DeoOmnisGloria.com

I completely agree with you when it comes to the charge of anti-Semitism. It's total hogwash. I think the problem is that people insist on viewing this as a strictly historical tale. However, the real forces at work were much more profound than any mere politics or religious agenda; forces like Sin, Sacrifice, Redemption, and the Eternal. As such, the modern mind is not equipped to handle the truths in this movie--or even the Gospels themselves. Rather, one must wash away the preconceptions of his age and look at the story with open eyes.

Peace in Christ.

--James

Posted by: James at February 27, 2004 2:32 AM

I am a protestant and I thought the movie was great. It was accurate and held true to the scriptures. It is a movie for Christians to see and to truly understand what Christ went through. I even found myself saying "I see why Peter denied Christ 3 times...he was scared as I would be" This movie was not anti-semetic at all, as a matter of fact some of the Pharisees disagreed with Caiphas. Not to mention that Jesus, his disciples and the Simon of Cyrene were all Jews. I just hope this sparks an interest to make more films about Christ and His teachings.

Posted by: Malik at February 27, 2004 2:50 PM

I completely agree with what the above comments have said and wish to defend another aspect of the Passion that is being criticized, namely, its violence. This evening I was watching a movie critic on Hannity and Colmes as he criticized violence in the Passion as being gruesome and extreme, yet when asked about his review of Kill Bill: Volume I, in which he praised the movie as a brilliant achievement, he made the excuse that Kill Bill’s violence is cartoony and, as such, is above criticism and not gruesome or extreme in anyway. What a hypocrite! Caught in the act and still won’t admit it. For those of you who haven’t seen Kill Bill here’s an excerpt from Yahoo’s Movie Mom Review:
“Parents should exercise the strongest caution before allowing their kids to see this film. They should know that the movie has the most intense, graphic, brutal, and destructive violence imaginable (at least until Tarantino thinks up something new). Body parts are sliced off and blood gushes and spurts like a geyser. Many characters are maimed and many more are killed. A mother is murdered in front of her young child. A man's head is sliced off and tossed around.”
I think everyone gets the picture. Now to make the point, which I was dying for the guy filling in for Hannity to make. There is a fundamental difference between the violence in The Passion and the violence in Kill Bill; namely, the violence in The Passion is purposeful violence (I’ll explain below), whereas the violence in Kill Bill is purposeless glorified violence. By purposeless glorified violence in Kill Bill, I mean that it makes violence look cool, stylish, and entertaining, as the heroine of the movie, out of revenge, brutally kills people without blinking an eye. Of course, this violence is so cool that the audience has to see it in slow motion, while listening to a kickass soundtrack. I think I make my point. Now to explain what I mean by purposeful violence in The Passion. The violence in The Passion not once glorifies itself, but, shown in such a gruesome and realistic (a very key word here) way, it attempts and succeeds to show the audience the consequence and result of sin in this world and the abundant and inexhaustible love of a God that is willing to sacrifice his only Son, Jesus Christ, for mankind’s redemption and salvation. Throughout and continually, the movie hauntingly whispers into the viewer’s ear: “see in My suffering your sin and see in My acceptance the sacrificial love and forgiveness I have toward you.” Summed up, the violence in The Passion will not only discourage violence, but will cultivate forgiveness and mercy in the hearts of its viewers (purposeful violence), whereas the violence in Kill Bill will, if anything, encourage violence with its eye for an eye philosophy (purposeless glorified violence). To wrap things up, I would like to make an interesting comparison. In Kill Bill, which is so brilliant, the heroine is shown returning violence for violence, having no mercy or forgiveness whatsoever for those who attack her, whereas in The Passion, Jesus is brutally tortured and afflicted on all sides, yet as they lift him on the cross he cries out “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I encourage everyone to go and see this profound and realistic movie. Don’t allow the hypocritical criticisms of its extreme and unnecessary violence to deter you, since the violence in The Passion “is as it was”-- purposeful violence.

God bless,
Josh

Posted by: Josh at February 28, 2004 12:05 AM

Anyone catch CNN last night. They were showing a special on Jesus. They mention that Mary had other children, that there was a greek word for cousins and a greek word for brothers. They also show what he may have looked like. Overall it was good. Just want to get some input from everyone here.

Posted by: Jeff at February 29, 2004 3:05 PM

Sounds like CNN has a greek problem: they don't understand it. It's pretty universally known that there is no Greek word for brother. Also note: Jesus would have never given His mother to St. John if He had brothers . . . but CNN has never been known as overly concerned with details that help the opponents position . . .

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 29, 2004 5:11 PM

Jeff and Jay pull out a pen and paper and your Bible and read this.

There are literally hundreds of doctrinal points that can be used to easily repudiate Catholics. None, however, are as simple as the Catholic belief and contention that Jesus had no physical brothers and sisters, in other words, that Mary had no other children with Joseph after the virgin-birth of Jesus. This doctrine is detailed in paragraphs 499-500 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which reads:

"499. The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth 'did not diminish his mother's viriginal integrity but sanctified it.' And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the 'Ever-virgin.'"

"500. Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus,' are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other Mary.' They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. " Thus, Catholics believe that Jesus had no brothers or sisters and from examining some of the Catholic theologians, it would appear that they also believe that Mary's (or Mariam's) hymen was not even broken during the birthing process. But the New Testament repeatedly and emphatically states that Jesus had physical brothers and sisters who were the children of Mary. Before we proceed discussing the New Testament evidence relating to this issue, it should first be pointed out that the Catechism tries to confuse the issue by discussing 'the other Mary.' She is mentioned in Matthew 28:1, and she is not called 'the other Mary' to distinguish her from Mariam, the mother of Jesus, but to distinguish her from Mary Magdalene. The Catechism would lead us to believe that the distinction is with Mariam, the mother of Jesus. Matthew 28:1 reads:

"After the sabbaths, at the dawning into the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary came to view the grave" (AST).

In fact, there are six different Marys in the New Testament, though Mary the mother of Jesus is properly 'Mariam' and the other five are usually 'Maria' or 'Mary.' Still, this is not a steadfast rule since Maria and Mariam can be sometimes declined in the same way. So we shall list these six Mary's: 1) Mariam, the mother of Jesus. 2) Mary, 'the other Mary.' She is the wife of Clopas (John 19:25), she is the mother of Jacob the Lesser and Joses (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40) 3) Mary, the sister of Martha. She anointed Jesus' feet (John 12:3). 4) Mary Magdalene (Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1, etc.). 5) Mary, the mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12). 6) Mary, who was a helper of Paul (Rom. 16:6). Knowing the differences in the Marys allows us to state emphatically that Mary or Mariam the mother of Jesus had at least seven children: Jesus, Jacob, Joses (or Joseph), Simon, Judas, and at least two daughters. These names come from the following verses and elsewhere:

"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mariam? And His brothers Jacob, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And are not His sisters all with us?" (Matt. 13:55- 56 AST).

"Is this One not the carpenter, the son of Mariam, and the brother of Jacob and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3 AST).

Now it is because of these verses that the Catechism has tried to confuse the issue by mentioning "the other Mary," because we learn in Matthew 27:56 that this Mary also had two sons named Jacob and Joses. But these Jacob and Joses are different from that Jacob and Joses mentioned as Jesus' brothers in the above two verses. There are four different Jacobs or Jameses in the New Testament: 1) Jacob, the son of Zebedee and Salome and the brother of the Apostle John. 2) Jacob, the son of Alphaeus. This is Jacob the Lesser, and the son of 'the other Mary,' and brother of Joses. 3) Jacob, the brother of Jesus and son of Mariam. 4) Jacob, the father of the Apostle Judas (not Iscariot). A detailed study of these four Jacobs throughout the New Testament verifies beyond any doubt that Mariam the mother of Jesus had a son named Jacob as did 'the other Mary.' They are not the same Jacob. The son of 'the other Mary' is the Lesser, and the son of Mariam and brother of Jesus is always identified as such. For example,

"But I saw no other of the ambassadors, except Jacob, the brother of the Master" (Gal. 1:19 AST).

It is this Jacob, the brother of Jesus, who more than likely wrote the Book of Jacob, the first book of the New Testament. As for Joses or Joseph, again there are several and it is a certainty that the two in question here are different. So there is no point in even mentioning 'the other Mary' and her two sons other than trying to cloud the issue, and the issue is that the New Testament explicitly declares that Mariam had at least seven children, six after Jesus. Next, the Catholics will say that in these verses, when the Bible speaks of Jesus' brothers or sisters, it is in reference to brothers or sisters in the faith, as the word brothers is so often used in the New Testament, and it is not in reference to biological brothers or sisters. But contextually, this is absurd. For example, in Galatians 1:19 above, why would Paul refer to Jacob as an ambassador and then also as a brother of Jesus unless he meant a biological brother? Can we not assume that if someone was an ambassador that he was also a brother of Jesus in the faith? In fact, the reason that Paul said that Jacob was Jesus' brother was to distinguish him from Jacob the Lesser and Jacob the son of Zebedee. When these latter two Jacobs are referred to, Paul and the writers of the gospels are careful to refer to them by as "the Lesser" or the "son of Zebedee" in order to distinguish them from the Jacob the brother of Jesus. But if we assume that the term brother or brothers in these verses is not in reference to biological brothers, but in reference to brothers in the faith, then there is no distinction between these three Jacobs, because they were all Jesus' brothers in the persuasion. This point is made very clear, however in the following passage from Mark (and its parallels):

"Then His mother and brothers came, and standing outside, sent to Him, calling Him. And a crowd sat around Him, and they said to Him, 'Behold, your mother and your brothers seek you outside.' And He answered them saying, 'Who is My mother or My brothers?' And having looked around on those sitting around Him in a circle, He said, 'Behold, My mother and My brothers! For whosoever does the will of God, this one is My brother, and My sister, and My mother'" (Mark 3:31-35 AST).

It is absurd to argue here that the phrase 'your mother and your brothers' is in reference to anything but his biological mother and brothers. In fact, the point of the teaching would be lost if the reader did not understand that these were the biological brothers and mother of Jesus. Many Catholics have realized the absurdity in these previous arguments and they have devised a linguistic argument which argues that when these verses speak of Jesus's brothers or sisters, they are really in reference to his cousins or other close relatives. A synopsis of this argument is found in a note to Mark 6:3 in the Catholic New American Bible:

"...in Semitic usage, the terms 'brother,' 'sister' are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters ... one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage ... The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary's perpetual virginity." Here, the Catholics admit that this absurd argument would not even be made if not for their man-made doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. It of course goes without saying that nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that Mary had no other children or was always a virgin; neither is such prophesied in the Old Testament prophecies regarding the birth of the Messiah and the prophecy which stated that His mother would be a virgin at the time of His birth. But after the birth, the hymen would have been broken and it would have been expected that Joseph would have had children to carry on his family line. So if not for this man-made doctrine which finds absolutely no support in the Bible, no one would ever question the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters. The argument itself is even more ridiculous, and there are two versions of the argument. One version says that there was no Aramaic or Hebrew word for cousin and that the word for brother doubled for both brothers and cousins. This, however, cannot be proven; the only thing that can be proven is that there were no words differentiating between maternal and paternal cousins. The Hebrew in the Masoretic Old Testament and Aramaic and Syriac translations of the Old and New Testament, however, do refer to cousins by stating "the uncle's son" or "daughter, etc. So Aramaic speakers were by no means incapable of describing a cousin, and this round-about way of doing so was very common. But the fact remains that it is absolutely irrelavent what the Aramaic, Hebrew, Luwian, Hungarian or any other language except Greek meant because the New Testament was written in Greek. Greek was the native language of Paul, Mark and Luke, all of whom had Greek names, and these men had an extremely wide variety of Greek words to choose from when they wrote that Jesus had brothers and sisters. In the Greek, the word used for brother in these passages is ¢delfÒj (adelphos) and it very specifically and only means "brother." This word was never used for any other type of relative in all of Greek literature. In Galatians 1:19, if the Greek-speaking, Roman citizen, Apostle Paul had wished to tell the Greek-speaking Galatians, who could speak no Aramaic and did not know a single Semitic idiom, that Jacob was the cousin of Jesus and not his brother, then Paul would have used the Greek word ¢neyiÒj (anepsios) like he did in Colossians 4:10 (AST):

"Aristarchus, my fellow-captive, greets you, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas, about whom you received orders."

This word very specifically means "cousin," and this word was even used in the Greek Septuagint (Numbers 36:11). This Greek word is very important because many Catholics priests specifically tell their parishioners that the Greek language had no word for cousin and that this was the reason that the word brother had to be used. But this is nothing but shear ignorance and deception! In fact, ¢neyiÒj (anepsios) is not the only word for cousin; there are other words for specific types of cousin and other synonyms, etc. If Paul or Mark had meant that Jacob and Joses were simply kinsmen of Jesus, not necessarily cousins or brothers, then they could have used the Greek word suggen»j (sungenes) which means just a generic kinsman and is used by both Mark (6:4) and by Paul (Romans 9:3) as well as all throughout the New Testament. The story is the same in the Catholics' own Latin Vulgate. In Galatians 1:19, for example, the Latin word frater is used which specifically means brother. The word nepos, meaning cousin, could have been used, but it was not. Thus, there can be absolutely no doubt that Jesus had at least four brothers and two sisters who were the biological children of Mariam or Mary. This single doctrine is an excellent means of repudiating Catholics and the authority of the Catholic Church. If they cannot be intellectually honest enough to admit that Mary had at least seven children, then they cannot be intellectually honest enough to believe any truth.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 1, 2004 7:19 PM

SandT,
So explain to me why Jesus gave His mother to the Apostle John during His crucifixion. Jesus would only do this if his mother had no other children.

I find it fascinating that you think whether or not Mary had other children is reason enough to abandon the Church Christ Himself founded (Matt 16:18) and the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2004 8:43 PM

You must have missed who Jesus truly considers his brothers and sisters. Also you must have missed where the Bible says scripture can be used for reproof. But despite all that...where does the honoring of Mary His own mother, hint at a perpetual virginity?? First it's linguistic but after an intellectual discussion, we find that there are distinct words for cousin and brothers. Now it is because the Catholic Church says so. Peter, yes Peter, talks about using scripture for reproof. So after looking at man made Catholic doctrine and Mary's virginity and looking at scripture....the scriptures totally contradicts the man made doctrine of perpetual virginity. God inspired the Bible as you know it to be written and put together in that fashion. Let go of man made doctrines Jay.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 1, 2004 9:51 PM

SandT,

According to your logic (I use that term loosely as your statements are almost uniformly conclusory), Jesus' brothers were His full brothers. Are you suggesting that God was their father too? If not, then you automatically lose this fight, because you admit that "adelphos", which means full brother, is not used in its strict sense. At the most, Jesus had half brothers. And if half-brothers, why not step brothers? It is certainly possible that Joseph took another wife (polygamy was common) and had children by her. These would have been called Jesus' brothers.

If only your logic was as strong as your knowledge of linguistics. Of note for our readers, notice that at no point is a single Scripture pointed out where any person other than Jesus is referred to as the child of Mary. That is because no such verse exists. The entire debate always has and still must revolve around the use of the word "brother". And since neither SandT nor any other person can illustrate why "brother" could mean half-brother (the most it could possibly mean), but not step-brother (which would indicate a child of Joseph but not Mary), this attack on Sacred dogma is destined to fail. Quite simply, there is zero proof that can be offered against it.

Let me add a very quick point here for God-fearing Protestants. Consider that Mary was in a very real sense "the spouse of the Holy Spirit." Although the two never had any physical or sexual union, they did have a union that produced the summit of human intimacy, a child. Mary was "full of grace" (an attribute of the Holy Spirit), was "overshadowed" by the Spirit, and conceived by the Spirit. She was, in fact, the spouse of the Spirit.

While Joseph was her guardian, note that the entirety of Scripture refers to him as her "betrothed" husband. That term was used to indicate a couple who was to be or had been formally married, but had not consummated the marriage. And think about it for a second without getting bogged down in these semantic debates. If you were Joseph, would you have sexually approached the vessel used by God to hold the very essence of divinity? Would you dare deposit your own seed into that vessel into which the Holy Spirit had already deposited His spiritual seed? The very thought is repulsive and repugnant. Consider that just like the ark of the Covenant, which literally carried God's presence inside it, Mary was the "Ark" who literally carried God (Christ) inside of her. Remember what happened to Uzzah just for touching the Ark? He was immediately killed by God. (II Sam. 6:6-7). Most Protestants don't think about these things in the context of Joseph and Mary, and I would encourage you to examine Scripture and your own conscience to realize just how inappropriate it would have been for Joseph to have sexually approached Mary.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 2, 2004 12:28 PM

SandT,

I think there are two obvious things you overlook and take for granted.

1) Historically Christianity has always held the perpetual virginity of Mary, just read the Early Fathers of the Church.

2) The word "adelphos", the Greek for brother or brethren is used interchangably for both physical and nonphysical relations. Just look at Matt 25:40 and Luke 22:32. Both reference to the spiritual brotherhood of believers, there is no textual or historical proof that the brethren that were "outside with Mary" in Luke 8:20 were not believers. In truth, the fact that they were with the Mary would point to them being believers for we often find Mary with the disciples and other believers throughout the New Testament.

I would also like to point out an error in your first comment. You quote Gal 1:19 as pointing to a certain "Jacob" as a brother of Jesus, but in truth the verse does not say Jacob but James, who we already know from the Gospels as being indicated as a "brother of our Lord" in the spiritual sense. I checked the Greek as well and it clearly reads "James" so I'm not sure what translation you are using but it is incorrect. I have never heard of a "book of Jacob", you seem to simply get "James" and "Jacob" confused by the context of your comment, yet we know that neither of the apostles named James were physical relatives of Jesus.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 2, 2004 12:28 PM

Well SandT,
I certainly hope you do not indentify yourself as Christian, or subscribe to any religion other than Catholicism, cause if you do, you just contradicted every religion other than Catholicism. I remind you that any protestant church was founded on a "Man Made Doctrine" the bible speaks no where of a savior named Luther or Calvin. These are all quite literally man made doctrines to suit man made religions to suit the needs of man(a man must taylor himself to his religion, not his religion to himself)...or do you claim that Luther/Calvin/any reformer is the long awaited Second Coming of Christ and we all just missed it. I will be the first to admit that the catholic church has been in the wrong, but the "Man Made" doctrine you speak of...woah, be careful cause your not leaving yourself a whole lot of options.

Posted by: Patrick at March 2, 2004 1:06 PM

Patrick,

Thank you for the insightful comments. I would like to note one small item of semantics. You have stated in a few places that "the catholic church has been wrong." I do not believe this is correct. The Church, as the spotless Bride of Christ, is perfect, holy, and infallible. I am guessing that you mean the people in the Church, including the leadership, have been in the wrong, which is obviously correct. I think it is important to bear in mind the distinction between the mystical Church and the fallible beings that inhabit her, and I wanted to point that out for our readers.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 2, 2004 4:15 PM

Ignorance is bliss...whoever said Luther or Calvin is our Lord. Before you rebut a discussion, at least have your facts straight.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 2, 2004 9:02 PM

Ignorance is bliss...whoever said Luther or Calvin is our Lord. Before you rebut a discussion, at least have your facts straight.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 2, 2004 9:02 PM

SandT,
Boy did you miss a bunch of points in there. Maybe I can simplify them for you.

If you are protestant, your belief system comes from Luther and/or Calvin. They invented the beginning of your religion and they were men, so your religion is man-made. I can point in the Bible where my religion was founded by God Himself, but your religion is simply a revolt from this Church Christ founded. If anyone is adhering to "man-made doctrines," it is you.

I'd also like to hear your response to the points made - it seems you want to ignore the facts and stick to your interpretation.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 2, 2004 11:00 PM

Your catholic argument stems from the belief that all was entrusted to Peter and that Peter was the first pope and that as Pope, he would be inspired to decide what is spiritual truth. But this is not so. The Bible warns about man made traditions and to use scripture as reproof. This is even pointed out by Peter, whom you believe to have been the first pope. Peter even urges people to use scripture to check if what a disciple may say is true. So taking this point into account Luther and Calvin realized the error of the catholic church. Like the Pharisees did, the pope's overtime has added onto what scripture taught. Added to what God taught. God teaches redemption and forgiveness through Christ and new doctrine of purgatory is somehow added. The discussion on Mary and her children clearly shows that brothers was not used to mean cousins, that in fact there was a word for cousins in the Bible. Yet somehow...Mary is a virgin forever. Merely looking at what the BIBLE YOU AND I read says and what your doctrine teaches and practices the two contradict. As a protestant I don't pray to Mary to pray for me, I don't bow down to statues, and I don't believe in purgatory. I believe in Christ as the only mediator, I believe in Christ as Lord and Savior of all. The items that I don't do aren't in the Bible and were never taught by CHrist and are not in scriptures. That was added by men. Your argument is weak and is supported by straw. Originally you said CNN has a greek problem. I posted an in depth explanation on the other children of Mary. The discussion showed that Mary without a doubt had kids. THe discussion destroyed your theory about brothers meaning cousins. It showed that there in fact was a word for cousins. All this proves that Mary had other children, you have yet to prove otherwise. Scriptures shows this but a man made doctrine teaches otherwise. An obvious contradiction. You can try all you want but you cannot refute this. Unless you change your original point where you say and I quote "there is no Greek word for brothers" You are taking this discussion personal Jay. Thats not what this about...just look at the proof. Don't deny truth, don't turn a blind eye to it.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 3, 2004 12:16 AM

SandT,

I still have not heard you respond to my point that "adelphos" could very easily have meant step-brother, and could not possibly have meant more than half-brother. What say you?

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 3, 2004 1:37 AM

SandT,
It's interesting that you seem to put the burden of proof on the Catholic Church, which is incorrect. You seem to believe that for 1,500 years the Catholic Church was in error and finally the Holy Spirit discovered Martin Luther who listened to Him and set everyone free.

There are many problems with this. First, Martin Luther had to throw out many books of the Bible and add a word in order to force the Bible to say what he wanted it to say. This is a problem. Even your version of the Bible clearly teaches purgatory (see 1 Cor 3:11-15 and Matt 12:32). The Bible also clearly teaches that Peter is the first Pope (Matt 16:18 and John 21:15-19). Finally, there are many Biblical points that support the perpetual virginity of Mary. You misunderstand the nature of the Greek word for "brother," which is not exclusively used in the way Americans use it (see the posts you ignored above).

Basically, SandT, you are adhering to the protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is not Biblical. You must rely on the Catholic Church in order to believe the Bible is infallible. Why? The Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible. How do you know which books should be included? How do you know the canon of the Bible is correct? For example, Martin Luther removed Maccabees, which clearly indicates we should pray for the dead. Was his decision to remove it divinely inspired? How do you know? The Bible teaches the opposite of sola scriptura. For example, see 1 Timothy 3:15 where the Bible calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of Truth."

I have a question for you: Where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 3, 2004 9:49 AM

To Joe I say this...I didn't get translations mixed up. James is the Greek translation for Jacob, which means the supplanter.
To Jay, we can discuss how 1Cor3:11 is to be interpreted. Matthew 12:32 merely says that blaspeming against the Spirit is not forgivable now and forever more. None of these scriptures talk about a place where you go to be FURTHER cleansed of VENIAL sin. As far as adding to the Bible. The RCC added books to Old Testament after the reformation. Protestants did not take away books, they merely stuck with the original Bible. You can check your history on this. On top of all this, I can show you more scripture that proves that there is no such thing or a need for purgatory. Jews wrote the Old Testament, Greeks wrote the new testament. Yet you say the RCC wrote the Bible? That's definitely false.
AS far as misunderstanding what adelphos means, I have 3 words for you...adelphos, suggenes and anepsios. Now go read again the post about those words which you have obviously ignored. I'll summarize again. Adelphos=brothers, anepsios=cousins, and suggenes=kinsman or close relative. I'll say this, there are many different doctrines. Protestant, Orthodox, Catholics and the sects within each(yes Catholics do have various sects) ALL of them are subjected to be tested by the scriptures. That my friend, is definitely supported by scripture. The Holy scriptures do not support a lot of RCC doctrine. There is no misunderstanding anything. If the authors of the gospel was able to use cousins, why not use it? Explain..but do so logically instead of assuming that the author made a mistake. Remember, we all believe that they were inspired by God. Nevertheless please reread the initial post on adelphos and anepsios.

Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 3, 2004 7:07 PM

SandT,

One comment you make here betrays your whole position. You claim that the Protestants stuck with the original Old Testament and the Catholics added books during the Reformation. This is patently false. I suggest that your go read Luther's writings. Luther was very open about removing the seven "apochryphal" books. He was even openly hostile to James, Jude, and Revelation, but was unsuccessful in his attempt to remove those books. I have posted elsewhere on this blog the history of the Old Testament. The bottom line, however, is that the Catholic Old Testament is basically the Greek Septuagint, which was translated circa 100 B.C. Moreover, the Septuagint was the version of Scripture used by the apostles. Your claims are so far off base, that I would very strongly suggest you spend some time researching this issue. Even spending a couple of hours poking around online could tremendously increase your knowledge of how your Old Testament came to be.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 3, 2004 7:31 PM

Dave,
The apocrypha was added in 1546 at the Council of Trent. As a matter of fact Jerome, who was the authority figure for translation of scripture rejected the Apocrypha as inspired. So Once again, these books were added by the RCC.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 3, 2004 10:47 PM

SandT,

Your account of history is at least consistent: consistently incorrect. I suggest that you read some bona fide Protestant scholars (I have previoiusly recommended Justo Gonzalez who has some excellent books on the history of Christianity and Christian thought). The Council of Trent did not add anything. Have you even heard of the Septuagint? You know, the Greek translation used by the apostles (check your local Protestant Bible for that fact) that included the "apochrypha"? The Council of Trent for the first time dogmatically defined the Old Testament canon. However, the canon as defined had been in use in the vast majority of churches from the 4th Century forward.

Your recitation of history is revealed as complete fallacy by a sideways glance at the Bibles of our Orthodox brethren. Remember (or perhaps you did not know) that the Great Schism occurred in the 11th century, 500 years before Trent. Thus the Orthodox version of the Old Testament had nothing to do with Trent. Nonetheless, the Orthodox Bible includes the apochrypha, just like the Catholic Bible (in fact it contains a little extra material). So, the only two branches of Christianity that can trace their roots through time to the very apostles of Christ accept what you label "the apochrypha." Your church on the other hand, after 1500 years of usage, abandoned these texts in order to follow a rebel Catholic priest who felt that the Jewish scribes from 100 A.D. were more in tune with the Holy Spirit than was the Christian Church during that time.

Your reference to Jerome is way off base. Perhaps you should re-check your Latin Vulgate, which included all of the apochryphal texts. For readers not familiar with these topics, I encourage you to read a book or simply surf the Web before accepting SandT's misguided statements. The facts simply do not comport with evangelical propaganda. What is most interesting is that even higher Prostestant churches (Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) would disagree with SandT's facts. We must at least be willing to look honestly at history and the facts before we can have a meaningful dialogue.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 4, 2004 2:26 AM

Dave your replies are so lacking in facts. All of your replies have dones so. Anyways here is a homework assignment for you to do. GO read about the Septaguiant and the Apocrypha. Read what they are and read about there history. I will gladly discuss it with you later.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 4, 2004 6:06 PM

SandT,
Please let us know what the problem is with Dave's reply. I'd like to be able to address the issue with you. In terms of the Septaguiant, the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament are from the Septaguiant, which includes the 7 books Luther threw out.

In the early Church there was discussion over whether they should be included or not, just as there was with many books (Revelation was a big one in particular). It's funny that even Martin Luther will admit much of this, but you won't!

Also, just as an FYI - Luther actually added a word to the New Testament that probably exists in your version. I have copies of the King James and New King James versions, both of which include Luther's addition. How do you feel about adding to and removing from the Bible?

Finally, you ignored my question above, so I'll repeat it here. Please answer: Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?

Looking forward to your reply.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 4, 2004 7:10 PM

Jay and Dave,
You are trying to twist history to to fit your views. The fact is that the apocrypha was initially not recognized as inspired scripture. These books were rejected as inspired by St. Jerome. You cannot deny that. The official proclamation that the Apocrypha was part of the canon came at the Council of Trent in 1546. That you cannot deny. Despite all of this, you will probably argue that all of the Septuagint was always accepted by the early church fathers. Which is false. But bearing this in mind, why is the book of Esdras and the prayer of Manasseh rejected?
Christian era copies of the Greek Septuagint differ in their selection of included books. The three oldest complete copies we have of the Greek OT include different additional books. Codex Vaticanus (4th century) omits 1 and 2 Maccabees, which is canonical according to the Roman Catholic Church, and includes 1 Esdras, which they reject. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) leaves out Baruch. which is supposed to be canonical, but includes 4 Maccabees, which they reject. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) includes three non-canonical Apocryphal books, 1 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees.{5} All of this points to the fact that although these books were included in these early Bibles, this alone does not guarantee their status as canon. So by history one can see the questioning of the authenticity. The early Catholic church accepted then rejected books as Canon. Luther accepted the earliest view that the Apocrypha was not inspired scripture. The Council of Trent in 1546 then proclaimed these books to be canon. You cannot pretend that these books were always thought to be inspired by God. There was always a question by the early church fathers about the apocrypha. While I know that history shows that the church held these books to be in high regard, the early church did NOT accept them as inspired scripture. Jay for the last time...the Bible says that scripture can be used for reproof. Peter even instructs the Bible to be used as the measuring stick. I know you have already been shown the scriptures. The Bible shows how scripture has been used to verify truth. WHAT MORE proof do you want that the Bible claims authority? Jay, your pride is blinding you my brother. I can even sense anger at times coming from you. So to avoid this I will say, be blessed, may the Spirit of the Lord be with you.
Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 4, 2004 8:37 PM

SandT,

Now we're getting somewhere! Neither Jay nor I said that all books in the Church's current OT canon have consisted of the canon for all times and by all parts of the Church. In truth, the fact that the Orthodox Church accepts the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, the 151st Psalm, etc., proves that even in the midst of the 11th Century, the exact makeup of the OT was disputed. However, the dispute simply means that the Church had not issued any dogmatic definition of the OT at that time; it does not mean that the definition given at Trent was fallible. Regardless, your previous suggestion that the Church started using the "apocrypha" after Trent is outrageously false. Your most recent post seems to retreat from that position, and rightly so.

In truth, by the time Trent came around, the Western Church had been using the OT in its current form for several hundred years. The proof is again in the pudding here, which is why Luther felt the need to affirmatively declare that the apochryphal books were non-canonical. Having not had the need to define the OT in previous councils, the Church was now faced with open hostility from a heretic on an important issue. She thus, at that time, dogmatically laid down what constituted Scripture.

You, however, should consider the history of where Luther took his reasoning from. As I have stated in a different post, the Jewish scribes in the first century were exceedingly hostile to Christianity. Since the Christians used the Septuagint as their text, the scribes decided to undermine the movement by declaring the "apocryphal" books uninspired. Moreover, they also declared that all non-Hebrew versions of the Scripture (the LXX or Septuagint was in Greek) were similarly uninspired. This in and of itself demonstrates that the early Church did use the apocryphal books. This can be further illustrated by the fact that aprocryphal books are referred to at several points in the New Testament. In any event, Luther decided that the scribes had a better understanding of what was and was not inspired than did the early Christians, so he adopted the list given by the scribes. Note that this was the first time in the history of the Church that the scribes' list was officially declared to be correct. It was Luther who "changed" the makeup of Scripture, not the Church.

If you disagree with this analysis, please explain the Orthodox Bible. Why do both the Catholic OT and the Orthodox OT contain apocryphal books if Trent was the first instance where the apochrypha was expressly approved? Especially since the two churches split up 500 years before Trent? Before you make any other points, you need to respond to this issue.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 4, 2004 9:51 PM

SandT,
Please quote one verse that says the canon of Scripture is the full truth and all we need of the truth. Everyone agrees that the Bible can be used for reproof - this doesn't mean that the "oral traditions" (which the Bible commands us to follow) are invalid.

St. Jerome would argue with your interpretation. He said, "For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). St. Jerome's famous Biblical commentary includes commentary on all of these books - Jerome understood that the Church, rather than a single individual in the Church, is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15).

I recommend you read this article on the deuterocanonical books. It gives much evidence to explain what we are saying.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 4, 2004 10:00 PM

Jay,
You said it best. The Bible does say that scriptures are used for reproof. So if a doctrine, church, or individual is teaching something that they claim is of God, the Bible can be used as a reference point. Let me make this clear. We as protestants do not believe that all you need is the Bible. BUT if anything is to be done in the name of Jesus, the Bible is a reference to let us know if what we are doing is right. Scripture clearly shows that the written Word is more authoratative than oral traditions. Why do you think Jesus was always rebuking the Pharisees. Because the Pharisees took the written law and added their traditions to it. Yet they where the early "church" They were the teachers in the temple. THey were priests. So the bottom line is this. There are a lot of items in the RCC doctrine, that is not in the Holy Scriptures. You mention 1 Tim 3:15, but lets start at at 1 Tim 3:14
Althought I hope to come to you soon, I am WRITING YOU these INSTRUCTIONS so that if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

The church is the body of believers in Christ...and we support the truth, we were given the truth. But that truth is still given to us in written instructions. This is evidenced by the preceding scripture you failed mention. WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS SO THAT YOU CAN KNOW HOW TO CONDUCT YOURSELF IN THE HOUSE OF GOD!
Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 4, 2004 11:27 PM

SandT,
First, the books of the Bible can only refer to themselves - you can't assume they refer to the entire Bible, since it wasn't compiled for 100+ years after their books were written. Second, you are ignoring some important Scriptures:

2 Tim 1:13. Hold fast to the teaching which you have heard from me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Tim 2:2. And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

John 16:12-13. "I [Jesus] have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;

The last is especially telling: Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will guide us "into all the truth." Clearly the Bible is important, but we cannot throw out oral tradition just because "the Bible doesn't say it." I know this because the Bible does say it:

1 Thess 2:15. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Now I know that "brethren" here is the word you insist only means "brother," but here it refers to all of us. Clearly St. Paul is saying we are required to follow oral tradition as well as written tradition. This is not "the traditions of men", but the traditions of God passed down to men. If Jesus only wanted us to follow the Bible, He probably would have written it Himself (at least part of it). Instead, Jesus wanted us to follow His Church, so He founded a Church (Matt 16:18) rather than writing a book.

By the way, all of the writers of the New Testament were Roman Catholics. There was no other Christian Church before the Orthodox schism a thousand years later. You argue that the church is a metaphysical reality, rather than a visible institution. I wrote this article on the visible Church and the Bible, which clearly shows you are incorrect.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 5, 2004 10:09 AM

I, for one, grow weary by these repetitive arguments put forth by our Protestant brothers and sisters. I think there are several basic issues that Protestants must deal with:

1) The Bible as know it today did not exist until approximately 392 A.D. when a Catholic Council decided what books would be included.

2) That being the case, it is impossible to claim that Christianity was founded as a "people of the Book", rather they were a "people of the living God, the Church." Many churches (or dioceses as we call them today) didn't even have all the books that are found in the Bible today, yet they all belonged to the one Church. This is a historical fact, not something that Catholics are making up, just the read the Early Church Fathers.

3) Protestantism, as seen today, didn't appear on the Christian scene until after the year 1500 A.D., I would suggest even later than that since Luther and Calvin would not have approved of the mass division we see today in the Protestant world. So rather than the continual effort to disprove Catholicism, why not instead justify your own church's existence. Who founded it? How long has it been in existence? Matthew 16:19 clearly shows that Christ intended to found a Church, so if your church has only been in existence for 10 years, 50 years, or even 600 years how can you claim that it was founded by Christ?

SandT, in reference to your comments above, I find them as riddled with error as Protestantism itself.

1) Jesus actually told the Jewish people to obey all that the Pharisees told them, just not to imitate them in living it out. In Matthew 23:2-4 this is clearly stated.

2)In reference to 1 Timothy 3:14-15: you miss the point entirely, it is because St. Paul cannot go and "preach" (oral tradition) to them, that he is writing to them. Please take note that few of the original Twelve apostles even wrote, they preached...period. That is oral tradition my friend.

3) In reference to your last comment "but that truth is still given to us in written instructions", St. Paul himself contradicts you in his second letter to the Thessalonians:

So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thess 2:15

That is exactly why the Catholic Church is necessary.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 5, 2004 10:31 AM

To Jay and Joe,
You fail to mention that the traditions that the church is to hold on to are taught by scriptures. It what what was taught by Christ. The disciples DID in fact have writings of the teachings that were given unto them. Peter himself said you can check to see if what is being SPOKEN(an oral actvity)is true by looking at what is written. Do you deny this fact?
I'll give a modern day example. The movie Passion of Christ, it is a good movie to teach about the final hours in Christ's life. But ultimately, everyone looks to the scriptures to see if it is true. If Mel Gibson added a part which has Jesus saying "to get to me you can always ask my mother to pray for you", then that would not be scriptual.
Jay, yes teachings were spread both orally and through writings. But what was spoken, had to measure up to the written word. Peter points this out. The scriptures are the blueprint for the church. If the blueprint calls for 4 bedroomes, you can't build 6 bedrooms and say you are doing what the person who entrusted you with this blueprint wants. The church and I mean the real church which is the body of beleivers in Christ(not the RCC) is to be submissive to the written words.
LOOK AT WHAT PETER SAYS 2 Peter 3:14-18
14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen

The church(body of believers) is very important, for we are to spread the Word of our Lord Jesus. But according to Peter and other scripture, it must measure up and agree with the written word. I don't mean to offend you, but this is true.

Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 5, 2004 11:59 AM

So SandT, where does the Bible say we should go to Church on Sunday instead of Saturday?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 5, 2004 1:58 PM

So SandT, where does the Bible say we should go to Church on Sunday instead of Saturday?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 5, 2004 1:59 PM

I see where you are trying to go with this Jay. I know you want to claim that the RCC changed the sabbath day to Sunday. But this is not so. First I think you should read all of the postings done on this site. So I will copy and paste to save some time.

Sorry for the long break, I was away on vacation. I am going to make this quick. If you look at Leviticus chapter 23-24. You will find that the 10th day of some month was referred to as a sabbath. The 10th day was referred to as a sabbath of rest. In addition to this sabbath day, they were to keep the standard sabbath. God wanted the Israelites to observe more Sabbath's. Not more Saturday's more Sabbath...more rest unto God. So while the regular sabbath day was a saturday...there were other days on which the sabbath was observed. A sabbath day is a day when one ceases from one's own activities of work. Sabbath was not JUST saturday. To see the sabbath as restricted to saturday is not truly understanding the Sabbath. You can read Leviticus read more about the different sabbath's. This is what Paul was referring to when in Col 2:16 he said do not let anyone judge you by what eat or drink or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The Pharisees added their own tradition and contorted the law of Sabbath. That's why they were angry when Christ healed a man on the Sabbath day. But a Sabbath is to rest from one's own work. Christ was doing his father's work...as God operated through Christ. Christ ceased from his own work and rested into the Heavenly Father. That is why Christ said He is ALWAYS at His Father's work.
Christ also said that we can FIND a rest in Him. We can take His yoke. He will do the work while we rest from our own work. Paul backs this up by saying in Col 2:17 that the reality of the New moons or a sabbath day are a shadow of things to come, the REALITY is found in Christ.
Why did the Sabbath go from Saturday to Sunday? Was it because Christ was resurrected on a Sunday or did the Apostles just feel like worshipping on a Sunday. It doesn't matter...as long you rest unto God. Our rest is in Christ.
Christ truly did fulfill the commandments...each and every one of them. We should constantly, everyday, find our rest in Christ. That is our Sabbath. Once again scripture proves your point wrong...you have yet to show that Church traditions overrule the scriptures. You have yet to demonstrate that the Apostles taught something that Christ did not teach. Your argument for the sabbath day being changed is weak, because the Old Testament shows that a sabbath was not relegated only to a Saturday. Second Christ showed what the true meaning of Sabbath is...it for the delight of men. That is found in the OT. That is why Christ said..."the sabbath was made for man..not man made for sabbath" We get to find rest in God. Amen to that. It was not so much the day that Christ was worried about. Its like the woman at the well in John 4:20 She asked if we are to worship in the mountains or in Jerusalem. Christ didn't give her a clear cut answer. He finished with that True worshippers worship in Spirit and in truth. Jesus showed by example what the true sabbath is. The scriptures back this up, which shows that there was not anything new that Christ did not teach, taught by the Apostles.

Nelson

Posted by: Nelson at February 23, 2004 12:51 AM

AMEN

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 5, 2004 3:27 PM

SandT,

You completely ignored the three points I made....

Answer those first, before we go any further. As I said before, I'm weary with the continually repetitive Protestant objections. Deal with the real issues first before attempting to find fault with the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 5, 2004 4:30 PM

SandT,
You quoted a terrible argument, but okay, let's look at it. First, I want to understand your position. You say (1) that everything should be in the Bible - which is why you can't believe in the virginity of Mary. When I asked you to show me where in the Bible we are told to go to church on Sunday rather than Saturday (an obvious proof that your argument is invalid), you push Nelson's argument.

Nelson contends that there are many "sabbaths," so it doesn't really matter which we adhere to. This is an ignorant position that he should be embarrassed to put in writing. In Exodus 20:8 God establishes the Sabbath, which is in contrast to Nelson's many Sabbaths. Can you provide anyone besides you and Nelson that contend the Jews could celebrate on any Sabbath?

We know from historical information that the apostles continued observing the sabbath until the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Are you greater than the apostles or more knowledgable than they are?

The problem here is that you contend you are obeying the written word, but you are not. You ignore the passages which you don't understand and/or don't like. You have approached Scripture with a misunderstanding and found what you were looking for. For example, you ignore the material that clearly teaches that the Church is a physical institution established by Christ. You ignore in John 6 where we are told we must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to get into heaven. You do not obey the Bible, but simply obey the ones you like.

By the way, your definition of sola scriptura doesn't match the one of any major denomination in the US. Did you just make it up? Either way, your sola scriptura is just as unBiblical as the other definition. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15), another verse you ignore.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 5, 2004 7:03 PM

SandT,

I would like to put my two cents in on the “discussion” of whether Mary, the Mother of God, did remain a perpetual virgin throughout her lifetime, and in relation to this whether Jesus had siblings. Siblings meaning at most half bothers and sisters as Dave pointed out, since Jesus alone is the Son of God. Here it is! “Mary remained a perpetual virgin throughout her life.” (John 22, 1)..... Pardon the Pun. No seriously, don’t we all wish it were that easy! Here is what the Catholic Church and the Bible teach: “Jesus is Mary’s only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom he indeed came to save: “The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formulation she cooperates with a mother’s love.” paragraph 501 of the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church. “Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus.” (Rev. 12,17)

I often try to understand why some Protestants and believers think Mary did not remain a virgin. The Catholic Church because of what is written in Sacred Scripture and other traditional writings of the early Church Fathers in regards to Mary, has a purpose for believing Mary remained a virgin. “Mary is a virgin because her virginity is the sign of her faith “unadulterated by any doubt,” and her undivided gift of herself to God’s will. It is her faith that enables her to become the mother of the Savior: “Mary is more blessed because she embraces faith in Christ than because she conceives the flesh of Christ. paragraph 506 of the Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church. “An unmarried or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman (not the same as a married woman that has taken a vow of virginity) on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.” (1 Cor. 7, 34-35) At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: “the Church indeed…. By receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By preaching and Baptism she brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life. She herself is a virgin, who keeps in its entirety and purity the faith she pledged to her spouse.” paragraph 507 Second Edition Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You might be thinking how can someone be married if they do not even consummate the marriage covenant? Since Mary was a Jew, did the Jewish nation consider a vowel of virginity in marriage valid? The Answer to this question can be found way back in the beginning of the Bible, all the way back to Numbers. “When a woman, while still a maiden in her father’s house, makes a vow to the Lord, or binds herself to a pledge, if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her father expresses to her his disapproval, then any vow or any pledge she has made becomes null and void; and the Lord releases her from it, since her father has expressed to her his disapproval. If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid. But if on the day he learns of it her husband expresses to her his disapproval, he thereby annuls the vow she had made or the rash pledge to which she had bound herself, and the Lord releases her from it.” (Numbers 30, 4-10) Wow, that means even at the time of Moses vows of virginity in marriage were accepted. Maybe that’s why the New Testament does not blatantly say Mary remained a virgin her entire life in black and white, since the writers knew that virginity in marriage was commonly known by the Jews, since their ancestors were taught about it in the desert by Moses. Also, we all no that Joseph never once disapproves Mary’s vow, in fact some scripture scholars believe that it is possible that both Mary and Joseph were consecrated virgins.

But for a moment lets imagine that Jesus did have siblings (see note above) and Mary had not remained a virgin. Oh, those poor brothers and sisters of Jesus! I wonder who the favorite child was in the family’s meek home at Nazareth? Can you picture how many times Jesus’ brothers and sisters must have heard their parents praise their son Jesus and say to His siblings, “Why can’t you be more like your brother, Jesus? No wonder they became unbelievers of Jesus as you said. Probably saying, “Its not fair! Why does Jesus get to be the Son of God?” And if they did not recognize Jesus as the Son of God, well that means they thought their parents, Joseph and Mary, and their older Messianic brother Jesus were, as Andy Rooney so affectionately puts it, “Wackos!” “Mary would have tried an explain what happened with the Angel Gabriel, etc. etc, and their father would agree with Mary because he, himself, came to see God’s design by an angel coming to him in his sleep. But this would not cut it for their so called non-divine children.

Does this not seem all too bizarre? Well it is because it is unbelievable that God, who had a designed plan from the Beginning, would not make His Mother, the very vessel that would contain Him, and Our spiritual Mother the most perfect human symbol of purity.

I ask you and any others what purposes have you for questioning your Spiritual Mother’s virginity and faith? The Church has a purpose and logical reasons for that purpose.

I think I’ll go with the Catholic Church.

God Bless,

Joachim

Posted by: Joachim at March 6, 2004 12:25 AM

BEING A CATHOLIC IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING A CHRISTIAN

A loyal citizen of the kingdom of God will give allegiance to only one king, one head, one source of authority. A Christian recognizes that Christ is the only head of the church and that He rules from the right hand of God and not from Rome. A Christian will heed the warning that whoever "exalteth himself" on earth to such authority works iniquity (2 Thessalonians. 2:1-12). The work of Christ and His apostles does not mention such things and doctrines as Clergy, Pope Pontiff, Vicar, Cardinal, Archbishop, Abbott, Laity, Parish, Diocese, Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, Papal Infallibility, Bull,Litany, Absolution, Confessional, Limbo, Purgatory, Indulgence, Penance,Transubstantiation, Mass, Sprinkling, Infant Baptism, God-Mother and Father, Pater Noster, Catechism, Sacrament, Ave Maria, Lent, Christmas, Good Friday, Ashes, Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Relics, Epiphany, Praying for the Dead,Mortal Sin, Latria, Celibate, Easter, Confirmation, Holy Water, Rosary, Sign of the Cross, Immaculate Conception, Bodily Assumption, Mary as Medatrix, etc. All these doctrines came from some other source than Jesus Christ. Jesus said such traditions make our worship vain (Matthew. 15:9). NO MAN EVER BECAME A CATHOLIC BY FOLLOWING THE BIBLE.

BEING A PROTESTANT IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING A CHRISTIAN

Paul made it plain that to be loyal to him or Apollos, or Peter, was not to follow Christ. "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13). Of course, to imitate another man as he imitates Christ is a scriptural principle (1 Corinthians11:1), but to loyally line up with Martin Luther (Lutheran Church), John Calvin (Presbyterian or Reformed Church), John Wesley (Methodist), Joseph Smith (Mormon), Ellen White and William Miller (Adventist), Charles Russell (Watchtower Society or Jehovah's Witness), or Alexander Campbell (Christian Church) is to show disloyalty to Christ.

It is only when we drop our loyalty to these men and their doctrines that we can "be of the same mind one with another according to Jesus Christ: that with one accord we may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 15:5-6). It is only when we drop our denominational names, creeds, and organizations that we can obey the charge to "all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and the same judgment" (1 Corinthians 1:10). The only way to answer the prayer of Jesus concerning all His followers "that they may be one that the world may believe," is to all listen and obey the same Lord and authority (John 17:20-21; Colossians. 2:8-10).
Now stop this silly nonsense. We should be praising God instead of bickering at each other.

Marc

Posted by: Marc at March 6, 2004 12:54 AM

SIMPLY A CHRISTIAN

It goes without saying, that a person could read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, follow everything in it intended for men of this age, and he would never be anything else than SIMPLY A CHRISTIAN. It would take something else besides the Bible to make one a Lutheran (Luther's Catechism or the Augsburg Confession). It would take the Baptist Manual to make a Baptist. It would take the 39 articles to make an Episcopalian or an Anglican. One would have to follow the Methodist Discipline to be a Methodist. You can become a Mormon if you want to, but not by following the Bible and the Bible alone. You don't become a Jehovah's Witness without submitting to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. What passage of scripture would one obey to become a member of any of these churches? What is it that perpetuates these denominational distinctions ~ obeying the scriptures or following the commandments of men? Why will there still be Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, etc., tomorrow? Because all are following Jesus or because at least some are following men?

When people on the day of Pentecost complied with the conditions of grace for their salvation (Acts 2:38-41), "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). To which church did God add them? Was Peter a member of a religious organization that John did not belong to, and was Andrew a member of a denomination that Peter and John were no members of?

Does not this question seem absurd to you? Certainly no one would claim that Peter, John and Andrew were anything other than SIMPLY CHRISTIANS! They taught and practiced the same thing in the name of Jesus Christ. If they were alive today, no denomination could claim them, for the apostles' teaching made men and women Christians, not Protestants or Catholics. No doubt, if Peter and Paul were alive today, they would be the enemy of Protestant and Catholic denominations, for their doctrine would conflict with the traditions of men. If all believers today listened to the apostles' teaching as recorded in the New Testament, denominationalism would die a sudden death. Did not Paul show the sinfulness of following men to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians. 1:10-13)? Did he not teach the Ephesians that the only wall of separation ever ordained of God to distinguish between men on a religious basis was the Old Testament, which differentiated between Jew and Gentile? Did not Paul say that Jesus broke down that wall of separation, reconciling all men in one body through the cross (Ephesians. 2:14-17)? Jesus died to make all men one religiously. Did not Paul define that one religious body made at the cross as the church of Jesus Christ (Ephesians. 1:22-23; 4:4)? IS IT NOT PRESUMPTUOUS FOR MEN TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THE WALLS OF DENOMINATIONALISM WHICH KEEP US SEPARATED RELIGIOUSLY? Is the Bible still true? Is it still God's will that there is only "one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God" (Ephesians. 4:4-6)?
God Bless you ALL

Posted by: Marc at March 6, 2004 1:05 AM

It is sadly ironic that most members of the various denominations not only contradict the will of Christ in their allegiance to the denomination of their choice, but they contradict the pleas of denominational founders and leaders.

Charles Spurgeon, a prominent Baptist preacher, said:

"I look forward, with pleasure, to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ's name endure forever." (Spurgeon's Memorial Library, Vol. 1, p. 168).

Martin Luther, founder of the Lutheran Church, said:

"I pray you to leave my name alone, and call not yourselves Lutherans, but Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been crucified by anyone. St. Paul would not let any call themselves after Paul, not Peter, but Christ. How then does it befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the children of God. Cease, my dear friends, to cling to these party names and distinctions; away with them all, and let us call ourselves only Christians after him from whom our doctrine comes." (The Life of Luther, Stork, p. 289).

John Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, said:

"Would to God that all party names and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world were forgot; that we all agree to sit down together, as humble, loving disciples at the feet of a common master, to hear His words, to imbibe His Spirit, and to transcribe His life into ours." (Tabernacle Sermons, Vol. IV, p. 216).

We cannot help but wonder what changes would have taken place in religious history had the followers of these men heeded their pleas. The pleas, however, went unheeded. Denominationalism exists and will continue to exist until our Lord roots it up in the last day. But meanwhile, no one has to be a part of the spirit of division and guilty of the sin of heresy.

CAN PEOPLE TODAY BY SIMPLE FAITH IN AND OBEDIENCE TO JESUS CHRIST BE SIMPLY CHRISTIANS, WITHOUT BELONGING TO A DENOMINATION? "A resounding YES! " To answer otherwise is to admit that the "faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) is not the same today as it was during the first century. In the first century, on the basis of what was written and spoken by the apostles (which has been written and preserved for us in the Bible), people were able to obey God, and to do whatever God wanted them to do. They were being saved; they were complete in Christ, lacking nothing that pertained to life and godliness; they were dying in hope of heaven.

This was centuries before the first human creed, centuries before the Catholic Church was present to establish "Divine Tradition or to "interpret" the scriptures, centuries before there was a universal pope, long before the doctrines of celibacy, sprinkling, transubstantiation, purgatory, extreme unction, Mary worship, and confession before a priest. It was 1800 years before the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope.

It was 1400 years before Luther's revolt against Catholicism, 1400 years before the Church of England (Anglican or Episcopal) or the Presbyterian Church, over 1500 years before John Smyth and the first Baptist church in history, and 1600 years before John Wesley and the Methodist Church. It was 1700 years before Joseph Smith and Mormonism, and William Miller and Adventism. It was 1800 years before a Jehovah's Witness knocked on your door.

DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THIS MEANS?

It simply means that all the creeds, the traditions, the "revelations," and the institutions of men that have cropped up over the past 1900 years to clutter the religious scene and to confuse the minds of the people are at best unnecessary ... unnecessary to obedience to God, unnecessary to salvation, unnecessary to completeness in Christ, unnecessary to life and godliness, and unnecessary to the hope of heaven. But it also means that the whole concept of modern denominationalism in not part of the true Christianity originating in the mind of God, revealed by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in the new Testament. God purposed the church of Jesus Christ before He even made the world (Ephesians. 3:10-11; 1:3-4). Did He purpose the Lutheran Church or the Episcopal Church from eternity? Did anyone ever become a Jehovah's Witness or a Mormon simply by obeying the scriptures? Did the Holy Spirit, who inspired the apostles in the first century, reveal to them the doctrines and names that make the Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Catholics distinct denominations?

Can we be SIMPLY CHRISTIANS? Certainly! No one ever became anything else by following the Bible and Jesus. Follow the Word of God as it stands, not after it has been filtered through the creeds and doctrines of men, then let that make of you what it will. It will make of you what it made of others in the book of Acts. Those who continued in the apostles' doctrine (Acts 2:42) were believers, disciples, saints, Christians; it made a group of them the church of God or the church of Christ, and that is all the apostles' doctrine will ever make of anyone.
Now I urge all you, put your flesh aside, and come into agreement on His goodness and how great He is. Love on the Lord.
In Jesus name, Amen

Posted by: Marc at March 6, 2004 1:11 AM

Marc,
Just a few things to think about. First, when Christ was on earth, He did not write a book. He didn't even tell others to write a book. And He certainly didn't indicate who should write a book. Rather, He founded a Church (Matt 16:18).

Why would Christ think a Church was so important? Because the Church gives us the Sacraments. In particular, the Church gives us the Eucharist (John 6:53), which is the source and summit of Christian life.

Can a Christian live without the Sacraments? Not well. Baptism initiates us into the Christian life and Confirmation gives us the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist actually gives us grace to live the life we should. We've written articles showing that each of these are Biblical and necessary.

You are correct in one thing: denominations are meaningless. They are individual creations of man. Of course, the Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the Church founded by Christ that the Bible calls the "pillar and foundation of Truth" (1 Tim 3:15). We were asked by Christ to take the Truth to the world, which is what we are trying to do. I urge you to examine your Bible - read some of our articles - and ask yourself, which Church did God Himself found?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 6, 2004 8:06 AM

Dear Marc,

I became a Catholic by following the Bible.

"Catholic" means "universal", is not a "denomination", and draws its name from no human being. The word appears in the Apostles Creed, which in fact is first recorded in writing less than 50 years after the book of Revelation was written. Peter and Paul were both part of the universal Church (i.e. Catholic), something that we apparently agree upon.

The word "Bible" is not found anywhere in the Bible. Just thought I would point out that little irony.

Regarding the fascinating point you make about first century Christians living "centuries before" other things that "cropped up", you missed two: 300 years before the New Testament Bible was compiled (Councils of Carthage and Hippo); 1500 years before the Old Testament Bible was compiled (Council of Trent or Martin Luther).

Based on these last two, you might want to quit using the Bible, because a) the word itself is not in the Bible, and b) the "traditions" of which books are in the Bible did not come til centuries after the first Christians. The circularity of it all is enough to make your head hurt.

Then again, you could always come home to the Church. Not a denomination, but the one true Body and Bride of Christ, founded by Jesus Christ, shepherded by His apostles, nourished by His Holy Spirit, and against which the gates of Hell have not, still don't, and never will prevail. That does, after all, sound like what you are thirsting for. So was I.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 6, 2004 12:37 PM

I am not here to argue, if you choose to believe that which you believe that is fine. The reason I find it pointless to argue is the following. It gets no where. If you ask why Christ did not make a book called the Bible, why don't you also ask why didn't Christ just cut off a piece of skin and cut himself and bleed into a cup. Did Christ simply mean His actual human flesh and blood, or did His flesh represent the Word of God? Was His blood not shed for us? The point is, we could back and forth all day. Lets make this clear, Jesus did not find the RCC. Jesus died at the cross and said "It is finished!" He had done all that he had to do. There are new doctrines to be taught.
Whether it is the book of Mormons, Baptist manual, WatchTower Bible or Roman Catholic Catechisms. All that you need is in the Holy Scriptures known as the Bible. Jesus and His disciples would not side with any sect whatsoever if they were present today. That includes Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalian etc.
When Jesus died at the cross, He left us with all that we needed.
Amen

Posted by: Marc at March 6, 2004 3:48 PM

I meant to say that there are no new doctrines to be taught. Sorry for the grammatical error.

Posted by: Marc at March 6, 2004 6:11 PM

Marc, I totally agree with you.

Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 6, 2004 8:18 PM

Okay, Marc and SandT, then what Church did Jesus found in Matthew 16:18? Please include some proof that you are correct (I can show through Scripture and historical documents that it was the Catholic Church, so please be able to prove whatever you claim).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 7, 2004 10:46 AM

Jay,
For the last time, we both know that there was not a Bible as we know it. There was an Old Testament written. Now if as the scriptures say all scripture is God breathed, that means that they were inspired by God. True or False? Obviously it is true. Just like God inspired the prophets of the Old Testament, God also inspired His disciples to write scriptures that is now known as the New Testament.
So for the last time, I am going to prove your theory about Scriptures wrong. First let me reiterate you stance. You believe that there was no book written and that Christ did not commission anyone to write a book. You believe also that there were no writings about Christ during His times.
I am going to make this quick. The beautiful thing about the Bible is that it is in agreement throughout. Scriptures supports other scriptures. I am going to show scriptures that clearly support scripture as authoritative.
John 2:20-22, shows that Jesus indeed had taught His disciples about His resurrection through SCRIPTURE.
This is supported by John 5:31-40
Jesus points out that while John testified about who Christ is, that that testimony does not carry as much weight as His Father's. Christ goes on to show that His Father's testimony about Him is written in the Scriptures. Again Christ here gives authority to Scriptures over John's testimony. Yet both agree with each other, so John speaks the truth.
Luke 24:17-32 Two men were talking about Jesus being crucified. Jesus approached them and inquired about their discussion. Instead of just telling them who He was, He showed himself to these 2 men through the Old Testament Scriptures. Again, Jesus giving authority to Scriptures.
Acts 17:11 shows that the Bereans were considered more noble than the Thessalonians because they received the MESSAGE, with eagerness and EXAMINED SCRIPTURES to see if what Paul said was true. Here shows that Paul is being tested against Scripture.
Romans 15:4 Peter says that everything WRITTEN in the past WAS WRITTEN to TEACH US, so that through endurance and encouragement of the SCRIPTURES we might have hope. Again, Peter is not encouraging tradition, he is encouraging the SCRIPTURES as the measuring stick. This point is backed up again by Peter in 2 Peter 3:16.
verifies that what Paul writes is the truth. To use this so that one does not err. Lastly,
2 Tim 3:15-17 Paul says that the holy SCRIPTURES are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. ALL SCRIPTURE is God breathed and useful for TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING, and TRAINING in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly eauipped for every good work.
That is 7 scriptures that agree on the authority of scripture. Now a scripture you use to counteract this, is 1 Tim 3:15. But if you start at 1 Timothy 3:14 you will notice that there are WRITTEN instructions so that if Paul were to be delayed so that you will know how to conduct yourself in the House God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. Again Paul's writings were considered authoritative. These writings gave INSTRUCTIONS on how to conduct ourselves in the church. This Scripture shows that scripture was authoritative in how the church conducts itself. Was Paul not writing Scipture? Was he not writing the teachings of Christ? Does this make his writings God inspired? The answer is a resounding YES. Scripture being authoritative in matters concerning the church, as shown here, is biblical.
Now for the final point. First we have to define the church. What is the church? The church is composed of people redeemed by the Son of God, brought together by the will of God to live together as the family of God, in order to do the work of God in the power of the Spirit of God, all for the glory of God. Our instructions is found in Scripture. The church is to serve God. Not make up new items or doctrines or add to it. So the RCC church as you know it to be Jay and Joe is not in the Bible. Scriptures show that Christ did not teach about Mary's virginity, or praying to Mary, or praying to Saints, purgatory etc. The church is the body of believers who are here to do God's work and give Him the glory. His instructions are His words which are the HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Be blessed in Jesus name
Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 7, 2004 6:26 PM

None of your quotes support the "doctrine of Sola Scriptura", none clearly say that the Scriptures are the highest and only source of authority. John 2:20, 5: 31-40, and Luke 24:17-23 are used by Christ to prove that He is the fulfillment of the old covenant. The same is true for the verses you quoted from Acts. Let me repeat...NONE OF THE VERSES YOU HAVE QUOTED SUPPORT SOLA SCRIPTURA.

Jay is correct in quoting 1 Timothy 3:15, it is proven and supported by St. Paul in the letter to the Ephesians.

To me (Paul), though I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord... - Ephesians 3:8-11

This clearly shows that even Paul realized that the Church is the ultimate source of authority as willed by God. Jesus founded the Church, not men. In reference to the Church, study history. It is impossible to argue that the Catholic Church was something created in the Middle Ages or that the Early Church Fathers didn't hold to the same beliefs. Just read them.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 7, 2004 7:52 PM

Joe,
Did I say that Christ was talking about new testament writings? No. I merely bought these scriptures up to show you how Christ put authority in the scriptures. Christ made it clear that whatever John ORALLY testified about Him was good, but did NOT carry as much weight as the Scriptures.
It seems like you have a hard concept of understanding this point. So I will make it simple.
1. John ORALLY said who Christ is.
2. WRITTEN Scripture spoke of who Christ is.
Jesus said that WRITTEN Scripture carried more weight as to who is Jesus Christ.
CLEARLY JESUS gave more value, more credence to the SCRIPTURES over oral testimony.
The other Scriptures that I quoted show that there was Scripture being WRITTEN about Christ. IT also shows that this SCRIPTURE was used to VERIFY TRUTH. As for the Scripture you have just quoted, you are right, it does support 1 Timothy 3:14-17. Joe, you quote Ephesians 3:8-11, but lets back up to the beginning of chapter 3 in Ephesians.
Paul says that he was given revelation of who God is. He goes onto say that he WROTE about it and through this reading, I repeat, THROUGH THIS READING, you will be able to understand the insight that he(Paul) had into the mystery of Christ which was revealed by the Spirit of God to the prophets and apostles. Paul goes on to say that the mystery of God was not revealed to men before as it is now. The mystery is in the gospels and Paul became a servant of this gospel by God's grace and that God is working through him. Paul is to preach the mystery of God, the unsearchable riches of Christ. Paul states that the function of the church is to make known this mystery that he was talking about. The mystery of Christ.
I agree, the church is to spread the Word of God. The church is the vehicle by which God's Word is to be spread, but NO WHERE in the Bible can you find where Christ gives more credence to the church over Scripture.
So to repeat, Paul talks about the WRITINGS that are for understanding the mystery of Christ. This understanding is to be spread by the church. The church is not to add to it.
Lastly, why this is a moot point....Paul didn't preach in person to the Ephesians. He WROTE them letters, these are the same letters that Peter backed up. Notice that not once did Paul write instructions about Mary the ever virgin, praying to saints, purgatory, etc. Paul wrote about the teachings of Christ. Paul simply put, wrote holy Scripture. All this goes to support the fact that Scripture is authoritative in matters concerning how the church ought to conduct itself. Joe, lets pretend for a minute. Let us pretend that Vatican proclaimed that all needed to have a statue of Mary in their households. I know it sounds silly, but would you honestly say that it must be true because the Vatican said so. Would you not check Scriptures to verify? Man is known to be fallible, at all times, but the Word of God is not. I put my trust in the Word. I submit to my pastors, but I know that I can always check if what they are saying is true by checking Scripture. Because I don't want to assume your interpretation of sola scriptura, I will tell you my church's belief. The Bible is the Word of God, the truth and authority in how the church conducts itself. The church is the body of believers(ministers and congregation) whose purpose is to serve God by spreading His Word, to bring God the glory. You are trying to believe that church as you know it(Vatican) is authoritative, because by doing so you can support doctrines that are not in the Bible. Once again, Scripture shows that Jesus, our example, gave more authority to Scriptures over the church or oral tradition. Without your stance that the church is authoritative, the catholic doctrine would be found to be with many holes.

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 7, 2004 11:19 PM

SandT,

I think the concept you just repeatedly miss is the fact that Catholics do believe that Sacred Scripture is the inspired Word of God. That it, along with Sacred Tradition, make up the revelation of God to this world. Yet Sacred Scripture can not do this alone. Jesus Himself proves that. His quoting of Scripture is threefold: 1) to remind the Jewish People of how they are to live, 2) to show them what He was changing, and 3) to show how His coming had fulfilled the Old Covenant prophesies. All of these Old Testament prophesies were preached, they were orally communicated to the Jews. Read the Old Testament, most of the prophets tell God that they are afraid because they don't know what they will say.
Does Scripture hold value? Absolutely. Does the Sacred Tradition hold equal value? Most definitely. How do we know this? Because Jesus Himself instructed the Apostles to go forth and preach to all the world. Nowhere in any of the Gospels did Jesus commission them to write.
In this we find the simple reality of this co-authority - Scripture needs the Church, just as the Old Covenant needed a chosen people. Sacred Scripture bears true fruit in the Church for the Church is the guardian of that truth, just as the Jewish leaders were the guardians of the Law and the Prophets, it wasn't given to all for their own personal intrepretation, that would have only resulted in mass confusion (similar to what we see throughout Protestantism today). Jesus makes clear in Matthew 16:19 why the Church is necessary - so that it might be the foundation, that binds and loosen, that withstands to the end, that has no equal on this earth or in the heavenly places, for it is the body of Christ. The body has definition, as does the Church. It isn't some vague, free-flowing mass that cannot clearly be seen, that would be pointless. It has physical definition, that is why St. Paul used the analogy of the body.
You keep insisting that St. Paul tells us to obey his writings but is that what Paul says? I think we find the clearest commission in 2 Thessalonians where St. Paul states:

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

This is the teaching that has been handed down through the ages. It was taught by the apostles as apparent by the formation of the Church throughout the 500 years that immediately followed Christ's death and resurrection. It's all there, you can read the writings of the Early Church Fathers, just go to the library. It amazes me how you and so many other Protestants want to tell us how wrong the Catholic Church is, yet you fail to validate your argument historically.

On a side note, how does the doctrine of purgatory, the teaching of the Church on Mary, and/or the communion of saints contradict Scripture? I would say, if anything, they compliment Sacred Scripture, revealing to an even greater extent God's love for us.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 8, 2004 6:43 AM

Joe my brother,
Yes, the Word is to be preached....I agree. I agree that Jesus had His disciples preach. Yet, whatever they preached had to come into agreement with the Word of God. Just like John testifying about Jesus agreed with the Word of God. Whether by word of mouth or by letter means receiving the same message. Not different messages or new messages. In the end 1 Tim 3:15 clearly states that written instructions were given so that the church may know how to conduct itself. CLearly the WRITTEN word dictates what the church does in this passage. Therefore, as supported by other Scripture, making it authoritative.
Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 8, 2004 7:24 AM

SandT,
Our point is that your adherence to Sola Scriptura does not agree with the WRITTEN word. It is not Biblical. So you are not doing what the WRITTEN word is dictating.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 8, 2004 8:54 AM

SandT,

Your statement that Paul's teachings had to be the same thing as the old Scripture, "not different messages or new messages", reveals an absurdity in your argument. Jay and Joe have rightly agreed that all teaching of the Church must support and align with, not contradict, the Scripture. They have also done an admirable job of showing how the teachings of the Church are consistent with, not contrary to, Scripture. Nonetheless, you claim that all doctrines taught by the Church (and indeed even by Peter and Paul) must actually appear in the Scripture.

Your argument suggests that all Scripture written after the Pentateuch would be invalid. First, why would any Scripture be written after the first five books if all they did was restate the same exact doctrines? What purpose do they have outside of purely historical and inspirational? And why would a book that is purely historical need to be "inspired" and part of the canon? Second, it is clear that the books written subsequent to the first five books do in fact contain new doctrines or expansions of old doctrines. For instance, apostolic succession is clearly practiced in Acts chapter 1. Baptism is preached by John the Baptist for the first time in the whole of Scripture in Matthew chapter 3. The Eucharist is first referred to as something that can actually do physical harm to an unworthy recipient in I Cor. chapter 11. There are many, many more examples of "new" or "different" teachings first mentioned in later books written by the disciples. According to your logic, these teachings should not be in the "Bible" because they did not appear in the Bible anywhere before that. Clearly you cannot believe that every doctrine must actually appear in Scripture because a) later additions to "Scripture" include doctrines that obviously do not appear in earlier Scripture (note that these later additions were themselves compiled as "Scripture" by the Catholic Church), and b) your interpretation of sola scriptura itself does not appear in Scripture.

The passage referring to the Bereans is of no avail to you because they simply compared the Old Testament to the new teachings so as to verify that they were not contradictory. Nowhere does it state that everything taught by the disciples appeared in the Old Testament. Moreover, the Bereans were actually pretty adept at allowing development of doctrine (something that cannot be said of Protestants). How else could they have accepted the teaching that pork could be eaten, a doctrine bluntly opposed to the Old Testament law? The Bereans were obviously NOT fans of sola scriptura, else they would have rejected such "heretical" teachings.

SandT, aside from arguing about how to construe Scripture, consider the history of the Bible. For 1000 years, the Catholic Church was the only Church (you would at least have to agree that this is the case from 400-1000 AD). So, during at least that 600 year time frame, who was it that protected the sacred deposit of Scripture? Who interpreted it? Who transcribed it during endless hours by candlelight, often inducing blindness? Would not these people who devoted themselves to protecting this most Holy Word of God understand it best? Would they not love the Bible more than anyone? And as between them and you (who is 2000 years removed from the writing, the history, and the context), whose testimony is more reliable? I can guarantee you that it is not mine, yours, Jay's, or Joe's. When we think about Purgatory, let's go back to when it first appeared and hear what the original commentaries had to say. Same with confession, the priesthood, so on and so forth. You cannot point to anything in the Scripture saying "there is no Purgatory." So why not look to the Church that has protected the Scriptures for 2000 years?

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 8, 2004 1:03 PM

Jay,
You are turning a blind eye to what I have been posting. I believe the Church to be the vehicle by which God's Word is spread. It is to serve God, and give God the Glory. I believe that the Scriptures as evidenced in your favorite scripture 1 Tim 3:14, are the instructions to which the church are to adhere. I believe that Scriptures as evidenced in 1 Tim 3:15 are instructions for how the church ought to conduct itself.
The Scriptures here show that the church is to adhere to the scriptures. Therefore the Scriptures are authoritative.
I know you will rebut as you always do with Thess 2:15. Mind you that still doesn't change the fact that the word of mouth must agree with the letter. Case and point is how Jesus looked at John's word of mouth about Himself(Jesus) compared to the Scriptures. Jesus Himself acknowledged John's testimony about who Himself to be true. Yet Jesus said that there is a more weightier testimony! More weightier than the word of mouth given by John. That means more valid, that means authoritative to John's ORAL testimony. Of course Jesus was referring to holy Scriptures as the weightier testimony. So, while John said about Christ was true, the Scriptures according to Christ still holds more weight. So is my belief that the word of God is authoritative in matters concerning the Church unbiblical?
I have shown you Scripture after Scripture where Christ or his disciples have spoken about the WRITTEN word being authoritative. I have shown Scripture, heck, Jay you have shown Scripture which shows that the WRITTEN word are instructions for how the Church conducts itself. Show me where it shows tradition to be authoritative over Scripture. You can't, because it is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Show me several Scriptures that support the praying to Mary and Saints. Not just one or two, but at least 4 or more. Then show me Scriptures that support the EVER VIRGIN belief. Show me multiple Scriptures that support purgatory. You asked me to show you where it shows that the Scriptures are authoritative over matters concerning the church, I did. Now I ask that you answer my requests.

Amen

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 8, 2004 7:42 PM

SandT,
You do realize that Christ was only referring to the Old Testament (since the New Testament was no even close to being started)? Are you saying we must solely adhere to the Old Testament?

SandT, for the record, you can't quote a verse that dictates sola scriptura. Trust me, the verse doesn't exist. I've been through this many times with many protestants and all end up conceding this point. Note that Thess 2:15 doesn't say that the letter contains everything necessary. In fact, it clearly implies that the oral is equal in weight and just as necessary as the written (otherwise Paul would have just said to adhere to the WRITTEN word).

I'm not sure if we've written a specific article detailing why it's Biblically okay to ask friends and family to pray for you, but I'll write it just for you. It will include over 4 verses and explain why it's better to ask those already in heaven to pray as well. We've written several articles covering your other questions:

• The Biblical Basis for purgatory
  
• Perpetual virginity of Mary in the Bible
  
• An extra one: Sola Fides: Are we saved by faith alone?
  

Also note that Catholics do not believe tradition "is authoritative" over Scripture. We believe both are necessary for proper understanding of God's will.

Note that until you can provide one verse proving sola scriptura, you're forced to abide by Tradition as well, which means you should look into the Catholic Church . . .

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 8, 2004 9:32 PM

Jay,
Here is the flaw in your argument. You say that Christ was talking about the Old Testament, but what was John talking about? John was talking about Christ. Still, Christ gave value to the WRITTEN SCRIPTURES. This is a a fact you cannot twist. Either way, John spoke about Christ, and it was in agreement with the Scriptures. So what John said was validated by Scripture. I have clearly shown you again and again where it clearly shows that authority is given to Scripture. Then you rebut with a weak argument. So what did John testify about? Was it not Christ? Yes, yes of course it was Christ. What did Christ refer to as even a WEIGHTIER testimony of who He is? Scriptures, Scriptures...yes the Scriptures. Christ even said he does not accept human testimony. He just mentioned John's testimony so that WE may be saved. But what really mattered to Christ was the Scriptures.
Lets go over it one more time.
1. John testified about Jesus Christ
2. Jesus said that Scriptures testified about Him.
3. Jesus deemed the WRITTEN Scriptures as a more WEIGHTIER testimony over John's ORAL testimony.
It cannot get anymore simple Jay. JESUS CHRIST, did not say John's testimony is equal to the Scriptures. JESUS said that the Scriptures held more weight than what came out of John's mouth. This is just one of the Scriptures that shows Christ giving authority to the Scripture over "oral tradition."
Whatever is spoken or taught by the church, must be in line with Scripture.
Scripture shows this.

AMEN

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 8, 2004 10:26 PM

SandT,
I'm trying to work with you. In the future, when you refer to a verse, cite it - every time.

I assume you're referring to the two verses from John you quoted earlier (2:20-22 & 5:30-40). First, John 2:20-22. Although this is the most unique attempt to prove sola scriptura I've seen, you're making no sense. Just because a verse includes the word "Scripture," doesn't mean it confirms sola scriptura. Notice that the discples believed the Old Testament predictions and the word which Jesus had spoken. Note: Jesus did not write the word down, He said it. They believed both the oral and the written - like a Catholic would. Interesting.

Next, John 5:30-40. Jesus says that the greater testimony is His works (the miracles He performs) and the Old Testament prophecies. Which I would agree with: John was in the present, it is greater to prove that your existence was given in prophecy much earlier. Of course, this doesn't mean John's word was worthless. And it is given equal weight with Jesus' works.

Your logic escapes me. How does this suggest that oral tradition, which we have proven we must adhere to, is not valid? The point is, SandT, I adhere completely to Scripture, but I don't adhere to your personal interpretation of it, which I believe is wrong. Under sola scriptura, my interpretation is as valid as yours. How can we know our personal interpretation is correct? And furthermore, how do you know that the Bible contains the correct books? Did you know there is a Gospel of Peter? Were you aware that the book of Revelation wasn't considered "inspired" by some? How can you be sure you have the correct books and you are interpreting them correctly?

See, I can be sure I am correct. How? I have the "pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15), the Catholic Church ensuring my accuracy. Through this Church, we receive the "manifold wisdom of God" (Eph 3:8-11). You are outside of the Church reading a Bible that has been altered by a man and interpreting it by yourself (see Acts 8:30-31). I recommend you read this article explaining from the Bible the incorrect notion of sola scriptura.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 8, 2004 10:54 PM

Jay,
In Jn 5:30-40, the testimony is Scripture. Jesus even said that the Father has already testified about Him. Jesus says that you have never heard His voice nor does His word dwell in you. HE goes on to say that you study the Scriptures because you believe that through them you will have eternal life. Jesus finishes by saying that Scriptures testify about who He is.
If we are to believe that Scriptures are God inspired and are God's words, you can clearly see how Scripture is God's testimony of Christ. Scripture clearly shows that Jesus gave more credence to the Scriptures over John's testimony. Christ and His apostles gave authority to the written Word. Peter gives authority to the WRITTEN word in 2 Peter 3:16. Lastly your favorite Scripture 1 Tim 3:15.
In 1 Tim 3:14
Although I am WRITING you these INSTRUCTIONS, so that (v15) 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.

The church had WRITTEN instructions to follow. THe church serves God's will and purpose. The church is the vehicle to spread God's infallible word. Again I will simplify...
1. God and His Word
2. Church is the servant of God and His Word.

By the way Jay, Paul wrote to Timothy these instructions. Hmm...lets see, Paul wrote instructions for the church to follow. My,that sounds like the Scriptures are supporting the authority of Scripture.
A lot of ROMAN catholic doctrine is not scriptually found. The Assumption of Mary's body is an example...mind you that was established in 1950. Show me logically where Scripture supports that.
How about a rosary...why do you need that?
I could go on and on. Fortunately God left us with His word. So that if man would stray away from it, we can ALL know. Jesus finished His work and taught all that He had to teach when died at the cross. When He said IT WAS FINISHED He meant it. No new doctrine was needed. If you believe that the Vatican is 100% in line with Scripture than so be it.
I believe as Paul said...the Scriptures are INSTRUCTIONS for how the church ought to conduct itself. Most of all, I believe Christ when he says that Scriptures carry more weight as to who He is over what any man says. Do you believe this Jay?

Posted by: SandT@cctv.org at March 9, 2004 12:11 AM

It amazes me that the body of Christ has been able to function without this movie as a tool in days past. Why is it that so many defend the flawed movie instead of the perfect scripture it offends?? It presents a distorted Gospel and a weak Jesus but we should dismiss the flaws because the intent was honorable?? Mel has stated that it is a Marian movie. Mel has also said that his wife will probably go to hell because she is not Catholic. If the main character and the man who brought this movie to us have these views, is there anyway that the movie will not present more of the same?? This generation must not continue to compromise it's faith based on a movie's good intentions. We must not defend a flawed movie, we should be defending the perfect scripture it is said to represent. Mel has stated his position clearly, he is amazed that evangelicals have embraced a Marian movie. Jim Caviezel has stated that Mary made this movie for her son. Jim also stated that he carried a piece of the cross and