually sinned, such was the force of the Marian Cult, but the early Fathers felt none of the same inhibitions and did not hesitate to frankly speak of her as a sinner. John Chrysostom spoke of her "excessive ambition at the marriage festival at Cana", asserting that she "was possibly not immune to some feeling of human vanity, wishing to attract to herself recognition from the guests by the miracle requested of Jesus and the showing of her influence over Him." Chrysostom also thought Mary's interruption of Christ's discourse to have Him come meet with her and His Brothers "indiscreet". Basil believed that with the apostles she too "wavered at the time of the crucifixion".

Augustine, whose work was critical in defining the doctrine of the universality of original sin, went to great pains to ensure that Mary was not regarded as actually sinful in her lifetime. In this he was probably following his mentor Ambrose more closely than biblical doctrine. In his refutation of Pelagius in On Nature and Grace, Augustine makes clear that he disagrees violently with Pelagius' contention that there were some Old Testament Saints who did not sin, but agrees with his other statement that, concerning Mary "it is necessary to devotion to confess that she lived without sin" in the following manner "I make an exception for the Virgin Mary, about whom, for the honor due to the Lord, I do not want to have any discussion when it concerns sins, since we know that she who has been worthy to conceive and bear Him who was without sin has received a greater grace than to conquer sin completely." In other works, Augustine makes clear that Christ alone was without any sin (Remission of Sins, 2.24.38)

The followers of Augustine also assert that Mary was born with original sin. Eusebius Emissensus asserts that, "From the bond of the old sin [original sin] is not even the mother of the Redeemer free." While Fulgentius writes, "The Flesh of Mary, which was conceived in unrighteousness in a human way, was truly sinful flesh."

By the beginning of the middle ages and following in the train of the thought of Western fathers such as Augustine, it was popularly accepted that Mary had been personally sinless in her life. The reasons for this had to do with both popular devotion - Mary had come to be seen as a standard for sinless perfection, an embodiment of ascetic virtues such as chastity, piety, and sacrifice - and also the critical question of Christ's sinlessness. It was thought that for Christ to have been preserved free from all stain of original sin, his mother had to be free from it in order to avoid transmitting it to her son. So while theologians had come to think that Mary had been freed from the stain of original sin, and had consequently lived a totally sinless life (against the thinking of their Greek forbears), the critical question became one of determining when she had been freed from original sin. In his Cur Deus Homo, no less a theologian than Anselm (1033-1109) both denied the Immaculate Conception and maintained that Mary had been born with the stain of original sin:

"For even though the conception of this man is pure and free from the sin of carnal delight, nevertheless the Virgin herself, from whom he was taken, was "conceived in iniquities" and her mother conceived her "in sins," and she was born with original sin, since she also sinned in Adam, "in whom all have sinned"

Anselm instead maintained that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin prior to the birth of Jesus on account of her faith in His future sacrifice, "But that Virgin from whom the Man we are speaking of was taken was among those who before his birth were purified from sins through him, and he was taken from her in this very state of purity"17 This purification being absolutely necessary if Christ was himself was to be pure.

Curiously, while Anselm himself denied any notion of any Immaculate Conception, it was his secretary and pupil the monk Eadmer who was one of the leading figures in the early propagation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Eadmer deduced that the doctrine, although it was expressly denied by Anselm in Cur Deus Homo, was none-the-less implicitly affirmed in his works of Marian devotion, particularly 'On the excellency of Mary.' and he consequently went on to affirm the doctrine in his own work, 'On the Conception of St. Mary,' Once again the power of the Cult of the Virgin proved to have the greater influence in determining the theology of the Church.

Later scholastic theologians after Anselm would generally agree that Mary had been purified from sin prior to her birth, but would disagree as to when this purification had taken place. Most of them were eager to avoid making Mary the "great exception", the one human being conceived without sin, so their formulations tended to have Mary conceived with sin but purged immediately, or even instantly afterwards.

Peter Abailard (1079-1142) also held that the virgin was purified of the stain of sin prior to the birth of Christ, "For man had not sinned except against his own Lord, whose obedience he had forsaken. If, then, his Lord wanted to remit the sin, as was done to the Virgin Mary and as Christ also did for many others before he underwent his passion..."

The overall witness of the theologians of the middle ages was against what was coming to be known as "The Great Exception", the idea that Mary alone in all humanity had been exempted from original sin. So how then did it come to be the majority testimony in the Roman Catholic Church? The answer lies both in the popular force of the Marian Cult, which from it's beginnings has never ceased to work towards the greater exaltation of the mother of Christ, and in the devotion of the Franciscans and their greatest theologian, John Duns Scotus, to the promulgation of the doctrine.

Whilst the scholastic theologians were busy arguing at what point Mary had been made sinless, the popular cult of the virgin amongst the laity and the clergy was once again advancing the argument to the next step with little attention to the theological niceties so important to the theologians. As was mentioned earlier, perhaps the most the most influential area in the popular arena regarding this issue were the feasts and festivals devoted to the celebration of events in the life of the Virgin.

In 1140 the church at Lyons instituted a festival to commemorate the immaculate conception of Mary. This produced the strongest possible reaction from Bernard of Clairvaux, a theologian whose reputation for devotion to Mary was unparalleled. Calling it a "novelty of which the rites of the Church know nothing, that reason does not approve, and ancient tradition does not commend" Bernard wrote to the canons of the church at Lyons expressing his shock and dismay at their action. Because of his immense stature as a medieval theologian and saint it is worthwhile to examine his letter in some detail in order to ascertain both his feelings regarding the doctrine and the reasons he gives for being unable to support it.

He goes on to list reasons that he feels she should be legitimately honored by the church and here he mentions several that one must conclude are equally without support in scripture or tradition, but which were generally assumed by the church at this point. Among them her sinlessness, ever-virgin status, her position as mediatrix, her assumption, and even the idea that she had no birth pains, as she was free from the effects of original sin prior to her birth. But Bernard goes on to maintain that the teaching of the church is that she was "certainly sanctified before her birth", but not prior to her conception. In fact, he makes a point of stressing that her sanctification simply could not have preceded her conception saying, "But there could not be sanctification before existence, nor was there existence before being conceived." He then goes on to utterly dismiss the spreading heresy that Mary was also conceived by the Holy Spirit, "Pity him who tells himself that she was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by a man." Bernard maintains that her birth was Holy and is to be celebrated precisely because "already conceived and existing in her mother's womb she received sanctification." It is to Christ alone "that sanctified conception should be reserved." Christ "alone was sanctified before and after conception", Bernard tells them. He even goes so far as to state that even Mary must confess with all the sons of Adam "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Psalm 51:5) He finishes by telling the leaders of the church that the Virgin Mary will "gladly do without this honor with which sin seem to be honored" (for Bernard strongly felt her conception was in sin), but closes saying that as a son of the church, he remits the entire "question to the authority and example of the Roman Church."

In this letter in particular, Bernard strongly expresses what was then the majority position of the scholastics concerning the issue. But the ground swell of popular devotion to Mary was so strong that a popular myth arose that after Bernard's death a black mark appeared on his breast as punishment for saying "what ought not to have been said of the Virgin." Bernard for his part, while eager to render all honor possible to the Virgin Mary was determined that the central Christian concepts of the universality of sin and uniqueness of Christ should not be obscured or destroyed by that devotion. In this Bernard was at odds with the almost unstoppable growth of devotionally motivated mythology that had surrounded Mary since the 4th century. Curiously Bernard, who had done much to accelerate the cult of her veneration, suddenly found himself confronted by and compelled to oppose yet another example of the fruit of that cult.

But it was to be Thomas Aquinas, the Thomists who followed him, and the Dominican order who were to form the strongest bulwark against the doctrine of the Immaculate conception during the middle ages. With the other scholastic theologians of his age, Aquinas was eager to affirm doctrines such as the sinlessness of Mary and her sanctification in the womb, but he is forthright in his Summa Theologica in declaring that proof for this doctrine is not to be found in the bible, "Concerning the sanctification of Mary, that is that she was sanctified in utero, nothing has been handed down to us in the canonical Scriptures which do not mention her birth at all." Instead Thomas argues rationally (rationabiliter argumentari) for two propositions, the first being that Mary was conceived in sin;

"The Sanctification of the Virgin cannot be meant to have happened before her animation, - that is before her soul was united to her body, - for two reasons:

First, because the sanctification of which we speak is none other that purification from original sin ... But guilt cannot be cleansed except by grace whose object is the rational creature only. Therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul the Virgin was not sanctified.

Secondly, because only the rational creature is susceptible to guilt, the offspring conceived is not capable of guilt before the infusion of the rational soul. And if the blessed Virgin had been sanctified in any way before her animation she would never have incurred any stain of original sin and therefore would have had no need of redemption and salvation which are through Christ, of whom it is said in Matthew 1:21, "He will save his people from their sins." It is not fitting, then, that Christ should not be the Saviour of all men, as is said in 1 Timothy 4. It stands, then, that the sanctification of the blessed Virgin took place after animation."

The second proposition is that she was sanctified in the womb, which he deduces from the angelic greeting in Luke 1:28, and the example of Jeremiah (1:5), and John The Baptist (Luke 1:15) both of whom were also supposedly sanctified in the womb (although this interpretation contradicts that of many church fathers including Augustine). Thomas is careful to note that these are theological propositions and not revealed truth.

Thomas' formulation regarding the conception of Mary was also the one favored by the majority of theologians during the thirteenth century. Even though the Franciscans were to become the most strident advocates of the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the founder of Franciscan theology, Bonaventura also wrote that the virgin Mary could not have been sanctified "before her animation", he elsewhere states (Locus Theol., VII, i) : "All the saints who have made mention of this matter, with one mouth have asserted that the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin." And yet again "We must therefore believe, in conformity with the general belief that the Virgin's sanctification took place after she had contracted original sin."

At this point it is valid to ask why the scholastics, while they were willing to attribute qualities not supported in the bible or the early church to Mary, would not be willing to support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as well? The answer lies not in the rational formulations that the scholastics created to explain why she could not have been sanctified prior to her conception, but in the fact that they perceived a "disquieting closeness between an immaculate conception of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus." The were aware that while the miraculous honors they accorded her set her above her fellow men, they did not violate the universal laws of sin and redemption, and they did not seriously impinge upon the personal uniqueness of Christ. The Immaculate conception did however, and made Mary the "great exception," thus according her an honor shared only with her son. It would be tempting to speculate how the scholastics would have reacted had they known how much further Mary was to be exalted after the medieval period.

While the cult of the Virgin may have supported the adoption of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception as yet another honor to be accorded her, the theological and philosophical groundwork to support its adoption did not exist, as yet. In fact, all of the serious scholastic treatises written on the subject up to that point had militated against the doctrine. It was not until the 14th century and the work of the philosopher/theologian John Duns Scotus that serious groundwork was to be laid for the later adoption of the doctrine, and once this foundational material was in place the Franciscan order began to work diligently to drum up support at all levels for the enactment of the doctrine as a dogma.

The formulation that Duns Scotus developed can be described more properly as a philosophical or logical construction than a theological one, for it relied not at all on either the tradition of the Church or Scripture. He delivered this argument in 1301 whilst commenting on the Sentences of Peter Lombard, the standard theological "text-book" during the middle ages. Lombard's work did not support the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, saying instead that the Holy Spirit had cleansed her from sin after it had been contracted. In response Dun Scotus postulated that it was possible for God to have done one of three things to insure the sinlessness of Mary (which was by now regarded as beyond question within the church). God could have:

1) Preserved Mary from any possibility of contracting Original Sin

2) Delivered her from the stain of original sin prior to her birth

3) Purified her from it at the end of some period of time prior to the birth of Christ.

After giving these three possibilities he states "Which of these three... it was that was done, God knows," since neither scripture or tradition provide any definitive answers, "But, if it does not contradict the authority of Scripture or the authority of the church, it seems preferable to attribute greater rather than lesser excellence to Mary." In this formulation Dun Scotus was keeping to the popular adage of the period "Whatever was both possible and eminently fitting for God to do, that he did", which was to go on to become a foundational concept in another Marian doctrine lacking support in Scripture or tradition - the doctrine of the Assumption.

Put simply Scotus' formulation was:

1) It was possible for God to preserve Mary from original sin

2) It was most "suitable" for Him to do so

3) Therefore He did

Critics of the formulation immediately pointed out that the central issue of concern regarding the doctrine was not whether it was possible for Mary to be conceived without sin, but whether she was in fact conceived without it. Ultimately this argument was to no avail, for it was this formulation that prevailed.

Scotus argued other points related to the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception based on this same formula, stating that it would not have been "fitting" for the Mother of the Redeemer to have been an enemy of God for even an instant: "She is there the blessed Virgin, mother of God, who was never actually an enemy (of God) by reason of actual sin or original sin, yet would have been an enemy if she had not been preserved."

Just prior to his death, Duns Scotus was to inject a note of uncertainty into his own formulations adding the word "perhaps" in respect to the preservation of Mary from original sin. But by then his formulations in their original form were already being widely used by Franciscans, who were not likely to express the same reservations on the matter.

Even after the Scotist formulation, the Dominicans struggled on continuing to produce evidence against the doctrine such as De Singulari Puritate et Perogativa Conceptionis Christi written in 1470 which contains some four hundred testimonies against the dogma from the fathers of the church and the issue of the Doctrine became a full blown battle within the church between the Franciscans and the Scotists on one side, and the Dominicans and Thomists on the other.

The council of Basel which met in 1438 went so far as to officially sanction the Doctrine, but because Pope Eugenius IV condemned the council itself for other reasons, its doctrines had no authority. Nevertheless the decision of the council had a far-reaching impact amongst those who read its decrees.

In 1477 Pope Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, officially sanctioned a feast of the Immaculate, but the response was from the Dominican opposition was sharp and immediate. Later, in response to bitter feuding between the Dominicans and his own party regarding this issue, Sixtus was to issue a decree threatening both Franciscans and Dominicans with excommunication if they should accuse each other of heresy regarding this Doctrine.

At the Council of Trent the Franciscans saw an opportunity to at last ensure that debate on the subject of the Immaculate conception be ended in favor of the doctrine. Aided by the Jesuits they demanded that Mary be excepted from the decree stating the universality of original sin. While this would not have established the doctrine of the Immaculate conception in and of itself, it would have made it the only viable explanation for her generally accepted sinlessness. Predictably the Dominicans strongly protested such an exception, and the matter was referred to Rome, who answered that an attempt had to be made to satisfy both parties.

by the end of the 15th century, while the doctrine had not yet been officially defined as a dogma of the church, it was believed and taught by the majority of the clergy and laity. From this point on the Scotist view was increasingly embraced by the church, while support for the Thomist position dwindled and official pressure was brought against those who still maintained it. Why then did support for the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception go from being a tiny minority of the church in the 12th century to the majority position in the 15th? As we have seen, while the weight of theological reasoning was against the doctrine, it was viewed with favor within the Marian cult, and this is was to be the deciding factor. To date, history has shown that every conceivable doctrine that further exalts the status of Mary that is not specifically declared heretical has eventually been adopted by the Roman Catholic Church as a dogma. This has been the case regardless of the paucity of scriptural or even traditional support for the doctrines themselves.

The popular cult of Mary has been an unstoppable juggernaut in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. It has propelled her from the simple handmaiden of the Lord, the humble mother of Christ we find in scripture to the verge of being anointed co-redemptrix and exalted to a position on par with her Divine Son. Ultimately, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was simply another step in the ongoing campaign to lift Mary as high as possible above her fellow humans. At what point the Roman Catholic church will conclude that she has been lifted high enough is impossible to say.

[AN EXCEPTIONAL MISCONCEPTION: The Development of the Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, by Andrew J. Webb]

233 posted on 08/06/2003 1:09:58 AM PDT by razorbak

"Of course God CAN create another woman without sin. The issue is not what God CAN do, it is what His Word says He DID do."

So many of your Biblical interpreations have already been shot down like flies, (such as your false claim that all men must taste death, Enoch and Elijah did not die), that I should think you'd be too embarrassed to continue on with this foolishness. sigh. But like all good Bible thumping fundamentalists, you commit the error of believing that the New Testament, (given to you courtesy of Saint Jerome and the Catholic Church in 400 A.D.), is the only word of God, and that Christ didn't do and say many other things that were taught that didn't get recorded. Your other grave error is believing that you possess the true interpretation of Scripture. But the New Testament itself tells us both of these paths lead to destruction:

(1). "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God". (2 Peter 1:20).

(2). "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures". (2 Peter 3:15).

Is the Bible the final teaching of Christ, or just the end of Revelation?Let's see what Jesus said to the Apostles about this:

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. (John 16:12)

What did John the Evangelist say about your false claim that the Bible is the only source of Christian teachings?

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

The other error you fall into is that fact that the Bible contains nothing that goes against the 2,000 year old Christian tradition that holds that Mary was sinless. The fact that the tradition is 2,000 years old is enough to end this case. The Bible only serves to indicate the reality of Mary's unique purity by calling her "full of grace", and "blessed amongst women". The Bible further indicates a unique status for Mary when we see the Archangel Gabriel reverencing Mary with his angelic greeting: "Hail, full of grace". Also in Luke we see the yet-to-be-born John the Baptist leap for joy" in Elizabeth's womb when Mary enters her house. After John the Baptist, of whom Jesus said: "No one born of woman is greater than", (Mathew 11:11) extolled Mary with his leap of joy, his mother Elizabeth declared that Mary was "the mother of my Lord", and asked by what grace should Mary come to honor her with a visit; (Luke 1:43).

Shouldn't all Christians honor Mary as the angel Gabriel did, as Elizabeth did, as John the Baptist did, and as the servants at Cana did at the wedding? (John 2:5)

Then we read in Luke 1 that Mary bestows the Title of "blessed for all generations" upon herself. "All generations" means perpetually, forever. Again in Luke 1 we read that Mary was already saved, even before the birth of the Saviour: "My soul rejoices in God my saviour". <-- This was a declaration that no one else in the entire Scripture could make until after the Saviour was born. It was an apparent referral to her unique status as a perpetual and sinless virgin. For nobody else under Heaven was saved before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Lastly, there is a huge fresco of the Virgin Mary in the Priscilla Catacombs of Rome, it is dated to the 2nd century. This is where the earliest Christians worshipped, due to Roman persecution. Evidence of ancient Christian veneration, (not worship), of the Virgin Mary is abundant. Even in the Bible the unknown woman who followed Jesus said to Him: "Blessed is the women who bore thee and gave thee suck".

Yet the prots and fundies go around seeking to find ways to make Mary not blessed, but just another sinner. Not exactly a wise thing to do to Christ's beloved Mother, and certainly not a means of honoring Her as "blessed among women". Pity the fundies and prots who worship a book, a book that they viscerate and butcher with their own personal interpreations at that. If it's the "Bible only", one must wonder what happened to those poor Christians of the first 400 years before a Bible was assembled into one book, and who never knew which of the few scattered epistles and gosples they read were the inspired ones. For it is known that many false gospels and non-inspired epistles circulated thoughout all of the Christian Churches until Saint Jerome weeded out the false gosples and letters, and assembled a book that later became known as the New Testament, in 400 A.D.

234 posted on 08/06/2003 11:31:42 AM PDT by TheCrusader

Your problem is not with me, its with the Bible. I simply quoted the Bible. I'm not surprised that you think that is foolishness.

Shouldn't all Christians honor Mary as the angel Gabriel did, as Elizabeth did, as John the Baptist did, and as the servants at Cana did at the wedding? Rom.5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

According to God's Word, there is more to death than physical death. There is spiritual death, physical death, and the "second death," which the Bible defines as eternity in hell.

Rev.20:14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Gen.2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Adam and Eve did not die physically the day they ate of this fruit. On that day, however, they did most certainly die spiritually.

Eph.2:1 And you He made alive, WHO WERE DEAD in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even WHEN WE WERE DEAD in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)

But the process of dying [aging, sickness, etc.] that had previously had no existence in their bodies, now began to work.

It's obvious that what I contend about Catholicism is true. It's not just that Catholics think that tradition, and the pope's ex cathedra statements are equal with Scripture. Time after time, when current Roman Catholic dogma contradicts Scripture, Catholics choose their dogma over Scripture.

And thanks for helping me make my point about Mary. The Bible specifically says Enoch and Elijah were taken directly to the presence of the Lord, as all believers will be who are alive when Christ returns. Unfortunately for your view, the Bible doesn't even hint that Mary was raptured into heaven.

1 Thess.4:16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Amen. He did exactly that. The New Testament was written AFTER Christ's death and resurrection by his true Apostles. And it is inerrantly true because God spoke through the Apostles, which the pope is not any more than I am.

An Apostle had to be an actual witness of the resurrected Christ. Paul fulfilled this requirement when Christ appeared to Him on the road to Damascus. The Apostles wrote the New Testament. The Apostles raised people from the dead, as Christ did. The pope does not and cannot do either.

Acts 1:21 "Therefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 "beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." 23 And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, "You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 "to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

"WERE THEY TO BE WRITTEN." That means "IF THEY WERE." They weren't. He did not say "WHEN they are written." And they weren't because God didn't intend them to be written. Do you have some new books of the New Testament to add to the 27? Does the pope? If so add them to the Bible and see how many people accept them.

The exaltation of Mary goes back along way. But I have also proven that there is a tradition, equally as old, that Mary was not sinless. This is why she called God her "Savior."

Why don't you do what Mary herself told the servants at the wedding of Cana to do?

John 2:5 His mother said to the servants, "Whatever HE SAYS to you, do it."

Mark 3:31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, "Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You." 33 But He answered them, saying, "Who is My mother, or My brothers?" 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 "For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother."

Shouldn't all Christians honor Mary as the angel Gabriel did, as Elizabeth did, as John the Baptist did, and as the servants at Cana did at the wedding?

Of course we should honor Mary "AS THEY DID."

Hail is defined as:

a : SALUTE, GREET b : to greet with enthusiastic approval If I were to meet Mary when she was carrying my Lord and Savior in her womb, I most certainly would greet her with praise and enthusiastic approval as Elizabeth did. And I most certainly when leap for joy when I come into the presence of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ some day. And I have always fully acknowledged that she was the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. But none of these individuals said she was sinless, and none of them took out a string of beads and prayed to her over and over and over again. They didn't even pray to her once.

Luke 1:46 And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, 47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. 48 For He has regarded the lowly state of His maidservant; For behold, henceforth all generations will call me blessed. 49 For He who is mighty has done great things for me, And holy is His name. 50 And His mercy is on those who fear Him From generation to generation. 51 He has shown strength with His arm; He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He has put down the mighty from their thrones, And exalted the lowly. 53 He has filled the hungry with good things, And the rich He has sent away empty. 54 He has helped His servant Israel, In remembrance of His mercy, 55 As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and to his seed forever."

Mary did not bestow on herself a "Title." She prophesied by the Spirit of God, and her prophecy evidently was true, because for 2,000 years, Christians all over the world have praised God for using Mary to bring His Son into the world to be our and her Savior.

It was an apparent referral to her unique status as a perpetual and sinless virgin.

You don't just "leap" to unwarranted conclusions. You jump the Grand Canyon. It is apparent you Catholics. Apparently it was not apparent enough for even your church, however, until 1854.

For nobody else under Heaven was saved before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Surely you are not claiming that Abraham, and Moses, and Elijah, etc. were not saved are you. Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ on the Mt. of Transfiguration in their heavenly glorified spiritual form and talked with Jesus and the disciples got a glimpse of Christ's true glory.

17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. 3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

Lastly, there is a huge fresco of the Virgin Mary in the Priscilla Catacombs of Rome, it is dated to the 2nd century. This is where the earliest Christians worshipped, due to Roman persecution. Evidence of ancient Christian veneration, (not worship), of the Virgin Mary is abundant.

...one of the oldest paintings of the catacombs, painted under the eyes of the pupils of the Apostles and found in the cemetery of Priscilla, represents the Virgin holding the Child on her lap, while the Prophet Isaias, who stands before her, points to the star above the head of the Mother and Child. [Catholic Encyclopedia Online]

The two paragraphs above, one from you and one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, do not contradict my faith at all. Mary received the second greatest blessing a woman could possibly receive here on earth. She was chosen by God to bring the God/man, Jesus the Messiah, into the world. As meaningful as this may be to Christians, it was even more meaningful to a Jewish woman. The painting shows Isaiah pointing to the star of Bethlehem, because Isaiah prophesied concerning Christ's virgin birth in his divinely inspired book. The star of Bethlehem is but one of many miracles associated with Christ's birth.

There is nothing unscriptural about a painting that pictures Mary holding the baby Jesus, and Elijah pointing to the star of Bethlehem.

If by mary being "venerated" by the painting, you mean that she is being shown honor and respect, I agree. If by venerate, you mean that she is to be prayed to, considered sinless, co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, etc., then I disagree.

If the painting portrayed something unscriptural, then I would not adjust my biblical theology to match the painting, despite its antiquity.

Ascribing attributes to Mary that are only true of Christ is not veneration, it is idolatry and blasphemy. And following the traditions of men is both foolish and dangerous*. [*more concerning that on my next post]

"Since the fifteenth century, and possibly even earlier, the 'Holy House' of Loreto has been numbered among the most famous shrines of Italy [...]. The interior measures only thirty-one feet by thirteen. An altar stands at one end beneath a statue, blackened with age, of the Virgin Mother and her Divine Infant, [...] venerable throughout the world on account of the Divine mysteries accomplished in it. [...] It is here that most holy Mary, Mother of God, was born; here that she was saluted by the Angel; here that the eternal Word was made Flesh. Angels conveyed this House from Palestine to the town Tersato in Illyria in the year of salvation 1291 in the pontificate of Nicholas IV. Three years later, in the beginning of the pontificate of Boniface VIII, it was carried again by the ministry of angels and placed in a wood [...], where, having changed its station thrice in the course of a year, at length, by the will of God, it took up its permanent position on this spot. [...] That the traditions thus boldly proclaimed to the world have been fully sanctioned by the Holy See cannot for a moment remain in doubt. More than forty-seven popes have in various ways rendered honour to the shrine, and an immense number of Bulls and Briefs proclaim without qualification the identity of the Santa Casa di Loreto with the Holy House of Nazareth" ! [The Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. 13, p. 454, which edition this is, I do not know]

235 posted on 08/06/2003 11:52:44 PM PDT by razorbak

Another example of how unscriptural practices, even those explicitly forbidden in Scripture, can gradually become believed and practiced by Roman Catholics:

DU PIN declares that: "In the first three centuries, yes, and in the beginning of the fourth, images were very scarce among Christians. Towards the end of the fourth century they began, especially in the East, to make pictures and images; and they grew very common in the fifth; they represented in them the conflicts of martyrs and sacred histories to instruct those who could not read. Those of the simpler sort, moved by these representations, could not forbear expressing the esteem, respect, and veneration they had for those represented therein. Thus was image worship established."

"There is no doubt when paganism was the prevailing religion, but that it would have been dangerous for Christians to have had images, because they might have given occasion of idolatry to those just reclaimed from it; and they might have given the pagans reason to object to Christians, that they had, and worshipped idols as they did; therefore it was fitting that there should be no images in those first ages, especially in churches, and that there should be no worship paid them."

This statement is truthful, and for a friend of image worship, extremely candid. The practice became general over the East, but was unknown in England, France, and Germany, though in these Western nations the worship of relics was universal.
In A. D. 730, Leo the Isaurian issued an imperial edict ordering images to be removed out of the churches and sacred places, commanding them to be thrown into the fire, and inflicting penalties upon those who ventured to disobey him. The decree was generally executed in the East, though it excited a great amount of indignation.

* Du Pin, vol. ii. p. 42. Dublin, 1724.

[pg. 329]

Constantine Copronymus, the son and successor of Leo, assembled a council of 338 bishops at Constantinople, A. D. 754, to complete the work of his father.* They showed the sternest opposition to the worship of images of Christ, and of the saints; they denounced it as a taint of heathenism, condemned by the Scriptures, and by such fathers as Chrysostom and Athanasius; and they forbade the use of all images in private houses or churches. The effort of Constantine seemed to be successful, that is, it controlled the public acts of his subjects, but evidently failed to carry their consciences along with it.
The Empress Irene was instrumental in calling a council, which permanently settled the controversy in favor of the worship of images; though quietness did not immediately fall upon the excited passions of men.† Her synod met first at Constantinople A. D. 786, but was scattered by military violence; it assembled afterwards A. D. 787, at Nice. It numbered 350 bishops, and passed a number of argumentative and idolatrous decrees in favor of the worship of images. And as this synod gave shape to all subsequent views and conflicts about images, we present a portion of one of its celebrated decrees.
"We therefore as is aforesaid, honor and salute, and honorably WORSHIP the holy and venerable images, that is to say, the image of the humanity of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of our immaculate lady, and holy Mother of God, of whom he was of our immaculate lady, of whom he was pleased to be made flesh, and to save and turn us away from impious love of idols; and the forms and representations of the holy and incorporeal angels, for they also appeared to the righteous as men; in like manner of the divine apostles, worthy of all praise."

___________________________________________________________

Whatever ridiculous distinction Rome has tried to recognize between the worship of images and that of God, a distinction which first appears in the decrees of the second Council of Nice, Charlmagne only saw in these idolatrous edicts: "adoration, worship." His book says of the prelates of the second Council of Nice: "The bishops of this synod order images to be adored;" "Whenever they find images spoken of either in the Scriptures or in the writings of the fathers, they conclude from them that they ought to be worshipped." * "Let us," adds he, "adore God alone." He declares that "miracles performed by images are no proof that they should be adored, for then thorn bushes should be adored, because God spake to Moses out of a burning bush; fringes should be adored because Jesus Christ healed the woman who touched the fringe of his garment; and shadows too, because St. Peter's shadow wrought miracles." The whole controversy between Charlemagne and the pope and council was based on the worship of images. He honored them so far as to permit them to remain in the churches. He would not worship them. The pope and second council insisted that they should be adored, and cursed all who did not worship them.

This is forbidden in the Second of the Ten Commandments that God gave to man:

Exodus 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me."

The Roman Catholic version of the 10 Commandments leaves out the Second Commandment. Why? Because when Scripture conflicts with Catholic tradition and the dogma declared by popes, loyal Catholics always choose the words of their tradition and their popes over Scripture.

On one occasion, Jesus became angered at the Pharisees of His day, for violating the Fourth Commandment with their unscriptural traditions and practices:

Matthew 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
3 He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 "For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
5 "But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God";
6 'then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.
7 "Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 'These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

Like the Pharisees you are astounded and angered that I don't follow your unscriptural and sinful traditions. But you think nothing of violating the explicit statements of the Bible, the Word of God. You had better re-read the statement of the Lord Jesus Christ that I have posted in the above citation and heed it, lest you be long those who Jesus spoke of on the Day of Judgement:

Matt.5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I'll finish this post with the last four verses in the Bible:

Rev.22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

236 posted on 08/06/2003 11:54:36 PM PDT by razorbak

To: RedBloodedAmerican

A limestone burial box engraved in Aramaic with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" could be the earliest archaeological evidence of the existence of the Biblical Jesus, says an inscriptions expert.

An Aramaic inscription on the box reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

"It seems very probable that this is the ossuary of the James in the New Testament," André Lemaire at the Sorbonne University in Paris writes in the Biblical Archaeology Review. "If so, this would mean that we have here the first epigraphic mention-from about 63 A.D.-of Jesus of Nazareth."

Lemaire accepts that it may be impossible to prove that the Jesus mentioned on the 50-centimeter-long box is indeed the Jesus of Nazareth described in the Bible.

There is no organic material in the empty box, so radiocarbon dating is impossible. But based on his analysis of the style of the script and the position of certain words, Lemaire believes the inscription was made around 63 A.D.

"The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology," says Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review. "It has implications not just for scholarship but for the world's understanding of the Bible."

Important or famous

Jews practiced ossuary burial only between 20 B.C. and 70 A.D., Lemaire says. And though the names in the inscription are common ones, he estimates that only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that time would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.

There is only one other example of a brother being named along with the father on an ossuary, Lemaire adds. He therefore concludes that the Jesus mentioned on the box must have been unusually important or famous.

Other scholars have cautiously welcomed the findings. "Since the research comes from Andre Lemaire, I take it very seriously," James VanderKam at the University of Notre Dame, U.S., told the New York Times. "If it is authentic, and it looks like it is, this is helpful non-biblical confirmation of the existence of this man James."

Unearthed by looters

A team at the Geological Survey of Israel has investigated the box and reportedly found nothing to contradict Lemaire's approximate date of construction.

But the ossuary's history is murky, raising doubts in other researchers. The anonymous current owner says he bought it from an antiquities dealer in Jerusalem, who claimed it was unearthed by looters south of the Mount of Olives.

Lemaire's tentative date of 63 A.D. comes from the writings of a first century historian called Josephus. He states that James, "the brother of Jesus," was stoned to death in 62 A.D. At the time, Jewish burials involved placing the body in a sealed rock tomb for a year, then collecting the bones and placing them in an ossuary box.

It is unclear whether that practice was continued by early Christians, say religious scholars.

New Scientist October 22, 2002

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

Jews in Jerusalem in the hundred years before and after Jesus' birth practiced secondary burial-the transfer of bones of the deceased from a first grave into a container that was then deposited in the family burial cave.

Archaeologists have unearthed thousands of such boxes, ranging from ornately carved and painted chests to utilitarian containers devoid of any inscription. The James ossuary fell somewhere in the middle.

Geological Survey of Israel scientists have determined that the box was made of limestone quarried intensively from the Mount Scopus ridge (which includes the Bible's Mount of Olives) in the first and second centuries A.D. The cauliflower-shaped structure of the limestone's patina-a mineral sheen that develops with age-indicated that it had spent centuries in a cave. Citing the absence of modern chemicals, telltale disruptions in the patina and marks in the stone by modern tools, they confirmed its antiquity and ruled out forgery. Independent scholars have almost unanimously accepted their judgment.

If the 10- by 20- by 12-inch receptacle is authentic-and scholars have no reason to believe it's not-and if the inscription refers to the right James, most experts believe this would be the most important discovery in the history of New Testament archaeology. This finding shows that the Gospels to be a reliable as they confirm the relationship between James, Joseph and Jesus to be correct.

237 posted on 08/07/2003 12:07:26 AM PDT by razorbak

Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone

Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts

After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.

The Aramaic words etched on the box’s side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer André Lemaire of the École Pratique des Hautes Études (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription’s authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. Lemaire details his full investigation in the November/December 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the leading popular publication in its field.

Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected.

In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone.

The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus’ father, and James, Jesus’ brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.

Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box’s limestone comes from the Jerusalem area. The patina--a thin sheen or covering that forms on stone and other materials over time--has the cauliflower-type shape known to develop in a cave environment; more importantly, it shows no trace of modern elements.

The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.

The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas’s tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate.

“The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology,” says Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. “It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world’s understanding of the Bible.”

Biblical Archaeology Review http://www.archaeologyodyssey.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR.html

238 posted on 08/07/2003 12:22:06 AM PDT by razorbak

I've said before and will say again, Mary was greatly blessed. She was chosen over all women to be the mother of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ.

She was not chosen because she was greatly blessed, she was greatly blessed because she was chosen. The angel spoke to Mary and said she was "highly favored" [full of grace]. Grace is unmerited and undeserved favor. As the Apostle Paul said, if one tries to mix grace and meritorious works, then it is no longer grace. [Rom.11:6]

EVERY BLESSING ANY BELIEVER RECEIVES IS AN UNDESERVED FAVOR [grace] FROM GOD. Even our faith, as well as Mary's faith, is a gift from God [Eph.2:8-9].

Every believer is highly favored and has an abundance of grace available to him, not from Mary or through Mary, but from God through Christ.

2 Cor.9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:

Any time I need grace, God has a supply that never runs out. And to access it, I don't have to go to a priest, or a pope or Mary. I can go directly to God.

Heb.4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Saying, "You are denying that Mary is blessed and dishonoring her" over and over again doesn't make it so. This accusation against me is false, and you know it is false. And it will be false no matter how many times you post it.

Let me bread this down in very simple terms for you. BLESSED does not equal SINLESS.

Jesus called Peter BLESSED. Does that make Peter sinless? Does that mean that those who believe Peter was a sinner in need of salvation:

go around seeking to find ways to make [Peter] not blessed, but just another sinner.

No. It means that Peter was a sinner, but God had mercy on him, saved him and called him to be an Apostle. God produced a portion of His Word, the Bible, through Peter. Peter and his fellow even performed miracles, including raising the dead, by the power of God. PETER WAS GREATLY BLESSED, BUT HE WAS NOT SINLESS. MARY WAS GREATLY BLESSED, BUT SHE WAS NOT SINLESS.

Jesus pronounced BLESSED all of those who would become believers after His death and resurrection, including believers today.

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. BLESSED are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Jesus calls all who would become believers after His death and resurrection BLESSED. Does that mean that all of these believers are SINLESS? No it does not. Does that mean I am going around "seeking to find ways to make [Christians] not blessed"? No, of course it doesn't. Why?

Because BLESSED does not equal SINLESS. FROM:

Posted by RedBloodedAmerican to razorbak On News/Activism 08/05/2003 2:21 PM PDT #230 of 238

Catholic debating techniques (version 4.7)

6. Bait and Switch technique ~ If your apologetics are being shot down repeatedly, it is because you are staying on one topic for too long. In the Catholic apologetics arena, it is always a good idea to present a moving target. If your perpetual virginity defense is becoming an embarrassment, switch it to a virgin birth defense, pretend your opponent has denied it and act outraged at his heresy.

Pity the fundies and prots who worship a book, a book that they viscerate and butcher with their own personal interpreations at that.

If I prayed to the Bible, or made a statue to it and bowed down to it, or called it a co-redeemer and co-mediator with Christ, like you do with Mary, then the charge that I worship the Bible would be correct. The above statement reminds of the Book of Mormon passage which Mormons always quote when Christians say that the Bible is the only infallible standard of faith and practice for true Christians. II Nephi 29:3 "And because my words shall hiss forth--many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." Like the Mormons, Catholic apologists fear the Bible because even they know that many of their most cherished doctrines are unscriptural.

If it's the "Bible only", one must wonder what happened to those poor Christians of the first 400 years before a Bible was assembled into one book, and who never knew which of the few scattered epistles and gosples they read were the inspired ones. For it is known that many false gospels and non-inspired epistles circulated thoughout all of the Christian Churches until Saint Jerome weeded out the false gosples and letters, and assembled a book that later became known as the New Testament, in 400 A.D.

The above paragraph makes about as much sense as an argument against biblical authority as saying, "one must wonder what happened to those poor Christians of the first 1450 years without a printing press." They did their best to learn as much of the Bible as the Catholic church allowed them to have, to translate into their own language when they could, and to keep from being tortured and murdered by the pope's lackeys for doing so. The Roman Catholic church burned more Bibles and murdered more Christians than the Roman Empire ever did. What a glorious blood soaked history your church has.

Well did the Apostle John prophesy of this church:

Rev.17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. 7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns. 8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The Beast upon which the woman rode represented ungodly secular kings and nations. But the woman who rode the beast, unlike Christ's true bride dressed pure garments and without blemish [Eph.5:24; Rev.19:7-8], was a whore dressed in purple and scarlet drunken with the blood of the saints. The false church, the whore, used the power of the beast, the governements over whom she held sway to try and destroy the Bible and all true Christians.

And where is this false church located?

Rev.18:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Only one city has for more than 2000 years been known as the city on seven hills. That city is Rome. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "It is within the city of Rome, called the city of seven hills, that the entire area of Vatican State proper is now confined."

Fornication and adultery are used in the Bible in both the physical and the spiritual sense. Of Jerusalem God said, "How is the faithful city become a harlot!" (Isaiah 1:21). Israel, whom God had set apart from all other peoples to be holy for His purposes, had entered into unholy, adulterous alliances with the idol-worshiping nations about her. She had "committed adultery with stones and with stocks [idols]" (Jeremiah 3:9); "and with their idols have they committed adultery" (Ezekiel 23:37). The entire chapter of Ezekiel 16 explains lsrael's spiritual adultery in detail, both with heathen nations and with their false gods, as do many other passages.

There is no way that a city could engage in literal, fleshly fornication. Thus we can only conclude that John, like the prophets in the Old Testament, is using the term in its spiritual sense. The city, therefore, must claim a spiritual relationship with God. Otherwise such an allegation would be meaningless.

Popes have long claimed dominion over the world and its peoples. Pope Gregory XIs papal bull of 1372 (In Coena Domini) claimed papal dominion over the entire Christian world, secular and religious, and excommunicated all who failed to obey the popes and to pay them taxes. In Coena was confirmed by subsequent popes and in 1568 Pope Pius V swore that it was to remain an eternal law.

Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) claimed that all undiscovered lands belonged to the Roman Pontiff, for him to dispose of as he pleased in the name of Christ as His vicar. King John II of Portugal was convinced that in his Bull Romanus Pontifex the pope had granted all that Columbus discovered exclusively to him and his country. Ferdinand and Isabel of Spain, however, thought the pope had given the same lands to them. In May 1493 the Spanish-born Alexander VI issued three bulls to settle the dispute.

In the name of Christ, who had no place on this earth that He called his own, this incredibly evil Borgia pope, claiming to own the world, drew a north-south line down the global map of that day, giving everything on the east to Portugal and on the west to Spain. Thus by papal grant, "out of the plenitude of apostolic power," Africa went to Portugal and the Americas to Spain. When Portugal "succeeded in reaching India and Malaya, they secured the confirmation of these discoveries from the Papacy..." There was a condition, of course: "to the intent to bring the inhabitants ... to profess the Catholic Faith."

It Was largely Central and South America which, as a consequence of this unholy alliance between church and state, had Roman Catholicism forced upon them by the sword and remain Catholic to this day. North America (with the exception of Quebec and Louisiana) was spared the dominance of Roman Catholicism because it was settled largely by Protestants.

Nor have the descendants of Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas forgotten that Roman Catholic priests, backed by the secular sword, gave their ancestors the choice of conversion (which often meant slavery) or death. They made such an outcry when John Paul II in a recent visit to Latin America proposed elevating Junipero Serra (a major eighteenth-century enforcer of Catholicism among the Indians) to sainthood that the pope was forced to hold the ceremony in secret.

Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world; otherwise my servants would fight." The popes, however, have fought with armies and navies in the name of Christ to build a huge kingdom which is very much of this world. And to amass their earthly empire they have repeatedly engaged in spiritual fornication with emperors, kings, and princes. Claiming to be the bride of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church has been in bed with godless rulers down through history, and these adulterous relationships continue to this day.

Some may object that it is Rome, and not that small part of it known as Vatican City, which is built on seven hills, and that the Vatican can hardly be called a "great city." Though both objections are true, the words "Vatican" and "Rome" are universally used interchangeably. Just as one would refer to Washington and mean the government that runs the United States, so one refers to Rome and means the hierarchy that rules the Roman Catholic Church.

Take for example a placard carried by a demonstrator outside the November 15-18, 1993, meeting in Washington D.C. of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Protesting any deviation from the pope's wishes, it read: "ROME'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY." 0bviously by "Rome" it meant the Vatican. Such is the common usage, So closely are Catholicism and Rome linked that the Catholic Church is known as the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Church, or sometimes simply "Rome."

Moreover, for more than a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church exercised both religious and civil control over the entire city of Rome and its surroundings. Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) abolished the secular Roman Senate and placed the administration of Rome directly under his command. The Roman Senate that had governed the city under the Caesars had been known as the Curia Romana (Roman Curia). That name, according to the Pocket Catholic Dictionary, is now the designation of "the whole ensemble of administrative and judicial offices through which the Pope directs the operations of the Catholic Church.

The popes' authority even extended to large territories outside Rome acquired in the eighth century. At that time, with the help of a deliberately fraudulent document [which I mentioned in an earlier post] manufactured for the popes known as The Donation of Constantine, Pope Stephen III convinced Pepin, king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, that territories recently taken by the Lombards from the Byzantines actually had been given to the papacy by the Emperor Constantine. Pepin routed the Lombards and handed to the pope the keys to some 20 cities (Ravenna, Ancona, Bologna, Ferrara, lesi, Gubbio, etc.) and the huge chunk of land joining them along the Adriatic coast.

Dated 30 March 315, The Donation declared that Constantine had given these lands, along with Rome and the Lateran Palace, to the popes in perpetuity. In 1440 this document was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, a papal aide, and is so recognized by historians today. Yet allegedly infallible popes continued for centuries to assert that The Donation was genuine and on that basis to justify their pomp, power, and possessions. That fraud is still perpetuated by an inscription in the baptistry of Rome's St. John Lateran, which has never been corrected.

Thus the Papal States were literally stolen by the popes from their rightful owners. The papacy controlled and taxed these territories and derived great wealth from them until 1848. At that time the pope, along with the rulers of most of the other divided territories of Italy, was forced to grant his rebellious subjects a constitution. In September 1860, over his raging protests, Pius IX lost all of the papal states to the new, finally united Kingdom of Italy, which left him, at the time of the First Vatican Council in 1870, still in control of Rome and its surroundings.

The point is that, exactly as John foresaw in his vision, a spiritual entity that claimed a special relationship with Christ and with God became identified with a city that was built on seven hills. That "woman" committed spiritual fornication with earthly rulers and eventually reigned over them. The Roman Catholic Church has been continuously identified with that city. As "The most definitive Catholic encyclopedia since Vatican II" declares:

...hence, one understands the central place of Rome in the life of the Church today and the significance of the title, Roman Catholic Church, the Church that is universal, yet focused upon the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. Since the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, Rome has been the center of all Christendom.

The incredible wealth of this woman caught John's attention next. She was dressed "in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication" (Revelation 17:4). The colors of purple and scarlet once again identify the woman with both pagan and Christian Rome. These were the colors of the Roman caesars with which the soldiers mockingly robed Christ as "King" (see Matthew 27:28 and John 19:2,5), which the Vatican took to itself. The woman's colors are literally still the colors of the Catholic clergy! The same Catholic Encyclopedia quoted above states:

Capps Magna

A cloak with a long train and a hooded shoulder cape ... [it] was purple wool for bishops; for cardinals, it was scarlet watered silk (for Advent, Lent, Good Friday, and the conclave, purple wool); and rose watered silk for Gaudete and Lactate Sundays; and for the pope, it was red velvet for Christmas Matins, red serge at other times.

Cassock (also Soutane)

The close-fitting, ankle-length robe worn by the Catholic clergy as their official garb.... The color for bishops and other prelates is purple, for cardinals scarlet ....

The "golden cup [chalice] in her hand" again identifies the woman with the Roman Catholic Church. Broderick's edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia declares of the chalice: "[It is] the most important of the sacred vessels.... [It] may be of gold or silver, and if the latter, then the inside must be surfaced with gold." The Roman Catholic Church possesses many thousands of solid gold chalices kept in its churches around the world.

Even the bloodstained cross of Christ has been turned to gold and studded with gems in reflection of Rome's great wealth. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The pectoral cross [suspended by a chain around the neck and worn over the breast by abbots, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope] should be made of gold and ... decorated with gems ...

Rome has practiced evil to gather her wealth, for the "golden cup" is filled with "abominations and filthiness." Much of the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church was acquired through the confiscation of the property of the pitiful victims of the Inquisitions. Even the dead were exhumed to face trial and property was taken from their heirs by the Church. One historian writes:

The punishments of the lnquisition did not cease when the victim was burned to ashes, or immured for life in the Inquisition dungeons. His relatives were reduced to beggary by the law that all his possessions were forfeited. The system offered unlimited opportunities for loot....

This source of gain largely accounts for the revolting practice of what has been called "corpse-trials."... That the practice of confiscating the property of condemned heretics was productive of many acts of extortion, rapacity and corruption will be doubted by no one who has any knowledge either of human nature or of the historical documents.... no man was safe whose wealth might arouse cupidity, or whose independence might provoke revenge.

Most of Rome's wealth has been acquired through the sale of salvation. Untold billions of dollars have been paid to her by those who thought they were purchasing heaven on the installment plan for themselves or loved ones. The practice continues to this day — blatantly where Catholicism is in control, less obviously here in the United States. No greater deception or abomination could be perpetrated.

When Cardinal Cajetan, sixteenth-century Dominican scholar, complained about the sale of dispensations and indulgences, the Church hierarchy was indignant and accused him of wanting "to turn Rome into an uninhabited desert, to reduce the Papacy to impotence, to deprive the pope... of the pecuniary resources indispensable for the discharge of his office."

In addition to such perversions of the gospel which have led hundreds of millions astray, there are the further abominations of corrupt banking practices, laundering of drug money, trading in counterfeit securities, and dealings with the Mafia (fully documented in police and court records), which the Vatican and her representatives around the world have long employed.

Nino Lo Bello, former Business Week correspondent in Rome and Rome bureau chief for New York Journal of Commerce, writes that the Vatican is so closely allied with the Mafia in Italy that "many people ... believe that Sicily ... is nothing more than a Vatican holding."

The Roman Catholic Church, when you add up its treasures, its land holdings, its buildings, etc., is by far the wealthiest institution on earth.

One hears from Rome periodic pleas for money-persuasive appeals claiming that the Vatican cannot maintain itself on its limited budget and needs monetary assistance. Such pleas are unconscionable ploys. The value of innumerable sculptures by such masters as Michelangelo, paintings by the world's greatest artists, and countless other art treasures and ancient documents which Rome possesses (not only at the Vatican but in cathedrals around the world) is beyond calculation. At the World Synod of Bishops in Rome, England's Cardinal Heenan proposed that the Church sell some of these superfluous treasures and give the proceeds to the poor. His suggestion was not well-received.

Christ and His disciples lived in poverty. He told His followers not to lay up treasure on this earth but in heaven. The Roman Catholic Church has disobeyed that command and has accumulated a plethora of riches without equal, of which "the Roman Pontiff is the supreme administrator and steward...." There is no church, no city which is a spiritual entity, no religious institution past or present which even comes close to possessing the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church. A recent newspaper article described only a fraction of that treasure at one location:

The fabulous treasure of Lourdes (France], whose existence was kept secret by the Catholic Church for 120 years, has been unveiled.... Rumours have been circulating for decades about a priceless collection of gold chalices, diamond-studded crucifixes [a far cry from the bloodstained cross on which Christ died], silver and precious stones donated by grateful pilgrims. After an indiscreet remark by their press spokesman this week, church authorities agreed to reveal part of the collection ... [some] floor-to-ceiling cases were opened to reveal 59 solid gold chalices alongside rings, crucifixes, statues and heavy gold brooches, many encrusted with precious stones.

Almost hidden by the other treasures is the "Crown" of Notre Dame de Lourdes, made by a Paris goldsmith in 1876 and studded with diamonds. Church authorities say they cannot put a value on the collection. "I have no idea," says Father Pierre-Marie Charriez, director of Patrimony and Sanctuaries. "it is of inestimable value."...

Across the road is a building housing hundreds of [antique] ecclesiastical garments, robes, mitres and sashes — many in heavy gold thread.... "The Church itself is poor," insists Father Charriez. "The Vatican itself is poor." [The treasure described here is only part of that which is kept in one location, the small town of Lourdes, France!]

The more deeply one probes into the history of the Roman Catholic Church and its current practices, the more impressed one becomes with the amazing accuracy of the vision John received centuries before it would all be lamentable reality. John's attention is drawn to the inscription boldly emblazoned upon the woman's forehead: "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" (Revelation 17:5). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits the description "mother of harlots and abominations" as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause can be traced to the unbiblical demand that her priests be celibates.

The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ. He did not, however, make it a condition for church leadership as the Catholic Church has done, thereby imposing an unnatural burden upon all clergy that very few could bear. On the contrary, he wrote that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife" (I Timothy 3:2) and set the same requirement for elders (Titus 1:5,6).

Peter, whom the Catholics erroneously claim was the first pope, was married. So were at least some of the other apostles. This fact was not the chance result of their having been married before Christ called them, but it was accepted as an ongoing norm. Paul himself argued that he had the right to marry like the rest: "Have we not power [Greek exousia, the right or privilege or authority] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren [half-brothers, sons of Mary and Joseph] of the Lord, and as Cephas [Peter]?" (I Corinthians 9:5).

The Roman Catholic Church, however, has insisted upon celibacy even though many Popes, among them Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28), John XII (955-63), Benedict V (964), Innocent VIII (1484-92), Urban VIII (1623-44), and Innocent X (1644-55), as well as millions of cardinals, bishops, archbishops, monks, and priests throughout history, have repeatedly violated such vows. Not only has celibacy made sinners of the clergy who engage in fornication, but it makes harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit. Rome is indeed "the mother of harlots"! Her identification as such is unmistakable. No other city, church, or institution in the history of the world is her rival in this particular evil.

History is replete with sayings that mocked the church's false claim to celibacy and revealed the truth: "The holiest hermit has his whore" and "Rome has more prostitutes than any other city because she has the most celibates" are examples. Pius II declared that Rome was "the only city run by bastards" [sons of popes and cardinals]. Catholic historian and former Jesuit Peter de Rosa writes:

Popes had mistresses of fifteen years of age, were guilty of incest and sexual perversions of every sort, had innumerable children, were murdered in the very act of adultery [by jealous husbands who found them in bed with their wives].... In the old Catholic phrase, why be holier than the pope?

As for abominations, even Catholic historians admit that among the popes were some of the most degenerate and unconscionable ogres in all of history. Their numerous outrageous crimes, many of which are almost beyond belief, have been recited by many historians from preserved documents that reveal the depths of papal depravity.

To call any of these men "His Holiness, Vicar of Christ" makes a mockery of holiness and of Christ. Yet the name of each one of these unbelievably wicked popes, mass murderers, fornicators, robbers, warmongers, some guilty of the massacre of thousands - is emblazoned in honor on the Church's official list of popes.

These abominations that John foresaw not only occurred in the past but continue to this very day.

John next notices that the woman is drunk — and not with an alcoholic beverage. She is drunk with "the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus..." (Revelation 17:6). The picture is a horrible one. It is not merely her hands that are red with this blood, but she is drunk with it! The slaughter of innocents who, for conscience' sake, would not yield to her totalitarian demands has so refreshed and exhilarated her that she reels in ecstasy.

One thinks immediately of the Inquisitions (Roman, Medieval, and Spanish) which for centuries held Europe in their terrible grip. In his History of the Inquisition, Canon Llorente, who was the Secretary to the Inquisition in Madrid from 1790-92 and had access to the archives of all the tribunals, estimated that in Spain alone the number of condemned exceeded 3 million, with about 300,000 burned at the stake. [Was he right? Whatever the real number it was exceedingly large by anyone's standards. I have no more respect for people who deny the horrors of the Inquisition than I do those who deny the Holocaust of the Jews.]

A Catholic historian comments upon events leading up to the suppression of the Spanish Inquisition in 1809:

When Napoleon conquered Spain in 1808, a Polish officer in his army, Colonel Lemanouski, reported that the Dominicans [in charge of the Inquisition] blockaded themselves in their monastery in Madrid. When Lemanouski's troops forced an entry, the inquisitors denied the existence of any torture chambers.

The soldiers searched the monastery and discovered them under the floors. The chambers were full of prisoners, all naked, many insane. The French troops, used to cruelty and blood, could not stomach the sight. They emptied the torture-chambers, laid gunpowder to the monastery and blew the place up.

To wring out confessions from these poor creatures, the Roman Catholic Church devised ingenious tortures so excruciating and barbarous that one is sickened by their recital. Church historian Bishop William Shaw Kerr writes:

The most ghastly abomination of all was the system of torture. The accounts of its cold-blooded operations make one shudder at the capacity of human beings for cruelty. And it was decreed and regulated by the popes who claim to represent Christ on earth....

Careful notes were taken not only of all that was confessed by the victim, but of his shrieks, cries, lamentations, broken interjections and appeals for mercy. The most moving things in the literature of the Inquisition are not the accounts of their sufferings left by the victims but the sober memoranda kept by the officers of the tribunals. We are distressed and horrified just because there is no intention to shock us.

The remnants of some of the chambers of horror remain in Europe and may be visited today. They stand as memorials to the zealous outworking of Roman Catholic dogmas which remain in force today, and to a Church which claims to be infallible and to this day justifies such barbarism. They are also memorials to the astonishing accuracy of John's vision in Revelation. In a book published in Spain in 1909, Emelio Martinez writes:

To these three million victims [documented by Llorente] should be added the thousands upon thousands of Jews and Moors deported from their homeland.... In just one year, 1481, and just in Seville, the Holy Office [of the Inquisition] burned 2000 persons; the bones and effigies of another 2000 ... and another 16,000 were condemned to varying sentences.

Peter de Rosa acknowledges that his own Catholic Church "was responsible for persecuting Jews, for the Inquisition, for slaughtering heretics by the thousands, for reintroducing torture into Europe as part of the judicial process." Yet the Roman Catholic Church has never officially admitted that these practices were evil, nor has she apologized to the world or to any of the victims or their descendants.

Nor could Pope John Paul II apologize today because "the doctrines responsible for those terrible things still underpin his position." Rome has not changed at heart no matter what sweet words she speaks when it serves her purpose.

Pagan Rome made sport of throwing to the lions, burning and otherwise killing thousands of Christians and not a few Jews. Yet "Christian" Rome slaughtered many times that number of both Christians and Jews. Beside those victims of the Inquisition, there were Huguenots, Albigenses, Waldenses, and other Christians who were massacred, tortured, and burned at the stake by the hundreds of thousands simply because they refused to align themselves with the Roman Catholic Church and its corruption and heretical dogmas and practices. Out of conscience they tried to follow what they believed to be the teachings of Christ and the apostles independent of Rome, and for that crime they were maligned, hunted, imprisoned, tortured, and slain. [Even if every single individual in these sects was a heretic, and I'm neither saying that they were or were not heretics, what right did Rome have to slaughter them like animals?]

Why would Rome ever apologize for or even admit this holocaust? No one calls her to account today. Protestants have now forgotten the hundreds of thousands of people burned at the stake for embracing the simple gospel of Christ and refusing to bow to papal authority. Amazingly, Protestants are now embracing Rome as Christian while she insists that the "separated brethren" be reconciled to her on her unchangeable terms!

[No wonder hundreds of thousands of Protestants who came to America burned the pope in effigy each year during the early colonial days. What a breath of fresh air, America had to seem compared to the persecution of Europe. Sadly and hypocritically some of these same people persecuted others when they tried to unite church and state. The strongest voices for the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, came from Protestant Calvinists such as Baptists and Presbyterians.]

Many evangelical leaders are intent upon working with Roman Catholics to evangelize the world by the year 2000. They don't want to hear any "negative" reminders of the millions of people tortured and slain by the Church to which they now pay homage, or the fact that Rome has a false gospel of sacramental works.

"Christian" Rome slaughtered Jews by the thousands —far more than pagan Rome ever did. The land of Israel was seen as belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, not to the Jews. In 1096 Pope Urban II inspired the first crusade to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims. With the cross on their shields and armor, the Crusaders massacred Jews across Europe on their way to the Holy Land. Almost their first act upon taking Jerusalem "for Holy Mother Church" was to herd all of the Jews into the synagogue and set it ablaze. These facts of history cannot be swept under the carpet of ecumenical togetherness as though they never happened.

Nor can the Vatican escape considerable responsibility for the Nazi Holocaust, which was thoroughly known to Pius XII in spite of his complete silence throughout the war on that most important of subjects. Had the pope protested, as representatives of Jewish organizations and the Allied Powers begged him to do, he would have condemned his own church. The facts are inescapable:

In 1936, Bishop Berning of Osnabruch had talked with the Fuehrer for over an hour. Hitler assured his lordship there was no fundamental difference between National Socialism and the Catholic Church. Had not the church, he argued, looked on Jews as parasites and shut them in ghettos? "I am only doing," he boasted, "what the church has done for fifteen hundred years, only more effectively." Being a Catholic himself, he told Berning, he "admired and wanted to promote Christianity."

There is, of course, another reason why the Roman Catholic Church has neither apologized for nor repented of these crimes. How could she? The execution of heretics (including Jews) was decreed by "infallible" popes. The Catholic Church herself claims to be infallible, and thus her doctrines could not be wrong. The angel revealed to John that the woman "is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Revelation 17:18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City.

Popes crowned and deposed kings and emperors, exacting obedience by threatening them with excommunication. At the time of the First Vatican Council in 1869, J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, Professor of Church History in Munich, warned that Pope Pius IX would force the Council to make an infallible dogma out of "that pet theory of the Popes — that they could force kings and magistrates, by excommunication and its consequences, to carry out their sentences of confiscation, imprisonment, and death...." He reminded his fellow Roman Catholics of some of the evil consequences of papal political authority:

When, for instance, [Pope] Martin IV placed King Pedro of Aragon under excommunication and interdict...then promised indulgences for all their sins to these who fought with him and [tyrant] Charles [I of Naples) against Pedro, and finally declared his kingdom forfeit...which cost the two kings of France and Aragon their life, and the French the loss of an army...>p> Pope Clement IV, in 1265, after selling millions of South Italians to Charles of Anjou for a yearly tribute of eight hundred ounces of gold, declared that he would be excommunicated if the first payment was deferred beyond the appointed term, and that for the second neglect the whole nation would incur interdict....

Though John Paul II lacks the power to enforce such brutal claims today, his Church still retains the dogmas which authorize him to do so. And the practical effects of his power are no less than those of his predecessors, though exercised quietly behind the scenes.

The Vatican is the only city which exchanges ambassadors with nations, and she does so with every major country on earth. Ambassadors come to the Vatican from every major country, including the United States, not out of mere courtesy but because the pope is the most powerful ruler on earth today. Even President Clinton journeyed to Denver in August 1993 to greet the pope. He addressed him as "Holy Father" and "Your Holiness."

Yes, ambassadors of nations come to Washington D.C, to Paris, or to London, but only because the national government has its capital there. Nor do mere cities like Washington, Paris, London, or any other city send ambassadors to other countries. Only Vatican City does so. Unlike any other city on earth, the Vatican is acknowledged as a sovereign state in its own right, separate and distinct from the nation of Italy surrounding it. There is no other city in history of which this has been true, and such is still the case today.

Only of the Vatican could it be said that a city reigns over the kings of the earth. The phrase "the worldwide influence of Washington" means the influence not of that city but of the United States, which has its capital there. When one speaks, however, of the influence of the Vatican around the world, that is exactly what is meant — the city and the worldwide power of Roman Catholicism and its leader the pope. Vatican City is absolutely unique.

The Vatican has been fulfilling John's vision from its location in Rome for the past 15 centuries. Moreover, we have shown the connection to ancient Babylon which the Vatican has maintained down through history in the paganized Christianity it has promulgated. As for ancient Babylon itself, it wasn't even in existence during the past 2300 years to "reign over the kings of the earth." Babylon lay in ruins while pagan Rome and later Catholic Rome, the new Babylon, was indeed reigning over kings.

One eighteenth-century historian counted 95 popes who claimed to have divine power to depose kings and emperors. Historian Walter James wrote that Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) "held all Europe in his net."

Gregory IX (1227-41) thundered that the pope was lord and master of everyone and everything. Historian R.W. Southern declared: "During the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal authority [the papacy] exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of a Roman emperor."

That the popes reigned over kings is an undisputed fact of history that we will more fully document later. That in so doing horrible abominations were committed, as John foresaw, is also indisputable.

Pope Nicholas I (858-67) declared: "We [popes] alone have the power to bind and to loose, to absolve Nero and to condemn him; and Christians cannot, under penalty of excommunication, execute other judgment than ours, which alone is infallible."

In commanding one king to destroy another, Nicholas wrote: We order you, in the name of religion, to invade his states, burn his cities, and massacre his people....27 The qualifying information which John gives us under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for identifying this woman, who is a city, is specific, conclusive, and irrefutable. There is no city upon earth, past or present, which meets all of these criteria except Catholic Rome and now Vatican City.

By the way, to wonder in sarcastic amusement what believers did without a complete personal copy of the Bible is really rich, coming from the church that did everything in its power to keep the average person from having a Bible in their own language. Believers in the Old Testament as in the New, and later Christians throughout church history, shared copies of the books they had and committed them to memory. Jewish young men would memorize the entire first five books of the Bible. The New Testament Christians had to memorize and make and share copies of biblical books. Just like they did and still do in Communist countries. And just like those who dared oppose the teachings of Roman Catholicism had to do during the Middle Ages.

Although there were earlier attempts of an English translation of the Bible, the first whole translation of the Bible into the English language is ascribed to John Wycliffe (1384), who was an English theologian and religious reformer. Wycliffe born in 1320 grew up when the prestige of the Roman Catholic church was low, with the rival of two popes, one at Avignon (1309-1378) and one at Rome. His rejection of the biblical basis of papal power and dispute with the doctrine of the transubstantiation of the host anticipated the Protestant Reformation. All he tried to do is "put the Bible into the hands of the common people."

Before the printing press, in England every single one of those John Wycliffe's Bibles translated into English had to be handwritten; it was before the days of printing presses. It took ten months to be able to produce one copy and when it was produced the cost of purchasing it was forty pounds. Remember there was 240 pennies in a pound and 40 pounds would be 9600 pennies, and that in a day when for 2 pennies you could buy a chicken and 4 pennies could buy a hog. There were men that went to work in the fields and worked for an entire month, and brought the entire earnings for that month so that they could possess one single page of John Wycliffe's Bible.

Several years after Wycliffe's natural death, the Council of Constance in 1415 declared his works heretical, and ordered that his remains be dug up and burned. [they dug the man's corpse up and burned it, folks-what loving people]

The council was also considering charges against John Huss, the German reformer, whose teachings were believed to be based on those of the deceased Wycliffe. Huss was summoned to the church council in Switzerland on the pretext of having an opportunity to defend his teachings, and with the promise of personal protection. Once in Constance, however, by order of the bishop he was thrown into a putrid jail, to await a mockery of a church trial, and ultimately a martyr's death

After Wycliffe's death, it would not be for another century-1534 to be exact-that the official ban on the production of English bibles would be lifted. In that year the King of England broke with the papacy, and thus the door of vernacular translation which had been shut for so many years was thrown open.

By 1500, vernacular editions of the Bible were being published in French, Italian, Spanish, and German. With only scattered copies of the Wycliffe manuscript, with a language that had become obsolete [Latin], England found themselves without a new translation of the Bible, from the original languages.

The best English translation was by William Tyndale (1536), who was an English religious reformer and martyr whose translation of the New Testament was the basis of the King James Bible. As the reformation movement continued through the European continent, he tried to convince the church authorities of the need for a printed English Bible. Having failed, he took his translation overseas.

His work was greatly influenced by Erasmus's modern Latin translations of the New Testament (1516), and he resolved to base his version on the Greek text. He issued the Pentateuch and the book of Jonah before being denounced a heretic. The remainder of his Old Testament appeared separately a year later. In 1525, three thousand copies of the first printed English NT were published. By 1530 six editions, numbering about 15,000 copies, were published.

Tyndale's English Bibles had to be smuggled into England, hidden in bales of cotton, sacks of flour, and bundles of flax. Bishops were buying up whole editions to be burned. His work created an appetite for the Bible in English, before Tyndale was condemned to death, strangled and burned at the stake according to papal edict for his efforts.

Luther's Bible was the first book published for mass circulation on the Gutenberg press in the nearby city of Mainz. Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German in 1522 and the rest of the Bible in 1534. Martin Luther based his German translation of the New Testament (1522) on Erasmus's Greek text (1516). This marked the first significant departure from the sole use of the Vulgate as a basis for translation. Twelve years later, Luther completed his work with a translation of the Old Testament from a Hebrew edition that had been published in 1495. It marked a milestone by giving people who could read vernacular, but not the classical languages, access to an accurate rendering of the ancient texts. It was the first complete version of the Bible in any modern language besides Latin. But Luther's Bible, like so many vernacular translations before it, fell victim to the Pope's decrees and was burned in 1624.

Even though they were ordered to be burned, the new invention - Gutenberg's printing press - made destruction of all Luther's translations very difficult. And Luther was protected by the armies of Prussia or he too would have been burned. When books were no longer copied by hand, there were thousands more to destroy. Gutenberg's invention had changed everything.

It is no coincidence that the invention of the Gutenberg printing press that made the Bible available to the masses in their own language marked the beginning of the end of Roman Catholic ascendancy and unquestioned power. When you compare much of Roman Catholic theology to the Bible, its no wonder they tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the comman man for so long.

239 posted on 08/07/2003 4:08:12 AM PDT by razorbak

Simply, a man of his times.

240 posted on 08/07/2003 4:16:04 AM PDT by not-an-ostrich

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794