MORE NONSENSE ON THE WORD.
/ Re: Is the Bible God's Word? Prove it! / Newsgroup > alt.religion.apologetics / Date > 18 July 1998 /
.
] Don Reasons once wrote: It seems that Christian faith is ultimately based on belief
] that the Bible is actually and literally the WORD of GOD!
.
textman belatedly replies: Negatory on that, Don. Christian faith is not ultimately based on any belief in anything. It is based on faith in Jesus Christ the Son of Man, who laid down his life for us. It is also based on the faith-knowledge that this divine-man is forever unique and unsurpassable. He is our Lord & Savior; our Master whose unworthy slaves we try to be. He is The One Teacher whom we MUST follow. If we follow ANY other, we perish! ... So of course all this has many ramifications and great significance for how we are to think and reason and believe and act and live our lives as the Sons & Daughters of our Heavenly Father. ... Are you with me so far?
.
] One cannot say, "I have faith" in nothing.
.
Wrong again, Don. There are many who have no faith as such. They believe in nothing; except perhaps the illusions that all the World chases after (eg. things like wealth, happiness, power, beauty, pleasure, etc, and above all comfort and security). And who are these faithless unbelievers? Well, just about everyone in North America. Pagans one and all; and many of these fancy themselves Christians yet!
.
] If you say you believe in Jesus, where do you get the foundation for your belief?
.
It comes from the one place that no one ever thinks anymore to look: the Heart! ... Yes, believe it or not, one cannot think ones way to being a Christian. Nor can one willingly or unwilling take a dip in the Romish bath and be instantly 'transformed' into a 'new creature'. No indeed; for that way lies madness and spiritual destruction for sure. The Lord makes no bones about it, Don. Spiritual realities are seen with the heart's eyes; or they are not seen at all!
Check it out ...
.
] Please tell me how to prove that the Bible is actually the miraculously delivered WORD of GOD, the
] creator of the universe. I don't want trite Christian slang or lingo. How do I effeciently explain to a
] non-believer that I accept Jesus because of what the BIBLE says about him ... and I believe that the
] BIBLE is literally the WORD of GOD!?! It all boils down to the Bible!
.
>> textman previously replied: Dear Don, a True Believer does not need to PROVE that the Bible is the
>> Word of God. There's a trite saying that sums things up rather well: "God said it. I believe it. That
>> settles it!" In other words, if you humble yourself before the Sacred Scriptures, and approach the
>> text with an open heart (eg. open to the truth), then the power of the Voice of our Lord will convince
>> you of its own accord. ... So then you do not need to explain how or why the Bible is the Word. The
>> power of Truth explains itself. All you need do is to PROPERLY and effectively introduce it ... that is
>> the tricky part ... VERY! - the one who boils the Bible down to Truth & Love - textman ;>
.
> DR: OK, Textman, I will let YOU come and witness to some of the lost people
> with whom I deal every day.
.
tx: Dear Don, this is a very easy thing for you and me to do. Just download all the textman postings you can find, reformat them for printing, print them out hardcopy wise, and read them out loud to your lost souls. I can almost guarantee that sparks will fly; especially if you resist the temptation to introduce 'just a bit' of judicious editing prior to public consumption.
.
> They are not hicks. They want answers.
.
Who doesn't? Wanting answers is one thing. Having the wisdom to ask the right questions ...
ah, well; that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish!
.
> They do not have time to "humble" themselves "before the Sacred Scriptures."
.
Then they will NEVER understand the true value of the Bible.
.
> They want to know why you would even ask such a "stupid, moronic" thing of someone
> with a college education.
.
LOL ... Yes, I can certainly understand that! Give someone a college education, and they immediately become gods and goddesses unto themselves. They see all and know all! Can you teach an educated man or woman the meaning and value of humility and self-negation? ... Certainly not!
.
> They see me. They know me. But the fact that I am a "good person"
> and believing is good for me does not mean that it is good for them!
.
Oh, of course not. The reasoning is clear: You are just you (ie. other individuals are nothing and mean nothing), while *I* am **I**, and there is none so wonderful and magnificent as **I AM**!!! ... This is what happens when you fail to see EVERYONE as a brother or sister whose life is worth more to the Lord than your own.
.
> They have other things to do with their life. -- D*
.
I'll bet! Immersing one's self completely and shamelessly in spiritual realities is very low on the priorities of one and all. Indeed, to do such a 'stupid and moronic' thing is apt to earn you nothing but scorn, insult, and ridicule. Do they want nothing to do with such things? Do they have more important things to do with life than be the butt of all sadistic jokes and malicious mockery and all manner of hostility and contempt? hmmm? ... Well then, you'd bet advise them NOT to waste their time inquiring into the meaning of the Bible! ... Read them some zen koans instead.
/ Subject > Re: More Nonsense on the Word / Date > 23 July 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> kevin.beach sayeth: Jesus did not write a book.
.
tx: Dear Kevin, umm, yesss; I am aware of this actually. ... But thx for reminding us anyway. ...
Of course, this does not mean that Jesus was illiterate, or anything like that.
.
> He founded a Church. And the Church wrote the book.
.
If this means that the Holy Spirit and the inspired authors together wrote the books of the NT for the benefit of all the churches and all True Believers, then yes, I quite agree.
.
> Believing that all Christianity is in the Bible is a bit like buying a wonderful car . . .
> and then spending all your time reading the manual! -- Kevin Beach
.
I tend to agree. I am not claiming that "all Christianity is in the Bible", for the scriptures are nothing unless they find their dwelling place echoed within the hearts of Believers. In other words, we cannot properly drive this car to its intended destination unless we are throughly familar with the manual. But then, the Bible is much more than a mere manual. Rather, it is a living spiritual force shaping and directing the lives of all Christians who seek to know the voice and will of our Lord & Master & One Teacher. ... Or, as St Jerome points out, 'Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ'.
/ Subject > Re: Keys! What Keys? / Date > 31 Mar 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> textman answers: Dear Edward, *actually* Jesus gave authority for leadership to the Twelve; NOT to
>> any one man. Moreover, he did not found the church on Peter, for that would be building a castle on
>> shifting sand. Rather, He founded his church on a rock, the rock of faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son
>> of Man. It is this faith that the Romish church has replaced with faith in priests and bishops & popes.
.
> AMRowe retorts: really? then why did jesus change simons name to peter? the ROCK!!!!!
.
Well, skeetor, offhand I'd say it was to give him something to shoot for. By way of encouragement to greater efforts in that direction, as it were. ... Or it could be a just a little rhetorical joke on the Lord's part; something like pulling the goats beard. This is because the Greek word for rock is almost identical to 'Petras'. Please don't make a big deal out of nothing ... As Cats are so wont to do.
/ Subject > Re: REPLY TO TROLL / Date > 9 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
> On 7Aug98 KayJay wrote: <snip> Christ established a church, he didn't write a book. PEriod.
.
kirnercorp answers: In other words: Have faith in the Church, not in the Word of God.> My faith is Christ-centred, not "bible-based" like so many flavours claim.
In other words: the Church defines for me who and what Christ is/was. She also tells us what God expects of us, and what we are to think and do and believe. And don't you ever EVER dare to think for yourself! All this despite the fact that the Church herself once understood very clearly that ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ, But today's Catholics no longer have any need of that primitive book ... unless, of course, it is 'infallibly interpreted' for them (ie. the People of God) by those who think they are the very core and essence of the Church.
> Peter was given the keys, those keys have been passed down. <snip> -- KJ
.
Dear KJ, have you yourself seen these so-called 'keys' that you speak of? Where are they? Who has them? Are they in a box somewhere in Vatican City? If you could show me but one picture of these all-important keys, I will at once recant and convert to this bizarre religion of yours!
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / Date > 10 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> On 7Aug98 KayJay wrote: <snip> Christ established a church, he didn't write a book. PEriod.
.
> kirnercorp answered: In other words: have faith in the Church, not in the Word of God.
.
>> My faith is Christ-centred, not "bible-based" like so many flavours claim.
.
> In other words: the Church defines for me who and what Christ is/was. She also tells us what God expects
> of us, and what we are to think and do and believe. And don't you ever EVER dare to think for yourself!
> All this despite the fact that the Church herself once understood very clearly that ignorance of Scripture is
> ignorance of Christ, But today's Catholics no longer have any need of that primitive book ... unless, of
> course, it is 'infallibly interpreted' for them (ie. the People of God) by those who think they are the very
> core and essence of the Church.
.
Lee Ann Rucker replies: Questions are encouraged. Research is encouraged. I have faith in the teachings of the Church because of these things. I don't have to do the research myself. If I wanted to, I could look at all the research papers and see exactly how such interpretations were arrived at.
.
I can learn any computer language from just the spec, the existence of large numbers of books on said languages is proof that my talent is not common. I would be insufferably arrogant to insist that everyone else use just the source book - why is it so strange then that in a subject where I'm *not* an expert, I'm denigrated for relying on the research of others?
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / 10 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> On 7Aug98 KayJay wrote: <snip> Christ established a church, he didn't write a book. PEriod.
.
> On 9Aug98 kirnercorp wrote: In other words: have faith in the Church, not in the Word of God.
.
KayJay replies: *sigh* straw man. The two are not mutually exclusive. I believe the Word of God is inerrant.
Period. I also believe that Christ established a Church. Period.
.
>> My faith is Christ-centred, not "bible-based" like so many flavours claim.
.
> In other words: the Church defines for me who and what Christ is/was.
.
*sigh* oh kirnercorp, don't do this! There can actually be dialogue without flames you know..
.
> k: She also tells us what God expects of us, and what we are to think and
> do and believe. And don't you ever EVER dare to think for yourself!
.
Oh yeah..right. How charitable.
.
> All this despite the fact that the Church herself once understood very clearly that ignorance of Scripture
> is ignorance of Christ, But today's Catholics no longer have any need of that primitive book ...
.
<grin> Atchoo... did I mention I'm allergic to straw?
.
> unless, of course, it is 'infallibly interpreted' for them (ie. the People of God) by those
> who think they are the very core and essence of the Church.
.
who shall teach me? said the Ethiopian.
.
>> Peter was given the keys, those keys have been passed down. <snip> -- KJ
.
> Dear KJ, have you yourself seen these so-called 'keys' that you speak of? Where are they? Who has them?
> Are they in a box somewhere in Vatican City? If you could show me but one picture of these all-important
> keys, I will at once recant and convert to this bizarre religion of yours!
.
Oh yes, that is EXACTLY what I mean, dear boy. yes, there were these *physical* keys that Jesus had on a chain in his pocket, they were bronze actually, with a little keychain saying "I <heart> NAZARETH" on it. They are kept in a little glass safety deposit box in Rome, and when I went there on a tour I got to see them. They open the big door in the sky that leads to Heaven, dontcha know, but it was closed for renovations while I was there, so I didn't get to see the Pope do his three'o-clock opening. If you're going to be that ridiculous, then so will I. -- KJ
/ Subject: Re: Keys! What Keys? / 11 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> CB <thewaythetruthandthelife@yahoo.com> replies: <lots of snippage> It's interesting that some
> people claim to believe the bible but they have to have some one else tell them what it means.
> They say differently but their actions speak for themselves.
.
kirnercorp answers: That's for sure! And if they bother to recognize their actions as evil or sinful,
they just make haste to the nearest priest, and presto! all is forgiven. Wut a luvly system ...
.
> IOW, they don't really believe the bible.
.
That's right. Lord help them if they did! Because then they might actually read the darn thing for
what it says, rather than for what some episcopal muffinhead says it says ...
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / 11 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 10Aug98 Dooley wrote: <much snippage> If you choose to be a part of something not created
> by Jesus Christ, you have made your own bed and must now lay in it. You will reap what you sow.
.
kirnercorp replies: The RCC of Canada will surely reap what it has sown . . .
And each and every Christian in the world will suffer mightly for it!!!
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / 11 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 10Aug98 KayJay wrote: <much snippage> If you're going to be that ridiculous, then so will I.
.
kirnercorp answers: Actually, KJ, I was not being quite *that* ridiculous. My query is perfectly serious. What and where are these keys you speak of? That fact that you cleverly sidestepped the question leads to the suspicion that perhaps you yourself have no idea what you mean when you say these things. If the keys are not material keys that can be seen with the eyes, why should we believe that these mysterious, magical 'spiritual' keys actually exist. Are they not rather an epicopal fantasy, generated to 'prove' that the bishops have every right to lord it over the People of God?
.
>> On 10Aug98 KayJay wrote: <much snippage> If you're going to be that ridiculous, then so will I.
.
> kirnercorp answers: Actually, KJ, I was not being quite *that* ridiculous. My query is perfectly serious. What
> and where are these keys you speak of? That fact that you cleverly sidestepped the question leads to the
> suspicion that perhaps you yourself have no idea what you mean when you say these things. If the keys
> are not material keys that can be seen with the eyes, why should we believe that these mysterious, magical
> 'spiritual' keys actually exist. Are they not rather an epicopal fantasy, generated to 'prove' that the bishops
> have every right to lord it over the People of God?
.
Boris replies: Read Isaiah 22:22 - "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." Do you detect some similarity to Mt. 16:19 - "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." These are the "keys". They are symbolic of authority. What do these passages mean to you? -- In Christ, Boris
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / 24 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Bob McCarson wrote: CB, I believe in the Bible and I'm a Catholic, including this from 1 Timothy 3:15,
> which says that the "Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Can you please tell me where
> in the Bible it says that Scripture is all we need to base our faith on?
.
textman answers: Dear Bob, can you please tell me where in the Bible it says that 'the church' is equal to and nothing other than the Roman Catholic Church? ... btw: the scriptures do not say that the Bible is all we need to base our faith on. It does say, however, that our faith must be firmly based on the knowledge that Jesus is our Savior & Teacher. Those who base their faith on the Romish church and the lies of her corrupt priests are not only going against the teachings of scripture, but also deny the plain command of our Lord!!!
.
> BM: I believe in John 6, where Jesus tells us unless "we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood"
> we have no life in us.
.
John6 is NOT the be all and end all of biblical truth. Did not our Lord - yes, the very same one! - also say that men and women do NOT live on bread alone? ... btw: there is more magic in one contrite and humble heart than in all the sacramental 'miracles' of all the priests put together! Think about it!
.
> BM: I believe in John 20:21-23 where Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And
> when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
> the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). (CB,
> this is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being when he made man
> a living soul (Gen 2:7). It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
.
Excuse me? Are you saying that the sacrament of penance was first established sometime during Jesus' earthly ministry? Yes? Wow! This is will be bad news for the ancient Hebrews and early Jews, not to mention all the prophets up to and including John the Baptist. Perhaps you may wish to rephrase that last statement ... ?
.
> BM: I believe in Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
> in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
.
And what, pray tell, has the RCC bound and/or loosed lately?
.
> This power wasn't to be understood as coming from the Apostles (and now the priests), but as being
> from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of
> reconciliation" (2Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, " So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).
.
Paul was NOT a priest. He was a prophet!!!
.
> I could go on and on.
.
Please don't strain yourself ...
.
> All of the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the Bible,
.
And how is the absurd dogma of the Assumption "based on the Bible"?
As opposed to, 4X, the pious fantasies of addled and feverish popes.
.
> including Jesus's promise that he would send the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all the truth."
.
That's very right. It is the Holy Spirit herself who will lead US (ie. all True Believers) into all truth. He did NOT say "It will be the popes and bishops of Rome who will lead you into all truth"! Whence, then, comes this great confusion? Are you all so blinded by your uncritical and unthinking piety that you are unable to distinguish between bishops and the Holy Spirit? Or do you suppose that they are one and the same thing?!
.
> BM: You see, the reason why Catholics believe what they are told by the Church in addition to Scripture
> is that Jesus himself told us, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
> When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:12-13). This Jesus said
> to the apostles.
.
You mean that the apostles didn't have the fullness of the deposit of faith as the Church claims?
... Oh no! Better not tell the bishops!
.
> So we believe that when the Church speaks, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church.
.
The Holy Spirit is the loyal slave of the popes, is she? They keep her chained to the wall in the Vatican dungeons, perhaps?
.
> To reject the Holy Spirit is to reject Jesus.
.
Correction: to reject the Truth is to reject Jesus! To close your ears to the Lord's servants is to reject Jesus! To killfile the prophet is to reject Jesus! ... Open your hardened hearts you blind and arrogant and faithless "disciples"!
.
> It's all there in the Bible if you want to read it.
.
NONE can read the Word of God without first humbling themself.
Wash clean your hands, and approach it only with a contrite heart!
/ Re: Keys! What Keys? / 24 Aug 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] Bob McCarson wrote: CB, I believe in the Bible and I'm a Catholic, including this from 1Timothy 3:15,
] which says that the "Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Can you please tell me where
] in the Bible it says that Scripture is all we need to base our faith on?
.
>> textman replied: Dear Bob, can you please tell me where in the Bible it says that 'the church'
>> is equal to and nothing other than the Roman Catholic Church? ...
.
> Edward Thorne replies: Jesus gave authority to Peter, and then to the APostles.
> Jesus founded his church on Peter.
.
textman answers: Dear Edward, *actually* Jesus gave authority for leadership to the Twelve; NOT to any one man. Moreover, he did not found the church on Peter, for that would be building a castle on shifting sand. Rather, He founded his church on a rock, the rock of faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of Man. It is this faith that the Romish church has replaced with faith in priests and bishops and popes.
.
> Jesus gave the Apostles the power to teach with divine authority.
.
Well, if this is what is meant by the keys, then I must surely agree. However, if this is at once taken to mean that popes and bishops teach with divine authority and approval (because they are the alleged successors of the apostles), then I must object; for it the Holy Spirit that decides who shall be sent. But in the lying and apostate Romish church, it is priests who decide that only priests shall be sent.
.
> The Apostles exercised governance over the whole church right from the very beginning. Peter's lawful
> successors exercised authority over the whole church, right from the very beginning.
.
Really? Then how do you account for St Paul, who was NOT a "lawful successor" of Peter in any way, but was an apostle *only* because he was called to be such by the Lord directly. If we accept that Paul is an apostle, then we must at once recognize the concept of "lawful successors" for what it truly is: a bald-faced LIE!
.
> The Roman Catholic church of today is a continuum with the NT church, without a single break.
.
No. The Romish church has nothing whatsoever in common with the early Greek churches that gave us the sacred scriptures. The Roman Catholic church of today is a continuum with the pagan Roman Empire, just as the pope is the successor of the pagan Emperor Constantine.
.
> ET: No other church can make that statement.
.
This is yet another lie. It is the Orthodox churches of the East that can rightly claim to be in continuum with the early Greek NT churches.
.
> The Eastern churches are schismatic; the Protestant churches are human artifacts, of very recent origin.
.
Still more pathetic lies. It was the Romish church that deliberately and maliciously caused the break with the Eastern churches by heaping insult and abuse upon their faith. In the same way, the Protestant churches were born of spirit-led men who could no longer stomach the greed, avarice, gluttony, vice, madness, and perversion of the Romish priests, bishops, and popes.
.
>> tx: btw: the scriptures do not say that the Bible is all we need to base our faith on. It does say,
>> however, that our faith must be firmly based on the knowledge that Jesus is our Savior & Teacher.
.
> ET: And that knowledge is mediated to us by the Apostles and their lawful successors.
.
tx: No. That knowledge is mediated to us by the Word of God. The only knowledge mediated to us by priestcraft is that salvation depends entirely on zealously kissing the priestly buttocks often and with great affection!
.
>> Those who base their faith on the Romish church and the lies of her corrupt priests are not only
>> going against the teachings of scripture, but also deny the plain command of our Lord!!!
.
> You have it exactly backwards.
.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Nothing is said about the necessity of priestcraft here.
.
] BM: I believe in John 6, where Jesus tells us unless "we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood"
] we have no life in us.
.
>> tx: John6 is NOT the be all and end all of biblical truth.
.
> ET: Hmmnn ... here is what Jesus says, and I paraphrase: He who eats my flesh and drinks my
> blood abides in me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.
.
tx: Oh yeah? And when was the last time you drank the blood of a 2000 year old dead man, eh?
As opposed to magically transmogrified wine, I mean?
.
> That may not be all of biblical truth, but it certainly is not one that I want to ignore. Nor did the early
> Christians. They believed just as we do, that in the mass, the bread and wine become the body and
> blood of Christ.
.
Symbolic of the Body & Blood, to be sure. Or, if you will, the elements become sacred owing to the presence of the spiritual reality of Christ in the assembly: "Do this in remembrance of me ..."
.
> If you want to be one with the early Christians, you should believe as they do.
.
For the most part, I do. But the early Believers were not infallible. They were wrong in some of their beliefs and theologies, and nothing is gained by continuing in their errors as if they were not errors.
.
> After all, what they believe was taught to them by the Apostles.
> They are the earliest witnesses to the church at work.
.
Yes, but neither were the apostles infallible. Even Peter and Paul made their share of mistakes.
They did not claim to be infallible. Who then is arrogant enough to suppose that he is infallible today?
.
>> tx: Did not our Lord - yes, the very same one! - also say that men and women do NOT live on bread
>> alone? ... btw: there is more magic in one contrite and humble heart than in all the sacramental
>> 'miracles' of all the priests put together! Think about it!
.
] BM: I believe in John 20:21-23 where Jesus says, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And
] when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive
] the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John 20:21-23). (CB,
] this is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being when he made man
] a living soul (Gen 2:7). It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)
.
>> tx: Excuse me? Are you saying that the sacrament of penance was first established sometime during
>> Jesus' earthly ministry? Yes? Wow! This will be bad news for the ancient Hebrews and early Jews, not
>> to mention all the prophets up to and including John the Baptist. Perhaps you may wish to rephrase
>> that last statement?
.
> ET: Yes, that is exactly what he is saying; he did it on Easter sunday.
.
tx: Christ established the sacrament of penance on Easter Sunday, you say? I think you are confused, sir.
That's not what the above quote says. Got any more proof texts on this, perhaps?
.
] BM: I believe in Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
] and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
.
>> tx: And what, pray tell, has the RCC bound and/or loosed lately?
.
> ET: Well, it prohibits abortion, artificial contraception, enjoins more practical love for the poor:
> these are but a few examples.
.
tx: I see. And if liturgical-lesbians obey the prohibitions on abortion and contraception, I guess that means that they are good and faithful disciples pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, eh?
.
] BM: This power wasn't to be understood as coming from the Apostles (and now the priests), but as being
] from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of
] reconciliation" (2Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20).
.
>> tx: Paul was NOT a priest. He was a prophet!!!
.
> ET: Well, he was a indeed a priest.
.
tx: Well, only a fool of extreme proportions would believe that! It's pure anachronism.
The Romish priesthood was a long way in the future in Paul's day.
.
] BM: All of the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the Bible,
.
>> tx: And how is the absurd dogma of the Assumption "based on the Bible"?
>> As opposed to, 4X, the pious fantasies of addled and feverish popes.
.
> ET: Well, it was believed by the early Christians.
.
tx: What was? The Assumption, you mean? Obviously you know nothing about the beliefs and practices of the early Believers.
.
] BM: including Jesus's promise that he would send the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all the truth."
.
>> tx: That's very right. It is the Holy Spirit herself who will lead US (ie. all True Believers) into all truth.
>> He did NOT say "It will be the popes and bishops of Rome who will lead you into all truth"!
.
> ET: No, but Jesus did say that the Holy SPirit would come to the Apostles to teach, and the
> Holy SPirit still does that today.
.
tx: Indeed she does! She comes to the apostles and prophets who love Her, and obey the righteous commands of the Lord. She does NOT come to 'effeminate appeasers' (ie. bishops) because Paul made it clear that such creatures will NOT inherit the Kingdom: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit God's Kingdom? Do not be deceived! Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate appeasers [ie. post-modern Roman Catholic priests and bishops], nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God ..." [1Corinthians 6:9-10 / Prophet Version]
.
>> tx: Whence, then, comes this great confusion? Are you all so blinded by your uncritical and
>> unthinking piety that you are unable to distinguish between bishops and the Holy Spirit?
>> Or do you suppose that they are one and the same thing?!
.
> ET: The Holy Spirit dwells in the church like a soul in a body, preserving the church from teaching error.
.
tx: No, again you are wrong. The Holy Spirit dwells only in True Believers (who together *are* the true church of God). She does not dwell in steeple-houses (as George Fox called them); nor does She have anything to do with perverted and apostate churches; nor all those bloated on their own arrogance and vanity ...
.
] BM: You see, the reason why Catholics believe what they are told by the Church in addition to Scripture
] is that Jesus himself told us, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:12-13). This Jesus said
] to the apostles.
.
>> tx: You mean that the apostles didn't have the fullness of the deposit of faith as the Church claims?
>> ... Oh no! Better not tell the bishops!
.
> ET: Why do you twist scripture?
.
tx: I do not twist them in any way. It is the priestly perspective on all things that twists and distorts the scriptures so as to serve the needs of priestcraft. She will guide us into all truth, oh yes; but only if you have the eyes to see it (ie. the eyes of faith) ... and the believing heart open to accept it.
.
] BM: So we believe that when the Church speaks, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church.
.
>> tx: The Holy Spirit is the loyal slave of the popes, is she? They keep her chained to the wall in the
>> Vatican dungeons, perhaps?
.
> ET: You have it exactly backwards.
.
tx: Wut? The bishops are the slaves of the Spirit are they? Is that why they fancy themselves to have a higher authority than the Word of God? Is that why they lord it over the scriptures, being their master and tyrant? I guess that their arrogance is inspired of the Spirit then, eh? ... Maybe on Fantasy Island (which is where most Cats dwell), but not in the real world, pal!
.
] BM: To reject the Holy Spirit is to reject Jesus.
.
>> tx: Correction: to reject the Truth is to reject Jesus!
.
> ET: Let's try that again: to reject the Apostles is to reject Jesus; to reject Jesus is to reject
> the Father. Therefore, we listen to those whom Jesus sent.
.
tx: Jesus did not send these episcopal muffinheads. They are of their father, being of the same essence and substance as he. Hence they are loyal sons of he who is rightly called 'The Father of Lies'; who was a murderer from the very beginning!
.
>> tx: To close your ears to the Lord's servants is to reject Jesus!
.
> ET: Yes, that is why we listen to the Apostles & their lawful successors.
.
tx: If you listened to the apostles and prophets whom the Lord sends to you today, you would recognize the truth when it comes before you. But your minds are darkened by the illusions and delusions of the corrupt and depraved church of Satan, such that you take lies for truth, and the truth for lies.
.
>> tx: To killfile the prophet is to reject Jesus! ...
.
> ET: That is right. Our hearts are always open to what those whom Jesus sent have to say. Since they
> are preserved by the Holy Spirit from teaching us wrongly, we listen and believe what they have to say.
.
tx: Then why do harden your heart against me? Why do you close your ears?
.
>> Open your hardened hearts you blind and arrogant and faithless "disciples"!
.
> Aren't you being just a teensy weensy judgemental? [snip] -- Ed
.
Hey, judging is what prophets do best. Check it out.
.
] BM: It's all there in the Bible if you want to read it.
.
You can read it all you like; but without a humble and contrite heart open to receive the truth, it will avail you nothing at all. Thus atheists and agnostics and catholics read and read and read the scriptures ... and yet understand nothing of what they see! For they receive the Word with their eyes and mind (whence it soon dribbles away), whereas True Believers receive the Word within their hearts (where it dwells for a long long time) ... Moreover, if you had understanding, and if you had the love for the Word of God that you all claim to have, then you would fear the words of the prophet John who warns us of this very same RCC which he correctly identifies as the Mother of Whores (being also drunk on the blood of the witnesses of Christ Jesus)!
/ Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / Subject > Re: Keys! What Keys? / 24 Aug 1998 /
] Bob McCarson wrote: CB, I believe in the Bible and I'm a Catholic, including this from 1Timothy 3:15,
] which says that the "Church is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Can you please tell me where
] in the Bible it says that Scripture is all we need to base our faith on?
.
>> textman previously answered: Dear Bob, can you please tell me where in the Bible it says
>> that 'the church' is equal to and nothing other than the Roman Catholic Church? ...
.
> Edward Thorne replies: Jesus gave authority to Peter, and then to the APostles.
> Jesus founded his church on Peter.
.
No. Actually, he founded his church on faith in the Son of Man. Read the whole passage.
.
> Jesus gave the Apostles the power to teach with divine authority. The Apostles exercised governance
> over the whole church right from the very beginning. Peter's lawful successors exercised authority over
> the whole church, right from the very beginning.
.
Really? Then how do explain the fact that James (Joshua's brother in the flesh) was the leader of the Aramaic church in Jerusalem? He was not an apostle, and only joined the movement after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And what about Paul, for that matter? He did not even see Jesus in the flesh, and most certainly did not derive his authority to preach the Word from the apostles. Nor are these two the only exceptions. No, I'm afraid your entire argument is based more on sheer fantasy than on anything that actually happened.
.
> The Roman Catholic church of today is a continuum with the NT church, without a single break.
.
"Without a single break" you say? What about the three centuries between Christ and Constantine? That's a rather serious break there. What about the great schism between the East and West? Another rather serious break. Wut about the anti-popes, and those times when there were two or even three popes? But besides all that, the post-modern Woman Catholic Church of Canada bears as much resemblance to the early (ie. New Testament period) Greek churches as a pebble resembles the moon (ie. none at all)!
.
> No other church can make that statement.
.
The Eastern Orthodox Greek churches have a far far better claim on continuity than the Roman church does!
.
> The Eastern churches are schismatic;
.
LOL ... It takes two to tango, two to make love, and two to schism. Indeed, it was the unbelievable arrogance of the Pope that pushed that fiasco beyond the breaking point. This statement of yours clearly demonstrates that you have NO knowledge of church history whatsoever!
.
> the Protestant churches are human artifacts, of very recent origin.
.
The Protestant churches are the result of the Holy Spirit at work in men of conscience. Men who could clearly see the corruption of a depraved and mammon-worshipping church. A church that cared more for cathedrals and the glory of popes than for humble believers who were not Italian. If you want to blame anyone for the Protestant Reformation, blame the bloated and self-serving popes and bishops!
.
>> tx: btw: the scriptures do not say that the Bible is all we need to base our faith on. It does say,
>> however, that our faith must be firmly based on the knowledge that Jesus is our Savior & Teacher.
.
> ET: And that knowledge is mediated to us by the Apostles and their lawful successors.
.
Wrong again, Edward. That knowledge is mediated to us by the Word of God! ... Wut? Divine Revelation is not good enough for you? You require something more, perhaps? You require the authority of vain and arrogant men; because the very Voice of our Lord is insufficient?!
.
>> tx: Those who base their faith on the Romish church and the lies of her corrupt priests are not
>> only going against the teachings of scripture, but also deny the plain command of our Lord!!!
.
> You have it exactly backwards.
.
I have no idea what you mean by this. Please clarify?
.
] BM: I believe in John 6, where Jesus tells us unless "we eat of his flesh and drink of his blood"
] we have no life in us.
.
>> tx: John6 is NOT the be all and end all of biblical truth.
.
> ET: Hmmnn ...here is what Jesus says, and I paraphrase: He who eats my flesh and drinks my
> blood abides in me and I in him and I will raise him up on the last day.
.
Actually, that's a paraphrase of the words of the evangelist who wrote the fourth gospel. HIS words, which he placed in the mouth of the Lord. In no sense can they be taken as the literal actual words spoken by Jesus himself during his public ministry. To get those, you must go to the first and still greatest gospel (ie. Mark).
.
> That may not be all of biblical truth, but it certainly is not one that I want to ignore.
.
It might better for everyone if you did!
.
> Nor did the early Christians. They believed just as we do, that in the mass, the bread and wine
> become the body and blood of Christ.
.
Sure; in a symbolic and spiritual sense. The key idea then was that of remembrance, not transubstantiation.
.
> If you want to be one with the early Christians, you should believe as they do.
.
Great idea there, pal! I couldn't agree with you more. The obvious errors aside (4X: immediate Parousia) we SHOULD make every effort to recover the original faith of the early Greek churches (for they are the ones who gave us the New Testament documents)!
.
> After all, what they believe was taught to them by the Apostles. They are the earliest witnesses
> to the church at work.
.
Just so. Now go tell it to the wayward churches of Canada ...
.
<snip a bit>
.
] BM: I believe in Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
] in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
.
>> tx: And what, pray tell, has the RCC bound and/or loosed lately?
.
> ET: Well, it prohibits abortion, artificial contraception, enjoins more practical love for the poor:
> these are but a few examples.
.
"more practical love for the poor" ... HA! What a laugh. The Church makes pious noises about sharing the wealth with the poor, but DOES nothing to achieve this goal, because the corrupt governments she sleeps with would not tolerate it. You may rest assured that this dishonest Church will never EVER do anything to upset the rich, for it is the wealthy and powerful ones of this World that this Church serves first, last, and always! ... The prophet is NOT impressed with meaningless documents designed solely to soothe the fury of the oppressed!!!
.
] BM: This power wasn't to be understood as coming from the Apostles (and now the priests), but as
] being from God: "All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the
] ministry of reconciliation" (2Cor. 5:18). Indeed, confirms Paul, "So we are ambassadors for Christ"
] (2 Cor. 5:20).
.
>> tx: But Paulos was NOT a priest. He was a prophet!
.
> ET: Well, he was indeed a priest.
.
tx: Really? And do you have any evidence from his authentic epistles to support this outrageous claim? The evidence I've seen suggests that Paul was reluctant even to baptize his converts. Nor are his criticisms of the Eucharist very 'priestly'. So what do you base this notion on, eh?
.
] BM: <snip> All of the teachings of the Catholic Church are based on the Bible,
.
>> tx: And how is the absurd dogma of the Assumption "based on the Bible"?
>> As opposed to, 4X, the pious fantasies of addled and feverish popes.
.
> ET: Well, it was believed by the early Christians.
.
Mary's Assumption into Heaven was believed by the early Christians, you say? Care to show me some evidence to that effect? Some brief snippet from some early document indicating this belief would be greatly appreciated!
.
] BM: including Jesus's promise that he would send the Holy Spirit "who will lead you into all the truth."
.
>> tx: That's very right. It is the Holy Spirit herself who will lead US (ie. all True Believers) into all
>> truth. He did NOT say "It will be the popes and bishops of Rome who will lead you into all truth"!
.
> ET: No, but Jesus did say that the Holy SPirit would come to the Apostles to teach,
> and the Holy SPirit still does that today.
.
My Dear Edward, according to Luke's account of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descended with power on thousands of believers! Surely you don't mean to suggest that all of them were bishops?!
.
>> tx: Whence, then, comes this great confusion? Are you all so blinded by your uncritical and unthinking
>> piety that you are unable to distinguish between bishops and the Holy Spirit? Or do you suppose that
>> they are one and the same thing?!
.
> ET: The Holy Spirit dwells in the church like a soul in a body, preserving the church from teaching error.
.
The church has always taught errors as well as the truth. There is nothing wrong with this. Revelation has always been progressive, evolving, and self-correcting. It is only arrogance and vanity that leads people to say that the church has never been in error about anything. Do you want me to compose a list for you? Here's one brief and minor error to consider: at one point the church taught that the Latin Vulgate was THE one and only and perfect and eternal translation. Every word being straight from the mouth of God, as it were.How many people do you know who read the Vulgate?
.
] BM: You see, the reason why Catholics believe what they are told by the Church in addition to Scripture
] is that Jesus himself told us, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:12-13). This Jesus said to
] the apostles.
.
>> tx: You mean that the apostles didn't have the fullness of the deposit of faith as the Church claims?
>> ... Oh no! Better not tell the bishops!
.
> ET: Why do you twist scripture?
.
I'm sure I don't know what you mean. It is the bishops and theologians who twist scripture to suit their own twisted designs and purposes. That is, to the end of idolizing "the Church" ... when all true Christians know that apart from concrete individual True Believers there is no such thing as "the Church".
.
] BM: So we believe that when the Church speaks, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church.
.
>> tx: The Holy Spirit is the loyal slave of the popes, is she? They keep her chained to the wall
>> in the Vatican dungeons, perhaps?
.
> ET: You have it exactly backwards.
.
Again, I don't know what you mean. Please clarify? ... Oh, you mean that the popes and bishops serve the Holy Spirit. Is that it? Yes, I see that they serve the Holy Spirit the same way that they serve the scriptures. That is, they use both in the service of the glorification of popes and bishops!
.
] BM: To reject the Holy Spirit is to reject Jesus.
.
>> tx: Correction: to reject the Truth is to reject Jesus!
.
> Let's try that again: to reject the Apostles is to reject Jesus; to reject Jesus is to reject the Father.
.
Quite right.
.
> ET: Therefore, we listen to those whom Jesus sent.
.
No you don't! You listen to those who fancy themselves the most superior of all human beings. You listen to those who excel in vanity and lies and treachery and arrogance and deception and, above all, Friendship with the World!
.
>> To close your ears to the Lord's servants is to reject Jesus!
.
> Yes, that is why we listen to the Apostles and their lawful successors.
.
LOL ... Sure you do.
.
>> To killfile the prophet is to reject Jesus! ...
.
> That is right.
.
Huh? I don't think you really mean to say this! I'm talking about myself here, don't ya'know ...
.
> Our hearts are always open to what those whom Jesus sent have to say. Since they are preserved
> by the Holy Spirit from teaching us wrongly, we listen and believe what they have to say.
.
You believe what *I* say? One would never guess this judging from your comments so far.
.
>> tx: Open your hardened hearts you blind and arrogant and faithless "disciples"!
.
> ET: Aren't you being just a teensy weensy judgemental?
.
tx: Yes; just a teensy. But that's what prophets are for . . . Or haven't you heard?