[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaIi5k89xbg]
This highly informative video traces the pagan origins and history of Halloween. The Pagan Occult calendar of Druids, Witches, Pagans and Satanists marks Halloween as one of their highest “holy days.” This video uncovers the mystic Druidic rites and ceremonies with which “Samhain” (Halloween) was originally observed 4,000 years ago. The occult rituals seen in this video are real and not re-enactments.
http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/products/PI1D
From: Dr. Stan’s Radio Liberty Audio Archives
| Date: 10-23-09 | |
| Hour: a – 1 hr. | |
| 3:00: Dr. Dennis Cuddy – Euthanasia Health Plan | |
 |
|
| Hour: b – 1 hr. | |
| 4:00: Caryl Matrisciana – Halloween Is Not Innocent | |
|
|
| Hour: c – 2 hrs. | |
| 8:00: Dr. Russell Blaylock – Increasing Dimentia 9:00: Lindsey Williams – Oil and the Next 2 Years |
|
|
|
|
Related:
Halloween Reality Check: Former Satanist Recalls Human Sacrifice of Little Girl
Paul Swonger
Does that make the Bible Pagan? After all it quotes several Pagan works, both in the NT and OT.
NT:
* Epimenides Cretica Acts 17:28
* Aratus Phaenomena 5 in Acts 17:28
* Epimenides De oraculis in Titus 1:12
* Euripides Bacchae 794 in Acts 26:14
* Heraclitus in 2 Peter 2:22
* Julianus Or. 8,246b in Acts 26:14
* Menander Thais in 1 Corinthians 15:33
* Thucydides II 97,4 in Acts 20:35.
* Plato’s The Timaeus in Acts 17:24.
OT:
* The book of the Wars of Yahweh (Numbers 21:14)
* The book of Jashar (Joshua 10:12-13; 2 Samuel 1:19-27; and 1 Kings 8:12-13 (LXX version))
* The chronicles of the Kings of Judah (mentioned 18 times)
* The chronicles of the Kings of Israel (mentioned 18 times)
* The Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
* Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1,2; 2 Chronicles 20:34)
* History of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chronicles 9:29)
* Visions of Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 9:29)
The word Halloween is actually a contraction for All Hallows Eve, which, before the reform of the liturgical calendar, was the vigil of All Saints and All Souls Days.
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=All_Saints
http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=All_Souls%27_Day
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
You said: “Does that make the Bible Pagan? After all it quotes several Pagan works, both in the NT and OT.”
No. This makes the Bible a reliable historical record.
And about the word Halloween: the Catholic church introduced many pagan practices into Christendom (not to be confused with real Christianity), complete with the facelift-name changes (just like the Federal Reserve is neither Federal or has reserves).
Prayers to Mary and Mary worship is even said to be the bringing in of occult goddess worship and calling this goddess, instead, ‘Mary.’
This is how the Devil works. Bills are passed in Congress, calling them almost the opposite of what they really are. I can’t think of the best examples now, but Homeland Security is supposed to make us feel good when it actually guts and destroys some of the Constitution and our Republic.
Jeff Fenske
Paul Swonger
Perhaps you could demonstrate the “Real Christians” in the first 10 centuries after the death of The Apostle John condemning the Catholic Church as heretical?
How about a name, writing or some such from one of the “true Christians” in the first 1000 years after the death of the Apostle John? Where’s this “real Christianity” in history?
“Pray” means to ask. Asking another Christian to pray for you is Biblical. It’s the idea that death separates us that is not (Romans 8:35-39).
And again, you allege perceived similarity with origin. Explain for us why the accusations of Horus prefiguring Christ in the Egyptian religion (Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection after 3 days) does not make the concept of Christ “pagan”, but the concept of Mary (who’s a figure from the Bible) does.
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
It has been my impression that once Constantine made Christianity the state religion (fourth century), introducing all kinds of paganism in the process, Christianity really did go into a dark age.
Just the idea of priesthood in the Catholic church puts priests as the mediator between man and God, which is totally unscriptural after Jesus died on the cross and the veil was rent. The priests rean the show, speaking even in a language that most didn’t understand. And the common people didn’t have access to even read the Bible for themselves to see what was true or not.
When Luther came along, it was during the birth of the printing press, so people started to be able to think for themselves. But Luther didn’t get it right either.
You may be interested in my spiritual site: http://ONEcanhappen.wordpress.com I have an entire category in the pull-down menu called “Luther Didn’t Get It.” There is an article called “The Protestant Reformers Were Frauds,” which also mentions John Calvin.
The main thing is what is real Christianity, and I go into that big-time:
“Those who are led by the Spirit are the children of God.”
“Those who are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with its passions and its lusts.”
“Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called children of God.”
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Jesus said to John in Revelation 3:
Jesus said in John 15 that we must abide in Him, and those who don’t will be cast into the fire and burned.
The emphasis should always be on the greatest two commandments. And the second includes loving the Iraqis as much as we love ourselves. It is just so absurd to me that Christians could support President Bush’s wars when they didn’t do anything to us. We weren’t attacked. Even 9/11 was basically an inside job, which is proven on this site. But they’d rather follow a leader who said Jesus is the greatest philosopher, but by President Bush’s actions he proved he was not really a Christian.
And how many ‘Christians’ even study what the Bible really says about who goes to heaven? 0.001%, maybe. I have: Who-Goes-To-Heaven Scriptures — Narrow is the Way. Why are people so eager to blindly follow men when Paul said we must know HIM, and most of these men hardly know HIM and haven’t really studied who goes to heaven? And Paul said the Bereans were more noble because they eagerly received what Paul said and then they checked in the Scriptures to make sure that what Paul taught was true. How many ‘Christians’ really do that?
And many think Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News actually is their friend, not giving them NWO spin, and that Murdoch’s NIV is really a real Bible that they can trust.
In your third paragraph, are you saying Romans 8 justifies praying to Mary, in response to what I said in comment #2?
Prayer is mainly talking with God, and we can ask others to talk with God on our behalf too, but they must be living. This text in Romans is only saying that whatever real Christians go through, there isn’t anything that can separate us from God’s love. But that’s if we’re real Christians, and much of Romans 8 says who the real Christians are, except in Rupert Murdoch’s NIV, which deletes verse 1b. Verse 4 is similar though. And verses 12-17 are also very clear.
One of the biggest deceptions in the Evangelical church, currently, are preachers who teach Romans 1a (“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are IN CHRIST JESUS”) without 1b (“who don’t walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit”), which explains what it means to really be in Christ Jesus.
They also ignore verse 4 and 12-17, but then love to tell everyone how no one can separate us from God’s love, the verses you referenced, 35-39.
And then many of those same leaders James-3 curse anyone who says something isn’t right here. And I think that’s the main way they’ve been able to keep false doctrine afloat through the ages: praying against the true reformers and people who are apt to reform.
Regarding your last point, it appears that Horus prefiguring Jesus is mainly a myth: http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html
In summary, I don’t think most Catholics or most Evangelicals are getting it right. There is serious deception in both camps. What we need is real Christianity, and I think that was still happening to a significant degree in the pre-Constantine era, according to what the ante-nicene church fathers wrote.
But it’s apparent that there were already serious problems even when Jesus gave John the Revelation, based upon what He said about the 7 churches in the first 3 chapters.
To me, the only thing that can account for such huge deception and for so few people being willing to even research what the Bible really says about who goes to heaven is that hardly anyone is really demon free internally. Most have familiar spirits which influence their thinking away from the Light that would really set them free. Not very many people are really interested in being led by the Holy Spirit either, without which we cannot be children of God, according to Paul.
My site, ONEcanhappen goes into how we can really be ‘ONE’ in Christ, as Jesus prayed would happen in John 17. “Then the world will know.” Now the world mostly smells a rat.
God bless!!!
Jeff
Paul Swonger
Jeff,
Your verbosity is appreciated, yet I don’t think you answered my question about the “Real Christians” in history.
You Said:
“Just the idea of priesthood in the Catholic church puts priests as the mediator between man and God, which is totally unscriptural after Jesus died on the cross and the veil was rent. The priests rean the show, speaking even in a language that most didn’t understand. And the common people didn’t have access to even read the Bible for themselves to see what was true or not.”
But the Bible Says:
John 20:21
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
John 20:23
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Luke 10:16
He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
I’m often curious as to what means the Bible was to become “available to the masses” previous to the invention of the printing press, as manuscripts were copied by hand which was a very expensive and time consuming process. It’s not as if the Bible had been in the hands of the common people, and then was taken from them. It was in the hands of the Church because it came form the Church. The Church was it’s guardian, canonizor, author, and interpreter under the Holy Spirit.
As for there being one mediator, this is true (1 Timothy 2:5).
However, we have many intercessors (1 Corinthians 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:1-3). This is a different concept, and the idea that this ceases with death is not scriptural, but the result of men’s opinions being perpetuated.
As for speaking in languages people didn’t know, the language of the Early Church was Greek, just as the NT was written in, and so, if you want to fault the Church for Speaking Greek, you must also logically fault the NT authors. Latin coming into full ecclesiastic usage really didn’t happen until after the first ~1050 years of Christianity (Great Schism) as a result of being the language being prevalent (even among the lay people) of the Roman Empire.
As for The NIV translation, I would agree that it’s not a good translation, though I would assign that same evaluation to the King James, and other Bibles that were produced through mutilation during the reformation (and since in the case of the KJV 1611).
You Said:
“Prayer is mainly talking with God, and we can ask others to talk with God on our behalf too, but they must be living.”
But you fail to offer scripture or a biblical case illustrating this.
As for the Bereans and your reference to Acts 17, they (the bereans) rejected Sola Scriptura.
When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as “the people of the book,” in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the “seat of Moses” in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as “divinely inspired,” since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.
I would certainly love to discuss these things in greater detail, especially the allegations of “Catholic Deception” you made. Perhaps we could arrange a debate on a public forum.
God Bless,
Paul S.
Paul Swonger
I would also add briefly, that as hellenistic Jews, the Bereans used the LXX (Septuagint) text of the Old Testament, which includes the books Martin Luther removed almost two thousand years after their inclusion in the Jewish Canon, and ~1200 years after they had been apart of _ALL_ Christian Bibles.
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
I started writing this a few times, but in the name of being as concise and still complete as possible I decided to give it a few more days. Thanks for waiting.
Regarding the scriptures you quote about the continuation of the priesthood:
Jesus told the disciples to do these things before the veil was rent and before Pentecost. People were still living in the old covenant. The priesthood was still fully in affect.
This is similar to the argument that the majority of evangelicals make to support the continuation of old covenant tithing; even though, Paul never mentioned tithing; though, warned against following the law, and said we should determine in our hearts what to give. Irenaeus pointed out how Jesus discontinued the law of tithing http://www.freedomfromtithing.info/quotes.html, just as He said according to the law, killing was prohibited. Now He upped the ante, now that we can and should be led by the Holy Spirit. Now we are not even to get angry without reason, and as Paul said to never let the sun go down while we are still angry.
A lot changed when Jesus died on the cross and sent the Holy Spirit, but both the Catholic church (which I’ll call CC) and the Evangelicals are still in too many ways trying to live in the old covenant.
As far as the CC being the guardian…:
I’d say that if anything, the CC was the guardian against real Christianity happening for many centuries, and still largely is today, assisted by the evangelical institutions.
I don’t use the word ‘protestant’ much. It’s like the left/right paradigm in politics. The globalists want to keep us focused on protesting either the left or right, but it’s the globalists are calling the shots. And they’re allowed to succeed because of the lack of salt and light, awareness and integrity among ‘Christians’ today.
What I like to focus on is how we can get real Christianity going. And regarding church history, I’m interested more in when they got it right. The other stuff bores me greatly, and is pretty disgusting. It saddens my heart to see billions of people who have never seen a right-with-God-and-their-neighbors church.
This is a great tragedy, and I’ve seen this worldwide in my travels. The Philippines is a prime example of how even the pick-pockets think they can go to heaven if they do what the Priest says.
But in America, both Catholics and evangelicals cheat on their taxes, lie to their neighbor, willfully lust, wish evil on people (James-3 cursing), aren’t interested in being led by the Holy Spirit, and they think they’re going to heaven.
I thought it was bad over there, where they have a dead Jesus in a coffin and the CC appears to be totally silent about it, but over here, once-saved-always-saved (or it’s hard to lose one’s salvation) has all but destroyed evanglicalism, and trusting in the sacraments, etc., includin hail Maries, has kept Catholicism pretty much dead almost since its inception.
I do see a significant amount of real Christianity happening before Constantine made Christianity the state religion. “These signs will follow them that believe,” Jesus said. This is an interesting book on the subject: “Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church: An Exploration into the Gifts of the Spirit During the First Three Centuries of the Christian Church.” I haven’t researched the subject recently to see if more recent books have been written. “The Spirit and the Church: Antiquity” is also one that I read years ago. And then I did my own study.
But I haven’t studied in depth the entire history of the CC. It’s not a subject that interests me. To me, it’s basically an institution that keeps people in the dark.
Most evangelical people and Lutherans whom I know know this, so I focus more so on exposing the false doctrines of evangelicalism, and to some extent, Luther. Because some people believe that Luther was a legitimate reformer who really brought in real Christianity. But in reality, he just brought in another deception. The result is tragic in that only about 2.5% of people are going to heaven http://onecanhappen.com/2009/06/24/how-many-will-be-in-heaven-how-many-find-the-way. And Americans are among the most angry in the world — while most are ‘Christians’ are willfully ignorant of the collapse of America that is didn’t need to happen on our watch, had only we listened: http://onecanhappen.com/2009/02/14/my-10808-prophecy.
As to prayers to Mary being unbiblical:
There is no scripture that supports asking a dead person to intercede for us. But there are warnings about consulting with a dead person and the strict forbidding of talking with familiar spirits. Demons love this kind of thing, and can impersonate dead people. Instead, we should be praying to God directly and asking living, real Christians to pray for us, like they did in the New Testament.
On sola scriptura:
Unlike many evangelicals, I don’t believe in sola scriptura. I believe that God specifically speaks to many of His people today, and that we should learn from and listen to those who God has gifted to steer us in the right direction, especially those gifted to be prophets (Eph. 4:11).
One of the main reasons evangelical churches aren’t salt and light is because most pastors think they can do it on their own, which is totally unbiblical. Some say they want to hear what God is saying through others, but few are really interested. And many actively resist those who are gifted by God to help them, who would help them have and achieve biblical goals and what the Holy Spirit is saying.
Having said that about the evangelicals (whom I believe have more hope for change, because a large percentage actually have the Holy Spirit inside of them because they aren’t trusting in their infant baptism like the Lutherans and the Catholics), I totally disagree with the idea of the popes being spiritual descendants of Peter, and that what they say is to be revered like the Bible should be.
Have you ever read about “the bad popes?” There is no way these guys were led by God. Papal infallibility is absurd, biblically and historically.
I should say some positive things about Catholic doctrine. A friend of mine whom I attended seminary with the second time (he went on to get his Ph.D.; I never even got close to finishing my master’s) has since become Catholic. He has actually told me that I would probably find the Catholic doctrinal position on salvation more biblical than the evanglical’s.
I do appreciate the teaching on venial verses mortal sins, but I don’t see the CC as using Paul’s lists in Galatians 5, which lists mortal sins that almost all Catholics regularly commit. And even if they did think that lust, hate, envy, outbursts of wrath and etc. were sins that will keep us from going to heaven, they think they can keep doing them because they’re forgiven because of the sacraments.
But at least they do have a concept of venial and mortal sins.
My friend also has pointed out to me that perhaps the evangelicals don’t take the Lord’s Supper (eucharist) seriously enough, and make it far more representational than it really should be — thanks largely to Luther again. I’m very open to this as a possibility.
Perhaps the ‘protestants’ through out the baby with the bathwater on certain things, while the Catholics keep way too much bathwater, seemingly too often uninterested in the baby.
For example, my friend, once he and his wife became Catholic, he doesn’t seem to be interested in discussing how we can have revival (real Christianity) any more. We used to have these long conversations….
I’m interested in concepts, doctrines and practices that either facilitate or keep real Christianity from happening. What does the Bible say about this, the Holy Spirit about that? What happened in church history where they got it right?
You mentioned possibly doing a debate with me in a public forum regarding especially the Catholic deception. I don’t know what type of forum you have in mind, but I’m more of a careful analytic problem solver than a public speaker, in which I’ve never felt comfortable. I don’t have a photographic memory, having all of the facts I would need at hand. I’ve never been a wordsmith.
Please feel free to comment on anything I’ve written on these sites. I’d be glad to respond in writing, but I don’t think I’ll ever speak verbally in public to debate anything. If someone is interested in discussing what is real Christianity, perhaps I’d step out of my comfort zone for that. But you would probably get long silences out of me if we’d debate Catholicism verbally in a public forum. It’s not what God has called me to do.
Thanks for the offer though.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fenske : )
Paul Swonger
The Holy Spirit does guide those in the Church, however, those who are schismatic from the Church of the Apostles, are not in it.
The Apostles had bind loose authority, authority to forgive sins, and more to the point, to ordain their successors, which they did as a matter of fact.
The Catholic Church could not be the “guardian against real Christianity happening” as Christ insured that he would always be with the Church, and that that Gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matt 16). This means not for a second, a year, decade, century or so forth.
As for trusting in the sacraments, we trust in Christ’s promises. We believe that it is his body and blood because he said it was so.
You say the history of the Catholic Church doesn’t interest you. The Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ in 33AD. The Apostles with their God (as Christ) given authority ordained their leaders with the laying on of hands. This was an execution of authority given by Christ, and continues today. Ignorance of the History of the Catholic Church is ignorance of the history of Christianity itself.
You said:
“As to prayers to Mary being unbiblical:
There is no scripture that supports asking a dead person to intercede for us. But there are warnings about consulting with a dead person and the strict forbidding of talking with familiar spirits. Demons love this kind of thing, and can impersonate dead people. Instead, we should be praying to God directly and asking living, real Christians to pray for us, like they did in the New Testament.”
But the Bible Says:
Matthew 22:32
I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
Luke 20:38
For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.
Mark 12:27
He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You therefore do greatly err.
We live by the example of Christ. He is our Model. He converses with the dead (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30).
Thus, in Psalm 103 we pray, “Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!” (Ps. 103:20–21).
And in the opening verses of Psalms 148 we pray, “Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!”
In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).
Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. “There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed” (Deut. 18:10–15).
God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now.” The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.
You said:
“Have you ever read about “the bad popes?” There is no way these guys were led by God. Papal infallibility is absurd, biblically and historically.”
Indeed, we are ALL sinners.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned and do need the glory of God.
This includes you, regardless of what Church you affiliate with, or don’t affiliate with, and indeed every human including Popes. This is why Dante says there are Popes in Hell.
So you may think to yourself, “Well, this or that Pope was REALLY Bad, I’ve never done anything close”.
But the Bible Says:
James 2:10
And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.
The Apostles were not sinless. The Apostles were not “less guilty” than you or me of sin. We ALL need Christ, and His Body which is the Church (Ephesians 1:23).
You may think to yourself that this is anyone that “intellectually accepts” Christ, and is thus guided by the Holy Spirit.
But the Bible says:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1 Corinthians 12:25
That there might be no schism in the body: but the members might be mutually careful one for another.
As for Papal Infallibility, it is clear that you have in your mind an impression of what it means rather than any knowledge whatsoever of the doctrine as held by Catholics. A Quote:
“…The pope is not an oracle, he is infallible on the rarest of occasions, as we know…” -Pope Benedict XVI
I go into great detail about the subject, dispelling common misconceptions and myths about it on my website here: http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/Bishop-of-rome/papal-infallibility
Whether you agree with it or not, you should at least familiarize yourself with that which it is that you do not agree with.
As for your comments regarding Catholicism being more Biblical, this is true. In the united States especially, Protestantism (Non-Catholic Christianity) has a louder more visible voice in a lot of cases. This has allowed for people with little or no education to perpetuate myths, misconceptions, and plain falsehoods about the Church. I was raised in a Lutheran (anti-Catholic) Home. I was brought up to believe all sorts of things about the Church; from that “Catholics depict Christ on the Cross because they don’t believe in the resurrection” to “Catholicism is a Cult”— Which is an odd statement from my anti-Catholic Mother who was Lutheran, trying to indoctrinate me as a Lutheran, and Luther was an Augustinian (Catholic) Monk, who even in his 95 thesis acknowledged the office of the Papacy as established by Christ.
My advice is to have a look at the site I linked to above and it’s articles. I have spent countless hours investigating these subjects, and writing about them. Particularly of interest to you should be the article entitled “deuterocanon” as it will clearly demonstrate why Protestant Bibles are incomplete. Catholics have been using the same Canon since the 4th Century, as opposed to the Protestant Canon of the 16th Century, decided by one man, as opposed to by the Church, at Council, under guidance of the holy Spirit.
Revelations 8:3
And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God.
Revelations 8:4
And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.
As for your comments regarding the priesthood, you should have a look here:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
God Bless,
Paul S.
http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
I have given this some time because I just throw my hands up in the air because there is not even one Biblical text that legitimately substantiates your claims. I just don’t understand how you people think. And this is so sad because probably man billions are in hell right now (and going there as we speak) thinking that they should have gone to heaven because they did what the ‘Church’ said they should do.
The Bible is clear about who goes to heaven, and sadly, largely because of false teaching, most Catholics don’t fall into this category, nor do most evangelicals.
It’s important that when we read the Bible we don’t insert our expectations into what is written. We need to be free from the religious spirits (demons), and then jump in: God, what is real Christianity? What is the truth?
When unencumbered by preconceived notions, there is no way one will find biblical support for the doctrines you purport to be biblically supported. You can find church father’s support, but that’s because that’s when things started getting really weird. The key is: what does the Bible say?
The Bible doesn’t say Peter is a pope, nor does it say anything about papal succession.
Hebrews clearly shows that the Priesthood was done away with when the veil was rent. Now we have the Holy Spirit, Who was given at Pentecost. The continuation of the priesthood is totally weird, which is a main reason why so many ‘priests’ fall into the deepest sins.
And I should add that the practice of calling priests ‘Father’ is like telling Jesus, we’re going to do what we want to do. We don’t care what you said in Mt. 23:1-11. How arrogant can one be when Jesus specifically forebode it?
And you keep capitalizing ‘Church,’ when you quote scriptures, yet it’s not capitalized in the Greek. ‘The church’ are the believers. It’s not an institution — the only God-ordained institution that has their own line of kings.
This kind of insistence that the Catholic Church is the only God-ordained church (when there is no scriptural support and its fruit doesn’t support this at all) is one of the reasons why it perhaps is a cult, like your mother said. It’s like “we own the keys to the kingdom and the only way to the Father is through us.” This is definitely cultish.
As is Mary worship or prayers to Mary. None of your scriptures even come close to justifying praying to passed-on people. This is hogwash and perhaps even occultish, not just cultish.
You say this to support this teaching:
If someone from the other dimension came into my dimension, I’d probably talk with them too, but only when they are right there in front of me. And likewise, many people have gone to heaven and come back to tell their story. They spoke with the people there but don’t continue to do so now that the dimensional gap again exists.
This is absurd to use this as support for this practice that most likely was introduced to replace goddess worship.
In response to my comment about the bad popes, you said, “Indeed, we are ALL sinners.” Well, maybe you don’t understand the difference between venial and mortal sins from the Biblical perspective. We better not be sinning in the way they did and even in the way most ‘Christians’ or ‘Catholics’ sin and think we’re going to heaven.
The Bible is very clear about who goes to heaven and who are Christ’s: http://onecanhappen.com/2008/01/14/who-goes-to-heaven-scriptures
As far as papal infallibility is concerned, if it did only happen once (like you say on your site), this is news to me. This would be an improvement upon what I was taught.
On the other side of this, I believe people can hear clearly from God so that what they say can be trusted (for those who are called to do so, who are truly abiding in Him, hearing only one voice because the demons are gone. This has happened to me on a number of occasions). But it is to be compared against the Bible, not to be equal to the Bible.
You said:
The apostles were blameless, just as all qualified church leaders must be according to the elders qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus. They were in the second list in Galatians 5: “those who are Christ’s.” They weren’t willfully lusting, envying, hating, having outbursts of anger, and weren’t drunkards.
These are all sins that lead to death, that can separate ourselves from God to the degree that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God. But those who have crucified their flesh, who are Christ’s, will, is what Paul then says (read partly into chapter 6 too).
Paul, have you ever sat down and read the Bible to find out what it really says instead of reading it to find scriptures that support what you already believe? Are you teachable?
I had a prophecy for a pastor once who really was keeping the kingdom of God from happening. God told him that the flames would be neck high if he didn’t repent. Can you imagine? Neck high for all eternity. Fried for eternity, 24/7, no hope of ever not getting burnt.
The Bible says that those who consider themselves to be teachers will get a stricter judgment. According to the Bible, Dante was right, and it’s possible that every single ‘pope’ who ever existed is also right there with this particular pope.
And we’ll be there too if we’re not qualified to lead. Be forewarned.
Jesus said:
We better be careful, for if we teach others fallacy, not only are we responsible for our own sins, but also partially responsible for how our teaching affected others.
“It’s a serious thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.” (Hebrews 10)
Paul, seriously, have you ever read the Bible just to see what it really says, putting all of your thoughts about what it says on the back burner? You might be surprised and enlightened.
Is it possible for you to take your Catholic glasses off for a few weeks and do a seriously unbiased Bible study?
Check your heart above all. Deep within is where many of our emotions lie, and the religious demons like to control from there too, and I’m very serious about this.
The bible talks about the heart almost 1,000 times, including how deceptive it can be. We need to have clean hearts. My site http://ONEcanhappen.wordpress.com covers this in depth, especially the prophecy: Let Us Be ONE, in which Jesus, Himself, talks about what the church should really be.
Jeff Fenske
Paul Swonger
Your Said:
“I have given this some time because I just throw my hands up in the air because there is not even one Biblical text that legitimately substantiates your claims. I just don’t understand how you people think. And this is so sad because probably man billions are in hell right now (and going there as we speak) thinking that they should have gone to heaven because they did what the ‘Church’ said they should do.”
What you fail to acknowledge is that between the first and end of the tenth century, there was one Church. The protestant mentality you support didn’t exist (try finding it in history). So, to orthodox (Catholic) Christians, and indeed to anyone with a historical perspective, your views are novel. Not ours.
You Said:
“The Bible is clear about who goes to heaven, and sadly, largely because of false teaching, most Catholics don’t fall into this category, nor do most evangelicals.
It’s important that when we read the Bible we don’t insert our expectations into what is written. We need to be free from the religious spirits (demons), and then jump in: God, what is real Christianity? What is the truth?
When unencumbered by preconceived notions, there is no way one will find biblical support for the doctrines you purport to be biblically supported. You can find church father’s support, but that’s because that’s when things started getting really weird. The key is: what does the Bible say?”
A couple of points here.
1. A Great deal of the writings of the Church fathers predate the canonization of the New Testament. For several hundred years, there was no “Bible” in Christianity. This raises a problem, because being that there was no NT until it was written, and no “Bible” until it was canonized, that is, until the Church in council decided, under guidance of the Holy Spirit (more on that later) which books were inspired and which were not.
In the first 10 centuries of Christianity, there is no record of “Sola Scriptura” because it wasn’t invented by MAN until Martin Luther deemed himself wiser than all who had come before.
2. The idea of “getting weird” is unscriptural, and this Mormonesque view is called Ecclesial Deism.
The sort of idea that the Church fell away from orthodoxy, or that the fathers were going astray is denial of Christ’s promises to be with and send a counselor for the Church, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her (Compare to Matt 16:18, Matthew 28:20, John 14:16-18, Ephesians 3:20-21).
Ecclesial Deism is a man made protestant doctrine, that is essential to all protestant denominations. It’s intent is to marginalize the Church prior to the reformation, and legitimize and give “authority” to the opinions of men who founded Churches, placing themselves (e.g. Luther) in the place of Peter in Matthew 16:18.
More on Ecclesial Deism here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
You said:
“The Bible doesn’t say Peter is a pope, nor does it say anything about papal succession.”
The Bible doesn’t say “Pope” which is a disambiguation on “Papa”, meaning father, which is what Priests in the Bible (OT and NT) have always been called (more on that below).
The word “Father” is used, several times to describe the spiritual fathers of the Church (e.g. Apostles).
So the question is what does the word mean? The Papacy is something we could on it’s own discuss at great length. I will say in short, that Peter’s Primacy is evident in scripture (Matt. to Rev. – Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule), as is apostolic succession, as Peters first act after the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 1:15-26).
The current development of the office of the Pope is a development of increased knowledge, and refinement over time, with a basis in the scriptures and Apostolic Authority. Is it’s full blown current day form explicit in scripture? No, nor is the doctrine of the trinity, the Canon of the New Testament, the dual natures of Christ and so on.
You said:
“Hebrews clearly shows that the Priesthood was done away with when the veil was rent. Now we have the Holy Spirit, Who was given at Pentecost. The continuation of the priesthood is totally weird, which is a main reason why so many ‘priests’ fall into the deepest sins.”
Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal.
The Priesthood was established on the last supper, when Jesus instituted the Eucharist… Jesus said: “anamnesis”, do this in remembrance of me (Lucas 22:19 and 1 Cor 11:25). If you look up the word “anamnesis” in a Greek dictionary, you will find that it means it relates to the remembrance of sins when a sacrificed is offered. So when Christ said that, when he ordered to KEEP this sacrifice, where the body and the blood of Christ are separated, Christ was ordaining the apostles as priest, and this ordaining continues until today.
For you to call the father’s writings “weirdness” and the priesthood non-existent for me, is extraordinarily weird.
The Christian priesthood at length:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm
You said:
“And I should add that the practice of calling priests ‘Father’ is like telling Jesus, we’re going to do what we want to do. We don’t care what you said in Mt. 23:1-11. How arrogant can one be when Jesus specifically forebode it?”
Priests have always been called father. Your “problem” with it comes from a faulty understanding of Matthew 23:9.
Judges 17:10
And Micah said to him, “Stay with me, and be to me a father and a priest, and I will give you ten pieces of silver a year, and a suit of apparel, and your living.”
Judges 18:19
And they said to him, “Keep quiet, put your hand upon your mouth, and come with us, and be to us a father and a priest. Is it better for you to be priest to the house of one man, or to be priest to a tribe and family in Israel?”
1 Corinthians 4:15
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
(Several dozen more examples: http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/sacred-tradition/call-no-man-father ).
Correct interpretation of Matthew 23:9:
The meaning is, that our Father in heaven is incomparably more to be regarded, than any father upon earth: and no master is to be followed, who would lead us away from Christ. But this does not hinder but that we are by the law of God to have a due respect both for our parents and spiritual fathers, and for our masters and teachers.
Christ did not mean that we can literally never call anyone “father” and the Bible proves it. He especially did not mean it to refer those who he taught, founded his Church upon (Matthew 16:18), and sent to carry on his message (John 20:21).
You said:
“And you keep capitalizing ‘Church,’ when you quote scriptures, yet it’s not capitalized in the Greek. ‘The church’ are the believers. It’s not an institution — the only God-ordained institution that has their own line of kings.”
The “Kings” you refer to are not kings, but the first among equals. Huge difference. Indeed there are “royal connotations”, as even protestant scholars agree that in Matthew 16:18, Jesus was evoking Isaiah 22:15-24. Give it a read. You also seem to disregard the fact that Judaism is not and was not Sola Scriptura. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as “the people of the book,” in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the “seat of Moses” in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2).
You said:
“This kind of insistence that the Catholic Church is the only God-ordained church (when there is no scriptural support and its fruit doesn’t support this at all) is one of the reasons why it perhaps is a cult, like your mother said. It’s like “we own the keys to the kingdom and the only way to the Father is through us.” This is definitely cultish.”
Jeff. We know which men founded every protestant denomination in history. Those men were not Jesus. Denial of the Church founded by Christ on the Apostles (Matt. 16:18, Ephesians 2:20) is denial of Christ. He did not found Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptists, Jehovas Witnesses, “Non Denominationals”, “Bible Teaching” Churches, and so forth. Who founded your Church Jeff?
http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/denominations
John 14:6
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
You said:
“As is Mary worship or prayers to Mary. None of your scriptures even come close to justifying praying to passed-on people. This is hogwash and perhaps even occultish, not just cultish.”
Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38 – God is the God of the living not the dead.
James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 – the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.
Also, in one of the books Martin Luther REMOVED from the Bible:
2 Macc. 15:12-16 – the high priest Onias and the prophet Jeremiah were deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living Judas Maccabeas and pray for the holy people on earth.
Note:
Rev 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.
You said:
“You say this to support this teaching:
“We live by the example of Christ. He is our Model. He converses with the dead (Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30).”
If someone from the other dimension came into my dimension, I’d probably talk with them too, but only when they are right there in front of me. And likewise, many people have gone to heaven and come back to tell their story. They spoke with the people there but don’t continue to do so now that the dimensional gap again exists.
This is absurd to use this as support for this practice that most likely was introduced to replace goddess worship.”
You fail to realize that this was not only Jewish practice, but Christian practice that went unchallenged until the reformers thought they knew better than Christ’s Church.
You said:
”
In response to my comment about the bad popes, you said, “Indeed, we are ALL sinners.” Well, maybe you don’t understand the difference between venial and mortal sins from the Biblical perspective. We better not be sinning in the way they did and even in the way most ‘Christians’ or ‘Catholics’ sin and think we’re going to heaven.
The Bible is very clear about who goes to heaven and who are Christ’s: http://onecanhappen.com/2008/01/14/who-goes-to-heaven-scriptures”
Indeed. In my post I was very clear that even people within roles of leadership in the Church can go to hell.
You said:
“As far as papal infallibility is concerned, if it did only happen once (like you say on your site), this is news to me. This would be an improvement upon what I was taught.”
Have you once considered that what you taught was from a non Catholic, and therefore might not actually be an accurate portrayal of what the Church teaches about Infallibility?
You said:
“On the other side of this, I believe people can hear clearly from God so that what they say can be trusted (for those who are called to do so, who are truly abiding in Him, hearing only one voice because the demons are gone. This has happened to me on a number of occasions). But it is to be compared against the Bible, not to be equal to the Bible.”
So if God speaks to you directly, you would disregard it in favor of your INTERPRETATION of what Scripture says? What does scripture say about private interpretation of scripture?
The Thessalonians come to mind, who, searching the scriptures, could not verify what Paul was saying and so rejected him and threw him out of town.
You said:
“The apostles were blameless, just as all qualified church leaders must be according to the elders qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus. They were in the second list in Galatians 5: “those who are Christ’s.” They weren’t willfully lusting, envying, hating, having outbursts of anger, and weren’t drunkards.”
Right there Peter is gone. Cutting off someone’s ear in a fit of rage isn’t exactly NOT ANGER. Nor is denying Christ 3 times. Paul commits the same thing he reprimands Peter for as well (catering to Jewish custom as not to offend them but gain them as Christians).
You said:
“These are all sins that lead to death, that can separate ourselves from God to the degree that these people will not inherit the kingdom of God. But those who have crucified their flesh, who are Christ’s, will, is what Paul then says (read partly into chapter 6 too).”
You need to understand that no amount of misguided zeal, human incompetence or failure can undue the divine foundation of the Church (Matthew 16:18).
“Paul, have you ever sat down and read the Bible to find out what it really says instead of reading it to find scriptures that support what you already believe? Are you teachable?”
I read my Bible daily. I don’t “read it to support my views”.
You said:
“I had a prophecy for a pastor once who really was keeping the kingdom of God from happening. God told him that the flames would be neck high if he didn’t repent. Can you imagine? Neck high for all eternity. Fried for eternity, 24/7, no hope of ever not getting burnt.”
No, you didn’t.
2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.
You said:
“The Bible says that those who consider themselves to be teachers will get a stricter judgment. According to the Bible, Dante was right, and it’s possible that every single ‘pope’ who ever existed is also right there with this particular pope.”
What a horrible accusation. Perhaps you should actually know the men you’re talking about before you make such a bold claim.
You said
“And we’ll be there too if we’re not qualified to lead. Be forewarned.
Jesus said:
“It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
We better be careful, for if we teach others fallacy, not only are we responsible for our own sins, but also partially responsible for how our teaching affected others.
“It’s a serious thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.” (Hebrews 10)”
And I say to you, for God, for Christ’s Church, I am ready to face my judgment, and I happily think upon the day I will face Him.
You said:
“Paul, seriously, have you ever read the Bible just to see what it really says, putting all of your thoughts about what it says on the back burner? You might be surprised and enlightened.”
“Seeing what it really says” Hmm…. So instead of going to the Church for guidance (1 Tim 3:15) I should do with Martin Luther, Calvin and Zingwili did and claim “guidance by the Holy Spirit” upon my own ego?
THIS BIRTHED 38,000 MAN MADE DENOMINATIONS
You said:
“Is it possible for you to take your Catholic glasses off for a few weeks and do a seriously unbiased Bible study?”
The Bible comes from the Church. The Church does not come from the Bible. This, I will not disregard when I study the scriptures. Nor should you. Seriously investigate the formation of the Canon. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky, nor does scripture say it’s the ONLY AUTHORITY (compare 1 Tim 3:15 to this idea). Jesus didn’t command the apostles to write anything down, nor is any concept supported by scripture. Heresy in the first 3 centuries was condemned HOW? By the NT which had yet to be completed? No. By Church authority. Even the Bible itself gives clear evidence of this (See the council of Jerusalem Acts 15, Galatians 2). It was not the NT that was used against the heretics in the Bible. But the authority of the Apostles.
You said:
“Check your heart above all. Deep within is where many of our emotions lie, and the religious demons like to control from there too, and I’m very serious about this.”
But the Bible Says:
Jeremiah 23:16
Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Hearken not to the words of the prophets that prophesy to you, and deceive you: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord.
You said:
“The bible talks about the heart almost 1,000 times, including how deceptive it can be. We need to have clean hearts. My site http://ONEcanhappen.wordpress.com covers this in depth, especially the prophecy: Let Us Be ONE, in which Jesus, Himself, talks about what the church should really be.
Jeff Fenske”
Indeed Jeff. You need to realize an important fact. Guidance of the Holy Spirit needs to be distinguished from a group of people agreeing on what the Bible says. This is something Protestants have ALWAYS failed to do, since their men first founded Churches, denominations and “non denominations”.
Look at the Council of Jerusalem. The NT was not used to condemn heretics (in itself).
Since when does the body tell the head what to do?
The head always tells the body what to do, and the Head of the Catholic Church, which is His Body, is Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23.
God Bless.
Paul Swonger
Correction, I said:
“Jesus didn’t command the apostles to write anything down, nor is any concept supported by scripture.”
I meant to say:
“Jesus didn’t command the apostles to write anything down, nor is this concept supported by scripture.”
Regards.
Jeff Fenske
Okay Paul,
Please excuse me for waiting until I have a big enough chunk of quiet time to respond to your massive comment. This is a very important subject that I take seriously.
I must say, though, that I do feel better about this discussion. I think I’m finally starting to understand a little bit how you can come to your conclusions that really do differ greatly with what the Bible teaches. I’ll respond to your points (which I’ll put in triple brackets).
You said:
[[[What you fail to acknowledge is that between the first and end of the tenth century, there was one Church. The protestant mentality you support didn’t exist (try finding it in history). So, to orthodox (Catholic) Christians, and indeed to anyone with a historical perspective, your views are novel. Not ours.]]]
Paul, I wonder if you have ever read the ante-Nicene early church fathers other than the documents that support your point of view. It might be interesting for you to take a course at a non-Catholic seminary in order to see the side you don’t seem to be aware of. I have taken such a course. I have also read many of the writings when I wrote a 30-page paper on the subject of healing in the early church (pre-Constantine). And I’ve studied much of what David Bercot teaches on this specific subject: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/cds-wecb.html. You might find his information fascinating if you’re really interested in learning what the truth really is. For example, what did the early church really teach about apostolic succession?
I think this is a fascinating subject, because these were the Christians closest to the time of the Bible, when at least for a time they got it right.
But it should be noted that many churches were already having serious problems which Jesus explained specifically to John in Revelation 1-3. The church of Sardis is a prime example, which bares repeating. They actually had a reputation for being alive, even, yet only those who were truly overcoming wouldn’t have their names removed from the Book of Life. And nowhere does Jesus chastise them for not taking the sacraments enough or praying to Mary at all. It’s about obedience — having deeds that Jesus finds complete. It’s about living righteously, abiding in Him. It’s not about some ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo, which is a diversion from what Jesus really wants and requires from His people, who first need to be born-again, which that alone rarely happens in the Catholic system.
Okay, so you said: “that between the first and end of the tenth century, there was one Church.”
I would say that is true that there was only one visible church during part of this period, starting in the fourth century when Constantine made the Catholic Church the state religion. Prior to about 325 A.D., the church was a hodge podge: some good, some bad. The ante-Nicene early church fathers’ writings were all over the place. Peter wasn’t a pope, and there wasn’t a succession that links him to the el-supremo church rulers that basically started in the fourth century.
And you may consider reading Acts 15 carefully, Peter started out the conversation, but it was James who laid down the ruling. They didn’t have a pope, but it may have been James who carried the most weight, not Peter.
Paul, you said:
[[[The sort of idea that the Church fell away from orthodoxy, or that the fathers were going astray is denial of Christ’s promises to be with and send a counselor for the Church, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her]]]
God didn’t say “the Church.” He just said “the church.” The church is those who are truly His, those who are Christ’s. The Counselor was sent on Pentecost and resides in those who are born-again. And those who really do follow what the Counselor, the Holy Spirit leads them to do are the real church.
And I looked up your ecclesial deism term. It appears to be only used by a handful of Catholic people.
Regarding Jesus saying not to call people ‘Father,’ you said:
[[[The word “Father” is used, several times to describe the spiritual fathers of the Church (e.g. Apostles).]]] And later you cite: 1 Corinthians 4:15.
Paul may have been a father to them, but they didn’t call him “Father Paul.” That’s the point. The CC is directly disobeying what Jesus clearly stated.
You said: “Correct interpretation of Matthew 23:9…”But then you don’t take into account the context, the preceding verses which clearly show that Jesus forbade these titles because people with them get puffed up. They do things to be seen by men.
Just like I believe it’s wrong, according to this text to call professors at seminary “Dr. So and So.” Knowledge puffs up, the Bible says. Most of these professors are already puffed up. Calling them Dr. _____ just puffs them up that much more.
You said that by Jesus saying the word “anamnesis” he was ordaining the Apostles as priests. Come on! He didn’t say: “only you 12 are the official handlers of the bread and the wine. You guys have a lock on this. He just flat out did NOT say this. This is deception to make this claim.
You said:
[[[You also seem to disregard the fact that Judaism is not and was not Sola Scriptura.]]]
I already said I’m not Sola Scriptura; though, doctrines we believe must not disagree with what the NT says. God speaks to us big-time. But only those who are right with God are going to clearly hear, having only one voice inside. No doctrines of demons, in other words.
You said:
[[[Jesus … did not found Lutheranism, Methodism, Baptists, Jehovas Witnesses, “Non Denominationals”, “Bible Teaching” Churches, and so forth. Who founded your Church Jeff?]]]
I think the Holy Spirit did lead Luther to a certain extent, but somehow he went off on his own in a bad direction, getting sinfully angry at his attackers, letting evil spirits lead him.
I think John Wesley was to a great extent Holy Spirit led too, as were other non-Catholics who founded something good, only for it to later go bad.
The church I would like to attend started off pretty well, but has been sidetracked by willful disobedience for many years now. I don’t know of one truly Biblical church in my state of Alaska right now. But hopefully, it will happen soon as people actually do what God has been leading them to do, mainly getting right with those they’ve hurt, admitting they were wrong and asking for forgiveness, like what happened at Asbury in 1970: http://onecanhappen.com/2008/01/30/asbury-revival-1970-dr-kinlaw-i-am-a-liar-now-what-do-i-do
Once revival (real Christianity, ‘ONE’ happens, the world will know (John 17).
You said regarding prayers to Mary:
[[[James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 – the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.]]]
This is another clear example of you going somewhere completely different than where the text goes:
It doesn’t say: “pray to Mary or those in heaven on your behalf.” It says: “call for the elders.” It says: “pray for one another.” The elders are supposed to be the righteous people. And we’re supposed to be the righteous people.
Regarding your claim that the Apocrypha was first thrown out by Luther. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm says this:
I wonder if you’ve ever studied non-Catholic church history. You may be surprised.
You said:
[[[So if God speaks to you directly, you would disregard it in favor of your INTERPRETATION of what Scripture says? What does scripture say about private interpretation of scripture?]]]
The Holy Spirit is given to those who are born-again (have you ever been born-again, yourself? If not, perhaps you don’t have the Holy Spirit) to lead us into all truth. The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Bible, and when we hear clearly (and when we’re taught by others who also hear clearly, or who have been taught by those who have), we have God’s understanding of what the Bible means.
And then our doctrines make sense, like my Who-Goes-To-Heaven… article. No one can refute it because it make total biblical sense. I’ll give you $500 if you can disprove it, or anyone else, the basic gist of what this article is saying: http://onecanhappen.com/2008/01/14/who-goes-to-heaven-scriptures
You said:
[[[You said:
“The apostles were blameless, just as all qualified church leaders must be according to the elders qualifications in 1 Timothy and Titus. They were in the second list in Galatians 5: “those who are Christ’s.” They weren’t willfully lusting, envying, hating, having outbursts of anger, and weren’t drunkards.”
Right there Peter is gone. Cutting off someone’s ear in a fit of rage isn’t exactly NOT ANGER. Nor is denying Christ 3 times. Paul commits the same thing he reprimands Peter for as well (catering to Jewish custom as not to offend them but gain them as Christians).]]]
I’m really realizing here that you really don’t seem to understand the distinction of what happened when Jesus died on the cross and the Holy Spirit was given at Pentecost, for you act like there was no change in covenant regarding Peter before and after these monumental events.
Peter didn’t have the Holy Spirit residing inside of Him when he sinned pre-Pentecost, nor did Paul’s elder qualifications apply. He was still in the old covenant.
It’s also somewhat like the difference between the “can’t stop sinning” pre-Holy-Spirit-filled Paul in Romans 7 and the overcoming, in-Christ, born-again Paul in Romans 8.
Jesus told the disciples in John 14-16 that it’s better for him to leave because he’s going to send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth.
They couldn’t understand much of what Jesus was telling them. But then Pentecost happened and Peter suddenly gets this great boldness from the Holy Spirit Who is now indwelling him.
To state again: most Catholics don’t ever get born-again because they think it happened during their infant baptism. This is true for Lutherans as well. So most Catholics and Lutherans don’t have the Holy Spirit inside of them to help them understand what is true and what isn’t.
I mentioned the renting of the veil of the temple when Jesus died. It seems as if you don’t understand what this means.
In the Old Testament, only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies in order to present the sacrifices for the people in front of God, Himself. The Holy of Holies was separated from the Holy Place by the curtain, like this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/tabernacle%20pictures/Jaunita/new%20stuff/tabernacle_diagram.gif
When the veil was torn when Jesus died, this put an end to the priesthood, so the people could all go directly to God, never again through a priest, as Hebrews so clearly teaches. For example in chapter 4, here is but one Hebrews’ example:
Jesus is now our High Priest, “forever.” (chapter 6) The priesthood was TOTALLY done away with never to be mentioned again in the post-Pentecost NT writings that it still applies to us today.
Does that make sense to you? When Peter denied Christ, he was still under the old covenant and not yet Holy Spirit indwelt. You can’t say he here violated Paul’s elders’ qualifications that weren’t even in effect yet. Peter didn’t yet have the grace to overcome — the power within, which comes from God, Himself.
You said:
[[[You said:
“I had a prophecy for a pastor once who really was keeping the kingdom of God from happening. God told him that the flames would be neck high if he didn’t repent. Can you imagine? Neck high for all eternity. Fried for eternity, 24/7, no hope of ever not getting burnt.”
No, you didn’t.
2 Peter 1:20
Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. ]]]
Yes I did. I was writing him a letter in response to a question he asked us before he gave his sermon, and I just started hearing words that just kept coming. So I wrote as I heard, nothing more, nothing less.
And 2 Peter 1:20 has to do with interpreting scripture, not personal prophecies.
You said:
[[[“Seeing what it really says” Hmm…. So instead of going to the Church for guidance (1 Tim 3:15) I should do with Martin Luther, Calvin and Zingwili did and claim “guidance by the Holy Spirit” upon my own ego?
THIS BIRTHED 38,000 MAN MADE DENOMINATIONS]]]
I’d say: first, make sure you are born-again, that you even have the Holy Spirit in you to help you understand. Commit your life to following Him. Let Him lead you, not an institution that clearly isn’t fulfilling what Paul said is the norm: Eph. 4:11-16. That is real Christianity. How do we get there?
If you say 38,000 man-made denominations, then I would say 38,001, including Catholicism; though, the Holy Spirit was involved in starting and even maintaining some of them.
Back to my point, yes, you should do your own research and investigate what really is true. And perhaps you’d like to check out some of my posts at http://ONEcanhappen.wordpress.com. I’ve been researching since the mid-70s. I’ve learned from many wonderful people as well as from the Holy Spirit Himself.
I should also add that I think Malachi Martin was onto something when he accused many in the heirarchy of the Catholic Church as actually being Satanists, even performing Satanic ceremonies in the Vatican, etc.. See his book, “Windswept House,” and his interviews where he talked about this.
You said:
[[[Seriously investigate the formation of the Canon. The Bible didn’t fall from the sky, nor does scripture say it’s the ONLY AUTHORITY (compare 1 Tim 3:15 to this idea). Jesus didn’t command the apostles to write anything down, nor is any concept supported by scripture. Heresy in the first 3 centuries was condemned HOW? By the NT which had yet to be completed? No. By Church authority. Even the Bible itself gives clear evidence of this (See the council of Jerusalem Acts 15, Galatians 2). It was not the NT that was used against the heretics in the Bible. But the authority of the Apostles.]]]
I have investigated the formation of the Canon. It’s only partly like you say. Even churches in the NT passed around and read Paul’s letters. The ante-Nicene, early church fathers quoted from the NT all over the place. Look at the index in the back of each volume.
You said:
[[[The head always tells the body what to do, and the Head of the Catholic Church, which is His Body, is Jesus Christ. Ephesians 1:22-23.]]]
But I say if Jesus really was the head of the Catholic Church then they’d be fulfilling Ephesians 4:11-16. But they’re not even close.
“By their fruits you will know them” — Jesus.
And he said in John 15:
Sincerely,
Jeff Fenske
Paul Swonger
Greetings Jeff, sorry I’ve been extraordinarily busy lately. I will be responding after the Holiday most likely.
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
Good. I’m all ears.
Also, Here are some other things to think about.
Regarding Sola Scriptura:
The Bible can be totally trusted. It is totally true, but it doesn’t contain all truth. It’s absurd to think that all we need to know about our walk with Christ is in the Bible. You would probably agree with me here. But here is where we may differ a bit.
Jesus and the apostles taught in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was given to us to lead us into all truth. It doesn’t say it would lead the apostles into all truth who would then lead us into all truth. For example, 1 John 2:
This whole priesthood thing in the Catholic church is totally unbiblical and reverse-Christian. All who have been born-again should be led by the Holy Spirit, learning from God directly. This is the normal Christian life. “Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God,” right?
Not: “those who are led by the apostles.”
We should have apostles still today, as we should have prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.
These ministers should be teaching and leading us, but every Christian should be hearing God directly too. And these ministers are false if they don’t teach us how to be led by the Holy Spirit ourselves.
The goal is to be in Christ, to be Holy Spirit led. These are the children of God. The Bible talks about this over and over. It’s a personal relationship with God, Himself, now that the veil was rent and the Holy Spirit was given to lead us (not just the leadership) into all truth, directly and personally. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
We’re not supposed to follows guys who wear Canaanite-based fish hats: “Why do you think the Pope wears the hat that looks a lot like Dagon?” http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/iconography.htm
Paul said: “follow me as I follow Christ.” And Paul taught us to be led by the Holy Spirit directly. The priesthood was done away with at the cross, never to be mentioned again in the New Testament, except to say that it no longer exists.
The devil doesn’t want us to be led by the Holy Spirit. He wants us involved in some system that has a form of Godliness “that he created” to divert us from the real thing.
Much of Catholic symbols come from paganism and the occult. How is that? I also think that the spirits that Catholics feel at times are probably mostly demons, not the Holy Spirit or angels. But because they feel this presence, they can think this is the real thing. This also happens in evangelical churches, “now that they’ve left God and have chosen to hate.” Rick Joyner described it this way, which I discuss here: …Joyner’s Vision: “One of the Greatest Adventures of All Time!” http://onecanhappen.com/2008/11/09/1097
More later. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is on TV in HD for free, right now. I haven’t seen it.
jeff : )
Paul Swonger
RE: 12
You Said:
“Please excuse me for waiting until I have a big enough chunk of quiet time to respond to your massive comment. This is a very important subject that I take seriously.
I must say, though, that I do feel better about this discussion. I think I’m finally starting to understand a little bit how you can come to your conclusions that really do differ greatly with what the Bible teaches. I’ll respond to your points (which I’ll put in triple brackets).”
The Bible is a Catholic Book. The Church was already well known as “Catholic” in 107 AD, which is given witness to us by the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Now commonly, this is where protestants feel the need to say things like “well it didn’t mean Catholic as in Roman Catholic Church”, but it didn’t have to. Protestants added “Roman” (Anglicans specifically, to force Catholics to choose loyalty between the King of England and the Church). Catholic meant as it means now, exactly what was established concretely in council at Nicaea regarding the Four Marks of the True Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Marks_of_the_Church
1. Ignatius was Catholic. His writings all bear witness to Catholic concepts such as Church Hierarchy, Apostolic Succession, the Real Presence in the Eucharist and so forth.
2. His writing wasn’t coining the word Catholic, he was using it as a familiar term.
3. Catholic teaching does not contradict our book, only your interpretations, which are private interpretations, which the Bible condemns on more than one occasion.
4. Contrary to what enemies of the Church would have you believe, all Catholic Doctrine has it’s basis in scripture.
The Church that called itself Catholic in the first centuries has survived until the present time.
“Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”
Ignatius of Antioch, 107 AD (Letter to Smyrnaeans, 8)
Jeff Said:
“You said:
[[[What you fail to acknowledge is that between the first and end of the tenth century, there was one Church. The protestant mentality you support didn’t exist (try finding it in history). So, to orthodox (Catholic) Christians, and indeed to anyone with a historical perspective, your views are novel. Not ours.]]]
Paul, I wonder if you have ever read the ante-Nicene early church fathers other than the documents that support your point of view. It might be interesting for you to take a course at a non-Catholic seminary in order to see the side you don’t seem to be aware of. I have taken such a course. I have also read many of the writings when I wrote a 30-page paper on the subject of healing in the early church (pre-Constantine). And I’ve studied much of what David Bercot teaches on this specific subject: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/cds-wecb.html. You might find his information fascinating if you’re really interested in learning what the truth really is. For example, what did the early church really teach about apostolic succession?
I think this is a fascinating subject, because these were the Christians closest to the time of the Bible, when at least for a time they got it right.”
You’re asking me about the ante-Nicene Early Church Fathers. I suggest it is you who should read them again. Protestants pick and choose what they like and from whom. Catholics are not restricted as such when we reference them because they were Catholic and support Catholic doctrine. And yes, Apostolic Succession is immediately evident in the reading of the ante-Nicene fathers.
“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
“Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed…Let nothing exist among you that may divide you ; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 (c. A.D. 110).
“He cannot be reckoned as a bishop who succeeds no one. For he has despised the evangelical and Apostolic traditions, springing from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way…. How can he be esteemed a pastor, who succeeds to no one, but begins from himself? For the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination. Therefore, the other one becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord’s peace.” St. Cyprian Of Carthage, “Letter To Magnus,” c. 250 A.D. (ante-Nicene Fathers Volume V)
“The words of our Lord Jesus Christ are plain that He sent His Apostles and gave to them alone the power that had been given to Him by His Father. And we have succeeded to them, governing the Lord’s Church with the same power.” Seventh Council Of Carthage, c. 256 A.D.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
Jeff Said:
“But it should be noted that many churches were already having serious problems which Jesus explained specifically to John in Revelation 1-3. The church of Sardis is a prime example, which bares repeating. They actually had a reputation for being alive, even, yet only those who were truly overcoming wouldn’t have their names removed from the Book of Life. And nowhere does Jesus chastise them for not taking the sacraments enough or praying to Mary at all. It’s about obedience — having deeds that Jesus finds complete. It’s about living righteously, abiding in Him. It’s not about some ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo, which is a diversion from what Jesus really wants and requires from His people, who first need to be born-again, which that alone rarely happens in the Catholic system.”
Catholics are born again the Bible way; by being baptized (cf. John 3:3–5).
Let’s see your ante-Nicene fathers write about “being born again” in the manner you describe. Altar calls and whatnot. You can’t, because the fact is, that the modern concept of being “born again” isn’t existent in history until after the protestant reformation. Jeff, this is a man made concept.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0809btb.asp
Jeff Said:
“Okay, so you said: “that between the first and end of the tenth century, there was one Church.”
I would say that is true that there was only one visible church during part of this period, starting in the fourth century when Constantine made the Catholic Church the state religion. Prior to about 325 A.D., the church was a hodge podge: some good, some bad. The ante-Nicene early church fathers’ writings were all over the place. Peter wasn’t a pope, and there wasn’t a succession that links him to the el-supremo church rulers that basically started in the fourth century.
And you may consider reading Acts 15 carefully, Peter started out the conversation, but it was James who laid down the ruling. They didn’t have a pope, but it may have been James who carried the most weight, not Peter.”
This bit of exegetical writing illuminates your misunderstanding both of the role of Peter and of the Role of the modern Pope. The Pope is not a dictator, but rather, the first among equals (this is an official title). This commentary is a straw man representation of what the Pope’s role is within the Church.
Jeff Said:
“Paul, you said:
[[[The sort of idea that the Church fell away from orthodoxy, or that the fathers were going astray is denial of Christ’s promises to be with and send a counselor for the Church, and that the gates of Hell would never prevail against her]]]
God didn’t say “the Church.” He just said “the church.” The church is those who are truly His, those who are Christ’s. The Counselor was sent on Pentecost and resides in those who are born-again. And those who really do follow what the Counselor, the Holy Spirit leads them to do are the real church.”
God didn’t say “churches” he said “church”. Capitalization doesn’t change that. The “assembly” is an extention of the incarnation. It is the body of Christ (cf. Ephesians 1:22-23). Bodies are visible, not invisible (cf. Matthew 5:14).
http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/the-visible-church
Paul Swonger
RE 14:
Jeff Said:
Paul,
“Good. I’m all ears.
Also, Here are some other things to think about.
Regarding Sola Scriptura:
The Bible can be totally trusted. It is totally true, but it doesn’t contain all truth. It’s absurd to think that all we need to know about our walk with Christ is in the Bible. You would probably agree with me here. But here is where we may differ a bit.
Jesus and the apostles taught in the Bible that the Holy Spirit was given to us to lead us into all truth. It doesn’t say it would lead the apostles into all truth who would then lead us into all truth. For example, 1 John 2:
26 These things I have written to you concerning those who would lead you astray. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from him remains in you, and you don’t need for anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, you will remain in him.
28 Now, little children, remain in him, that when he appears, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of him.
The Bible doesn’t call itself the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. This designation is given to the Church, which is where the Paraclete (The Holy Spirit) was sent (cf. 1 Tim 3:15). As I said in my previous response, the Bible is a Catholic book. The (catholic) Church that canonized the Bible did so under this premise laid out in 1 Tim 3:15, as well as under the authority given to her by Christ in various other places (cf. Matthew 16). The Church Jeff, does not come from the Bible. The Bible comes from the Church.
Jeff Said:
“This whole priesthood thing in the Catholic church is totally unbiblical and reverse-Christian. All who have been born-again should be led by the Holy Spirit, learning from God directly. This is the normal Christian life. “Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God,” right?
Not: “those who are led by the apostles.”
The priesthood is completely Biblical. It is established by Christ on during the Last Supper. The word “Priest” itself comes from the Greekpresbyteroi (cf. Acts 20:17,28)
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
Jeff Said:
“We should have apostles still today, as we should have prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.”
One of the prerequisites for being an Apostles is to have seen the risen Lord. There are no longer Apostles, but disciples.
Jeff Said:
“10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 He gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, shepherds and teachers; 12 for the perfecting of the saints, to the work of serving, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a full grown man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we may no longer be children, tossed back and forth and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in craftiness, after the wiles of error; 15 but speaking truth in love, we may grow up in all things into him, who is the head, Christ; 16 from whom all the body, being fitted and knit together through that which every joint supplies, according to the working in measure of each individual part, makes the body increase to the building up of itself in love.
These ministers should be teaching and leading us, but every Christian should be hearing God directly too. And these ministers are false if they don’t teach us how to be led by the Holy Spirit ourselves.”
Jesus said that unity would be a sign of the true Church (cf. John 17:21). This unity exists only in the Catholic Church. This VISIBLE unity that Christ talked about, is not some invisible consensus on what the Bible says.
Jeff Said:
“The goal is to be in Christ, to be Holy Spirit led. These are the children of God. The Bible talks about this over and over. It’s a personal relationship with God, Himself, now that the veil was rent and the Holy Spirit was given to lead us (not just the leadership) into all truth, directly and personally. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”
Give this a read:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/relationship_vs_religion.htm
We’re not supposed to follows guys who wear Canaanite-based fish hats: “Why do you think the Pope wears the hat that looks a lot like Dagon?” http://www.essaysbyekowa.com/iconography.htm
Exodus 28:37
And thou shalt tie it with a violet fillet, and it shall be upon the mitre,
http://sites.google.com/site/apostolicapologetics/sacred-tradition/vestments
Jeff Said:
“Paul said: “follow me as I follow Christ.” And Paul taught us to be led by the Holy Spirit directly. The priesthood was done away with at the cross, never to be mentioned again in the New Testament, except to say that it no longer exists.”
Incorrect Jeff, the presbyteroi are mentioned several times and the Church is hierarchical. Why is it you ignore this, and also the anti-Nicene fathers on the subject (many of whom were themselves priests/bishops)?
The devil doesn’t want us to be led by the Holy Spirit. He wants us involved in some system that has a form of Godliness “that he created” to divert us from the real thing.
The system the devil wants you to follow is a relativistic, modern, ever changing theology.
Jeff Said:
“Much of Catholic symbols come from paganism and the occult. How is that? I also think that the spirits that Catholics feel at times are probably mostly demons, not the Holy Spirit or angels. But because they feel this presence, they can think this is the real thing. This also happens in evangelical churches, “now that they’ve left God and have chosen to hate.” Rick Joyner described it this way, which I discuss here: …Joyner’s Vision: “One of the Greatest Adventures of All Time!” http://onecanhappen.com/2008/11/09/1097
The most shocking part of this vision was that this horde was not riding on horses, but on Christians! Most of them were well-dressed, respectable, and had the appearance of being refined and educated. These were Christians who had opened themselves to the powers of darkness to such a degree that the enemy could use them and they would think that they were being used by God. …
Even worse than the vomit from the vultures was a repulsive slime that these demons were urinating and defecating upon the Christians they rode. This slime was the pride, selfish ambition, etc., that was the nature of the division they were a part of. However, this slime made the Christians feel so much better than the condemnation that they easily believed that the demons were messengers of God, and they actually thought this slime was the anointing of the Holy Spirit.
More later. “The Chronicles of Narnia” is on TV in HD for free, right now. I haven’t seen it.
jeff : )”
Jeff, you’re really entering into some fringe, fear mongering “conspiracy theory” type stuff here. I would calmly ask yourself what the consequences are if you are incorrect about these assumptions. There are people that have made quite a lucrative living drawing parallels between pagan religion and Christianity in general, for me this is murky water. If you wish to tread here we can certainly do so at length, though I find pagan generalizations about the Church underwhelming. Satan by the way, mocks the true faith. Take that into consideration.
Jeff Fenske
Paul,
I just barely touched upon the pagan influences in Catholic doctrine and practices; though, it’s very extensive. The majority of what I’ve presented here is what the Bible teaches verses what the Catholic church teaches.
We seem to have reached an impasse, and I’ve been thinking about why that is, and have some ideas why.
As I pointed out, I don’t have any problem at all finding truth from sources other than the Bible. I do that all the time. My posts in my websites attest to that. One area where it seems that you and I differ is that I believe the Bible is the word of God and can fully be trusted. When I point out from scripture that certain Catholic practices and doctrines are unscriptural, you don’t seem to mind, because apparently you believe what the Catholic church teaches over and above what the Bible does. It seems that you’re not only equating the authority of CC tradition with the authority of the Bible, but that for you, CC tradition supersedes what the Bible says when the two are in conflict.
That’s your right. You can do what you want. But we won’t get on the same page that way. And this is how cults are formed.
You also seem to have a very hard time understanding the significance of what happened when Jesus died on the cross, rose again, and then sent the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, directly. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that the veil in the temple was rent so we can now approach God directly, which the New Testament teaches in many places. The priesthood was done away with. Jesus is our high priest, forever, Hebrews says. Now we have a better way in which we can draw near to God, Abba Father. He’s our Father. Priests should neither be priests or called ‘father,’ according to the Bible, but if you don’t hold the Bible as high as you do Catholic doctrine then what the Bible says doesn’t matter.
The Bible says we must be born-again so the Holy Spirit can lead and empower us to overcome sin — and lead us into all truth, directly (not through a priest or the CC). You don’t seem to be able to (or perhaps even want to) grasp this concept, and this is typical of those who haven’t been truly born-again, who do not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to lead them into all truth.
If you believe traditional CC doctrine then you don’t have to be born-again. Your focus seems to be on what the Church says, not on what God says.
Have you ever invited God, Himself to lead you, praying to Him directly — not through Mary, not through a ‘saint,’ not through a ‘priest’? Have you dedicated your life to following Him? Have you confessed your sins to Jesus and asked Him to forgive you for all you’ve done, and then determine to follow Him all the days of your life?
If you’re trusting in your infant baptism or adherence to the CC, you’ve never been born-again. And this would explain why you have difficulty understanding basic Bible truths. The disciples were in this situation, but then Pentecost came and they were transformed.
Jesus said this would be the case. They couldn’t understand much of what He was teaching. In John 14-17, He explains that it’s actually better for them if He leaves and sends the Holy Spirit, the Comforter to lead them into all truth.
It was actually easier for them to understand spiritual things with the Holy Spirit in them instead of Jesus standing beside them. And this is true for us today too.
I should add that if you haven’t noticed already, our conversation has inspired me to add a new category at my spiritual site, http://onecanhappen.com. In the pull-down menu (top, right), scroll down to “The Catholic Deception • ONE!”, and there are 12 posts at this time. Many address what we’ve discussed above.
If what I’m saying here doesn’t make sense to you, I invite you to consider asking Jesus to be your personal Savior, that you would be led by Him through the Holy Spirit from this day on — that the Holy Spirit would come and indwell in you — give you life and wisdom, joy and peace — that you’d be willing to do whatever He wants you to do, even if this means leave the Catholic ‘church.’
I personally believe the Catholic ‘church’ is in many ways an abomination to the Lord. It’s a deception that has and is keeping billions of people from knowing Christ and going to heaven. I absolutely believe that there are Catholics in heaven, but it appears that the vast majority of Catholics have and are following a system, not God, Himself.
This is one of the greatest deceptions of all time!
May we be holy, abiding in Him through the Holy Spirit, fearing the consequences that will happen to us if we teach another gospel.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fenske
commodianusPaul S.
Jeff,
Catholics believe the Bible is the Word of God. Additionally, Catholics used, preached and authored (under divine inspiration) the Word of God before non Catholics existed on the planet. The same Church that used the Bible before any protestant existed, ITSELF existed before there was a Canon of Scripture and thus before there was a “Christian Holy Bible”. Disagreements in interpretation cannot subtract from this fact. The point here is that the Bible came from the Church. The Church does NOT come from the Bible.
You’re worried about “Pagan Influences” on Catholicism, because you’ve been instilled with an anti-pagan stigma. “Pagan = Bad.” That’s the typical message pounded into the heads of those who use the word to describe the Church. Paul would not have shared your stigma, which was the point of my indicating the several pagan works quoted by Paul in the NT. God seemed perfectly ok INSPIRING PAUL to use Pagan Literature to make points about God’s truth. Not as Paul condemning these Pagan writings, but using the true parts to make points of God’s truth.
A refusal to make distinctions…. proper distinctions, leads people down the wrong path. I realize this thread is something like 3 years old, but I remain committed to the truth, and willing to discuss the matters raised above.
God love you.