In an article released by the organization known as MDI or Muslim Debate Initiative, they seek to try and refute the concept of the Trinity or try and find holes within the doctrine itself. The article can be found here: http://thedebateinitiative.com/2014/11/16/jesus-the-god-man/
Let's begin with the response:
"Trinitarian theology argues that Jesus is the God-man, and what this means is that Jesus was fully man, as well as being fully God at the same time.
According to Trinitarians, Jesus being the God-man explains a lot of things, for example when Jesus ate, slept, and was given birth to, this was part of the human side of Jesus, the human nature of Jesus. So as man, a full man, Jesus would experience things as all humans do, so that’s why he’d even pray, and not know everything, because he was a real human being.
So while Jesus had this human nature, he still also had the fully divine nature, and so he was still God."
Now if one carefully analyses this theology, one will find several problems and contradictions within it, but before we get to that we must address something else, we must go right to the heart of the issue. Trinitarians assert that Jesus was the God-man, fully God and fully man, yet the question is this, when and where did Jesus assert such a thing? When did Jesus ever say that he is fully God, and fully man, that he possesses two such natures?
The answer is simple, such a verse does not exist, and no major historical scholar in the field of the historical Jesus believes that Jesus uttered such a statement, there is no evidence for it. Jesus never said he was fully God and fully man, the church introduced this theology, and it’s obvious to see why. The church believes that such a theology will get rid of a lot of problems, because indeed how could Jesus be God if he didn’t know the last hour, surely God is all-knowing is he not?"
So what better way to explain this problem off by simply saying “oh yes this was the man nature of Jesus”, not the divine nature. So whenever Jesus displays actions that cannot make him God, they simply attribute it to the man nature"
No Christian claims Jesus said those exact words, and he didn't have to, it was the claims he made about himself that demonstrate he is God, it was already a given he was a man. Jesus spoke in such a way to the Jews that they rightly concluded that he made claims about himself. I have written in length showing the Trinity:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/deuteronomy-64-trinity-vs-shema.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-64-trinity-vs-shema-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/response-to-droptozro.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/comments-on-anissueof-ursincerity-and.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/three-person-one-person-false-dilemma.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/spirit-of-god-response-to-anonyemous.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/classical-trinitarian-objections.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/challenge-from-facebook-unitarian.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-trinity-is-not-truth.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-angel-of-lord.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/more-on-angel-of-lord.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/even-more-on-deity-of-christ-and-angel.html
Jesus had set aside his divine perogatives, but not his deity, that's why there were certain things he did not know while he was on earth. This point has been addressed in my response to Tovia Singer on the Trinity:
"Jesus' knowledge was limited while on earth, however, there were cases where the disicples understood that Jesus knew all things. Also, by Tovia's logic, the Father and the Spirit are not God, because in Revelation 19:12, the rider called Faithful and True (Which is Jesus) has a name that no one knows but himself. Does this mean the Father and the Spirit are not God? Of course not. There are details that are only known to a certain member of the Godhead at certain times. That's one possible answer.
The other answer is that Jesus is speaking of the end times in the context of a ancient Jewish marriage, where only the Father knew when the marriage takes place. This video by InspiringPhilosophy explains this point better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfdozI26lQQ" http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html
"But now to the actual theology itself, and the problems and contradictions it poses when one well and truly thinks about it.
How can one be fully divine, and fully human at the same time? This is what you call a paradox, a contradiction, and an impossibility. Why you might ask? Well as we all know, being divine means you’re all knowing, all-powerful and so forth. But being human, means you’re none of those things. So how can one be all knowing, while ignorant at the same time?
The equivalent of this is calling someone a married bachelor. These are two completely different things, one cannot be all knowing, and be ignorant at the same time, that’s just a contradiction.
Similarly, being fully divine means you’re eternal, while being human, means you’re not eternal. So how can one be eternal, having always existed, yet at the same time is not eternal and came into existence during a point in time?! It makes no sense, as we said, it’s a paradox, and it’s a contradiction."
This goes back to the point I already made above, furthermore, everyone knows one cannot be a married bachelor, or 100% Good and 100% evil at the same time. However this is not a human being we are dealing with and no those two statements I mentioned don't apply to God considering he himself is pure, holy and good, and he shuns evil, thus it is already clear he is not 100% evil, let alone evil a little bit. He isn't evil at all. Also, no such thing as a married bacholer exists, not even in the Godhead. Biblically speaking God can be 100% God and Man, but not 100% evil and good at the same time, simply because of what the Bible already establishes, namely God being good with no evil or darkness in him.
Moreover, what's more of a paradox? God existing with two natures, one eternal, the other temporal? OR is God existing from eternity without beginning and end? The latter is far more perplexing and if you are going to dismiss the Trinity because "it doesn't make sense", Apply that to God existing eternally and you shoot yourself in the foot.
"It’s very simple, God is God, and man is man. If God becomes man, he’s no longer God now is he, he’s become a man. For instance, man is man, and animal is animal, if a man becomes a duck, he’s no longer a man but a duck. Similarly, if God became a man, then he was no longer God, he was man, there’s no such thing as the God-man unless God found himself a human wife and conceived a child with that human lady, and so the son would have the natures of God and man.
"Trinitarians say Jesus “took on the human nature”, that doesn’t make the situation any better, because how can the all mighty and powerful God, the infinite and the eternal, take on the finite and limited? How can the perfect take on imperfection? If God took on imperfection, then he was no longer fully perfect, yet that’s impossible for God because he is always perfect. If God took on ignorance, then he was no longer all knowing, and that’s an impossibility for God because God is perfect in wisdom and knowledge. It is impossible for him to become imperfect in that attribute, let alone any attribute. For if God became imperfect in anything, then he could not be God as God is perfect and it is impossible for him to imperfect for to be imperfect would cease making him God!"
Trinitarians are not put in a bad situation when we say Jesus took on a human nature. You tell me how God existed eternally, you can't. Jesus came into the world through the womb of Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not God finding a human wife to have sex to produce Jesus. That is blasphemy to Christians. There are things God himself can and can't do but we don't claim he becomes imperfect.
For example, God cannot time travel (neither can we for that matter and time dilation and sleeping for a long time doesn't count). Does this make God imperfect just because he cannot time travel though he is all powerful? Of course not, that isn't the case.
Just as God not being able to time travel doesn't render him imperfect, God becoming a man doesn't render him imperfect, not even laying his divine perogatives and glory makes him imperfect.
"So did the all-perfect God take on imperfection? Is that what we’re expected to believe when we’re told God took on the human nature? So God took on the imperfection upon himself while being fully perfect at the same time?"
What imperfection? He didn't take on imperfection, he laid aside his glory and his divine perogatives while still remaining as God, as Philippians 2:5-11 explains:
"5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father."
What does setting aside the divine perogatives and glory have to do with God being imperfect? NOTHING.
"Another problem with this whole God-man issue is the reasoning behind it, Trinitarians allege that God became like us, so he could understand us. But does not God already understand us? He made us, so surely he should understand us better than anybody else since he created us. Not only did he create us, he created the feelings we feel. So surely if anybody knows anything about understanding us and what we go through, it should be God as he created it all.
Now to also say that God became like one of us to understand us presupposes that he did not understand us in the first place which is why he became one of us, so he could better understand us and experience what we go through. If this is the case, this means that God is ignorant and not all knowing, for he should’ve already known about us instead of having to become like one of us to understand us.
Put it this way, if you travel to China to learn about the Chinese culture and the Chinese way of life, this means you weren’t aware of the Chinese way of life and culture, which is why you went to China so you could experience it. So similarly, when God became man to understand and experience what we go through, it means that he did not know this in the first place, which is why he took on such a act."
Can you show me any serious, knowledgeable Trinitarian who actually says God became a man to understand us? I know not one. That isn't the reason Jesus became a man in the first place.
The reason he became a man was because of the Father sending him to Earth to die on the cross for our sins, so that by our repentance and faith in him we will be born again, justified by faith and saved by grace. THAT is the reason he came to Earth
He didn't come to Earth to understand us. After all since he is God, he knows you better than you know yourself.
"Now if Trinitarians respond back by saying well “No, God didn’t become a man because he didn’t understand us and so forth, no, God already understood us and knew what we experienced”. If a Trinitarian says this, then they refute themselves and defeat the whole purpose of their own statements when they say God became a man to understand us. Why would God become a man to understand us if he already knew everything? It makes it all meaningless.
Trinitarians try to show how beautiful it is, they try to emotionally suck you in, saying, “Look how great God is, that he became like us to understand and experience what we go through, isn’t that wonderful”. No, not really, what’s so wonderful about him becoming like us, understanding us, and experiencing what we go through if he already knew this in the first place?
What would be wonderful about such a thing is if the person doing it was doing it because they well and truly wanted to understand how the people felt, to understand their experiences and so on, but if you already had full knowledge of it, if you created it, then there’s no point to it."
Again, Show me a SERIOUS Trinitarian who says this. What Trinitarian who understands his theology and is Trinitarian by conviction rather than tradition even makes the claim that God came to Earth to understand and experience us? Once again, I know not one.
"So in conclusion, the theology of the God-man is filled with contradictions within itself, and secondly, Jesus himself never taught that he was the God-man."
The article written by MDI is pretty hollow and vacuous, and again this last point is nothing more than an argument from silence. Can you show me where Jesus explicitly said he was a Muslim? No.
However he wasn't a Muslim for different reasons but would anyone use this argument of "Jesus himself said he was a Muslim" verbatim? I don't think so, so be consistent again if you are using that argument. Jesus may not of used the exact wording, but he certainly demonstrated he was God by his claims and actions, with the resurrection being a confirmation of those claims.
See the following articles which I call, the Deuteronomy 13 trilogy:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deuteronomy-13-question-of-vindication-2.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/spiritual-experiences-what-can-they.html
Addendum
"So Jesus never declared himself to be the God-man, but what did he declare himself to be then?
After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: “Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3)
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. (John 8:40)"
John 17:3 is addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-tovia-singer-on-did-authors.html
Any verse where it says that Jesus is a man, That's not a news flash to a Trinitarian at all, We accept he is God AND Man. Jesus being a prophet is ALSO not a news flash. Do you expect us Biblical Trinitarian Christians to be concerned that Jesus is identified as a man?
I have said this many times before, and I'll say it again, When Jesus took on human flesh, he began relating to the Father AS HIS GOD.
Jesus didn't have to say he was the God Man in the exact words, he could get his point across without having to resort to the exact words and even The Bible confirms Jesus' deity not only from his words, but also from the apostles who knew him.
Hope I have answered the objections properly.
Answering Judaism.
Monday, 17 November 2014
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Paul's mission to the Gentiles, A response to Ijaz Ahmad
Recently, on the 14th of November 2014, Ijaz Ahmad posted the following about Paul. I hope to the best of my ability that this response will be addressed.
Ijaz Ahmad runs the site by the name of Calling Christians.
"Why Did Paul Preach to the Gentiles?
by Ijaz Ahmad
At Paul’s time there were two primary groups of which he could have targeted to preach his new self developed brand of soteriology to; the Jews and the Gentiles. However, as history dictates, Paul chose the gentiles and quickly won favour among their peoples. So much so, that he eventually entitled himself with the position of the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles‘:
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office – Romans 11:13.
The question therefore begs itself, why did Paul choose to preach to the gentiles over the Jews? After all, he was a Pharisee and would have been familiar with the knowledge, teachings, methodologies and mistakes of his Pharasaic brothers. Thus, he would have been the best person to preach to them his interpretation of soteriology. Yet he did not do so. He left the task to James, Peter and the rest, dubbing them as the ‘super apostles’.
The real reason Paul preached to the gentiles is because they were ignorant. They did not know the Torah. They did not possess intimate knowledge of Judaism, its scripture or its doctrine. Therefore Paul was not presenting his new religion to his own brethren because they would be able to debunk him. Due to this, logically speaking, he preached to those who would find his new faith appealing. The gentiles would not argue about Christ’s deity, or about the new doctrine of salvation, but the Jews would and vehemently so. Thus the path of least resistance is among the gentiles who would eventually see him as an authoritative figure, as opposed to the Jews who would see him as a heretic and shame him. Yet with the gentiles, he is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly.
Wa Allaahu ‘Alam."
The Jews of Jesus' day argued against Jesus for a reason, namely he had exposed their leaders and their leaders had coerced them to hate Jesus and not respond to the Gospel. Ahmad also fails to mention to his audience that there were Jew and Gentile congregations in the days of the apostles.
Furthermore, Ahmad shoots his own point in the foot. If Paul himself was a Pharisee and thus was familiar with the methodologies, teachings etc, He could if he was called by Jesus to do so, speak with the Jews without any fear of refuting him.
"Acts 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. 43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
“‘I have made you[f] a light for the Gentiles,
that you[g] may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’[h]”
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit."
Notice what I have underlined, There were Jews in the audience who heard what Paul had to say and even encouraged Paul to carry on with his preaching. It is clear in the context that there were some Jews who accepted the message that Paul gave about Jesus. You can argue whether or not the individuals all were learned in Torah, but it is likely that the Jews in the context were familiar with the TANAKH as a whole and the methodologies of their teachers.
While later some of the Jews may changed their minds in this particular time, You are stuck with the fact you had a mostly positive reception to the Gospel to begin with.
Also, Jesus himself was responsible for sending Paul to the Gentiles and as a Muslim, surely Ahmad accepts the words of Jesus right?
Let's read Acts 9
"10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength."
Jesus is telling Ananias to go to Paul to baptize him and fill him with the Holy Spirit, so that he can prepare Paul for his ministry.
The reason Paul was sent to the Gentile people was not because he could get away with swaying ignorant Gentiles to his cause, but because Jesus himself sent Paul as a vessel to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.
I am pretty sure Ahmad wouldn't dare charge Jesus with endorsing falsehood unless he wants to say he doesn't actually love Jesus as the Muslims all claim.
Why would Jesus endorse Paul, if Paul could getaway with swaying ignorant Gentiles, rather than bring well learned Jews into the fold.
Also, Considering the fact Jesus was with Paul, if it was in the Lord's will, Paul could go to his people boldly and give the Gospel TO the Jews. Yes there are some who would reject him, but what about those who consider his proposal?
Ahmad also fails to mention to his audience, that the Paul's letters have an anti-Gnostic pollemic, as well as John's, which shows that there were Gentiles who certainly would argue against the Deity of Christ. As James White points out in the Forgotten Trinity:
"We begin with the good, pure spiritual God at the top of the diagram. From this one true God flows a long series of "emanations" known to the Gnostics as "aeons". These aeons are godlike creatures, often identified as angels when Gnosticism encountered Jewish or Christian beliefs possiblity alluded to in Colossians 2:18). All of the aeons, taken as group, comprised the "pleroma" , the Greek word for "fulness". Each of these aeons along the line of emanation from God is a little less "pure," a little further away from the one true God. Eventually, the line extends far enough that encounter the "Demiurge", a divine being who has capacity to create is sufficiently "less pure" than the true God so as to create, and come in context with, matter. In the second century of the church's history, some Gnostic teachers identified this evil Demiurge with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh." James White, The Forgotten Trinity Pg. 108-109.
As Ahmad should be aware, the Trinity teaches that though Jesus is YHWH God, he is not the Father or the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father.
There were Gentiles outside of the faith that contended that Jesus himself was not the true God and contended that the God of the OT was NOT the true God, a teaching which is apostate.
If there were Gentiles that did have objections to Jesus being YHWH, the Gnostics are certainly are a candidate, considering Paul's letter to the Colossians is especially a first century Gnostic polemic. It is demonstrably false to claim that the Gentiles would not argue about the Deity of Christ.
Not only did Paul have a hard time from some from his own people, he had hardships from Gentiles and heretics who even opposed the faith that he and the apostles sought to uphold and proclaim.
Even if Ahmad's claim that Paul with respect to the Jews went to the Gentiles because he"is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly" had weight, his statement is invalid, because is claim isn't the reason why Paul went to the Gentiles and not to the Jewish leaders. Besides, the Jewish leaders would not listen to him and any further scuffle would have been a waste of time on Paul's part, After all if someone be they Jew or Gentile rejects the Gospel, Jesus tells us "not to cast pearls before swine" and if Paul continued speaking to the leaders, his efforts would be fruitless because the Jews wouldn't listen to his message.
Hope this article has been of help.
Answering Judaism.
Ijaz Ahmad runs the site by the name of Calling Christians.
"Why Did Paul Preach to the Gentiles?
by Ijaz Ahmad
At Paul’s time there were two primary groups of which he could have targeted to preach his new self developed brand of soteriology to; the Jews and the Gentiles. However, as history dictates, Paul chose the gentiles and quickly won favour among their peoples. So much so, that he eventually entitled himself with the position of the ‘Apostle of the Gentiles‘:
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office – Romans 11:13.
The question therefore begs itself, why did Paul choose to preach to the gentiles over the Jews? After all, he was a Pharisee and would have been familiar with the knowledge, teachings, methodologies and mistakes of his Pharasaic brothers. Thus, he would have been the best person to preach to them his interpretation of soteriology. Yet he did not do so. He left the task to James, Peter and the rest, dubbing them as the ‘super apostles’.
The real reason Paul preached to the gentiles is because they were ignorant. They did not know the Torah. They did not possess intimate knowledge of Judaism, its scripture or its doctrine. Therefore Paul was not presenting his new religion to his own brethren because they would be able to debunk him. Due to this, logically speaking, he preached to those who would find his new faith appealing. The gentiles would not argue about Christ’s deity, or about the new doctrine of salvation, but the Jews would and vehemently so. Thus the path of least resistance is among the gentiles who would eventually see him as an authoritative figure, as opposed to the Jews who would see him as a heretic and shame him. Yet with the gentiles, he is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly.
Wa Allaahu ‘Alam."
The Jews of Jesus' day argued against Jesus for a reason, namely he had exposed their leaders and their leaders had coerced them to hate Jesus and not respond to the Gospel. Ahmad also fails to mention to his audience that there were Jew and Gentile congregations in the days of the apostles.
Furthermore, Ahmad shoots his own point in the foot. If Paul himself was a Pharisee and thus was familiar with the methodologies, teachings etc, He could if he was called by Jesus to do so, speak with the Jews without any fear of refuting him.
"Acts 13:42 As Paul and Barnabas were leaving the synagogue, the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath. 43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.
44 On the next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy. They began to contradict what Paul was saying and heaped abuse on him.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles. 47 For this is what the Lord has commanded us:
“‘I have made you[f] a light for the Gentiles,
that you[g] may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’[h]”
48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
49 The word of the Lord spread through the whole region. 50 But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. 51 So they shook the dust off their feet as a warning to them and went to Iconium. 52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit."
Notice what I have underlined, There were Jews in the audience who heard what Paul had to say and even encouraged Paul to carry on with his preaching. It is clear in the context that there were some Jews who accepted the message that Paul gave about Jesus. You can argue whether or not the individuals all were learned in Torah, but it is likely that the Jews in the context were familiar with the TANAKH as a whole and the methodologies of their teachers.
While later some of the Jews may changed their minds in this particular time, You are stuck with the fact you had a mostly positive reception to the Gospel to begin with.
Also, Jesus himself was responsible for sending Paul to the Gentiles and as a Muslim, surely Ahmad accepts the words of Jesus right?
Let's read Acts 9
"10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”
“Yes, Lord,” he answered.
11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”
13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”
15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”
17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength."
Jesus is telling Ananias to go to Paul to baptize him and fill him with the Holy Spirit, so that he can prepare Paul for his ministry.
The reason Paul was sent to the Gentile people was not because he could get away with swaying ignorant Gentiles to his cause, but because Jesus himself sent Paul as a vessel to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles.
I am pretty sure Ahmad wouldn't dare charge Jesus with endorsing falsehood unless he wants to say he doesn't actually love Jesus as the Muslims all claim.
Why would Jesus endorse Paul, if Paul could getaway with swaying ignorant Gentiles, rather than bring well learned Jews into the fold.
Also, Considering the fact Jesus was with Paul, if it was in the Lord's will, Paul could go to his people boldly and give the Gospel TO the Jews. Yes there are some who would reject him, but what about those who consider his proposal?
Ahmad also fails to mention to his audience, that the Paul's letters have an anti-Gnostic pollemic, as well as John's, which shows that there were Gentiles who certainly would argue against the Deity of Christ. As James White points out in the Forgotten Trinity:
"We begin with the good, pure spiritual God at the top of the diagram. From this one true God flows a long series of "emanations" known to the Gnostics as "aeons". These aeons are godlike creatures, often identified as angels when Gnosticism encountered Jewish or Christian beliefs possiblity alluded to in Colossians 2:18). All of the aeons, taken as group, comprised the "pleroma" , the Greek word for "fulness". Each of these aeons along the line of emanation from God is a little less "pure," a little further away from the one true God. Eventually, the line extends far enough that encounter the "Demiurge", a divine being who has capacity to create is sufficiently "less pure" than the true God so as to create, and come in context with, matter. In the second century of the church's history, some Gnostic teachers identified this evil Demiurge with the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh." James White, The Forgotten Trinity Pg. 108-109.
As Ahmad should be aware, the Trinity teaches that though Jesus is YHWH God, he is not the Father or the Spirit. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father.
There were Gentiles outside of the faith that contended that Jesus himself was not the true God and contended that the God of the OT was NOT the true God, a teaching which is apostate.
If there were Gentiles that did have objections to Jesus being YHWH, the Gnostics are certainly are a candidate, considering Paul's letter to the Colossians is especially a first century Gnostic polemic. It is demonstrably false to claim that the Gentiles would not argue about the Deity of Christ.
Not only did Paul have a hard time from some from his own people, he had hardships from Gentiles and heretics who even opposed the faith that he and the apostles sought to uphold and proclaim.
Even if Ahmad's claim that Paul with respect to the Jews went to the Gentiles because he"is able to avoid these problems and ascend to power and authority very quickly" had weight, his statement is invalid, because is claim isn't the reason why Paul went to the Gentiles and not to the Jewish leaders. Besides, the Jewish leaders would not listen to him and any further scuffle would have been a waste of time on Paul's part, After all if someone be they Jew or Gentile rejects the Gospel, Jesus tells us "not to cast pearls before swine" and if Paul continued speaking to the leaders, his efforts would be fruitless because the Jews wouldn't listen to his message.
Hope this article has been of help.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 11 November 2014
DACON9: Where's the source.
The article that I wrote I tried posting to DACON on his site and asked for sources to back up his claims, but my comments have not been approved.
So anyway I shall use this article to ask questions. Here we go.
"AGAIN OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN
THE XTIANS IN THE CHAT ROOMS DONT LIKE THE TRUTH. THEY ARE MORE HAPPY IN LIES AND STUPIDITY.
I SUPPOSE THEY WROTE THE MANTRA THAT ‘IGNORANCE IS BLISS’
The xtians cant bare to hear the truth of the falacy of their xtian belief system
The majority,if not all pray to the king james version bible."
What Christians are you referring to that pray to the King James Bible? No Christian prays to the Bible if he is biblically solid. To pray to the Bible would be idolatrous to engage in.
"This guy jimmy(king james) was an admitted homosexual. He admitted to having 4 male lovers
in addittion to his wife and a concubine or two. Research it. I dont speak unless
I have checked various sources, which I have."
Then perhaps you can give the source. If you make a claim, can you show it? If you are going to make a claim, you need to prove it.
People should be wary if one doesn't give a source. Can you give the sources to what you are saying so I and others can read it?
"This jimmy fella hired 600 poets breaking them off into groups of 6 – 8 people to write a ‘bible’
in the poetic style of the JEWISH TORAH..
After a period of time he selected the group he liked best calling it the ‘king james version’.
HEY YOU PEOPLE READING THIS…. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID WITH THE WRITERS
INCLUDING THE GROUP HE CHOSE????? HE KILLED THEM ALL.
THIS IS THE XTIAN BIBLE….A GAY WACKO. KING JIMMY.
someone asked me what does that have to do with anything….
ARE YOU XTIANS SO DENSE THAT YOU CANT FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF.
YOU CALL JIMMY A DIVINE INSPIRATION..
HOW DIVINE IS THAT PRAYING TO THE HEAVENS, TO your god
WRITTEN BY WHAT THE HEAVENS REJECT AND CALL AN ABOMINATION …HOMOSEXUALITY
IS homsexuality DIVINE, HEY xtians,ANSWER ME?????"
Homosexuality is abomination biblically speaking but even if King James were gay, how does this affect the KJV?
The subject of homosexuality is addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality.html
Plus, only a die hard KJV onlyist, (not all) will regard the KJV as inspired. Even the KJV translators don't believe their text to be an inspired text.
I would recommend watching James White's video series on the KJV for more information.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqxzAP0YqnQx_9kjaTVjqfB-m3blqfWi4
"COME BACK IN A FEW DAYS, I ‘LL ADD TO THIS MORE, MUCH MORE ….
I END WITH……
YOU XTIANS ARE AFRAID OF ME..A TORAH JEW
ME, I WHO KNOWS YOUR FRAUDULENT ORIGINS
IT IS ME, YES ME AND THATS WHY YOU BLOCK ME OUT BECAUSE I MAKE YOU REALIZE..
YOU ARE FOLLOWING A MEANINGLESS REDICULOUS MAN MADE FAITH..
I, WHO KNOWSWHO EXPOSES YOUR MAMZER JEUSX BACKGROUND
DONT FEAR YOU XTIANS., ITS ALL A FABRICATION,,,JESUX CANT DO A THING TO YOU FOR CURSING HIM…
BECAUSE HE IS DEAD !!!(MAMZER means joseph wasn’t his father..the roman ‘pantera’ was)
WHO KNOWS YOUR WITNESSES THAT NEVER WERE THERE
BECAUSE THE ROMANS FORBID JEWS TO ASSEMBLE IN LARGE CROWDS OF OVER 5 JEWS."
Again, Even in your dialogue with me and other chats, while you did quote from your Rabbis, when you made an assertion about Christianity, you didn't provide a source for me to look into it.
To be honest you don't really expose anything. Joseph was Jesus' father by adoption, he was not the son of a "roman pantera".
Here is my article with respect to points you made in our public dialogue:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/points-of-interest-about-jesus-christ.html
Don't take offence when someone addresses your claims, which I tried to in our public exchange.
One point I will repeat from the articles is this, The following verses need no explanation:
"Matthew 27:55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."
"Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph,[d] and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there."
"Luke 23:48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things."
All three Gospels record witnesses being at the cross together but place different emphasises on certain details.
You DO have eyewitnesses TO Jesus and the NT is part of historical study. To dismiss it is irresponsible.
I on the other hand have provided evidence regarding echad from Tovia Singer, have QUOTED him and LINKED to one of his articles, which DO address the Christian usage of Echad. HE IS REFUTING A CHRISTIAN OBJECTION!!! Also his video teaching on the Trinity is also a rebuttal to Christians which to be honest it's a weak one but that's besides the point. The point is I provided evidence for what I have said whereas YOU DACON, haven't.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Update 15th of November 2014. There is a comment on the article in question from me, but no response as of yet,
So anyway I shall use this article to ask questions. Here we go.
"AGAIN OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN
THE XTIANS IN THE CHAT ROOMS DONT LIKE THE TRUTH. THEY ARE MORE HAPPY IN LIES AND STUPIDITY.
I SUPPOSE THEY WROTE THE MANTRA THAT ‘IGNORANCE IS BLISS’
The xtians cant bare to hear the truth of the falacy of their xtian belief system
The majority,if not all pray to the king james version bible."
What Christians are you referring to that pray to the King James Bible? No Christian prays to the Bible if he is biblically solid. To pray to the Bible would be idolatrous to engage in.
"This guy jimmy(king james) was an admitted homosexual. He admitted to having 4 male lovers
in addittion to his wife and a concubine or two. Research it. I dont speak unless
I have checked various sources, which I have."
Then perhaps you can give the source. If you make a claim, can you show it? If you are going to make a claim, you need to prove it.
People should be wary if one doesn't give a source. Can you give the sources to what you are saying so I and others can read it?
"This jimmy fella hired 600 poets breaking them off into groups of 6 – 8 people to write a ‘bible’
in the poetic style of the JEWISH TORAH..
After a period of time he selected the group he liked best calling it the ‘king james version’.
HEY YOU PEOPLE READING THIS…. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HE DID WITH THE WRITERS
INCLUDING THE GROUP HE CHOSE????? HE KILLED THEM ALL.
THIS IS THE XTIAN BIBLE….A GAY WACKO. KING JIMMY.
someone asked me what does that have to do with anything….
ARE YOU XTIANS SO DENSE THAT YOU CANT FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELF.
YOU CALL JIMMY A DIVINE INSPIRATION..
HOW DIVINE IS THAT PRAYING TO THE HEAVENS, TO your god
WRITTEN BY WHAT THE HEAVENS REJECT AND CALL AN ABOMINATION …HOMOSEXUALITY
IS homsexuality DIVINE, HEY xtians,ANSWER ME?????"
Homosexuality is abomination biblically speaking but even if King James were gay, how does this affect the KJV?
The subject of homosexuality is addressed here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/does-bible-condemn-homosexuality.html
Plus, only a die hard KJV onlyist, (not all) will regard the KJV as inspired. Even the KJV translators don't believe their text to be an inspired text.
I would recommend watching James White's video series on the KJV for more information.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqxzAP0YqnQx_9kjaTVjqfB-m3blqfWi4
"COME BACK IN A FEW DAYS, I ‘LL ADD TO THIS MORE, MUCH MORE ….
I END WITH……
YOU XTIANS ARE AFRAID OF ME..A TORAH JEW
ME, I WHO KNOWS YOUR FRAUDULENT ORIGINS
IT IS ME, YES ME AND THATS WHY YOU BLOCK ME OUT BECAUSE I MAKE YOU REALIZE..
YOU ARE FOLLOWING A MEANINGLESS REDICULOUS MAN MADE FAITH..
I, WHO KNOWSWHO EXPOSES YOUR MAMZER JEUSX BACKGROUND
DONT FEAR YOU XTIANS., ITS ALL A FABRICATION,,,JESUX CANT DO A THING TO YOU FOR CURSING HIM…
BECAUSE HE IS DEAD !!!(MAMZER means joseph wasn’t his father..the roman ‘pantera’ was)
WHO KNOWS YOUR WITNESSES THAT NEVER WERE THERE
BECAUSE THE ROMANS FORBID JEWS TO ASSEMBLE IN LARGE CROWDS OF OVER 5 JEWS."
Again, Even in your dialogue with me and other chats, while you did quote from your Rabbis, when you made an assertion about Christianity, you didn't provide a source for me to look into it.
To be honest you don't really expose anything. Joseph was Jesus' father by adoption, he was not the son of a "roman pantera".
Here is my article with respect to points you made in our public dialogue:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/points-of-interest-about-jesus-christ.html
Don't take offence when someone addresses your claims, which I tried to in our public exchange.
One point I will repeat from the articles is this, The following verses need no explanation:
"Matthew 27:55 Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph,[f] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons."
"Mark 15:40 Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph,[d] and Salome. 41 In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there."
"Luke 23:48 When all the people who had gathered to witness this sight saw what took place, they beat their breasts and went away. 49 But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things."
All three Gospels record witnesses being at the cross together but place different emphasises on certain details.
You DO have eyewitnesses TO Jesus and the NT is part of historical study. To dismiss it is irresponsible.
I on the other hand have provided evidence regarding echad from Tovia Singer, have QUOTED him and LINKED to one of his articles, which DO address the Christian usage of Echad. HE IS REFUTING A CHRISTIAN OBJECTION!!! Also his video teaching on the Trinity is also a rebuttal to Christians which to be honest it's a weak one but that's besides the point. The point is I provided evidence for what I have said whereas YOU DACON, haven't.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Update 15th of November 2014. There is a comment on the article in question from me, but no response as of yet,
Sunday, 9 November 2014
Should a Christian consider a sex change?
The answer is a resounding no. There is no way a Christian should even consider having a sex change.
God made you as a man or a woman, thus you are to stay as one. Paul also makes very clear not to delibrately damage the temple of God which is your body.
"1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
Why bother wrecking your body in order for you to be the sex you weren't even designed to be by God? If you are a boy, thank God for it and if you are a girl, thank God for it.
Plus, There is also the point that homosexuality and transvestism is unacceptable and I cannot in good conscience recommend sex changes.
"Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
"Deuteronomy 22:5 5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."
A sex change is a practice for the world, it is not for Christians and while one is not under the Old Testament laws, we are certainly still to live moral lives under the New Covenant.
Some may use the argument that Blind Bartimaeus was born blind so glory could go to God, but just to make it clear, his blindness has no relevance to the subject of a sex change.
There may be a case were someone is born blind and that's not their fault, however, desiring a sex change is an act of the will. There is no such thing as a man claiming to be a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa, just as no one is born homosexual.
There really isn't anymore I can say on this particular topic.
Answering Judaism.
God made you as a man or a woman, thus you are to stay as one. Paul also makes very clear not to delibrately damage the temple of God which is your body.
"1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."
Why bother wrecking your body in order for you to be the sex you weren't even designed to be by God? If you are a boy, thank God for it and if you are a girl, thank God for it.
Plus, There is also the point that homosexuality and transvestism is unacceptable and I cannot in good conscience recommend sex changes.
"Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
"Deuteronomy 22:5 5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."
A sex change is a practice for the world, it is not for Christians and while one is not under the Old Testament laws, we are certainly still to live moral lives under the New Covenant.
Some may use the argument that Blind Bartimaeus was born blind so glory could go to God, but just to make it clear, his blindness has no relevance to the subject of a sex change.
There may be a case were someone is born blind and that's not their fault, however, desiring a sex change is an act of the will. There is no such thing as a man claiming to be a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa, just as no one is born homosexual.
There really isn't anymore I can say on this particular topic.
Answering Judaism.
Friday, 7 November 2014
More Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox objections to tackle 2
The subject of Eliakim's keys and the rule of bindng and loosing shall be addressed here in this paper. The issue of literacy may if the Lord wills elsewhere.
Eliakim's keys, Matthew 16 and Supposed hebrew idiomatic
"Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."
Let's be honest, the keys are not the same and Eliakim only possesses ONE key. Furthermore, The keys that are handed over to Peter are the keys allow him to that admit Gentiles into the Kingdom of Heaven through his preaching and evangelism as already stated in a previous article.
Though they have the function of opening and shutting, this doesn't give credence to the idea that Jesus was drawing on Isaiah 22:22 with respect to Peter's prominence.
Examples of many other types of keys can be found in scripture itself ( Rev. 3:7, Rev. 9:1; 20:1, Matt. 16:19, Matt 23:13, Luke 11:52, Isaiah 22:22).
Keith Thompson notes in his article on Matthew 16 the following:
"Rome’s appeal to Isaiah 22:22 as supposedly being the background to this statement, though accepted by many commentators and scholars to be a valid interpretation, is in matter of fact problematic for several reasons. Right at the outset it is important to dispel the idea that just because Isaiah 22:22 mentions opening and shutting (which appears similar to “binding and loosing” in Matthew 16:19) this does not prove they are the same set of keys. For, there are many different sets of keys in the Bible, all of which require the use of them (i.e., binding and loosing or opening and shutting etc). There are the keys of the abyss (Rev. 9:1; 20:1), keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18), keys of heaven (Luke 4:25, Rev. 11:6), key of knowledge (Matt 23:13, Luke 11:52), the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), and the key of the house of David (Isaiah 22:22, Rev. 3:7). Hence, it is not necessary to infer from the mere similarity between opening and shutting in Isaiah 22:22 and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 that they are the same keys. All of these keys require binding and loosing or opening and shutting doors with them.
Furthermore, William Webster has observed in the writings in the church fathers, specially Tertullian and Origen (For the life of me I have no idea why Rome appeals to these two considering they are not canonised dead saints in the Roman Catholic church and are both considered heretical.) that the evidence for the papal office is non-existant:
Webster points out the following:
"Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. As a Christian he was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity’. He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. He is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:
and
"Origen was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria during the first half of the third century. He was an individual of enormous intellect and was by far the most prolific writer of the patristic age. Eusebius states that his writings numbered in the neighborhood of six thousand. He has been called the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity. He had immense influence upon fathers in both the East and West in subsequent centuries. Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock:
Don't forget to go the church fathers yourself and check the quotations.
Moreover, the only Hebrew idiomatic that comes to mind is what is called, Bind and Lose.
The power to bind and lose does not refer to dogmatic papal declarations as a result of papal infallibility, Binding and Losing is referring to the rabbinic ruling of permiting (losing) and prohibiting (binding).
D.A Carson observes:
“Formally ho is neuter, and ‘things’ might be expected. Moreover, the rabbis spoke of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in terms of laying down Halakah (rules of conduct): Shammai is strict and ‘binds’ many things on people, while Hillel allows greater laxity and ‘looses’ them. It might be argued, then, that in Acts 15:10 Peter looses what certain Judaizers want to bind. Yet despite this, it is better to take binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 to refer to persons, not rules. The neuterhosa (‘whatever’) occurs in 18:18 where the context demands that persons are meant. Indeed Greek often uses the neuter of people for classes or categories rather than for individuals. The context of v. 19 supports this; for the keys in the preceding context clause speak of permission for entering the kingdom or being excluded from it, not rules of conduct under heaven’s rule”" (12.) D.A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 372).
My thanks to Keith Thompson for the quotation.
As mentioned earlier, it can refer to the binding and loosing of individuals depending on how they respond to the Gospel. Those who have repented are loosed from their sins and those who haven't are bound in their sins. This pronouncement has no connection to infalliable papal decrees.
"I have the church to give me the interpretation, it's the pillar and the foundation of the truth"
An excuse conjured by some is that they have the church to interpret the scriptures for them. May I ask, HOW do you know that their interpretation is a biblically solid one. Why assume the point made by your church is automatically true, that is just blind trust.
For the Roman Catholics as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox, it's a worse situation, as the church of Rome has only infalliably interpreted 12 texts.
In a paper where he recommended some commentaries to his readers and listeners as well as exhorting the reading of the church Fathers and possessing multiple commentaries, Catholic Apologist Jimmy akin stated this:
"First, I’m afraid that I can’t recommend a resource that will prevent you from misinterpreting Scripture passages. The Church has not established the correct interpretation of the great majority of Scripture passages. It has taught that Scripture and the faith do not conflict, so if you know your Catholic faith well then that will help you discern what a particular passage of Scripture DOESN’T mean, but it normally will not help you identify precisely what it DOES mean.
Consequently, there is always risk of error in Scripture interpretation. We can’t eliminate that risk.
What we can do is seek to minimize it, and to that end we can recognize the limits and stay humble and flexible about our interpretations of Scripture. Although I feel more confident of certain interpretations than others, in my own study of Scripture I try not to get overly wedded to particular interpretations and to be aware of what else a passage MIGHT mean, in addition to what I think it MOST LIKELY means.
If you listen to when people call in on the radio and ask me what a particular passage means, you’ll note that I often point out a range of possibilities regarding what a passage may mean. I may not even express a personal opinion, or I may say which option I think most is the most likely interpretation in my personal view, but I seldom tell people that a passage definitely DOES mean something, because I don’t like to go beyond what the Church teaches and make people think that my personal opinion is the only one there is." Jimmy Akin, Scripture Commentary Recommendation http://jimmyakin.com/2006/01/scripture_comme.html
If all you can do is simply minimise the risk of error, Then how can a Pope's ex cathedra statements can be relied upon? I say ex cathedra specifically because the Pope can make statements outside of his papal seat.
So much for an infalliable church calling people back to Rome to get the proper interpretation of scripture. Nice try, but I am not buying it.
Furthermore, What is wrong with checking an individual's statements about the Bible, INCLUDING MY OWN? I encourage all my readers NOT to take everything I say at face value and simply accept it, I expect them to check out what I am saying, be they Jew or Gentile.
Blind acceptance of what a church teaches isn't on.
No I am not saying damn the elders to hell or don't pay attention to them, congregations are to listen to the elders and the elders are to take care of their flock. Elders are a vital function of the church and are not to be disregarded. Both blind submission and rebellion (with no biblical grounds such as an elder telling you to violate the scriptures not rebellion period) are out of the question.
As for 1 Timothy 3:15, it says:
"14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory."
The verse itself refers to the local congregation of Ephesus and in principle to other churches being told how to behave and how to live now they are under the headship of Christ. Such a passage doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church being the true church. Steve of Triablogue also points out the following regarding this passage:
"One of the prooftexts for Catholicism is 1 Tim 3:15. Unfortunately for Catholics, this verse isn’t referring to the church of Rome. In context, it’s referring to the church of Ephesus (cf. 1:3).
It’s a reference to the local church, not the universal church—much less the church of Rome. If, therefore, we’re going to use this verse as a prooftext for a high church ecclesiology, then the church of Ephesus is the pillar and foundation of truth. Roman Catholics are betting on the wrong horse. They should switch their allegiance from Rome to Ephesus. Now that we’ve cleared that up, we look forward to Roman Catholics submitting to the true Vicar of Christ—the bishop of Ephesus." http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/church-pillar-foundation-of-truth.html
Hopefully these objections have been answered and I thank you for taking the time to read.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Keith Thompson addresses the 33,000 Protestant denominations argument in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXJzgtiM
PS. I had said literacy would be addressed here, however it wasn't and have made an amendment to this article. My apologies if I have misled you in this regard.
Eliakim's keys, Matthew 16 and Supposed hebrew idiomatic
"Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."
Let's be honest, the keys are not the same and Eliakim only possesses ONE key. Furthermore, The keys that are handed over to Peter are the keys allow him to that admit Gentiles into the Kingdom of Heaven through his preaching and evangelism as already stated in a previous article.
Though they have the function of opening and shutting, this doesn't give credence to the idea that Jesus was drawing on Isaiah 22:22 with respect to Peter's prominence.
Examples of many other types of keys can be found in scripture itself ( Rev. 3:7, Rev. 9:1; 20:1, Matt. 16:19, Matt 23:13, Luke 11:52, Isaiah 22:22).
Keith Thompson notes in his article on Matthew 16 the following:
"Rome’s appeal to Isaiah 22:22 as supposedly being the background to this statement, though accepted by many commentators and scholars to be a valid interpretation, is in matter of fact problematic for several reasons. Right at the outset it is important to dispel the idea that just because Isaiah 22:22 mentions opening and shutting (which appears similar to “binding and loosing” in Matthew 16:19) this does not prove they are the same set of keys. For, there are many different sets of keys in the Bible, all of which require the use of them (i.e., binding and loosing or opening and shutting etc). There are the keys of the abyss (Rev. 9:1; 20:1), keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18), keys of heaven (Luke 4:25, Rev. 11:6), key of knowledge (Matt 23:13, Luke 11:52), the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), and the key of the house of David (Isaiah 22:22, Rev. 3:7). Hence, it is not necessary to infer from the mere similarity between opening and shutting in Isaiah 22:22 and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 that they are the same keys. All of these keys require binding and loosing or opening and shutting doors with them.
The proof the sets of keys are not the same is this: In Isaiah 22:22
Eliakim is given the “key” (singular) of the house of David. Peter on the other
hand is given keys (plural) of the kingdom of heaven. The key (singular) of the
house of David which was given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22 is not given to Peter
much less the Bishops of Rome. In fact this singular key of the house of David
remained with Jesus Christ himself and is messianic in nature. Revelation 3:7
affirms that Christ holds the key of the house of David:
“. . . The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the
key of David, who opens and no one
will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7).
This was written long after the events of Matthew 16 demonstrating
Jesus has the key (singular) of Isaiah 22:22 right now, not Peter’s alleged
Roman successors. There are three vital differences between the key of the
house of David in Isaiah 22:22 and Peter’s keys of the kingdom of heaven in
Matthew 16:19: 1.) the plural and singular forms, 2.) the titles (key of David vs. keys of the kingdom of heaven), and 3.) the handler of the keys (Jesus
has the key of the house of David and
Peter had the keys of the kingdom of heaven)." Keith Thompson, Does Matthew 16 Teach Peter was the Pope?: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/does-matthew-16-teach-peter-is-rock.html
Furthermore, William Webster has observed in the writings in the church fathers, specially Tertullian and Origen (For the life of me I have no idea why Rome appeals to these two considering they are not canonised dead saints in the Roman Catholic church and are both considered heretical.) that the evidence for the papal office is non-existant:
Webster points out the following:
"Tertullian was born in Carthage in North Africa and practiced law before his conversion to Christianity ca. A.D. 193. As a Christian he was a prolific writer and has been called the ‘Father of Latin Christianity’. He was most likely a layman and his writings were widely read. He had a great influence upon the Church fathers of subsequent generations, especially Cyprian. He is the first of the Western fathers to comment on Matthew 16. In one of his writings Tertullian identifies the rock with the person of Peter on which the Church would be built:
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the ‘rock on which the church should be built’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and earth? (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume III, Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics 22).Though Tertullian states that Peter is the rock he does not mean it in a pro–papal sense. We know this because of other comments he has made. But if we isolate this one passage it would be easy to read a pro–Roman interpretation into it. However, in other comments on Matthew 16:18–19, Tertullian explains what he means when he says that Peter is the rock on which the Church would be built:
If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’...In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).When Tertullian says that Peter is the rock and the Church is built upon him he means that the Church is built through him as he preaches the gospel. This preaching is how Tertullian explains the meaning of the keys. They are the declarative authority for the offer of forgiveness of sins through the preaching of the gospel. If men respond to the message they are loosed from their sins. If they reject it they remain bound in their sins. In the words just preceding this quote Tertullian explicitly denies that this promise can apply to anyone but Peter and therefore he does not in any way see a Petrine primacy in this verse with successors in the bishops of Rome.". William Webster, The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
and
"Origen was head of the catechetical school at Alexandria during the first half of the third century. He was an individual of enormous intellect and was by far the most prolific writer of the patristic age. Eusebius states that his writings numbered in the neighborhood of six thousand. He has been called the greatest scholar of Christian antiquity. He had immense influence upon fathers in both the East and West in subsequent centuries. Origen is the first father to give a detailed exposition of the meaning of the rock of Matthew 16:18. His interpretation became normative for the Eastern fathers and for many in the West. Apart from the specific passage of Matthew 16 he states that Peter is the rock:
Look at the great foundation of that Church and at the very solid rock upon which Christ has founded the Church. Wherefore the Lord says: ‘Ye of little faith, why have you doubted?' (Exodus, Homily 5.4. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16,13-18 im lateinischen Mittelaiter, Dissertation (Tubingen, 1963), p. 100).But, like Tertullian, he does not mean this in the Roman Catholic sense. Often, Origen is cited as a proponent of papal primacy because he says that Peter is the rock. Quotes such as the one given above are isolated from his other statements about Peter and his actual interpretation of Matthew 16:18 thereby inferring that he taught something which he did not teach. In his mind Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments:
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 the 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, and 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.This is one of the most important passages in all the writings of Origen for an understanding of his view of the rock of Matthew 16. Yet this passage is is not included in those referenced by the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys. This is a glaring omission given the importance of the passage and the fact that it is easily accessible in the work the Ante-Nicene Fathers. One can only conclude that the authors purposefully omitted the passage because it is antithetical to the position they are seeking establish." William Webster, The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html
But if you suppose that upon the 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 others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...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 ‘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 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 to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock (Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
Don't forget to go the church fathers yourself and check the quotations.
Moreover, the only Hebrew idiomatic that comes to mind is what is called, Bind and Lose.
The power to bind and lose does not refer to dogmatic papal declarations as a result of papal infallibility, Binding and Losing is referring to the rabbinic ruling of permiting (losing) and prohibiting (binding).
D.A Carson observes:
“Formally ho is neuter, and ‘things’ might be expected. Moreover, the rabbis spoke of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in terms of laying down Halakah (rules of conduct): Shammai is strict and ‘binds’ many things on people, while Hillel allows greater laxity and ‘looses’ them. It might be argued, then, that in Acts 15:10 Peter looses what certain Judaizers want to bind. Yet despite this, it is better to take binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 to refer to persons, not rules. The neuterhosa (‘whatever’) occurs in 18:18 where the context demands that persons are meant. Indeed Greek often uses the neuter of people for classes or categories rather than for individuals. The context of v. 19 supports this; for the keys in the preceding context clause speak of permission for entering the kingdom or being excluded from it, not rules of conduct under heaven’s rule”" (12.) D.A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 372).
My thanks to Keith Thompson for the quotation.
As mentioned earlier, it can refer to the binding and loosing of individuals depending on how they respond to the Gospel. Those who have repented are loosed from their sins and those who haven't are bound in their sins. This pronouncement has no connection to infalliable papal decrees.
"I have the church to give me the interpretation, it's the pillar and the foundation of the truth"
An excuse conjured by some is that they have the church to interpret the scriptures for them. May I ask, HOW do you know that their interpretation is a biblically solid one. Why assume the point made by your church is automatically true, that is just blind trust.
For the Roman Catholics as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox, it's a worse situation, as the church of Rome has only infalliably interpreted 12 texts.
In a paper where he recommended some commentaries to his readers and listeners as well as exhorting the reading of the church Fathers and possessing multiple commentaries, Catholic Apologist Jimmy akin stated this:
"First, I’m afraid that I can’t recommend a resource that will prevent you from misinterpreting Scripture passages. The Church has not established the correct interpretation of the great majority of Scripture passages. It has taught that Scripture and the faith do not conflict, so if you know your Catholic faith well then that will help you discern what a particular passage of Scripture DOESN’T mean, but it normally will not help you identify precisely what it DOES mean.
Consequently, there is always risk of error in Scripture interpretation. We can’t eliminate that risk.
What we can do is seek to minimize it, and to that end we can recognize the limits and stay humble and flexible about our interpretations of Scripture. Although I feel more confident of certain interpretations than others, in my own study of Scripture I try not to get overly wedded to particular interpretations and to be aware of what else a passage MIGHT mean, in addition to what I think it MOST LIKELY means.
If you listen to when people call in on the radio and ask me what a particular passage means, you’ll note that I often point out a range of possibilities regarding what a passage may mean. I may not even express a personal opinion, or I may say which option I think most is the most likely interpretation in my personal view, but I seldom tell people that a passage definitely DOES mean something, because I don’t like to go beyond what the Church teaches and make people think that my personal opinion is the only one there is." Jimmy Akin, Scripture Commentary Recommendation http://jimmyakin.com/2006/01/scripture_comme.html
If all you can do is simply minimise the risk of error, Then how can a Pope's ex cathedra statements can be relied upon? I say ex cathedra specifically because the Pope can make statements outside of his papal seat.
So much for an infalliable church calling people back to Rome to get the proper interpretation of scripture. Nice try, but I am not buying it.
Furthermore, What is wrong with checking an individual's statements about the Bible, INCLUDING MY OWN? I encourage all my readers NOT to take everything I say at face value and simply accept it, I expect them to check out what I am saying, be they Jew or Gentile.
Blind acceptance of what a church teaches isn't on.
No I am not saying damn the elders to hell or don't pay attention to them, congregations are to listen to the elders and the elders are to take care of their flock. Elders are a vital function of the church and are not to be disregarded. Both blind submission and rebellion (with no biblical grounds such as an elder telling you to violate the scriptures not rebellion period) are out of the question.
As for 1 Timothy 3:15, it says:
"14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory."
The verse itself refers to the local congregation of Ephesus and in principle to other churches being told how to behave and how to live now they are under the headship of Christ. Such a passage doesn't refer to the Roman Catholic Church being the true church. Steve of Triablogue also points out the following regarding this passage:
"One of the prooftexts for Catholicism is 1 Tim 3:15. Unfortunately for Catholics, this verse isn’t referring to the church of Rome. In context, it’s referring to the church of Ephesus (cf. 1:3).
It’s a reference to the local church, not the universal church—much less the church of Rome. If, therefore, we’re going to use this verse as a prooftext for a high church ecclesiology, then the church of Ephesus is the pillar and foundation of truth. Roman Catholics are betting on the wrong horse. They should switch their allegiance from Rome to Ephesus. Now that we’ve cleared that up, we look forward to Roman Catholics submitting to the true Vicar of Christ—the bishop of Ephesus." http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2008/06/church-pillar-foundation-of-truth.html
Hopefully these objections have been answered and I thank you for taking the time to read.
Answering Judaism.
PS. Keith Thompson addresses the 33,000 Protestant denominations argument in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXJzgtiM
PS. I had said literacy would be addressed here, however it wasn't and have made an amendment to this article. My apologies if I have misled you in this regard.
Tuesday, 4 November 2014
More Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox objections to tackle
Following a conversation that has been conducted with margesimpson1, Th3 Vin3 and others, I thought it would be a good idea to address a few points that have been raised. Any objections I have missed I may add here or another article so stay tuned.
However beforehand, I need to address the issue of James White of Alpha and Omega ministries.
Why does he focus on Muslims and Roman Catholics rather than glorifying God and worshiping God?
You do realise that worshipping God entails doing what he says? Part of that includes reaching out to heretics and people in false religions and bringing them to repentance. Worship doesn't just encompass prayer or singing only, it encompasses the WHOLE of life, even glorifying God in your work and your hobbies if you have any.
White's evangelisism to these groups is part and parcel of "making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".
Even in my case, the blog I have set up is to be consecrated to God and used for his glory to bring the Jews and other groups to repentance.
Patty Bonds
Th3 Vin3 (or The Vine depending on which nic he is using) had a problem with White's attitude to his own sister Patty Bonds.
Bonds has been used as a weapon by Steve Ray and White himself deals with the subject of his sister in his two videos.
Steve Ray, Patty Bonds, RC Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_Ph8-Eh2o
Ray, Sippo, Bonds Part II: How Low Can They Go?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ul2tHnMCA
Why should he cut his sister slack just because she is his sister? He is not going after her simply because she is Catholic. Why not actually talk to White about him and his sister?
While I myself are an Arminian and not a Reformed Baptist, White points out that his own sister has no clue what Reformed Baptist teaching actually entails and simply doesn't know what she is talking about biblically speaking. The videos speak for themselves and what is it to you The Vine that James White addresses his sister as "Mrs Bonds"?
Mill Doctorate
Most claim that James White has no credible degree or phd and never went to a valid place to get a good degree and thus is not a true Dr.
I have been informed that however that White got his masters in Fuller he could pursue a doctorate out of state and leave his church, but he didn't want to so he got a doctorate from Columbia Seminary which is not accredited, though a good institution.
Next time The Vine or anyone else wants to use that as an argument, kindly give the actual details.
Now with James White out the way we can deal with the objections.
The Word "Catholic" is in the Bible
I take no issue with the word Catholic itself, It's the Roman Catholic church that I take issue with. Any usage of the word Catholic by early church fathers such as Ignatius, DO NOT prove him or the apostles to be slaves of the pope. The word Catholic itself means universal and does not refer to the apostate Roman religion, contra Roman Catholic claims.
Where did Jesus say write down a book and send it to a publisher?
The argument is irrelevant because one needn't worry whether or not whether Jesus explicitly commanded the apostles to write his teaching down. Why this is raised as an argument against anything including Sola Scriptura I have no idea.
2 Peter 1:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Sola Scriptura rejected by Catholics
2 Peter 1:20 has been responded to here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/biblical-and-manmade-tradition.html
2 Thessalonians refers specifically to the teachings of the apostles. It is not referring to later Romanist traditions, nor is it a refutation of Sola Scriptura.
"15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Regardless of the translation being teaching or tradition, it doesn't refer to adhering to unbibilical teachings.
The article above should suffice in speaking on the subject of Sola Scriptura.
marge brought up the point of those who are guilty of "twisting scripture to their own destruction", However she fails to see the irony there and doesn't realising that this text condemns the Roman Faith.
Both their faiths can only try to shoehorn their later concepts into the Bible anachronistically rather than actually read the text for themselves.
Not to mention, we need to check if the church fathers interpretation of scripture is in accordance with the scripture itself. I am fully aware that the context of Acts 17 where the Bereans are mentioned refers to them checking if Paul's words were true about Jesus' Messiahship in scripture but the same principles apply to any doctrine.
John 6
John 6 is often abused to promote transubstansiation, Let's read what it actually says:
"25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray
him.)"
When Jesus speaks of eating and and drinking in this context, he is referring to believing in his Gospel, his teaching and that those teachings are the key to eternal life. Jesus is not referring to his own body being devoured every time a Roman Catholic Mass is celebrated.
Examples of "eating is believing" can be found in the following passages:
"Jeremiah 15:15 Lord, you understand;
remember me and care for me.
Avenge me on my persecutors.
You are long-suffering—do not take me away;
think of how I suffer reproach for your sake.
16 When your words came, I ate them;
they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
for I bear your name,
Lord God Almighty.
17 I never sat in the company of revelers,
never made merry with them;
I sat alone because your hand was on me
and you had filled me with indignation.
18 Why is my pain unending
and my wound grievous and incurable?
You are to me like a deceptive brook,
like a spring that fails."
"Ezekiel 2:8-3:9. 8 But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious people; open your mouth and eat what I give you.”
9 Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll, 10 which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe.
3 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” 2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat.
3 Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth.
4 He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them. 5 You are not being sent to a people of obscure speech and strange language, but to the people of Israel— 6 not to many peoples of obscure speech and strange language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely if I had sent you to them, they would have listened to you. 7 But the people of Israel are not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for all the Israelites are hardened and obstinate. 8 But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. 9 I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people.”"
We also find an example of this in the book of Revelation in chapter 10:
"8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: “Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.”
9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’[a]” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”"
Eating in these contexts refer to believing what has been told to you, digesting the word and then passing it on to others for them to take in. It is not referring to paganistic transubstansiation.
The Romanist will say "Well Jesus didn't say come back I meant it symbolically". However, Jesus didn't have to clarify to his audience that, he already made it clear it was symbolic and his audience MISUNDERSTOOD his words.
Keith Thompson in his article on the mass says the following of this claim:
"It is argued by Catholics such as Tim Staples that if Jesus were speaking metaphorically about flesh and blood being bread and wine in vv. 54-55, then he would have corrected the Jews who grumbled and did not understand him in vv. 52, 60, such as he did when correcting the Jews’ misunderstanding of his saying that he has “meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32) which he went on to explain actually referred to his work in doing the will of the Father (Matthew 4:34) (Tim Staples, Nuts and Bolts, [Basilica Press, 2007], p. 33). However, although Jesus sometimes would correct misunderstandings of his metaphorical teachings (see also Matthew 16:5-12), there are various instances where Jesus is misunderstood about his metaphorical language but does not clarify His message. For example, after driving people out of the temple with a whip of cords for turning the temple into a house of trade in John 2:14-16, Jesus says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” in v. 19. The Jews misunderstood this metaphorical teaching in v. 20 and yet Jesus does not there clarify for them he was referring to his crucifixion and resurrection. We see a similar case in Matthew 26:60-63 where at the trial the Jews misunderstand Jesus’ same teaching, and yet he “remained silent” (v. 63) and did not explain the true meaning. In John 9:7-20 Jesus explains that he is the shepherd who protects the flock and fights the wolves. However, in v. 20 certain Jews respond in confusion thinking Jesus was insane or demon possessed for saying such things. However, Jesus does not clarify to them what he really meant. Hence, it is deceptive for Staples to claim that in regards to the other instances where Jews misunderstood Jesus’ metaphors “In each case, he cleared up the misunderstanding” (Tim Staples, Nuts and Bolts, [Basilica Press, 2007], p. 33). He clearly did not. Therefore, just because Jesus did not correct the Jews about his language in John 6 concerning His body and blood being bread and wine after they took it literally, that does not mean we was not nevertheless speaking metaphorically. " Keith Thompson, Proof the Roman Catholic Mass is unbiblical and anti-Christian: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/proof-roman-catholic-mass-is-unbiblical.html
He addresses 5 other arguments which are also worth checking out.
If transubstansiation is true, the Romanist, whether or not he wants to admit it, is engaging in cannbalism, which is a demonic practice. The Acts 15 council even condemns the ritual consumption of blood and the consumption of blood being prohibited goes back to Genesis 9 and IS carried over into the New Covenant.
Anytime where cannabalism occured, it was condemned and also was the result of handing over unrepentant depraved men over to their sin because they would not heed God's warning:
"Leviticus 26:25-29 25 And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. 26 When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.
27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."
"Jeremiah 19:7 “‘In this place I will ruin[a] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.’"
Deuteronomy 28 also speaks on the curses that will come on the people as a result of their disobedience should they go astray:
"Deuteronomy 28:53-57 53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities."
Cannabalism is NOT looked upon with any favour in the inspired text of Scripture and No the Melchizedek priesthood does NOT annul the prohibition against cannablism either.
Sam Shamoun also makes the following observation in his article "Questions Regarding the Mass":
"Why does the Roman Church insist on taking Jesus’ words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” literally? Didn’t the Lord Jesus employ figures of speech on the very night of the Last Supper when addressing his disciples? Several examples include:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. John 15:1-8
Should we assume that Jesus is a literal vine, his Father is a literal gardener, and that his disciples are literal branches that bear literal fruit? " Sam Shamoun, Questions regarding the Mass: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/questions-regarding-mass.html
Another example I can provide is found in the Sermon on the Mount, Let's observe Matthew 5:
"27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Was Jesus saying to literally take your eye out? Or is he making the point of taking measures necessary to prevent you from sinning again?
What Rome is essentially wanting their congregation to endorse and I am going to be blunt and honest here, They are telling their congregations to engage in vampire religion.
We briefly turn our attention to the Lord's Supper:
"Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a] 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
The Lord's supper itself is a memorial, it is again NOT referring to literally drinking his body and blood as already demonstrated above. Some have claimed that the Lord's Supper is a Passover Seder, but I shall not be mulling this particular point over at this time. Also, we read in the first letter to the Corinthians:
"1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world"
Paul in the context lays down in the chapter how to approach the Lord's Supper, what the conduct should be etc. He also makes it clear that coming to the Lord's Supper with unconfessed sin, will bring judgement to a person, either by illness or dying prematurely.
Some have claimed that Paul is referring to those who deny transubstansiation, However that misses the entire premise Paul is laying out in his letter.
Bottom line, transubstansiation, cannot be transubstansiated.
Many denominations
The 33,000+ denominations argument is indeed a tiresome argument and one that can be easily addressed.
What Roman Catholics fail to mention is that the number they throw around is NOT a reference to Protestants only. James White makes the following observation in his article (underlined emphasis mine):
" Whenever you find a convert to another religion citing a source, here’s a word of advice. Read the source yourself. And when we do that with the World Christian Encyclopedia, we discover that almost anything said by Steve Ray or Tim Staples or others in their circles should be taken with a grain of salt–always. On page 10, the source cited by Ray, we read,
But this isn’t the entire picture. As you begin to work through the list of “Protestant” denominations, you discover that they include non-Trinitarian groups such as the Oneness denominations, as well as other groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists! Some of the other denominations listed openly embrace “revelation” in the modern period, hence meaning that they would hardly hold to any meaningful doctrine of sola scriptura to begin with.
After the Protestant groups you have “Independent” groups, followed by “Marginal Christian” groups. But all of these are added into the 33,820 number! Please realize, this includes “Gnostics” (!), Mormons (122 denominations worth!) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (228 denominations)! " (James White, The 33,000 Denominations Myth: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/).
Other objections
"Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."
The hebrew idoimatic I would need to look into in more detail. The subjects that shall be addressed entail the following:
Peter's authority
Simon Peter being sifted
Peter taking care of the sheep.
Acts 1:15-25
Peter does have prominence among the apostles themselves, however, that doesn't equal papacy or supreme power over the entire church. Prominence exists, but not papal office.
The subject of Eliakim's keys, Matthew 16, literacy of the laity and the rule of binding and loosing may be addressed in other articles or simply another if the Lord Wills.
I will say however that Peter's role with the keys is NOT universal power and jurisdiction over the whole church, it refers to him opening the door to the Kingdom for the Gentiles through his preaching and evangelism.
Let's carry on with the article.
Acts 1:15-25 was appealed to by marge for some reason. However, this has nothing to do with the papacy in any way:
"Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."
Peter is just simply addressing the congregations as an apostle would, but this is not a proof text for the papacy and of course Matthias was appointed by THE LORD JESUS and NOT by Peter to be an apostle in the place of Judas who went astray. Peter himself did NOT choose Matthias by dogmatic papal decree, but he and the apostles actually sought Jesus to choose a worthy candidate.
Any more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or both arguments may be address in other papers.
Answering Judaism.
PS. I thought margesimpson was Eastern Orthodox, but I could be wrong. If I am, My apologies.*
17th of July 2015, Also I have no idea why I said modern day slaves rather than slaves. That has been rectified.
15th of November 2015. Changes have been made to the article with respect to the above comment.
*25th of July 2016. Should have rectified this a while ago. Marge is not a Eastern Orthodox , she is a Roman Catholic.
However beforehand, I need to address the issue of James White of Alpha and Omega ministries.
Why does he focus on Muslims and Roman Catholics rather than glorifying God and worshiping God?
You do realise that worshipping God entails doing what he says? Part of that includes reaching out to heretics and people in false religions and bringing them to repentance. Worship doesn't just encompass prayer or singing only, it encompasses the WHOLE of life, even glorifying God in your work and your hobbies if you have any.
White's evangelisism to these groups is part and parcel of "making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you".
Even in my case, the blog I have set up is to be consecrated to God and used for his glory to bring the Jews and other groups to repentance.
Patty Bonds
Th3 Vin3 (or The Vine depending on which nic he is using) had a problem with White's attitude to his own sister Patty Bonds.
Bonds has been used as a weapon by Steve Ray and White himself deals with the subject of his sister in his two videos.
Steve Ray, Patty Bonds, RC Apologetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN_Ph8-Eh2o
Ray, Sippo, Bonds Part II: How Low Can They Go?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ul2tHnMCA
Why should he cut his sister slack just because she is his sister? He is not going after her simply because she is Catholic. Why not actually talk to White about him and his sister?
While I myself are an Arminian and not a Reformed Baptist, White points out that his own sister has no clue what Reformed Baptist teaching actually entails and simply doesn't know what she is talking about biblically speaking. The videos speak for themselves and what is it to you The Vine that James White addresses his sister as "Mrs Bonds"?
Mill Doctorate
Most claim that James White has no credible degree or phd and never went to a valid place to get a good degree and thus is not a true Dr.
I have been informed that however that White got his masters in Fuller he could pursue a doctorate out of state and leave his church, but he didn't want to so he got a doctorate from Columbia Seminary which is not accredited, though a good institution.
Next time The Vine or anyone else wants to use that as an argument, kindly give the actual details.
Now with James White out the way we can deal with the objections.
The Word "Catholic" is in the Bible
I take no issue with the word Catholic itself, It's the Roman Catholic church that I take issue with. Any usage of the word Catholic by early church fathers such as Ignatius, DO NOT prove him or the apostles to be slaves of the pope. The word Catholic itself means universal and does not refer to the apostate Roman religion, contra Roman Catholic claims.
Where did Jesus say write down a book and send it to a publisher?
The argument is irrelevant because one needn't worry whether or not whether Jesus explicitly commanded the apostles to write his teaching down. Why this is raised as an argument against anything including Sola Scriptura I have no idea.
2 Peter 1:20, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and Sola Scriptura rejected by Catholics
2 Peter 1:20 has been responded to here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/biblical-and-manmade-tradition.html
2 Thessalonians refers specifically to the teachings of the apostles. It is not referring to later Romanist traditions, nor is it a refutation of Sola Scriptura.
"15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[c] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Regardless of the translation being teaching or tradition, it doesn't refer to adhering to unbibilical teachings.
The article above should suffice in speaking on the subject of Sola Scriptura.
marge brought up the point of those who are guilty of "twisting scripture to their own destruction", However she fails to see the irony there and doesn't realising that this text condemns the Roman Faith.
Both their faiths can only try to shoehorn their later concepts into the Bible anachronistically rather than actually read the text for themselves.
Not to mention, we need to check if the church fathers interpretation of scripture is in accordance with the scripture itself. I am fully aware that the context of Acts 17 where the Bereans are mentioned refers to them checking if Paul's words were true about Jesus' Messiahship in scripture but the same principles apply to any doctrine.
John 6
John 6 is often abused to promote transubstansiation, Let's read what it actually says:
"25 When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, “Rabbi, when did you get here?”
26 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”
28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
41 At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”
43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” 71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray
him.)"
When Jesus speaks of eating and and drinking in this context, he is referring to believing in his Gospel, his teaching and that those teachings are the key to eternal life. Jesus is not referring to his own body being devoured every time a Roman Catholic Mass is celebrated.
Examples of "eating is believing" can be found in the following passages:
"Jeremiah 15:15 Lord, you understand;
remember me and care for me.
Avenge me on my persecutors.
You are long-suffering—do not take me away;
think of how I suffer reproach for your sake.
16 When your words came, I ate them;
they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
for I bear your name,
Lord God Almighty.
17 I never sat in the company of revelers,
never made merry with them;
I sat alone because your hand was on me
and you had filled me with indignation.
18 Why is my pain unending
and my wound grievous and incurable?
You are to me like a deceptive brook,
like a spring that fails."
"Ezekiel 2:8-3:9. 8 But you, son of man, listen to what I say to you. Do not rebel like that rebellious people; open your mouth and eat what I give you.”
9 Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll, 10 which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe.
3 And he said to me, “Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the people of Israel.” 2 So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat.
3 Then he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it.” So I ate it, and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth.
4 He then said to me: “Son of man, go now to the people of Israel and speak my words to them. 5 You are not being sent to a people of obscure speech and strange language, but to the people of Israel— 6 not to many peoples of obscure speech and strange language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely if I had sent you to them, they would have listened to you. 7 But the people of Israel are not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for all the Israelites are hardened and obstinate. 8 But I will make you as unyielding and hardened as they are. 9 I will make your forehead like the hardest stone, harder than flint. Do not be afraid of them or terrified by them, though they are a rebellious people.”"
We also find an example of this in the book of Revelation in chapter 10:
"8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: “Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.”
9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’[a]” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”"
Eating in these contexts refer to believing what has been told to you, digesting the word and then passing it on to others for them to take in. It is not referring to paganistic transubstansiation.
The Romanist will say "Well Jesus didn't say come back I meant it symbolically". However, Jesus didn't have to clarify to his audience that, he already made it clear it was symbolic and his audience MISUNDERSTOOD his words.
Keith Thompson in his article on the mass says the following of this claim:
"It is argued by Catholics such as Tim Staples that if Jesus were speaking metaphorically about flesh and blood being bread and wine in vv. 54-55, then he would have corrected the Jews who grumbled and did not understand him in vv. 52, 60, such as he did when correcting the Jews’ misunderstanding of his saying that he has “meat to eat that you know not of” (John 4:32) which he went on to explain actually referred to his work in doing the will of the Father (Matthew 4:34) (Tim Staples, Nuts and Bolts, [Basilica Press, 2007], p. 33). However, although Jesus sometimes would correct misunderstandings of his metaphorical teachings (see also Matthew 16:5-12), there are various instances where Jesus is misunderstood about his metaphorical language but does not clarify His message. For example, after driving people out of the temple with a whip of cords for turning the temple into a house of trade in John 2:14-16, Jesus says “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” in v. 19. The Jews misunderstood this metaphorical teaching in v. 20 and yet Jesus does not there clarify for them he was referring to his crucifixion and resurrection. We see a similar case in Matthew 26:60-63 where at the trial the Jews misunderstand Jesus’ same teaching, and yet he “remained silent” (v. 63) and did not explain the true meaning. In John 9:7-20 Jesus explains that he is the shepherd who protects the flock and fights the wolves. However, in v. 20 certain Jews respond in confusion thinking Jesus was insane or demon possessed for saying such things. However, Jesus does not clarify to them what he really meant. Hence, it is deceptive for Staples to claim that in regards to the other instances where Jews misunderstood Jesus’ metaphors “In each case, he cleared up the misunderstanding” (Tim Staples, Nuts and Bolts, [Basilica Press, 2007], p. 33). He clearly did not. Therefore, just because Jesus did not correct the Jews about his language in John 6 concerning His body and blood being bread and wine after they took it literally, that does not mean we was not nevertheless speaking metaphorically. " Keith Thompson, Proof the Roman Catholic Mass is unbiblical and anti-Christian: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/proof-roman-catholic-mass-is-unbiblical.html
He addresses 5 other arguments which are also worth checking out.
If transubstansiation is true, the Romanist, whether or not he wants to admit it, is engaging in cannbalism, which is a demonic practice. The Acts 15 council even condemns the ritual consumption of blood and the consumption of blood being prohibited goes back to Genesis 9 and IS carried over into the New Covenant.
Anytime where cannabalism occured, it was condemned and also was the result of handing over unrepentant depraved men over to their sin because they would not heed God's warning:
"Leviticus 26:25-29 25 And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. 26 When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.
27 “‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, 28 then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. 29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters."
"Jeremiah 19:7 “‘In this place I will ruin[a] the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who want to kill them, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds and the wild animals. 8 I will devastate this city and make it an object of horror and scorn; all who pass by will be appalled and will scoff because of all its wounds. 9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.’"
Deuteronomy 28 also speaks on the curses that will come on the people as a result of their disobedience should they go astray:
"Deuteronomy 28:53-57 53 Because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. 54 Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, 55 and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. 56 The most gentle and sensitive woman among you—so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot—will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter 57 the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For in her dire need she intends to eat them secretly because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of your cities."
Cannabalism is NOT looked upon with any favour in the inspired text of Scripture and No the Melchizedek priesthood does NOT annul the prohibition against cannablism either.
Sam Shamoun also makes the following observation in his article "Questions Regarding the Mass":
"Why does the Roman Church insist on taking Jesus’ words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” literally? Didn’t the Lord Jesus employ figures of speech on the very night of the Last Supper when addressing his disciples? Several examples include:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. John 15:1-8
Should we assume that Jesus is a literal vine, his Father is a literal gardener, and that his disciples are literal branches that bear literal fruit? " Sam Shamoun, Questions regarding the Mass: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/01/questions-regarding-mass.html
Another example I can provide is found in the Sermon on the Mount, Let's observe Matthew 5:
"27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."
Was Jesus saying to literally take your eye out? Or is he making the point of taking measures necessary to prevent you from sinning again?
What Rome is essentially wanting their congregation to endorse and I am going to be blunt and honest here, They are telling their congregations to engage in vampire religion.
We briefly turn our attention to the Lord's Supper:
"Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”
9 “Where do you want us to prepare for it?” they asked.
10 He replied, “As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ 12 He will show you a large room upstairs, all furnished. Make preparations there.”
13 They left and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover.
14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.[a] 21 But the hand of him who is going to betray me is with mine on the table. 22 The Son of Man will go as it has been decreed. But woe to that man who betrays him!” 23 They began to question among themselves which of them it might be who would do this.
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
The Lord's supper itself is a memorial, it is again NOT referring to literally drinking his body and blood as already demonstrated above. Some have claimed that the Lord's Supper is a Passover Seder, but I shall not be mulling this particular point over at this time. Also, we read in the first letter to the Corinthians:
"1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31 But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. 32 Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world"
Paul in the context lays down in the chapter how to approach the Lord's Supper, what the conduct should be etc. He also makes it clear that coming to the Lord's Supper with unconfessed sin, will bring judgement to a person, either by illness or dying prematurely.
Some have claimed that Paul is referring to those who deny transubstansiation, However that misses the entire premise Paul is laying out in his letter.
Bottom line, transubstansiation, cannot be transubstansiated.
Many denominations
The 33,000+ denominations argument is indeed a tiresome argument and one that can be easily addressed.
What Roman Catholics fail to mention is that the number they throw around is NOT a reference to Protestants only. James White makes the following observation in his article (underlined emphasis mine):
" Whenever you find a convert to another religion citing a source, here’s a word of advice. Read the source yourself. And when we do that with the World Christian Encyclopedia, we discover that almost anything said by Steve Ray or Tim Staples or others in their circles should be taken with a grain of salt–always. On page 10, the source cited by Ray, we read,
GLOBAL CHRISTIANITY
had
26,350 33,820 denominations/paradenominations
with
1,391,020 3,445,000 congregations/churches
composed of
1,130 1,888 million affiliated Christians
dichotomized into
the 2 global categories below
The first number is from 1970, the second from 2000. The two
“global categorizations” offered are “denominationalism” and
“postdenominationalism.” It is vital to realize that the 33,820 number,
used by Ray and Staples and the other RC apologists, combines all the
“denominations” included in bothlists. But if these men would
just do a small amount of reading on the very page they cite, they would
realize that this is not a listing of “denominations” arising from the
Protestant Reformation (though, again, for clarity I note, this is exactly the claim of Steve Rayas
documented above). 21,990 of these denominations are in the
“postdenominationalism” category, 11,830 in the denominational. And
please realize, the denominational number includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants! In fact, amazingly, this source lists 242 Roman Catholic denominations! If these ever-so-careful researchers had bothered to read on to page 16, they would have discovered:had
26,350 33,820 denominations/paradenominations
with
1,391,020 3,445,000 congregations/churches
composed of
1,130 1,888 million affiliated Christians
dichotomized into
the 2 global categories below
- This source lists 781 “Orthodox” denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.
- This source lists 242 “Roman Catholic” denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.
But this isn’t the entire picture. As you begin to work through the list of “Protestant” denominations, you discover that they include non-Trinitarian groups such as the Oneness denominations, as well as other groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists! Some of the other denominations listed openly embrace “revelation” in the modern period, hence meaning that they would hardly hold to any meaningful doctrine of sola scriptura to begin with.
After the Protestant groups you have “Independent” groups, followed by “Marginal Christian” groups. But all of these are added into the 33,820 number! Please realize, this includes “Gnostics” (!), Mormons (122 denominations worth!) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (228 denominations)! " (James White, The 33,000 Denominations Myth: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/).
Other objections
"Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah."
The hebrew idoimatic I would need to look into in more detail. The subjects that shall be addressed entail the following:
Peter's authority
Simon Peter being sifted
Peter taking care of the sheep.
Acts 1:15-25
Peter does have prominence among the apostles themselves, however, that doesn't equal papacy or supreme power over the entire church. Prominence exists, but not papal office.
The subject of Eliakim's keys, Matthew 16, literacy of the laity and the rule of binding and loosing may be addressed in other articles or simply another if the Lord Wills.
I will say however that Peter's role with the keys is NOT universal power and jurisdiction over the whole church, it refers to him opening the door to the Kingdom for the Gentiles through his preaching and evangelism.
Let's carry on with the article.
Acts 1:15-25 was appealed to by marge for some reason. However, this has nothing to do with the papacy in any way:
"Acts 1:12 Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk[c] from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, “Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry.”
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20 “For,” said Peter, “it is written in the Book of Psalms:
“‘May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,’[e]
and,
“‘May another take his place of leadership.’[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."
Peter is just simply addressing the congregations as an apostle would, but this is not a proof text for the papacy and of course Matthias was appointed by THE LORD JESUS and NOT by Peter to be an apostle in the place of Judas who went astray. Peter himself did NOT choose Matthias by dogmatic papal decree, but he and the apostles actually sought Jesus to choose a worthy candidate.
Any more Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or both arguments may be address in other papers.
Answering Judaism.
PS. I thought margesimpson was Eastern Orthodox, but I could be wrong. If I am, My apologies.*
17th of July 2015, Also I have no idea why I said modern day slaves rather than slaves. That has been rectified.
15th of November 2015. Changes have been made to the article with respect to the above comment.
*25th of July 2016. Should have rectified this a while ago. Marge is not a Eastern Orthodox , she is a Roman Catholic.
Saturday, 1 November 2014
What does the Shoebat say?: A response to Them 'Damned' Catholics
I thought I would spend this next article responding to Walid Shoebat's article "Them Damned Catholics". While it's a little late, I feel compelled to write this in response to him. So here goes.
"Throughout the Church’s history, it has warred with Islam. Yet, it has nothing to offer us today. This is the typical answer I get when I discuss Christian history with many Evangelicals. They tell me that beyond the Bible, there is nothing else we need. So next time you have a fire in the house, read the Bible, don’t forget to pray while you forget dialing 911 and enjoy the smoke and fire billowing inside the house."
While there are some evangelicals who may dismiss history, There are those who are interested in getting back to what the apostles taught and such would include reading the early fathers, seeing if what they say does reflect that of the apostles. It is one thing to stick to the Bible when it comes to doctrine, but it's another to dismiss history simply because the Bible doesn't mention it. Also Shoebat's statement about reading the Bible while ignoring a fire, is just plain insulting.
"I find it difficult to even ask questions: What was Christian history like, that withstood Islam’s evil and defeated it in Europe? Why and how did Christendom lose Egypt and Asia Minor to Islam? And what are we doing in our days to emulate or not emulate from that history?
The one million dollar question that no one can answer – although I will get many remarks from people damning me as a heretic – is this: Why did God choose Catholics to stop Islam in its tracks in all the major battles intended to destroy Christendom? Anyone who has the answer, please step forward."
God can use any individual he pleases to accomplish his purposes, he used Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib as an instrument of judgement on his people Israel, yet he has punished both their nations for their evil. Why would God using the Catholic church as an instrument to prevent the spread of Islam prove Modern day Rome to be true? It doesn't.
"What do most spirit-filled evangelicals know about the Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Tours, The Battle of Vienna, and The Battle of Malta?
Had the ‘damned’ Catholics not fought the Battle of Tours, all of Europe would have been Muslim today, like in Asia Minor. It would have been the end of Christianity, as we know it. Today, Turkey (Byzantium) is 99% Muslim and looks very likely to produce the Antichrist while Evangelicals still think that Antichrist and the Harlot is the Roman Catholic Church."
One can speculate about the Anti-Christ's identity. He may appeal to all groups. He may claim to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Mahdi of the Muslims, the Matriya of the New Agers or claim to be the fulfillment of another religious group. He may even masqurade as Jesus and claim to be him, misleading apostate churches astray.
Whoever the Anti-Christ will be, the true church will certainly know.
"Why is it so rare to find holy spirit-filled evangelicals that speak of such history, except paint it as Crusader, dark, warring and bloodthirsty? What difference then is there between the die-hard liberal and the spirit-filled evangelical? Both criticize this history. Even further, like many evangelicals and liberals, the Muslims also condemn this history. So why do we echo their interpretation as we damn the Catholic?
Why? Is it because of them ‘damned’ Catholics who defended Christendom and saved the Protestants from utter annihilation? Could it be perhaps the Catholics did something right, like fight them damned Muslims and thwart them from annihilating Christendom?
In all these battles there were no Protestants coming to help save Europe and Protestant states refrained from helping or even lifting a finger. They were too busy doing Bible studies on how them ‘damned’ Catholics were the Antichrist."
This may need to another article if the Lord Wills.
"Perhaps I need to exercise the typical American habit before speaking about such matters and prequalify my statements. I am not saying that all Protestants are evil, heavens no. Yet, every time I say the word “Catholic” and the whole church jumps up and down pin-pointing the leaven of the Catholics without" even looking into the piles of dung worth of heretical books produced by so-called evangelicals.
"Is the rich Catholic history such an evil subject that the Bible warned us not to touch and even beat down on the Catholic wars with Islam? Even during Nazism, there were many more of these ‘damned’ Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were evangelicals and Protestants put together. Are these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the sodomite loving pastor or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?"
This is emotional rhetoric, The Catholics are damned to hell because of the heresies they hold to. Just because someone dies in the cause of Christ, what good is that if the person believes teachings that in doctrines of Satan?
If there were Protestants that would not be willing to be persecuted for Christ, they are cowards. Those Protestants who were willing to die were not cowards.
"So who will answer my questions? Will it be some unlearned, half-cocked, spikey-haired, tattooed, nose-pierced, ear ringed, mocking, useless, teenage brained heretic from The Free Grace Movement who will instantly obtain from his own authority to anathematize and excommunicate me since such homosexual sodomite sinners must be welcomed into the fold as Christians without repentance? Will such mutants be the future soldiers who will outdo the Knights of Saint John and fight to thwart the forces of darkness and the devil? What will they use to fight, the earrings of their noses and the spikes of their stupid looking hair? Or perhaps these are the very sons of the devil?"
No, true believers in Jesus Christ may answer your questions, those who condemn lawlessness and evil. A Christian is to fight in a spiritual war and maybe perhaps one day, he may have to defend himself physically.
"Must I denounce the Pope as a heretic while I remain silent on America’s pastor, this self-appointed son-of-the-devil-pope named Rick Warren who signs a treaty with Islam saying we “worship the same God”? Dare I say anything on that fattened whore who pussyfoots with homosexuality while he condemns the Crusaders in that very treaty?"
Rick Warren should be rightly condemned for the evil that he is propagating and it would be unbalanced if one attacks the Pope while letting Warren off Scot Free.
But this doesn't let the Pope off the hook, he is just as guilty, for different reasons, as Rick Warren is for leading people astray and into false teaching. Warren shouldn't be let off the hook, but Pope Francis and the other apostate Popes before him don't get off the hook either. In fact speaking of giving some credence to Islam, Can someone explain why former Pope Benedict the 16th kissed the Quran? Why should he kiss a book that condemns beliefs of Christians?
"Perhaps these things can aid in answering my question, which I’ve asked more than once and no one seems to have answered: During my two-decade walk in my Holy Spirit filled evangelical faith; Jesus said: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Well, in two thousand years, who was this church? Was the church lost from the time the authors of the New Testament departed until the time the holy Martin Luther showed up? Hitler used Martin Luther’s demonic writ, On The Jews and Their Lies, to help him rid Europe of six million Jews.
Evangelicals answer this dilemma by saying that the true Church was always there but it was persecuted by them ‘damned’ Catholics. Yet, such answers are impossible to prove. Perhaps some Jesus-style questions will help clarify this issue. So which Christian movement was it that them ‘damned’ Catholics persecuted? Was it the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Docetists, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and the followers of Wycliff? Were these “The Church” that Jesus spoke about? Were these the true Bible-believing, evangelical-type, spirit-filled believers?
There is no historian who will tell you that these movements even fit into the definition of evangelical “spirit-filled” model. Such movements, which the Catholics squashed (thank God), were radically non-Christian, heretical, and gnostic. Only the Waldenses and the Hussites were somewhat Christian but even these were closer to Catholicism than they were evangelical. How would a common Holy Spirit-filled evangelical even know what these movements are all about? After all, we only need the Bible and the hell with history, right? To ignore history is to also ignore the Bible."
Defending our homes from Muslims and having an army for protection, is NOT the same as going out and massacring wholesale populations. The Catholics massacred the Waldensians and Cathars and though one individual from the Cathars attacked first, that is NOT a pretext to slaughter an entire people, they should only of brought to justice that one individual.
Sola Scripturists do NOT deny the usage of history. Sola Scriptura is NEVER used as a means of damning historical study. It is absurd to claim that this is such.
Keith Thompson in his debate with Walid's son Theodore, comments on the Cathars and the Waldensians specifically. The debate "Walid Shoebat’s Son Supports Catholic Massacre of Cathar Children & Women" can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opYYe8S-Clk
Also, Shoebat erroneously assumes that when early Christians called themselves Catholics, they must of been what Modern Rome is today, which is a form of anachronism being forced onto them.
The gates of hell did not prevail against the church and I tell you why, God himself preserved the church through individual believers, not necessarily after the Reformation only, but beforehand too.
The Roman Church and Eastern Orthodox Church may have been overcome, but not Christ's true church made of individuals that came out of those groups and abandoned their false teachings, icon veneration and idol worship.
As for the subject of Luther's treatise on the Jews. This would need to be looked into.
"Even Martin Luther and the Protestant movement, which came up with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) that is adhered to by protestant denominations, in fact, aided the Ottoman Muslims and provided them with tin to build canons to destroy catholic states because in their view, the Catholic Church was the Harlot of Babylon and the Antichrist.
So important was this WCF that it was an essential doctrine of the faith and was non-negotiable. If the Trinity was essential, so was this belief regarding Catholics. Despite Islam’s overt denial of the Trinity, it was never even mentioned in the WCF while the Catholics who prevented the annihilation of Christendom, took precedence over Islam when it came to that document, despite Islam being the religion of Antichrist. Even Martin Luther himself came around on this issue to confess after reading the writing of the Catholic Riccaldo Di Montecroce in his wonderful work, Refutation of The Quran. As a result, Luther changed his views and even according to him Islam was the system of Antichrist, yet the WCF never even included it."
The subject of Islam was irrelevant to the point that the Westminster Confession of Faith was trying to make. Why address a point when it is not relevant? The Westminster Confession of Faith was not an anti-Islamic polemic because Islam was not the subject it was even addressing. Plus, the appeal to Martin Luther is nothing but grasping at straws and a red herring to divert attention away from the fact that Roman Catholicism was an apostate church and still is to this day. That doesn't change the fact that Rome is still an abomination, that still stands.
"And lest I get into grace versus works theology… One thing is certain; Jesus gave the example about the good worker and the gung-ho church-goers of His day when He chose the Samaritan over the Pharisee who walked by the persecuted beaten naked man and did nothing, claiming he was doing the Lord’s business. If we take that example, the Samaritan in that time would be viewed as the way we view a Catholic; ‘he was all screwed up and got it all wrong’. The Samaritan didn’t even follow Sola Scriptura and his canon of Scripture was missing many books. He even believed such madness that the Temple was on mount Gerizim and not Jerusalem. Yet, Jesus honored the Samaritan over the Pharisee who got both the Bible and Temple correct – but helped not, the persecuted.
When Jesus comes, He will throw in hell many ‘damned’ Catholics and them ‘damned’ Evangelicals for not helping persecuted un-damned Jews, un-damned Catholics and un-damned Evangelicals and other un-damned others (Matthew 25). Today, neither Catholic nor Protestant is doing much to save Christians slaughtered in Muslim countries. Name me the organization that rescues Christians today? There are NONE. We try and our supporters are predominately Armenian, Copts and Assyrians. Where is America’s pastor? Where are the American Evangelicals and Catholics? Perhaps I should follow the Copt, Assyrian or even Armenian and dump this modernized homosexual-loving, Americanized version of Christianity."
A false Christianity that is apathetic does need to be dropped completely and we need to biblically get back to Christ. The point about sola scriptura is an irrelevant point because Jesus' whole point with respect to the Pharisee is that the Samaritan in the parable actually went out of his way to help someone who regarded him as an outcast, whereas the Pharisees in Jesus' day didn't even lift a finger. It doesn't matter whether or not the Samaritan believed in Sola Scriptura or not, it wasn't even part of the point that Jesus was making in the first place.
"While we accuse these ancient churches of holding to deuterocanonical books like The Wisdom of Solomon, which Evangelicals reject, in less than fifty words, sums up the entire purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God and why God became man:
“While all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her swift course, Thine almighty Word leaped out of Heaven out of Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 18:14-15)
Who is this “Thine almighty Word”? Who was “The Word”? When will He leap from out of Heaven and out of “Thy Royal throne”? When will He be this “man of war”? Is this not a prophecy about Christ coming to battle in the end of days? Who is He battling with? The Catholics, who preserved the Bible – including The Wisdom of Solomon? Has wisdom departed from earth that no man can point it out? Isn’t the Holy Spirit leading me to re-discover such prophecies struck out of the American evangelical Bibles? Is Polycarp who was the student of John unnecessary for study? Was Irenaeus his student so unimportant? Was the Coptic Church that was founded by Saint Mark of the Bible unimportant? Was it not Christ who built that Church in Egypt? Even when the Portuguese first entered India they found native Christians who, to their surprise, declared their apostolic succession to St. Thomas."
The Catholics didn't preserve the Bible but putting that issue aside, Yes the Church Fathers are important for study, but what you must realize is that they as men are not above being examined to see if what they say is in the inspired scriptures. Apostolic succession is to do with passing down biblical teaching, not carrying a supposed historical lineage.
"When I first became Christian, I entered an Evangelical Church that taught me that in Daniel chapter II, the two legs were the Eastern and Western churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that these were the spirit of Antichrist. Yet, I never believed them because I examined the Word of God and discovered that Bible prophecies were speaking of Islam. Was I not following the Bible or were these Evangelicals misinterpreting the Bible? It was the Evangelicals who also misinterpreted many things in the Bible."
End time prophecy is one of the things that is often speculated about. I don't understand how this changes that fact that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are apostate. This again is nothing more than a red herring.
"I reject all doctrines that differ with the Bible but for centuries, Holy Protestants have pointed to several Popes as Antichrist, which have all turned out to be false. Is this not unholy slander? Did Jesus not warn about such damned slanderers?"
There are many things that show the Pope's to be an unholy abomination and Anti-Christ. Keith Thompson himself has written an article demonstrating the evils of Popes from across the centuries:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/some-of-roman-catholicisms-worst.html
"We trumpet: “my people perish for the lack of knowledge” when we, the ones who trumpet such verses are perishing. There is a difference between knowing the Bible and doing the Bible.
But there is also a difference between emotionally loving Jesus and doing what Jesus says. We preach something. Yet, we follow the opposite; we continue in lacking knowledge.
As a result, we see things from a certain prism we think is holy and is not."
If you truly loved Jesus Christ Mr Shoebat, you and your son Theodore would be evangelising to the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and giving the Gospel. The fact you are refusing to acknowledge the heresies they hold to and pretty much sweep many of the abominations commited by the Roman Church under the rug, really casts doubt on your profession of faith.
Answering Judaism.
"Throughout the Church’s history, it has warred with Islam. Yet, it has nothing to offer us today. This is the typical answer I get when I discuss Christian history with many Evangelicals. They tell me that beyond the Bible, there is nothing else we need. So next time you have a fire in the house, read the Bible, don’t forget to pray while you forget dialing 911 and enjoy the smoke and fire billowing inside the house."
While there are some evangelicals who may dismiss history, There are those who are interested in getting back to what the apostles taught and such would include reading the early fathers, seeing if what they say does reflect that of the apostles. It is one thing to stick to the Bible when it comes to doctrine, but it's another to dismiss history simply because the Bible doesn't mention it. Also Shoebat's statement about reading the Bible while ignoring a fire, is just plain insulting.
"I find it difficult to even ask questions: What was Christian history like, that withstood Islam’s evil and defeated it in Europe? Why and how did Christendom lose Egypt and Asia Minor to Islam? And what are we doing in our days to emulate or not emulate from that history?
The one million dollar question that no one can answer – although I will get many remarks from people damning me as a heretic – is this: Why did God choose Catholics to stop Islam in its tracks in all the major battles intended to destroy Christendom? Anyone who has the answer, please step forward."
God can use any individual he pleases to accomplish his purposes, he used Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib as an instrument of judgement on his people Israel, yet he has punished both their nations for their evil. Why would God using the Catholic church as an instrument to prevent the spread of Islam prove Modern day Rome to be true? It doesn't.
"What do most spirit-filled evangelicals know about the Battle of Lepanto, Battle of Tours, The Battle of Vienna, and The Battle of Malta?
Had the ‘damned’ Catholics not fought the Battle of Tours, all of Europe would have been Muslim today, like in Asia Minor. It would have been the end of Christianity, as we know it. Today, Turkey (Byzantium) is 99% Muslim and looks very likely to produce the Antichrist while Evangelicals still think that Antichrist and the Harlot is the Roman Catholic Church."
One can speculate about the Anti-Christ's identity. He may appeal to all groups. He may claim to be the Messiah of the Jews, the Mahdi of the Muslims, the Matriya of the New Agers or claim to be the fulfillment of another religious group. He may even masqurade as Jesus and claim to be him, misleading apostate churches astray.
Whoever the Anti-Christ will be, the true church will certainly know.
"Why is it so rare to find holy spirit-filled evangelicals that speak of such history, except paint it as Crusader, dark, warring and bloodthirsty? What difference then is there between the die-hard liberal and the spirit-filled evangelical? Both criticize this history. Even further, like many evangelicals and liberals, the Muslims also condemn this history. So why do we echo their interpretation as we damn the Catholic?
Why? Is it because of them ‘damned’ Catholics who defended Christendom and saved the Protestants from utter annihilation? Could it be perhaps the Catholics did something right, like fight them damned Muslims and thwart them from annihilating Christendom?
In all these battles there were no Protestants coming to help save Europe and Protestant states refrained from helping or even lifting a finger. They were too busy doing Bible studies on how them ‘damned’ Catholics were the Antichrist."
This may need to another article if the Lord Wills.
"Perhaps I need to exercise the typical American habit before speaking about such matters and prequalify my statements. I am not saying that all Protestants are evil, heavens no. Yet, every time I say the word “Catholic” and the whole church jumps up and down pin-pointing the leaven of the Catholics without" even looking into the piles of dung worth of heretical books produced by so-called evangelicals.
"Is the rich Catholic history such an evil subject that the Bible warned us not to touch and even beat down on the Catholic wars with Islam? Even during Nazism, there were many more of these ‘damned’ Catholics that chose to die in Hitler’s ovens than there were evangelicals and Protestants put together. Are these Catholics damned to hell despite making a choice to enter Hitler’s furnace? Which of the two is more pleasing to God, the sodomite loving pastor or the Jew loving Catholic who died in the infernos of Hitler’s crematoria?"
This is emotional rhetoric, The Catholics are damned to hell because of the heresies they hold to. Just because someone dies in the cause of Christ, what good is that if the person believes teachings that in doctrines of Satan?
If there were Protestants that would not be willing to be persecuted for Christ, they are cowards. Those Protestants who were willing to die were not cowards.
"So who will answer my questions? Will it be some unlearned, half-cocked, spikey-haired, tattooed, nose-pierced, ear ringed, mocking, useless, teenage brained heretic from The Free Grace Movement who will instantly obtain from his own authority to anathematize and excommunicate me since such homosexual sodomite sinners must be welcomed into the fold as Christians without repentance? Will such mutants be the future soldiers who will outdo the Knights of Saint John and fight to thwart the forces of darkness and the devil? What will they use to fight, the earrings of their noses and the spikes of their stupid looking hair? Or perhaps these are the very sons of the devil?"
No, true believers in Jesus Christ may answer your questions, those who condemn lawlessness and evil. A Christian is to fight in a spiritual war and maybe perhaps one day, he may have to defend himself physically.
"Must I denounce the Pope as a heretic while I remain silent on America’s pastor, this self-appointed son-of-the-devil-pope named Rick Warren who signs a treaty with Islam saying we “worship the same God”? Dare I say anything on that fattened whore who pussyfoots with homosexuality while he condemns the Crusaders in that very treaty?"
Rick Warren should be rightly condemned for the evil that he is propagating and it would be unbalanced if one attacks the Pope while letting Warren off Scot Free.
But this doesn't let the Pope off the hook, he is just as guilty, for different reasons, as Rick Warren is for leading people astray and into false teaching. Warren shouldn't be let off the hook, but Pope Francis and the other apostate Popes before him don't get off the hook either. In fact speaking of giving some credence to Islam, Can someone explain why former Pope Benedict the 16th kissed the Quran? Why should he kiss a book that condemns beliefs of Christians?
"Perhaps these things can aid in answering my question, which I’ve asked more than once and no one seems to have answered: During my two-decade walk in my Holy Spirit filled evangelical faith; Jesus said: “I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Well, in two thousand years, who was this church? Was the church lost from the time the authors of the New Testament departed until the time the holy Martin Luther showed up? Hitler used Martin Luther’s demonic writ, On The Jews and Their Lies, to help him rid Europe of six million Jews.
Evangelicals answer this dilemma by saying that the true Church was always there but it was persecuted by them ‘damned’ Catholics. Yet, such answers are impossible to prove. Perhaps some Jesus-style questions will help clarify this issue. So which Christian movement was it that them ‘damned’ Catholics persecuted? Was it the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Docetists, Cathars, Albigensians, Waldenses, Hussites, and the followers of Wycliff? Were these “The Church” that Jesus spoke about? Were these the true Bible-believing, evangelical-type, spirit-filled believers?
There is no historian who will tell you that these movements even fit into the definition of evangelical “spirit-filled” model. Such movements, which the Catholics squashed (thank God), were radically non-Christian, heretical, and gnostic. Only the Waldenses and the Hussites were somewhat Christian but even these were closer to Catholicism than they were evangelical. How would a common Holy Spirit-filled evangelical even know what these movements are all about? After all, we only need the Bible and the hell with history, right? To ignore history is to also ignore the Bible."
Defending our homes from Muslims and having an army for protection, is NOT the same as going out and massacring wholesale populations. The Catholics massacred the Waldensians and Cathars and though one individual from the Cathars attacked first, that is NOT a pretext to slaughter an entire people, they should only of brought to justice that one individual.
Sola Scripturists do NOT deny the usage of history. Sola Scriptura is NEVER used as a means of damning historical study. It is absurd to claim that this is such.
Keith Thompson in his debate with Walid's son Theodore, comments on the Cathars and the Waldensians specifically. The debate "Walid Shoebat’s Son Supports Catholic Massacre of Cathar Children & Women" can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opYYe8S-Clk
Also, Shoebat erroneously assumes that when early Christians called themselves Catholics, they must of been what Modern Rome is today, which is a form of anachronism being forced onto them.
The gates of hell did not prevail against the church and I tell you why, God himself preserved the church through individual believers, not necessarily after the Reformation only, but beforehand too.
The Roman Church and Eastern Orthodox Church may have been overcome, but not Christ's true church made of individuals that came out of those groups and abandoned their false teachings, icon veneration and idol worship.
As for the subject of Luther's treatise on the Jews. This would need to be looked into.
"Even Martin Luther and the Protestant movement, which came up with the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) that is adhered to by protestant denominations, in fact, aided the Ottoman Muslims and provided them with tin to build canons to destroy catholic states because in their view, the Catholic Church was the Harlot of Babylon and the Antichrist.
So important was this WCF that it was an essential doctrine of the faith and was non-negotiable. If the Trinity was essential, so was this belief regarding Catholics. Despite Islam’s overt denial of the Trinity, it was never even mentioned in the WCF while the Catholics who prevented the annihilation of Christendom, took precedence over Islam when it came to that document, despite Islam being the religion of Antichrist. Even Martin Luther himself came around on this issue to confess after reading the writing of the Catholic Riccaldo Di Montecroce in his wonderful work, Refutation of The Quran. As a result, Luther changed his views and even according to him Islam was the system of Antichrist, yet the WCF never even included it."
The subject of Islam was irrelevant to the point that the Westminster Confession of Faith was trying to make. Why address a point when it is not relevant? The Westminster Confession of Faith was not an anti-Islamic polemic because Islam was not the subject it was even addressing. Plus, the appeal to Martin Luther is nothing but grasping at straws and a red herring to divert attention away from the fact that Roman Catholicism was an apostate church and still is to this day. That doesn't change the fact that Rome is still an abomination, that still stands.
"And lest I get into grace versus works theology… One thing is certain; Jesus gave the example about the good worker and the gung-ho church-goers of His day when He chose the Samaritan over the Pharisee who walked by the persecuted beaten naked man and did nothing, claiming he was doing the Lord’s business. If we take that example, the Samaritan in that time would be viewed as the way we view a Catholic; ‘he was all screwed up and got it all wrong’. The Samaritan didn’t even follow Sola Scriptura and his canon of Scripture was missing many books. He even believed such madness that the Temple was on mount Gerizim and not Jerusalem. Yet, Jesus honored the Samaritan over the Pharisee who got both the Bible and Temple correct – but helped not, the persecuted.
When Jesus comes, He will throw in hell many ‘damned’ Catholics and them ‘damned’ Evangelicals for not helping persecuted un-damned Jews, un-damned Catholics and un-damned Evangelicals and other un-damned others (Matthew 25). Today, neither Catholic nor Protestant is doing much to save Christians slaughtered in Muslim countries. Name me the organization that rescues Christians today? There are NONE. We try and our supporters are predominately Armenian, Copts and Assyrians. Where is America’s pastor? Where are the American Evangelicals and Catholics? Perhaps I should follow the Copt, Assyrian or even Armenian and dump this modernized homosexual-loving, Americanized version of Christianity."
A false Christianity that is apathetic does need to be dropped completely and we need to biblically get back to Christ. The point about sola scriptura is an irrelevant point because Jesus' whole point with respect to the Pharisee is that the Samaritan in the parable actually went out of his way to help someone who regarded him as an outcast, whereas the Pharisees in Jesus' day didn't even lift a finger. It doesn't matter whether or not the Samaritan believed in Sola Scriptura or not, it wasn't even part of the point that Jesus was making in the first place.
"While we accuse these ancient churches of holding to deuterocanonical books like The Wisdom of Solomon, which Evangelicals reject, in less than fifty words, sums up the entire purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God and why God became man:
“While all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her swift course, Thine almighty Word leaped out of Heaven out of Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 18:14-15)
Who is this “Thine almighty Word”? Who was “The Word”? When will He leap from out of Heaven and out of “Thy Royal throne”? When will He be this “man of war”? Is this not a prophecy about Christ coming to battle in the end of days? Who is He battling with? The Catholics, who preserved the Bible – including The Wisdom of Solomon? Has wisdom departed from earth that no man can point it out? Isn’t the Holy Spirit leading me to re-discover such prophecies struck out of the American evangelical Bibles? Is Polycarp who was the student of John unnecessary for study? Was Irenaeus his student so unimportant? Was the Coptic Church that was founded by Saint Mark of the Bible unimportant? Was it not Christ who built that Church in Egypt? Even when the Portuguese first entered India they found native Christians who, to their surprise, declared their apostolic succession to St. Thomas."
The Catholics didn't preserve the Bible but putting that issue aside, Yes the Church Fathers are important for study, but what you must realize is that they as men are not above being examined to see if what they say is in the inspired scriptures. Apostolic succession is to do with passing down biblical teaching, not carrying a supposed historical lineage.
"When I first became Christian, I entered an Evangelical Church that taught me that in Daniel chapter II, the two legs were the Eastern and Western churches (Orthodox and Catholic) and that these were the spirit of Antichrist. Yet, I never believed them because I examined the Word of God and discovered that Bible prophecies were speaking of Islam. Was I not following the Bible or were these Evangelicals misinterpreting the Bible? It was the Evangelicals who also misinterpreted many things in the Bible."
End time prophecy is one of the things that is often speculated about. I don't understand how this changes that fact that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church are apostate. This again is nothing more than a red herring.
"I reject all doctrines that differ with the Bible but for centuries, Holy Protestants have pointed to several Popes as Antichrist, which have all turned out to be false. Is this not unholy slander? Did Jesus not warn about such damned slanderers?"
There are many things that show the Pope's to be an unholy abomination and Anti-Christ. Keith Thompson himself has written an article demonstrating the evils of Popes from across the centuries:
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2014/03/some-of-roman-catholicisms-worst.html
"We trumpet: “my people perish for the lack of knowledge” when we, the ones who trumpet such verses are perishing. There is a difference between knowing the Bible and doing the Bible.
But there is also a difference between emotionally loving Jesus and doing what Jesus says. We preach something. Yet, we follow the opposite; we continue in lacking knowledge.
As a result, we see things from a certain prism we think is holy and is not."
If you truly loved Jesus Christ Mr Shoebat, you and your son Theodore would be evangelising to the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox and giving the Gospel. The fact you are refusing to acknowledge the heresies they hold to and pretty much sweep many of the abominations commited by the Roman Church under the rug, really casts doubt on your profession of faith.
Answering Judaism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)