Romanist Mary-Idolatry !
The DataRat
"Immaculate Conception says she was
born without original sin"
God's Word contradicts your heresy:
"There is none righteous, no,
not one" (Romans 3:10 NKJ)
"If Thou, Lord, shouldst mark
iniquities, O 'Lord, who could
stand ?" (Psalm 130:3 NASB)
"All have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God" (Romans
3:23 NASB, NKJ)
Romanism ISN'T
Christian, It's
Pagan Idolatry !
The DataRat
George Williams
writes:
>
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, It's
> Pagan Idolatry !
>
> The DataRat
You have announced that Catholicism is pagan for trying to resolve the
stupid problems of Trinitarian theology.
Teachings:
All men are evil by birth..
Men need a sacrifice to be made whole.
Only a perfect and sinless sacrifice is acceptable.
No man is an acceptable sacrifice in kind because all men are evil.
God sacrificed himself so that man would have a perfect sacrifice.
God made himself a man in order to be that sacrifice in kind.
In order to be a man, he had to be born like other men.
That is the galloping contradiction here that led to Docetism in the early
days. If God (Jesus) is born as a man, born of a woman, then Jesus is fully
divine (being God), and irredeemably evil (being man).
The doctrine of the immaculate conception merely shows how stupidly
self-contradictory the proposition of Trinitarianism actually is.
The resolution is just as bad--if Mary could be conceived by sexual
intercourse and still be free from sin, then all of the rest of us could be,
and so could Jesus. So the immaculate conception does not save the virgin
birth, it utterly and totally destroys it. And without the immaculate
conception it was a disaster anyway, because a man born of a fallen woman could
not be sinless, according to the teachings of the trinitarian cult.
I know the Tanners like to pose questions such as "If families are
together eternally in heaven, where do the in-laws live?"
They avoid questions that relate to the contradictions that cut to the
very heart of Trinitarianism because (surprise!) they are Trinitarians. Imagine
that. I think you have the same problem, Ratso. If the Tanners ever question
why a sinful woman (and virgins have to pray for forgiveness of original sin)
can provide half the genomes for a sinless divine being, I will be very
surprised.
Your theology says that you are evil from birth, Ratso, and since your
mechanism of redemption is self-contradictory, it is safe to say that it does
not exist.
Check with Calvin on what happens to the irredeemably evil.
Raleigh
* If you wake up and find me driving, you'll know you're in trouble
--Major Don West
PatentWorm
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A35C909...@home.com...
>
>
> "Immaculate Conception says she was
> born without original sin"
Who cares? The doctrine of original sin is false doctrine. Hence, we are
all the Immaculate Conception and the Catholics have it partly right.
Micah Burke
> > born without original sin"
>
> Who cares? The doctrine of original sin is false doctrine. Hence, we are
> all the Immaculate Conception and the Catholics have it partly right.
<giggle> The doctrine of original sin is found throughout
scripture. Neither you nor your popes can remove it.
Micah
bam
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> <giggle> The doctrine of original sin is found throughout
> scripture. Neither you nor your popes can remove it.
Very true. But God can remove it; and in a singular act of grace, Mary, the
Mother of God was conceived without sin.
BAM
Jim Allison
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dJPZ5.9638$Y61.1...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
No, you're thinking about that INXS Song "Original Sin" Good tune, do'nt
get me wrong, I love INXS, but it isn't scripture.
Bob Cross
"bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:t3go2jk...@corp.supernews.com...
Bob
Bob Cross
"Jim Allison" <alli...@home.com> wrote in message
news:1n3_5.146813$hD4.36...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
This is scripture:
1 CORINTHIANS 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Bob
Micah Burke
> > scripture. Neither you nor your popes can remove it.
> >
>
> get me wrong, I love INXS, but it isn't scripture.
No, I'm sure I'm talking scripture here.
1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Romans 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through
that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
George Williams
wrote:
>
>This is scripture:
>1 CORINTHIANS 15:22
> For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
>Romans 3:23
>For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
>Bob
The doctrine of the immaculate conception came about because Christians who
had been educated realized that if all human beings have the taint of original
sin, Jesus would not have been free from it either, if he had a human mother.
The immaculate conception is an attempt to fix contradictions in orthodox
doctrine. It doesn't work. Orthodox doctrine is unrepairable.
Patent_Worm
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dJPZ5.9638$Y61.1...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
Tee hee, sorry. Children are born innocent. Christ told his followers to
become as little children. Kinda weird to exhort adults to be child-like if
they are actually sinners just adults. Maybe you should think before
engaging mouth (or keyboard).
Patent_Worm
We are all conceived without sin.
Patent_Worm
"Bob Cross" <bob...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91aipq$9hk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Sorry Bob. Have to call you on that one. Children are born innocent.
Patent_Worm
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > <giggle> The doctrine of original sin is found throughout
> > > scripture. Neither you nor your popes can remove it.
> > >
> >
> > No, you're thinking about that INXS Song "Original Sin" Good tune,
do'nt
> > get me wrong, I love INXS, but it isn't scripture.
>
> No, I'm sure I'm talking scripture here.
>
> 1 Corinthians 15:22
> For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.>
And that supports your contention of original sin how?
> Romans 5:17
> For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through
> that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
> abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
> reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
>
Ditto.
Micah Burke
> > For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.>
>
> And that supports your contention of original sin how?
THE ENTRANCE OF this disease or sickness which brought with it the penalty
of physical mortality as well as an inheritable predisposition to sinful
behavior, is recorded in Genesis 2:8-17 and Genesis 3:1-24. First, we are
told that Adam, after being formed of the dust of the ground was placed in a
garden paradise in which two trees were singled out for special attention.
No prohibition was attached to one tree, the Tree of Life, until after the
Fall. The fruit of the other tree was forbidden, it being expressly stated
that in the day Adam and Eve ate of it they would die. The penalty is set
forth in the Hebrew in a way different from English. In the Authorized
Version it is rendered, "Thou shalt surely die"; in the original it is more
literally, "Dying, thou shalt die." This arrangement of the wording may be
intended to emphasize the penalty of disobedience, but it is also possible
that it would be best rendered into English as "Thou shalt begin to die."
Whatever may be the precise meaning, the end result is clear. Eating the
fruit, introduced into man's body some toxic substance which disturbed its
operation and ultimately brought him to the grave...
What began as a fatal poisoning of the human body has become a fatal
poisoning of the human spirit. This tragic spiritual sickness which brings
to nought all human aspirations after holiness, has been termed "Original
Sin."
> > Romans 5:17
> > For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through
> > that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
> > abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
> > reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
J. C. Jones rightly pointed out that the only thing of importance to the
rest of humanity in Adam's behavior was this one single offense; of the rest
of his life we know virtually nothing and may suppose that the silence of
Scripture is intentional. Jones said: (14)
St. Paul traces the stream of human evil to its fountainhead in the "one
offense" of the "one man." The "one offense," of course, was the partaking
of the forbidden fruit. The subsequent offenses of Adam are not referred to
at all, either by Moses in his narrative or by Paul in his commentary
thereon. Evidently, then, the other offenses were private concerning no one
but the individual Adam--they do not concern us at all, nor had they any
influence in determining the course of history.
But the "one offense" concerns us as much as it concerned him; it brought
sin upon us and death, and all our woe. It is the one hinge on which the
destiny of the race hung. Without contradiction that "one offense" of that
"one man" bears a closer relation to posterity than any of Adam's other
sins.
From: http://custance.org/man/7ch1.html
Arthur C. Custance
Micah Burke
Contrary to scripture:
Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from
the time my mother conceived me.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time
of Adam to the time of Moses, *even over those who did
not sin by breaking a command*, as did Adam, who was
a pattern of the one to come.
> Christ told his followers to become as little children.
In humility, not in sinlessness.
Matthew 18:2-4
He called a little child and had him stand among them.
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and
become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom
of heaven.
Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the
greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
> Kinda weird to exhort adults to be child-like if
> they are actually sinners just adults. Maybe you should
> think before engaging mouth (or keyboard).
Children believe much easier than adults, in their
humilty they can understand the simplicity of the
gospel. Christ NEVER said that children were sinless.
Job 8:4
When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to
the penalty of their sin.
*IF* it were as you say, then children wouldn't need
salvation and somehow could stay in the condition
they were conceived in, but clearly that's not what
scripture states:
Romans 3:22-24
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus
Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have
sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely
by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because
all sinned--
Reverend Phlegm
Patent_Worm wrote:
Y'mean like King David who "was conceived in iniquity and came forth from the
womb speaking lies"?
Reverend Phlegm
Patent_Worm wrote:
>
> Sorry Bob. Have to call you on that one. Children are born innocent.
> Christ told his followers to become as little children. Kinda weird to
> exhort adults to be child-like if they are actually sinners just adults.
Maybe you are hinking about Genesis 8:21 Where "The imagination of Man's heart
is evil from his youth".
Or is it Psalm 58:3-- "The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their
birth, speaking lies."
George Williams
wrote:
>> Tee hee, sorry. Children are born innocent.
>
>Contrary to scripture:
>
>Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from
>the time my mother conceived me.
Yes. That is the problem with the supposed equality of Jesus with Jehovah
Elohim of the Old Testament. How does a sinful woman, born in sin, give birth
to a sinless God, even if by parthenogenesis. The scripture you quote says that
Jesus cannot be without sin, and cannot be a sacrifice for our sins, being born
under the ban himself.
The notion of Jesus not as divine, but as God Himself is one of those
things "added" silently to the teachings of the Bible. For a person who seems
to object to scriptural additions with such agility, how is it that you cannot
see the meaning of the very verse you quote which are actually against
everything you believe in?
Raleigh.
Pied Piper
the doctrines of the Apostles.
Pax
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dJPZ5.9638$Y61.1...@e420r-sjo2.usenetserver.com...
bam
"Bob Cross" <bob...@my-deja.com> wrote
> On what scripture do you base this statement?
> Bob
"Hail Mary, full of grace."
BAM
PatentWorm
Reverend Phlegm <Phl...@parsonage.com> wrote in message
news:3A3964E4...@parsonage.com...
>
>
> Patent_Worm wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry Bob. Have to call you on that one. Children are born innocent.
> > Christ told his followers to become as little children. Kinda weird to
> > exhort adults to be child-like if they are actually sinners just adults.
>
> Maybe you are hinking about Genesis 8:21 Where "The imagination of Man's
heart
> is evil from his youth".>
"youth". Look it up in the dictionary. Refers mainly to teenagers. A
person in infancy is not referred to as being "in his youth".
>
> Or is it Psalm 58:3-- "The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from
their
> birth, speaking lies.">
"The wicked go astray"? And this helps your argument how? Says nothing
about the righteous here.
PatentWorm
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > 1 Corinthians 15:22
> > > For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.>
> >
> > And that supports your contention of original sin how?
>
> THE ENTRANCE OF this disease or sickness which brought with it the penalty
> of physical mortality as well as an inheritable predisposition to sinful
> behavior, is recorded in Genesis 2:8-17 and Genesis 3:1-24.>
"predisposition" is not the same as inherently programmed to do so. That is
part of man's test. To seek obedience to God's laws over the natural man.
> First, we are
> told that Adam, after being formed of the dust of the ground was placed in
a
> garden paradise in which two trees were singled out for special attention.
> No prohibition was attached to one tree, the Tree of Life, until after the
> Fall. The fruit of the other tree was forbidden, it being expressly stated
> that in the day Adam and Eve ate of it they would die. The penalty is set
> forth in the Hebrew in a way different from English. In the Authorized
> Version it is rendered, "Thou shalt surely die"; in the original it is
more
> literally, "Dying, thou shalt die." This arrangement of the wording may be
> intended to emphasize the penalty of disobedience, but it is also possible
> that it would be best rendered into English as "Thou shalt begin to die."
> Whatever may be the precise meaning, the end result is clear. Eating the
> fruit, introduced into man's body some toxic substance which disturbed its
> operation and ultimately brought him to the grave...>
Thanks for the Bible lesson. Until now I didn't know anything about Adam,
Eve, the forbidden fruit, the Tree of Life, the serpent, or Eden. I am now
enlightened.
>
> What began as a fatal poisoning of the human body has become a fatal
> poisoning of the human spirit.>
And you find this in Genesis where?
> This tragic spiritual sickness which brings
> to nought all human aspirations after holiness, has been termed "Original
> Sin.">
So, are babies who die before they can accept Jesus condemned to hell
because they are naturally sinners? What about societies that have never
heard of Jesus? What about crazy people who do not have normal mental
faculties? Please answer. Do not ignore or snip.
> > > Romans 5:17
> > > For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through
> > > that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
> > > abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
> > > reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
>
> J. C. Jones rightly pointed out that the only thing of importance to the
> rest of humanity in Adam's behavior was this one single offense; of the
rest
> of his life we know virtually nothing and may suppose that the silence of
> Scripture is intentional. Jones said: (14)>
<snip>
Sorry, I cannot find the Book of Jones in the Bible.
PatentWorm
Micah Burke <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Tee hee, sorry. Children are born innocent.
>
> Contrary to scripture:
>
> Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from
> the time my mother conceived me.>
Poetic device during the contrition of repentence for David's heinous sins.
Doubtfully literal revelation from God concerning all mankind.
>
> Romans 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time
> of Adam to the time of Moses, *even over those who did
> not sin by breaking a command*, as did Adam, who was
> a pattern of the one to come.>
I will grant you that all humans are mortal. To make the leap to inherently
reprobate is not logical from the passage you quote.
>
> > Christ told his followers to become as little children.
>
> In humility, not in sinlessness.>
Both.
>
> Matthew 18:2-4
> He called a little child and had him stand among them.
> And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and
> become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom
> of heaven.
> Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the
> greatest in the kingdom of heaven.>
Is the act of humbling oneself not a work required to enter into Heaven?
Seems clear to me that a person cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven
without making the affirmative effort to become humble. Why then are people
complaining that works are evil, etc. I just don't see this from the
teachings of Jesus.
In fact, the Bible clearly teaches:
James 2:14-26:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled;
notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body;
what doth it profit?
17 **Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.**
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith
without thy works, and ***I will shew thee my faith by my works***.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also
believe, and tremble. 20 ***But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith
without works is dead?****
21 Was not Abraham our father **justified by works**, when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 **Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith
made perfect**? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham
believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was
called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that **by works a man is justified, and not by faith
only**.
25 Likewise also **was not Rahab the harlot justified by works**, when she
had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so **faith without works is
dead also**.
>
> > Kinda weird to exhort adults to be child-like if
> > they are actually sinners just adults. Maybe you should
> > think before engaging mouth (or keyboard).
>
> Children believe much easier than adults, in their
> humilty they can understand the simplicity of the
> gospel. Christ NEVER said that children were sinless.>
He more likely implied that than that children were inherently sinful.
> Job 8:4
> When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to
> the penalty of their sin.>
Out of context.
>
> *IF* it were as you say, then children wouldn't need
> salvation and somehow could stay in the condition
> they were conceived in, but clearly that's not what
> scripture states:>
Then what of little chilren who die as infants? Are they damned if they
didn't accept Jesus as their personal savior at age 2?
>
> Romans 3:22-24
> This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus
> Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have
> sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely
> by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.>
Just because all "have sinned" is completely different from all are
continuously sinning and incapable of following God. Peter sinned but was
still capable of repenting and following Jesus.
>
> Romans 5:12
> Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and
> death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because
> all sinned-->
Not until a person is old enough to know what he is doing. Little children
are incapable of sinner and are not morally responsible for their actions.
Are you saying a child who dies in a car wreck as an infant is damned
because born in sin? Proposterous.
PatentWorm
And this was said by whom in what context? Oh David himself? Not an
exageration for poetic effect? You believe that David was literally
speaking lies at the moment he was born rather than merely screaming and
serching for a nipple to suck. You crack me up. Goes to show you that one
cannot take poetic devices as literal truth. Clearly David couldn't speak
at age 1 minute.
Adam Leinss
Wrong.
Luke 1:46-47:
"And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
God my Savior""
Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
Adam
---
"They think it strange that you do not plunge with them
into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse
on you." (1 Peter 4:4)
Corky
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 00:56:10 -0500, "bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> >
> >> <giggle> The doctrine of original sin is found throughout
> >> scripture. Neither you nor your popes can remove it.
> >
> >
> >Very true. But God can remove it; and in a singular act of grace, Mary, the
> >Mother of God was conceived without sin.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Luke 1:46-47:
>
> "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
> God my Savior""
>
> Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
Not true. Imagine Suppose that I was walking through the woods and
suddenly fell into a pit from which I could not escape. You come along,
notice my predicament
and help me out of the pit. We might say that you would be my savior
in this case. Now suppose once again that I am walking through the
woods. This time, however, you warn me about the pit and thereby
prevent me from falling into it. Would you not still be considered my
savior even though I never fell into the pit? In the same way He could
be her savior by preventing her from falling into sin.
Adam Leinss
wrote:
[snip]
>> Luke 1:46-47:
>>
>> "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
>> God my Savior""
>>
>> Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
>
>Not true. Imagine Suppose that I was walking through the woods and
>suddenly fell into a pit from which I could not escape. You come along,
>notice my predicament
> and help me out of the pit. We might say that you would be my savior
>in this case. Now suppose once again that I am walking through the
>woods. This time, however, you warn me about the pit and thereby
>prevent me from falling into it. Would you not still be considered my
>savior even though I never fell into the pit? In the same way He could
>be her savior by preventing her from falling into sin.
Well, that is of course plausible, until you look at the other verses
that Micah posted, such as Romans 5:17, 1 Corinthians 15:22,
and Romans 3:22-24. Then you have to play word juggling, where the
word "all" means "some".
Micah Burke
>
Sorry, we don't IMAGINE what is in scripture, it's
there for us to read.
Mary was a human, sinful in her ways, and needed a
savior like the rest of us, just like her mother and her
other children.
Christ alone was sinless, any doctrine to the contrary
is heterodox and influenced by Satan.
Micah
bam
"Adam Leinss" <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote > >Very true. But God can remove
it; and in a singular act of grace, Mary, the
> >Mother of God was conceived without sin.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Luke 1:46-47:
>
> "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
> God my Savior""
>
> Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
>
You have convicted Mary on very slim evidence. She said "God" my Saviour -
not Jesus. Mary was saved by God, in that God saved her from Original Sin.
BAM
bam
"Adam Leinss" <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> Well, that is of course plausible, until you look at the other verses
> that Micah posted, such as Romans 5:17, 1 Corinthians 15:22,
> and Romans 3:22-24. Then you have to play word juggling, where the
> word "all" means "some".
>
> Adam
Rome has spoken; the case is closed. "Whatsoever ye bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven."
BAM
bam
"Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote
> Mary was a human, sinful in her ways, and needed a
> savior like the rest of us, just like her mother and her
> other children.
>
> Christ alone was sinless, any doctrine to the contrary
> is heterodox and influenced by Satan.
>
Micah, please don't take this to the grave with you.
BAM
Corky
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:49:04 -0500, Corky <cork...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Luke 1:46-47:
> >>
> >> "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
> >> God my Savior""
> >>
> >> Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
> >
> >Not true. Imagine Suppose that I was walking through the woods and
> >suddenly fell into a pit from which I could not escape. You come along,
> >notice my predicament
> > and help me out of the pit. We might say that you would be my savior
> >in this case. Now suppose once again that I am walking through the
> >woods. This time, however, you warn me about the pit and thereby
> >prevent me from falling into it. Would you not still be considered my
> >savior even though I never fell into the pit? In the same way He could
> >be her savior by preventing her from falling into sin.
>
> Well, that is of course plausible, until you look at the other verses
> that Micah posted, such as Romans 5:17, 1 Corinthians 15:22,
> and Romans 3:22-24. Then you have to play word juggling, where the
> word "all" means "some".
>
Romans 5:17 and 1 Cor 15:22 certainly don't prove your case. The point
of these passages is that just as Adam brought death into the world,
Jesus brings life. Certainly, we could take a few days to rebut each
others arguments about these verses, but why don't we just discount them
in favor of the verses with the real meat...namely Rom 3:22-24. The
same arguments are crystallized much more clearly in these passages.
22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon
all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction:
23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is
in Christ Jesus,
Now, you seem to think that the word "all" ("pas" in Greek) can have
only one meaning; that it means literally "every single one".
Therefore, if I can show that "pas" is used to mean something less than
"absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture, then the Catholic exception
for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically
impossible. We don't even need to leave the letter to the Romans for
this job. Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we
know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members
of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge....", which
clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied
indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.
Let's see what a linguistic reference work like Kittel's Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament states:
"Pas can have different meanings according to its different uses .
. . in many verses, pas is used in the NT simply to denote a great
number, e.g., 'all Jerusalem' in Mt 2:3 and 'all the sick' in 4:24."
{pp.796-7}
Brandon Zylstra
> Tee hee, sorry. Children are born innocent. Christ told his followers to
> become as little children. Kinda weird to exhort adults to be child-like if
> they are actually sinners just adults. Maybe you should think before
> engaging mouth (or keyboard).
It's by no means clear that Jesus is implying that children are innocent in
that passage, and since so many other passages say otherwise, it's very safe
to interpret him as *not* saying such a thing.
> 1 Corinthians 15:22
> For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
> Romans 3:23
> For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> Romans 5:17
> For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through
> that one man, how much more will those who receive God's
> abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness
> reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
if children are born innocent (in the sense of lacking a sin nature), why
are they so selfish? why do they blatantly disobey their parents?
Adam Leinss
wrote:
>Romans 5:17 and 1 Cor 15:22 certainly don't prove your case. The point
>of these passages is that just as Adam brought death into the world,
>Jesus brings life.
It follows from logic that Mary is a descendant of Adam. If so, she
is a sinner too:
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned" (Romans 5:12)
Unless of course you want to say that it doesn't say women here
instead of men and now you are off the hook. Based on the New
Testament, would it follow from logic that "all" means "some" here?
If there is ANY man or woman that has not sinned, well, we really have
a problem! Why? Well, then God is unjustly condemning that person.
If I have never sinned before, how can God condemn me? And if I never
sinned before, I won't have to believe in Jesus Christ and
theoretically, I can still be saved!
>Certainly, we could take a few days to rebut each
>others arguments about these verses
Ah, fond memories of Juggernaut! =)
>22 Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon
>all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction:
>23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.
>24 Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is
>in Christ Jesus,
>
>Now, you seem to think that the word "all" ("pas" in Greek) can have
>only one meaning; that it means literally "every single one".
For some have fallen short of the glory of God? If you find these
sinless people, let me know. I can then live as an hedonist, because
you just shown the Bible is a big pile of crap.
>Therefore, if I can show that "pas" is used to mean something less than
>"absolutely every" elsewhere in Scripture, then the Catholic exception
>for Mary cannot be said to be linguistically or exegetically
>impossible. We don't even need to leave the letter to the Romans for
>this job. Paul writes that "all Israel will be saved," (11:26), but we
>know that many will not be saved. And in 15:14, Paul describes members
>of the Roman church as "....filled with all knowledge....", which
>clearly cannot be taken literally. Examples could be multiplied
>indefinitely, and are as accessible as the nearest Strong's Concordance.
Strongs Definition:
1. individually
each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2. collectively
some of all types
Notice it says "all" for both definitions, I don't see "some".
"filled with all types of knowledge", that works for 15:14!
Brandon Zylstra
jgu...@uswest.com wrote on 12/15/2000 12:07 AM:
> Thanks for the Bible lesson. Until now I didn't know anything about Adam,
> Eve, the forbidden fruit, the Tree of Life, the serpent, or Eden. I am now
> enlightened.
>
>>
>> What began as a fatal poisoning of the human body has become a fatal
>> poisoning of the human spirit.>
>
> And you find this in Genesis where?
when things are clearly explained from the Bible you give a sarcastic reply.
and when things are not, you complain that they are not.
Adam Leinss
>> Luke 1:46-47:
>>
>> "And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in
>> God my Savior""
>>
>> Someone without sin does not need a Savior.
>>
>
>You have convicted Mary on very slim evidence. She said "God" my Saviour -
>not Jesus. Mary was saved by God, in that God saved her from Original Sin.
Jesus is God.
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I
am!" (John 8:58)
He accepted worship reserved for God (Matthew 14:33, John 20:28).
He claimed the right to forgive the sins of other human beings, a
privilege every Jew understood to be reserved only for God Almighty
(Luke 5:20).
Also see John 1:1-3,14; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2-3; Acts 3:15;
Ephesians 4:10; Hebrews 1:6-7.
Alan Ferris
Why not? Where in the bible does it say he will be condemned for not
believing in Mary as being perfect?
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black -
the only sound
the broken bell
THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arc's Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Corky
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:57:51 -0500, Corky <cork...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Romans 5:17 and 1 Cor 15:22 certainly don't prove your case. The point
> >of these passages is that just as Adam brought death into the world,
> >Jesus brings life.
>
> It follows from logic that Mary is a descendant of Adam. If so, she
> is a sinner too:
>
> "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
> through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
> sinned" (Romans 5:12)
>
> Unless of course you want to say that it doesn't say women here
> instead of men and now you are off the hook. Based on the New
> Testament, would it follow from logic that "all" means "some" here?
> If there is ANY man or woman that has not sinned, well, we really have
> a problem! Why? Well, then God is unjustly condemning that person.
> If I have never sinned before, how can God condemn me? And if I never
> sinned before, I won't have to believe in Jesus Christ and
> theoretically, I can still be saved!
Think about what you've said Adam. You want to tie God's hands by
asserting "He couldn't (or wouldn't) do such and such." In so doing,
you have sent your own doctrines of predestination and the elect up in
flames. For when Adam & Eve had not yet sinnned, death had not yet
entered the world. Yet you would argue (based on Eph 1 & Rom 8 & 9, I
believe) that God predestined them to fall. (If I am wrong about your
understanding about predestination, please correct me. But I am
presenting what I believe the Reformed position to be.) Since (in this
view) God predestined them to fall, then it follows that God "unjustly
condemned" all of mankind throughout time. Since God is absolutely
sovereign over all things, such that He decreed that Adam would fall,
that He decrees who will repent and who will not, this clearly makes God
equally as responsable for the evil in the world and the damnation of
the wicked, as it does for all the good things.
Pied Piper
A Defense of Baptismal Regeneration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
I have planned to put together a piece that puts out the Biblical support
for baptismal regeneration. The Bible is clear on the teaching of the saving
power of baptism. This is what I hope to set forth in this essay. In
presenting a Catholic defense of baptism, I intend to not only show this
Biblical support for baptismal regeneration but to take on an attack on this
agelong Biblical and Catholic teaching. Those Protestant groups who reject
baptismal regeneration attempt to downplay the scriptural support for this.
I recently ran into a web site one of whose missions is to 'expose' the
'errors' of Catholicism, and to lead people away from Catholicism, and into
what they proclaim as 'Biblical Christianity.' Since the arguments that are
used in the site are common for those who argue against baptismal
regeneration, I thought it would be helpful to not only put out the support
for this Biblical teaching, but to also deal with opposing arguments as
well.
Across the web there are numerous attacks on Catholicism that purport to
attack Catholicism from a 'Biblical' perspective. In all cases I have
noticed numerous errors in their analysis of history, scripture and
Catholicism. In order to correct all of their errors in these anti-Catholic
sites, the amount of time used would be infinite. No one has that time.
Often, someone will make a wild statement that is passed on as truth.
However, I will just focus on one of these sites as an example of their
errors on Catholicism and the bible. Press here to see this piece This site
is in reference to the Catholic Catechism and how it supposedly differs from
the bible. A former nun 'Sister Sandy' and Tracy Broadhurst write this piece
supposedly 'disproving' the Catholic position of baptismal regeneration.
Later on we will see that while trying to refute baptismal regeneration,
they actually unwittingly quote verses which not only affirm the Catholic
teaching on baptism, but confirm the salvific efficacy of the sacrament of
the Eucharist. The reason that I will reference this site is because this
site is representative of the Biblical attacks on Catholicism. True
examination of the Bible will show Catholic teachings to be biblically
founded. I will put in quotes those parts of their site that are quoted.
They start off by quoting on one side the Catechism which shows the Roman
Catholic view of the necessity of Baptism. One thing I noticed very quickly
is that they neglect to show the numerous scriptural verses that are quoted
in the Catechism that show that this view is indeed found in the bible. On
the other side they quote Bible verses which supposedly show that Baptism is
not salvific.
Using the King James Bible (the only true Bible according to that site,
which I believe is ridiculous as the Bible is abridged and cuts out 7 books,
but that is another issue), what does scripture actually say about baptism
and salvation?
They quote from the Catechism "Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but
also makes the neophyte 'a new creature,' an adopted son of God, who has
become a 'partaker of the divine nature,' member of Christ and co-heir with
him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit." (Pg.354, #1265)". Why did they forget
that the Bible teaches this? See Mark 1:6, Acts 2:38-39, Gal. 3:27, Acts
22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11. Perhaps because it proves Catholicism true.
They quote the Catechism again :"Through Baptism we are freed from sin and
reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, and are incorporated
into the Church..." (Pg. 342, #1213)." Then on the other side they quotes
verses that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Gal.
3:26-27, which says through faith AND baptism one becomes a son of God.
Perhaps because it proves the Catechism true.
They quote the Catechism again: "By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original
sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin." (Pg. 353,
#1263. see also pg. 279, #985). Then they quote verses along the other side
that supposedly disprove this. I ask why they did not quote Col. 2:12-13,
Acts. 2:38-39, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Rom 6:1-11, etc? Perhaps because it
proves the Catechism true.
Here is a clear scripture that proves baptismal regeneration: John 3:3-5: 3
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a
man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto
him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into
his mother's womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto
thee, Except a man be born of WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God."
What does the context of John show us? One must be born again, as stated in
John 3:3; however, what does that phrase mean? Nowhere does the Bible say
what I was taught that in order to be born again, you must accept Jesus as
Lord and Savior. Jesus explained in John 3:5 what he meant in John 3:3. You
must be born of water and spirit, that is baptism. How do we know that is
what he meant? First, Jesus was talking to Nicodemus, who knew the Old
Testament background to the meaning of water and spirit. In talking about
the New covenant, Ezekiel in 36:23-29, writes about clean water being
sprinkled, and God cleansing his people from all filthiness, in tandem with
his Spirit being poured out, giving people a new heart, giving people the
ability to walk in his statutes. Isaiah 44:3 also talks about the Holy
Spirit being poured out with water and many blessings to follow. In John
1:29-34, Jesus is baptized, and the Holy Spirit comes upon Jesus. John
promises that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus do
after he tells Nicodemus in 3:5 about being born of water and spirit? He
goes out baptizing in John 3:22. This is the only time that Jesus and the
disciples baptize in the gospels, emphasizing even more that being born of
water and spirit means baptism (besides John 4, immediately following this).
What does John do? He baptizes other people. In the context of baptism, John
uses the same term "anothen" in 3:31, as was used in John 3:3 and 3:5. It
can interchangeably be translated as "born again" or "begotten from above."
It would strain credulity to say that all this is a coincidence. All
Christians until the 16th century thought that born again meant baptism. On
the other hand nothing here or anywhere else in the Bible does being born
again mean accepting Jesus as Lord in your heart.
Other passages proving baptismal regeneration include: 1 Peter 3:20-21. 20
Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited
in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,
eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism
DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but
the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY
THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:38-39 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE
OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, AND TO
YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our
God shall call.
Mark 16:16 He that BELIEVETH AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
1 Cor. 12:12-13. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all
the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews
or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink
into one Spirit.
Colossians 2:11-13 - 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the
circumcision made without hands, in PUTTING OFF THE BODY OF THE SINS of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM, wherein
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who
hath raised him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the
uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having
forgiven you all trespasses;
Romans 6:3-4. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Galatians 3:26-27. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have BEEN BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON
CHRIST.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, by THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost;
There are other references to the necessity and saving power of baptism, but
if you take God's Word seriously, and look at the above verses, you must
admit that Baptism has salvific power. Quoting other verses do not cancel
out these verses. Nowhere in these scriptures are Spirit baptism separated
from water baptism. They are one and the same thing. Even if there was only
one scripture (like Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21) that shows baptism is
salvific) it would be enough to settle the issue, but we have proved the
point with much scripture. Not only that, but there are numerous other
scriptures not even alluded to that likewise proves the saving power of
baptism. Trying to explain away verses that are so blatantly Catholic is
something that all Protestants must do in order to avoid Catholic truth, but
it is dishonest to say one loves the bible, and then ignores what it so
plainly teaches. So, unless one blinds him/herself to the plain meaning of
scripture, one can only conclude that baptism saves, as the Catholic Church
teaches, exactly as scripture and the Catechism states.
BAPTISM CLEANSES FROM SIN
They quote the Church belief that baptism cleanses from original sins, and
washes sins away. They again ignore the scriptural foundation for this
belief and quote other scriptures that supposedly prove that baptism does
not cleanse from sin. Just a few to show that Baptism does wash away sins:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY
THY SINS, calling on the name of the Lord.
Romans 6:3-4. 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the
glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Other references Gal. 3:27, Col. 2:11-13, 1 Cor 6:11, see above for
quotation.
In prophesying about the New Covenant, Ezekiel reveals how God is going to
cleanse one from sin. Does he write, well, one needs to say a salvation
prayer, as long as you really mean it, and make an emotional decision to
follow Christ? (Salvation prayers, altar calls, etc. are more manmade,
Protestant traditions) nowhere found in the bible. On the contrary, Ezekiel
concludes 36:25-27: 25 "Then will I sprinkle CLEAN WATER upon you, and ye
shall be CLEAN: FROM ALL YOUR FILTHINESS, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a NEW SPIRIT will I
put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and
I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you,
and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do
them."
We see again that in the New Covenant that one will be cleansed exactly by
water (it also mentions sprinkling) and Spirit. They are not separated.
They quote: "Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins
that are past... Romans 3:25." So here they say that what provides the
remission of sin is Christ's blood, and since it does this, Christ's blood
is salvific. So what remits sins is the means of salvation. Of course the
Catholic church could not agree with them more. So let us see if they are
consistent in interpreting the remission of sins as the cause of salvation:
Acts 2:38-39. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and BE BAPTIZED EVERY ONE
OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, AND TO
YOUR CHILDREN, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our
God shall call. For more info on why it is Biblical to baptize babies click
here
OK, they said that Christ's blood is salvific because it causes the
remission of sins. What does baptism do here? The remission of sins!!!! So I
take it then, that they now agree that they were wrong in saying that
baptism is not the means of salvation. In order to be consistent, they must
admit that baptism is the means of salvation.
We next see that when they mentioned all the verses that show that Christ's
blood is the means of salvation, they thus dig themselves deeper into
problems in their attack on Catholic theology by inadvertently proving
another Catholic doctrine.
EUCHARIST
They quote several verses that show the efficacy of the blood, and how it
brings the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7, Col. 1:14, 1 John 1:7) (as the
Bible showed that baptism does as well). I wonder if the Bible says that you
get the efficacy of Christ's blood when you say a 'salvation prayer' and
accept Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior.' Nowhere is that stated in
the Bible that they supposedly follow. But yet again, they do a very
selective quotation of the New Testament scriptures. I wonder why? Let us
look at elsewhere in the New Testament as it relates to blood, and
forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28: For this is my BLOOD of the New Testament, which is shed for
many for THE REMISSION OF SINS.
So in the context of instituting the Eucharist, Jesus says that this blood i
s for the remission of sins. Remember they had written that the remission of
sins means salvation. Well, according to Jesus, what effects the remission
of sins? His blood in the eucharist!!! I wonder why they did not mention
that!!! By the way, no mention of the eucharist as a symbol, (just like no
mention of baptism being a symbol).
Mark 14:24 : And he said unto them, This is my BLOOD of the new testament,
which is shed for many.
Luke 22:20 : Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my BLOOD, which is shed for you.
So how do we partake of this blood? Do we partake it by saying a salvation
prayer, as long as you really mean it? No? Salvation prayers are nowhere
found in the Bible and is another tradition of men. That is a tradition of
men begun in the 19th century with no hint of it in the bible. Partaking of
this blood is partaking in the eucharist (Mk 14:24, Luke 22:19-20, Mt.
26:27) which he commanded the apostles to do.
John 6:53: Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except
ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his BLOOD, ye have no life in
you. 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my BLOOD, hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day. 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my BLOOD is drink indeed. 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my
BLOOD, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
I wonder why this was left out of their description of blood. Jesus says
whoever drinks his blood has eternal life. Whoever does not, does not have
eternal life. Jesus reiterates the literalness of his flesh and blood
despite the disbelief of not only the Jews who rejected him (v. 52) but also
the disciples who left him (v. 67). Not once did Jesus say, oh, don't go
away, I was only talking symbolically. BTW, if they try to quote v. 63 which
talks of spirit and life, not one time in the Bible does spirit ever mean
"what I was talking about was only symbolic." God is Spirit (John 4:24).
Does that mean God is symbolic? Of course not, God is real, just as the
eucharist that Christ promised. I choose to stay with following Jesus as
Peter did, not as the disciples and disbelieving Jews did. His flesh is true
food, his blood is true drink!!! Nowhere does Jesus say, oh well folks, I
did not really mean I will give true flesh and true blood.
Only now does Jesus add that we must also drink his blood. Six times in this
paragraph Jesus reasserts the necessity to "eat my flesh and drink my
blood", six times! Do you think he was trying to tell us something?
Non-Catholics are fond of quoting John 3:3 "Except you be born again.." Why
is it that 'except' is so important, and this 'except' isn't. You can't have
it both ways, we must be consistent when interpreting Gods' word.
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the
communion of the BLOOD of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the
communion of the body of Christ?
Paul says that the cup is communion of the blood of Christ. I wonder why
this was left out of their analysis of blood and salvation.
1 Corinthians 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my BLOOD: this do ye, as
oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me... 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat
this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and
drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not
discerning the Lord's body.
The new covenant is in his blood, the eucharist yet again. Does Paul see it
as symbolic? Whoever unworthily eats this is guilty of the body and blood of
Jesus!!!! How could something symbolic, be guilty of the body and blood of
Jesus? And even further, we see that if one partakes of this blood
unworthily, one drinks DAMNATION to himself, because they don't discern the
Lord's body!! This makes absolutely no sense for the Protestant. However,
this fits in perfectly with the Catholic view. The eucharist is the body and
blood of Christ, as so clearly written by Paul. It is a holy sacrament to be
treasured, not blasphemed.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and
hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"
We have seen what the blood of the covenant (it is the same Greek word, and
in King James English covenant has the same meaning as testament) is. It is
the eucharist. And their site loves to mock it. In fact, they called it a
hated thing. Unless they repent, their punishment is stated very succintly
in the above sentence. I pray that they do not mock what Jesus gave to his
church.
BACK TO BAPTISM:
They quote Eph. 1:13 saying that the Holy Spirit is the seal, not baptism.
Again they make an artificial distinction between the two. Every single
person who studied the Bible for 1500 years did not see the seal as being a
contest between baptism against the Holy Spirit. Every single one saw the
seal being the Holy Spirit given through water baptism. Remember, Jesus said
Except you be born of WATER AND SPIRIT. When Jesus was baptized, he was
baptized in the water AND Spirit (John 1:34). Baptism washes away sins (Acts
22:16). Baptism is how we are sealed by the Spirit (also, compare Romans
4:13 where circumcision is called the seal of faith, with Col. 2:11-13,
where baptism is called the new circumcision, thus confirming again that
baptism is the seal of the Holy Spirit).
They then quote that Paul did not come to baptize, but to preach (1 Cor.
1:12, 17). The fact that Paul did not baptize everybody refutes what the
Bible said earlier about baptismal regeneration? I think not. Yes, Paul did
not baptize, but he let other people do the baptisms. Just as Jesus let
others baptize (John 4:2) immediately after declaring the necessity of
baptism (John 3:5). Paul did not write that baptisms are only valid through
him, so the quotations of 1 Cor. 1:17, and 1 Cor. 1:12 are irrelevant. Paul
did not write, 'oh, this cancels out what I taught earlier' in Gal. 3:26-27,
Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11, Romans 6:1-4, etc. If he taught baptism was not
salvific, as they say, he would contradict himself.
They again quote selective scriptures (they do tend to be quite selective)
that show that belief only is the means of salvation. Well, I could quote
Acts 22:16 which shows that Paul had his sins washed away not when he
believed but when he was baptized. I could quote Matthew 19:16-17 in which
Jesus is asked what one must do to enter eternal life. He in fact doesn't
even say you must believe. He says that in order to enter life, one must
KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS. So using their logic, since these verses do not
mention belief, can I say that belief is not necessary for salvation? Why
also would they leave out Matt. 25:31-46, Rom. 2:4-13 and James 2:14-26
which specifically disprove the faith alone idea of salvation? The Catholic
church puts all the verses together, and says, that belief, keeping the
commandments (that can only be done by God's grace) baptism, and the
Eucharist (as already proven) are the means of salvation. Why quote verses
that stress belief but exclude other verses when the very subject of
salvation is the issue? What Christ did on the cross must be applied to our
lives in a real way.
They write ".Water baptism symbolizes the believers death, burial and
resurrection with Christ (Rom 6:12, Col. 2:12), symbolizes washing away of
sins (Acts 22:16), and the answer of a good conscience towards God (I Peter
3:21)."
This article could not find one verse that says baptism symbolizes washing
away sins. It is unbelievable that they quote those verses because they
exactly prove the Catholic Church right again on baptism!!! He said arise,
be baptized and wash away sins (Acts 22:16). Not a thing about symbol. In
fact, Paul had already believed yet his sins were only washed away by
baptism in Acts 22:16. Paul was not told, arise, get baptized to
symbolically wash away their sins. He said, arise, be baptized, and wash
away your sins. Col. 2 says that the new circumcision, baptism does not
symbolically put off the body of sins, but actually does, Col. 2:12-13. A
reminder in regards to 1 Peter 3:21, is that baptism does not symbolically
save, it says 'baptism doth now save you'..
Unbelievably they quote Acts 8:36-37 in support supposedly of faith alone,
with no need of baptism. The Ethiopian Eunuch incident they say proves that
".Water baptism comes AFTER one believes on Jesus Christ. Water baptism
always follows salvation:"
Let us see the context of which they write:
Acts 8:30-39: 30 "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the
prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he
said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that
he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he
read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb
before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his
judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life
is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray
thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and
preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a
certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me
to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the
Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord
caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way
rejoicing.
Actually, their citation of this scene shows two things that disprove their
theological view. First, it shows that a person who reads scripture on his
own needs an interpreter to explain the meaning. No sola scriptura here.
Phillip had been appointed earlier by the apostles Acts 6:5-7. The appointed
apostle thus had the authority to teach authoritatively. Thus when the
Eunuch came to him, he did not say, 'well, ask the Holy Spirit and he will
guide you into it.' Phillip had the authority to guide the Eunuch into the
truth. He explained the doctrines that had to be believed in order to be
saved. By the way, it does not say he became saved only when he believed.
Second, notice what it does say. The Eunuch, after hearing this teaching on
salvation said take me to the water. It is apparent to anybody reading this
story that baptism is absolutely essentially to the process of salvation.
First, for adult believers, one must believe (and Catholics also believe
that adults must believe before getting baptized). Then, immediately after
hearing Philip's teaching, he gets baptized. If baptism was symbolic, why
did the Ethiopian decide that he had to get baptized then and there? The
only obvious answer is that Philip had explained that baptism was a part of
salvation and the Eunuch had to be baptized in order to be saved. Philip was
present, heard Peter's message that in order to get sins remitted, one must
repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38-39). If it was symbolic, and one just did
it to show to the world that one had already been saved by just believing,
the Eunuch would have been told to wait, until he could demonstrate this to
other people. Immediately after the baptism is when the Spirit comes. Now
true, it came upon Philip, but it is significant that at the time of baptism
is when the Spirit came. He would not have rejoiced unless it was at this
point that the Spirit came upon the eunuch as well. This is a fulfillment of
Jesus' saying that one must be baptized of water and Spirit.
Their attempts to separate baptism from salvation fails in another
quotation: They write: "In Acts 18:8, Crispus believed and was then
baptized, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, BELIEVED ON THE
LORD with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and
were baptized." They again reiterate that one must believe before being
baptized. Those who are of age are indeed required to be believed. But also,
his whole house (which includes children who are not of the age to believe)
gets baptized. Yet again, in the context of salvation, as soon as Crispus
believed, he was baptized. So baptism is yet again a part of the salvation
process. Their quotation of Acts 16:31-35 is a similar case that again
proves this Catholic point. Part of believing is getting baptized. This
again refers us back to Christ's teaching:
Mark 16:16"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."
They then write of Acts 8:12 "Salvation first, THEN water baptism in Acts
8:12:" "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men
and women." -Acts 8:12" Here again there is no quotation saying what they
wrote. Nothing in Acts 8:12 says, that when they believed they were saved,
and only after salvation were they then baptized. Apparently Philip taught
that baptism was part of salvation, because as soon as they believed they
were baptized. If it was only symbolic, why the rush?
They then write: ".Performing some ritual like water baptism could NEVER
save for we can not be justified before God except through saving faith in
Jesus. Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we
might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." -Galatians 2:16
They somehow equate baptism with works of the law. Nevertheless, they do not
give one reference in the Bible that equates baptism with the works of the
law. This quotation is therefore irrelevant. Works of the Law is another
issue, but that is dealing with two things: People who rely on achieving
salvation on their own power, circumcision and Old Testament rituals. Paul
nowhere alludes to baptism as being of the works of the law. These were the
Judaizers who sought to impose the Works of the Law. A good file on Works of
the Law is Can be found by clicking here.
They also write that it couldn't be baptism because it had to be faith.
However, it is not faith or baptism, it is faith AND baptism. Remember, in
this very chapter Paul writes Galatians 3:26-27. "For ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For AS MANY OF YOU AS HAVE BEEN
BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST HAVE PUT ON CHRIST." So in order to put on Christ, one
must have faith and baptism. So in other places when Paul talks about
putting on Christ and the new self, the background to these verses is
baptism (Col. 3:10, Eph. 4:24).
Baptism is seen unanimously by the Church Fathers as the normative necessary
means of salvation. The Fathers all read the verses exactly as stated. When
they read baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21), that it washes away sins (Acts
22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11), and causes the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), they all
took it for what it said. There was not one isolated voice for 1500 years
that taught against baptismal regeneration. The first person who taught
against it was John Calvin and the Ana-Baptists. Why people who claim to
follow scripture reject the plain meaning of scripture is because they have
decided to follow a man-made tradition, against, Jesus, against Peter, and
against Paul.
In sum, the Bible says that baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21). They say that
baptism does not save. The Bible says that baptism washes away sins (Acts
22:16). They say that baptism does not wash away sins. The Bible says that
one must be born of water and spirit (John 3:3-5). They say that water is
not necessary. The Bible says that baptism causes the remission of sins
(Acts 2:38). They say that baptism does not cause the remission of sins. The
Bible says that baptism makes us sons of God (Gal. 3:26-27). They say that
baptism does not make us sons. The Bible says that baptism makes one put on
Christ (Gal. 3:27). They say that baptism does not make us put on Christ.
The Bible says by baptism one puts off the body of sins (Col. 2:12-13, Rom.
6:3-4). They say that baptism does not put off the body of sins.
Who really believes in the Bible?
Thus the Catechism is proved to be true again.
There are many other allusions to the salvific power of baptism as well that
I did not refer to as well (Mt. 28:19, Mk 1:4-8; Mt. 3:13-17; Jn 1:26-34; 1
Cor. 10:1-4; Eph 4:4-6; Eph 5:25-27;, and others). A good reference for
further study of the verses mentioned is found in the book "Crossing the
Tiber, Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church," Ignatius
Press, by Stephen Ray, an Evangelical who found the fullness of truth in the
Catholic Faith. It can be purchased via Amazon Press at this url Ignatius
Press also has a description of the book here and it can also be purchased
by calling (800) 651-1531.
Lemuel Abarte
Church. It all started with the Arian controversy for which one council, from
consensus, accepted the divinity of Christ. The ascription of the RCC that Mary
is the mother of God was really to emphasize the divinity of Christ. Along the
way, some picked up the idea that *she is the mother of God*. Then the series
of inferences followed, to assert a divine character to Mary, which she does not
possess, rather, it was erroneous for people to override the doctrine of the
hypostatic union, to ascribe to Mary anything that only belongs to Christ, and
not to her. Conclusions from theological assertions are derivative theology,
and should had been compared categorically with the teachings of Scripture, not
from the inferences which were simply dogma.
When one veers away from the Sola Scriptura principle, one can believe anything.
Let it be known, that *Mary is the mother of the humanity of Christ*. The
doctrine of the hypostatic union arrests any misconception regarding the role of
Mary in the salvation plan of God. To distort the role of Mary is to distort
the doctrine of the hypostatic union.
Then again, it is amusing how Catholics will try to get out of the hole by logic
and reasoning. It is all too common a phenomenon amongst Catholics that many
end up jesting.
In the Philippines, Catholic jokes abound, and even members of Opus Dei make
these as centerpiece of conversation. A priest of the RCC in the Philippines
left the RCC and formed a Catholic sect called the Aglipay, since he was aghast
that Spanish friars were talking and laughing about the confessions of women
regarding their menstruation.
Corky <cork...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A3AF64F...@hotmail.com...
Ron Burdette
"bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:t3j5m3a...@corp.supernews.com...
:
: "Bob Cross" <bob...@my-deja.com> wrote
: > On what scripture do you base this statement?
: > Bob
:
:
: "Hail Mary, full of grace."
Hey, You! Mephistopheles Jr., you're doing it again!
Exposing your stupidity, that is. Alas, you just can't
stop being what you are.
".....O full of all subtilty and all mischief,
thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,
wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?"
No, there is not a single precept of Scripture in the
entire Bible, reading "Hail Mary, full of grace."
inclusively. You're teaching 'another Gospel', again!
The term "full of grace" is reserved totally for GOD
alone. It is never used to describe a little woman
who has been dead, long ago.
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten
of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Also, the word 'Hail' is never adjacent to the word
'Mary', anywhere in the Bible.
Your problem Dim-bam, is you are not only just stupid,
but you are also totally ignorant of true verifiable Bible
history.
You've been reading that Romish quasi transliteration
vulgate 'book' of errors that Jerome penned in the
dead latin language.
Tell me, Dim-bam, how many texts or manuscripts of
the Scriptures were originally penned in latin?
To you, that's not fair. I'll make it real easy, just for
you. Tell me, which single 'word', jot or tittle of the
Bible was originally written in latin?
I have studied Hebrew, Koine Greek and Aramaic
texts. Sorry, there aren't any original latin texts or
manuscripts of the Bible.
The latin mistranslations are merely a Romish thing.
I will demonstrate to you below, Jerome's error.
The correct translation of Luke 1:28 is:
Luke 1:28
28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail,
thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee:
blessed art thou among women.
The dead vulgar Latin mistranslates highly favoured
gratiā plena-full of grace. See the blatant error?
These are the types of errors which are brought
to light when you have a false religion transliterating
Scripture texts, into its personal uninspired and
non-canonized book, it then calls the 'bible'.
><>...St. Ron! Mentor for Romanists!
duke lebourgeois
wrote:
> Romanism ISN'T
> Christian, It's
> Pagan Idolatry !
>
> The DataRat
Only in the vacant lot between your ears.
the RCC is right out of the mouth of Jesus.
duke
Alan Ferris
>Only in the vacant lot between your ears.
More vileness from Earl.
So Earl, where does the catechism tell you to act like that?
Jeff Shirton
PatentWorm <jgu...@uswest.com> wrote in message
news:2Eh_5.2394$526.4...@news.uswest.net...
> > Maybe you are hinking about Genesis 8:21 Where
> >"The imagination of Man's heart
> > is evil from his youth".
>
> "youth". Look it up in the dictionary. Refers mainly
> to teenagers. A person in infancy is not referred to
> as being "in his youth".
Is this from an English dictionary, or a Hebrew dictionary?
Strongs:
5288 na`ar
from 5287; (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to
adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl
(of similar latitude in age):--babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin),
lad, servant, young (man).
[5287 is the term used in Gen. 8:21]
So I think the definition, "from the age of infancy to adolescence" is
pretty straightforward.
> > Or is it Psalm 58:3-- "The wicked go astray from
> > the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.">
>
> "The wicked go astray"? And this helps your
> argument how? Says nothing about the righteous here.
Huh? Do you believe the righteous and the unrighteous get develop their
sinfulness at different times? Perhaps the wicked from birth, but the
righteous only at adulthood?
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
Patent_Worm <Paten...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:91bcas$k5a$1...@news.aros.net...
> > <giggle> The doctrine of original sin is found
> > throughout scripture. Neither you nor your popes
> > can remove it.
>
> Tee hee, sorry. Children are born innocent.
Once again:
Psa 58:3 The wicked have been corrupt since birth;
liars from the womb, they have gone astray.
> Christ told his followers to become as little children.
> Kinda weird to exhort adults to be child-like if they
> are actually sinners just adults.
Reading context covereth many sins:
Mat 18:3 and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you
turn and become like children, you will
not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whoever humbles himself like this child
is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
The child-like trait that Jesus was describing was humility, not
sinlessness.
> Maybe you should think before engaging mouth
> (or keyboard).
Mat 7:3 Why do you notice the splinter in your
brother's eye, but do not perceive the
wooden beam in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me
remove that splinter from your eye,' while
the wooden beam is in your eye?
Mat 7:5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from
your eye first; then you will see clearly
to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
Jeff Shirton
George Williams
I have noticed that the most pervasive crossposts to A.R.M. are those stating
that the Bible is such and such, and that anyone who has an opinion that varies
from this in the slightest is a reprobate who rejects both God and the Bible. I
do not expect to convince these individuals that they are wrong--I cannot,
because they have made an avocation of being right all the time.
One thing I would like to set straight for thinking people is that the Bible
is not what it is made out to be. We have been told that it is a rule-book for
living (like the Driver's handbook put out by the State Police) and failure to
obey *all* of its provisions, down to the slightest detail will lead to
punishment. There are a few folks who say that God is merciful and that he will
overlook certain infractions, (usually their favorite ones). However, the fact
remains that we would not be in need of forgiveness if we were not dealing with
a petty God. A God who tickets people for doing 20.5 miles per hour in a 20
mph zone when he has personally constructed speedometers for us that are only
accurate plus or minus 5 mph. is an abusive stepparent. He has set us up for
failure apparently for the express purpose of obtaining satisfaction either by
punishing the vast majority of us, or verbally abusing and denigrating as
unworthy those whom he spares on a whim.
It would be nice if the Bible were a detailed and accurate rulebook. Those of
us who have read the Bible with the same comprehension that we are taught to
read other books know for certain that the Bible is not a comprehensive
rulebook that covers all situations and that will keep us out of trouble and in
the good graces of the authorities.
I believe that the Bible is a portrait of God. It is the most accurate one
that there is. Given the august nature of the subject, it is no wonder that it
took thousands of years to complete. But it was made by men. The oldest parts
of the portrait are little better than two-dimensional cave paintings. Some
parts are in the style of French impressionism, other parts cubist. This is due
to the fact that the contributing artist was forced to paint in the style to
which he was accustomed. But the portrait is not of photographic quality. Parts
of the gospels come close, but they are poorly focused, and poorly developed so
that we still do not completely see exactly the aspect of God that the artist
wished to depict.
When I talk about the God of the Bible, I am speaking of the person of whom
the portrait was made, not of the portrait. He has been positively identified
as the God who created the world, so that we would know for sure that the
portrait is of him. Apparently the artists were so uncertain that we would
recognize the likeness tht they were kind enough to identify the subject for us
up front.
The purpose of the portrait is clear. It is to give us the comfort that God is
good and all powerful, and that he is with us always to give us hope both in
this life and the next. It lets us know that even if we were mentally ill and
homeless, rejected by all our friends and family, that he would not desert us.
The clearest parts of the portrait are those in which Jesus explains and
demonstrates that the love of God is the only literal truth in the entire
painting..
The sad aspect of the Bible is the degree to which it is misunderstood, and
the purposes to which it has been put. Throughout history, the message of the
Bible has been lost by inverting the message. Instead of telling and showing
the poor and sick that God is with them, Christians have at times done the
opposite. They have told these people that they would no longer be poor and
sick if they would hang God's picture up on the wall, carry a small one of Him
around in their pocket, and pray for enough faith to believe that the portrait
is a photographic likeness. With this in mind, I am no longer surprised that
there are atheists.
Do you worship the God portrayed by the Bible, or do you worship God as he is
portrayed by the Bible? Do you worship the creator of the world who loves us,
or do you insist that he cannot be real if he did not create swarms of demons
to plague and harass us?
I know that a man does not have two eyes on one side of his nose,
and that a woman does not have three breasts. The etymology of the word "God"
comes from the word "good." The portions of the portrait that seem to indicate
that evil proceeds from God I accept as aesthetic art, but not as literal
truth.
I am sure I will get some negative responses to this. Those who
are convinced the Bible is literal truth in all details and that their
superiority to other members of the human race comes from this conviction are
likely to be upset, but that is their problem, not mine.
Raleigh
.
* If you wake up and find me driving, you'll know you're in trouble
--Major Don West
Jeff Shirton
George Williams <ralei...@aol.comQQQQ> wrote in message
news:20001217074131...@nso-fo.aol.com...
> punishment. There are a few folks who say that God
> is merciful and that he will overlook certain
> infractions, (usually their favorite ones).
Like not believing parts of the Bible, that God could dare to "hate"
someone, just because that doesn't agree with one's preconceived idea of
what God *should* be like.
(Is that the kind of self-serving interpretations you're referring to here?)
> However, the fact remains that we would not be in need
> of forgiveness if we were not dealing with a petty God.
> A God who tickets people for doing 20.5 miles per hour
> in a 20 mph zone when he has personally constructed
> speedometers for us that are only accurate plus or
> minus 5 mph. is an abusive stepparent.
Here we go... Here's the justification that we can sin a little bit, and
still be okay.
The Jews built a "fence" around the law, to make sure they didn't get too
close to breaking it. This in itself was not a bad thing, in fact it makes
great sense. It only became bad when they tried to make their "fence" a law
of its own.
If you know that the speed limit is 20 mph, and
if you know that your speedometer could be out by 5 mph, then you also know
that if you go past 15 mph, then it's quite possible that you could be
speeding.
Is it really quite necessary to go faster than 15 mph, when doing so could
possibly be breaking the law?
> which he was accustomed. But the portrait is not
> of photographic quality. Parts of the gospels come
> close, but they are poorly focused, and poorly
> developed so that we still do not completely see
> exactly the aspect of God that the artist wished to
> depict.
Okay, here's the part where you try to justify not believing in your
least-favourite parts, and you seem to give a "built-in" reason for doing
so.
> The purpose of the portrait is clear. It is to give
> us the comfort that God is good and all powerful,
> and that he is with us always to give us hope both in
> this life and the next. It lets us know that even if
> we were mentally ill and homeless, rejected by all
> our friends and family, that he would not desert us.
> The clearest parts of the portrait are those in which
How do we know this, if it's just a blurry photograph?
Who gets to decide which parts are blurry, and which parts are in focus?
And what do we do when we have ten million different answers about
identifying the blurry and clear parts?
> Jesus explains and demonstrates that the love of God
> is the only literal truth in the entire painting..
Well, that's one interpretation. Let's stand in line, waiting for the
9,999,999 other interpretations to show up, which are different as yours,
and just as justifiable.
> Do you worship the God portrayed by the Bible, or do
> you worship God as he is portrayed by the Bible?
You have just convinced me that if the two are not the same, then it is
impossible to know the God portrayed in the Bible.
> etymology of the word "God" comes from the word "good."
> The portions of the portrait that seem to indicate
> that evil proceeds from God I accept as aesthetic art,
> but not as literal truth.
Anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of a "god",
anything that goes beyond your personal comfort level, you feel free to
reject? It's no wonder, then, that Christian is filled with thousands of
differing theologies.
> I am sure I will get some negative responses to this.
> Those who are convinced the Bible is literal truth in
> all details and that their superiority to other members
> of the human race comes from this conviction are
> likely to be upset, but that is their problem, not mine.
Those who are convinced that the Bible is the literal truth, realize that
nobody is "superior" to anyone, and that all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God.
> Raleigh
Jeff Shirton
George Williams
<jshi...@home.com> writes:
>
>George Williams <ralei...@aol.comQQQQ> wrote in message
>news:20001217074131...@nso-fo.aol.com...
>
>> punishment. There are a few folks who say that God
>> is merciful and that he will overlook certain
>> infractions, (usually their favorite ones).
>
>Like not believing parts of the Bible, that God could dare to "hate"
>someone, just because that doesn't agree with one's preconceived idea of
>what God *should* be like.
>
I have never seen anyone claim that God actually wrote the Bible. This
claim would too strongly contradict fact, simply because the most ignorant of
us knows how books are written. If the Bible is written by men, is it fair to
hold God absolutely to its standard? If you were interested in meeting a young
lady online, would you consider posting an image of you painted by chimpanzees?
Or better appropriately to the point, would you allow Jethro Bodine to write
your personal profile--I'm sure the more cosmopolitan ladies would be
interested in things such as how many cows you have, and whether or not your
house is close to the creek, and whether you save the softest cobs for the
outhouse. If you merely told Jethro that you were an important man looking for
love, and he was charitable enough, he might just write such a profile for you
to help you out. You give him an idea of who you are, and what you are looking
for, and with your impressive presence "inspire" him to write great things, but
you will have to realize that his perception of greatness and eligibility will
be filtered through his own understanding of what "great" actually means. I
would not hold you responsible for the outcome.
>(Is that the kind of self-serving interpretations you're referring to here?)
>
Perhaps, if you see it that way. However, because I have taken a more
relaxed attitude toward the Bible, note that I am not advocating taking women
out of the workplace and keeping them biblically barefoot and pregnant.
Truthfully, there may be some benefits somewhere to someone other than myself.
I do not believe that women are so potentially sinful that they must report to
a man every day--even if they have no man other than their pastor--just to keep
them out of trouble. Those who have infants will be delighted to know that I
don't believe that people who bash babies' heads on rocks are as blessed as the
Psalmist says they are. There are any number of benefits that accrue from my
point of view, and mankind benefits from it as much as I. The milliners may be
upset that I don't believe that women have to hide their beautiful heads in
church to keep from inspiring the invisible angels in the service to lustful
and actual rape--it might cut into hat sales, but spirituality and economics
don't always travel together.
>> However, the fact remains that we would not be in need
>> of forgiveness if we were not dealing with a petty God.
>> A God who tickets people for doing 20.5 miles per hour
>> in a 20 mph zone when he has personally constructed
>> speedometers for us that are only accurate plus or
>> minus 5 mph. is an abusive stepparent.
>
>Here we go... Here's the justification that we can sin a little bit, and
>still be okay.
>
Did I say we can sin a little bit, and still be o.k.? Biblically speaking,
if a holy roller finds out that you, or I, have committed a sin that the
multiple authors of the Bible deemed a capital offense, then the following
would happen according to strict biblical interpretation: someone would die
rather quickly without opportunity for repentance or any of the other good
stuff the Bible talks about. It is noteworthy that however suspicious scholars
have been of John 8, they have never been able to get that passage out of the
bible. It has the reek of spuriousness about it from the textual sense, but the
populace at large is so convinced that this is what God is like that the
academics haven't successfully removed it--some have even decided to endorse it
for various reasons.
>The Jews built a "fence" around the law, to make sure they didn't get too
>close to breaking it. This in itself was not a bad thing, in fact it makes
>great sense. It only became bad when they tried to make their "fence" a law
>of its own.
>
Exactly. And the Bible is that sort of a fence. God did not write
it--though it is composed of words he spoke, or words similar to words he might
have spoken under certain circumstances. A book is a piece of technology. It is
as foreign to the "Bible" people as a speech by Abraham Lincoln on CD-Rom would
be to the Confederate army. Coverting text from paper to data may be easy for
us, but the process is not so simple from verbal to paper.
>If you know that the speed limit is 20 mph, and
>if you know that your speedometer could be out by 5 mph, then you also know
>that if you go past 15 mph, then it's quite possible that you could be
>speeding.
>
>Is it really quite necessary to go faster than 15 mph, when doing so could
>possibly be breaking the law?
>
I have to use my cruise control in town to avoid breaking the speed limit.
I am so busy looking for people driving the wrong way, running red lights, and
swerving in front of me that I really am too preoccupied to look at the
speedometer. If I lived in Mayberry, things might be different. The folks there
might wonder why I even bothered to get a driver's license, since every place
in their town is within walking distance.
>> which he was accustomed. But the portrait is not
>> of photographic quality. Parts of the gospels come
>> close, but they are poorly focused, and poorly
>> developed so that we still do not completely see
>> exactly the aspect of God that the artist wished to
>> depict.
>
>Okay, here's the part where you try to justify not believing in your
>least-favourite parts, and you seem to give a "built-in" reason for doing
>so.
>
The least favorite parts are the parts where God does things that are
universally recognized as inhumane and in violation of the Geneva convention.
Do you have a problem with the Geneva convention, or the fact that some people
have the instinct to gag and vomit when confronted with genocide and the like?
I am surprised that this is not used against the LDS when they say that God is
a man. If God were a man, and is as depicted in the Bible, he would be in
Spandau prison. We could, of course, write and see if he is in there. If he is,
it might prove the LDS point; if he is not, it would definitely prove is is not
a man--assuming the Bible is literally true in all respects.
>> The purpose of the portrait is clear. It is to give
>> us the comfort that God is good and all powerful,
>> and that he is with us always to give us hope both in
>> this life and the next. It lets us know that even if
>> we were mentally ill and homeless, rejected by all
>> our friends and family, that he would not desert us.
>> The clearest parts of the portrait are those in which
>
>How do we know this, if it's just a blurry photograph?
>Who gets to decide which parts are blurry, and which parts are in focus?
>And what do we do when we have ten million different answers about
>identifying the blurry and clear parts?
>
Think back on the simple things. "If a man's son asks him for bread, does
he give him a stone?" That is why the logo WWJD is so popular. If a God who is
really a caring God creates a race of people, would he be constantly torn
between the choice of running them through a meat grinder, or into a bessemer
converter? Then again, possibly God really is a self-important genocidal
maniac, and the good parts of the Bible are the fantasy. I tend to lean toward
the conceptualization *attributed* to Jesus.
>> Jesus explains and demonstrates that the love of God
>> is the only literal truth in the entire painting..
>
>Well, that's one interpretation. Let's stand in line, waiting for the
>9,999,999 other interpretations to show up, which are different as yours,
>and just as justifiable.
>
Yes. As I stated above, one can conclude that God is some sort of Satanic
being and that if you get on his good side by being a fundamentalist, or
something, you can excape being roasted alive. God the Batman villain doesn't
sound like an attractive theology, but fundamentalism has been guilty of
leaning in that direction since its beginning.
>> Do you worship the God portrayed by the Bible, or do
>> you worship God as he is portrayed by the Bible?
>
>You have just convinced me that if the two are not the same, then it is
>impossible to know the God portrayed in the Bible.
Just as Madalyn O'Hair was absolutely correct when she said that doing a
number two (paraphrased here, of course) was one of the best things in nature,
Joseph Smith was right about a few things as well. One of them is that the
glory of God is intelligence. Human beings are very complicated creatures, and
intelligence is not the only thing that drives them (nor should it be), but
most theological disasters are caused by dumping either intelligence or
intuition, and running with the choice that one has the most talent for. For
example, O'Hair appeared guilty of snubbing intuition at every opportunity
(she was a chamelonic propagandist), and Smith was certainly guilty of snubbing
intelligence on more than one occasion. Smith's mistake on that point is that
he failed to mention that there are a few other qualities that should be
stirred in with that intelligence to get any results.
>
>> etymology of the word "God" comes from the word "good."
>> The portions of the portrait that seem to indicate
>> that evil proceeds from God I accept as aesthetic art,
>> but not as literal truth.
>
>Anything that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions of a "god",
>anything that goes beyond your personal comfort level, you feel free to
>reject? It's no wonder, then, that Christian is filled with thousands of
>differing theologies.
The Christianity mentioned in the Book of Acts does not exist any more. It
is filled with thousands of differing theologies because it was never intended
to deal with any theology whatsoever. There is a reason why converts to any new
religion are almost always drawn from the underclass, with an occasional
intellectual here and there who momentarily got too traumatized to think very
much. The poorer people are the ones who operate more like that Pauline bugaboo
the "natural man." The church eventually absorbed and produced enough rich
intellectuals with leisure time to think. It got top-heavy, but it didn't come
crashing down. It just slowly suffocated until it now it isn't there any more.
>
>> I am sure I will get some negative responses to this.
>> Those who are convinced the Bible is literal truth in
>> all details and that their superiority to other members
>> of the human race comes from this conviction are
>> likely to be upset, but that is their problem, not mine.
>
>Those who are convinced that the Bible is the literal truth, realize that
>nobody is "superior" to anyone, and that all have sinned and fall short of
>the glory of God.
>
Unfortunately, the Bible speaks of a class of people called the elect.
Entire cults are built up around this concept. It is one of the first
theological concepts that follows after a spiritual leader gets his followers
too intoxicated to realize that the doctrine of sola scriptura is
self-contradicted because it is absent from any and all permutations of the
biblical text. It is extremely difficult to preach a doctrine of sola scriptura
if one cites a scriptural text in which the hero either converses with God, or
gets some kind of magic sign indicating God's will in response to a specific
question--especially if the congregation is informed enough to know that the
Bible never says that God has stopped doing this.
That is why "orthodox" Christianity is so angry with Mormonism. It is a
parody of modern Christianity. The missionaries go door to door with an
authoritarian tome that couldn't possibly have existed at the time proposed and
ask people to subjugate their entire lives to the authority of this book. The
orthodox believe what they have been taught to believe. One of my father's
congregants told him flat out that she wouldn't have anything to do with the
RSV. She wanted the same Bible that Paul and Silas had. If Christianity is
contained in a book, then the religion that Paul had is not Christianity. He
had no book at all, let alone a Bible bible neatly rendered into 66 sections
from a hundred thousand some-odd mss. in an "eclectic" translation.
Some may laugh at Aunt Hattie's palpable ignorance, but all devotees of the
doctrine of plenary inspiration must of necessity practice some degree of being
out of the loop in order to believe the Bible is literally true.
The worst part is that, even if it were, the contents of the book are much
in dispute. And the portions that are not in dispute textually are in dispute
translation-wise. That is why the Baptists have the NASB, the Methodists the
NRSV, the the Catholics the NAB, and so on.--because even the parts that they
all agree should be translated into the bible have to be translated so as to
interfere minimally with their peculiar sensibilities. I have done nothing
different, except suggest that maybe the book is not the problem, but the
attitude toward it that is causing the problem. It seems to be causing
division, not solving it. The problem is not that of acquiring the correct
text, the correct canon, and the correct translation. The problem is that the
Bible is not what it is purported to be. After spending in excess of a decade
looking for the "real" Bible that is my conclusion. After all, it may be true
that a forest can't be seen for the trees, but it is helpful to remember that
sometimes it is the other way around--the trees can't be seen for the forest.
The propaganda that the Bible is absolutely inerrant is like the forest canopy.
It casts such a big shadow that if one is not careful he will run into one of
the trees of contradiction and get a concussion.
Anyone who attempts to use the Bible as absolutely inerrant means of
determing God's general will for the human race (if he doesn't commit suicide
early on), will eventually do one of two things--he will either give up on the
plenary inspiration of the Bible, or mentally he will translocate the authority
of the biblical text into the same never-never-land as Book of Mormon geography
to keep it safe from intrusion by fact, reason, and experience. You see, the
word of God is perfect, and book that is claimed (itself makes no such claim)
to be the word of God cannot bear a single demonstrable contradiction being
discovered within it.
Far from supposing that this country succeeded because the Pilgrims brought
the Geneva Bible to the shores of New England and believed it was literal truth
uttered by the mouth of God himself to Mohammed-like intermediaries, I have
reached the conclusion that this country has succeeded in spite of that fact.
You see, the Bible itself isn't dangerous. On the other hand, the idea that it
is absolutely and literally true in every respect (even when it contradicts
itself and known facts), is quite probably an adversarial plot designed to turn
us into homocidal, suicidal, and genocidal maniacs. Teaching a child implicitly
that God has made the world a madhouse by telling him that the Bible is
literally true and that he dare not disbelieve *any* of it does not prepare him
for a happy life in this world, or in the world to come. It prepares him for
hell on earth--with a half-baked and schizophrenic God who cannot make up his
mind-- and with little better prospects afterward.
You see, I have learned something from the forays of anti's into
Alt/Religion/Mormon. The obvious solution to the problem is usually the correct
one. Instead of believing circuitous and contradictory stories about angels and
gold plates, one can simply understand that Joseph Smith cobbled it together
from his own knowledge and from what he plagiarized from others. And instead of
believing that a God who is true, perfect, and logical could create a mess that
contradicts itself at every turn, the obvious solution is that the Bible is as
it is because God did not write it, did not order it written, translated,
published, or distributed. He issued commands to bring his message to the
world, and some of his underlings decided the work would be easier if they just
wrote it down the best they could in a book, and made us study that. It is not
unlike the Andean missionaries with the early Spaniards, who, being unable to
speak the language of the Indians in the region, put up a cross and indicated
by signs that the Indians were to worship it. And the Indians did.
There is much truth in the Bible. It is a good book. I think it one of the
essential books in anyone's library--as essential to spiritual development as
the dictionary is to spelling. But in the case of the Bible, we are told that
believing it is true and correct without question will make better people out
of us. We could just as well promise someone that he will become a great orator
by memorizing the dictionary. If the book is misused, then someone is being
badly mistreated. And that is what the promotion of the idea of biblical
inerrancy to the extent of word for word correspondence with the utterances of
God is--abuse of us all.
>
>Jeff Shirton
>
Regards,
Raleigh
The DataRat
"we would not be in need of forgiveness
if we were not dealing with a petty God"
Another God-hater attacks the Supreme Being !
"It would be nice if the Bible were a detailed
and accurate rulebook"
It ~is~, but you have to be Born Again to
even "see" the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3
NASB, NIV, NKJ) ...much less understand
Scripture !
The Bible is truly a closed book to you
unregenerate.
The DataRat
George Williams
writes:
>
> Another God-hater attacks the Supreme Being !
>
>
>
>
> "It would be nice if the Bible were a detailed
> and accurate rulebook"
>
>
> It ~is~, but you have to be Born Again to
> even "see" the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3
> NASB, NIV, NKJ) ...much less understand
> Scripture !
>
> The Bible is truly a closed book to you
> unregenerate.
>
>
>
> The DataRat
>
You are a perfect example of the point I was trying to make, Rat. Thanks for
throwing in your two francs worth.
Was it Emerson or Thoreau who said, "What you are stands above you the
while and thunders so loudly that I cannot hear anything you say to the
contrary."?