CBbs Gavin Botches Study of Enoch [Archive]

smyrna

03-11-2007, 05:45 AM

This thread is a challenge to Gavin at Cultbusters.

I will post his comment from the CB's SC Right or Wrong thread, looks like I'll have to do it in at least two parts, and then I'll get down to tearing it apart. Gavin is invited to defend his comments of course, if he isn't afraid to take me on:

Part 1 off Gavin's comment:

I keep reading the serpent seeders referring to the so called "Book of Enoch" as scriptural proof of their racist and antisemitic heresy.

Duh!?! The Book of Enoch has been rejected by both the Christian and Jewish faiths as not being authentic. Then they claim that the Ethiopian Coptic Church accepts it. Wow! That is a real stretchy reach to shine some fake legitimacy to their heretical beliefs. Ethiopians who are part of the so called sixth day creation people who are not genetically pure enough for Christ to be related to? And does Murray subscribe to their practices of female circumcision? To adapting pagan animism to their form of Christianity?

There is an explanation of Genesis 6:4. “Sons of God” can refer to angels (Job 1:6) or to the righteous (Hosea 1:10) Some claim angels intermarried with humans to produce giant half-breeds, but Jesus stated that angels do not marry - Mark 12:25 Makes sense since angels are spiritual, not physical beings. “Nephilim” does mean “giants” but it can mean giants in stature or giants in fame, as in “he was a giant among men.” Genesis 6:4 tells us which at the end of the verse.

Also notice that the Nephilim came first, then the “sons of God” married the “daughters of men.” Most purposely ignore the time order. Thus the conclusion is that righteous people intermarried with worldly people giving the predictable result of less and less godly people in the world, as stated in Genesis 6:5

“Why did the church suppress the Book of Enoch? After all, there are various references to Enoch throughout the Old and New Testament ... There are those who believed all the giant offspring and offspring of the fallen angels were destroyed during the flood. Not true. The Philistines were hybrids, giants i.e. Goliath. As were most of the races that Joshua and Israel had to conquer once Israel were freed from Egypt. The giants never went out of existence, they just went "underground" to return later, now, during these last days. ...”

Here my thoughts from research why the Book of Enoch was rejected as Scripture. Listed as a pseudoepigraphal work. i.e. a work with a false author (or written under a pen name). There are a number of these works dating from the time between the Old and New Testament through the first few centuries. It appears to have been a writing fad for a while.

People used the names of famous people, such as characters from the Bible, to lend credibility to the work – to make it appear more authentic. Very few people actually believe the book to have been written by Enoch. For it to have existed all those years, it would have had to survive the flood.

Smyrna's reponse:
He wrote:"Duh!?! The Book of Enoch has been rejected by both the Christian and Jewish faiths as not being authentic."

He speaks as if there was only one book. I am speaking specifically of the Books described in this article, the ancient works:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

Then he writes :"Some claim angels intermarried with humans to produce giant half-breeds, but Jesus stated that angels do not marry - Mark 12:25"

Genesis 6 doesn't say anything about the angels marrying women.

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:05 AM

The "Irin'" (often translated as "watchers", though others often have it as "those who are awake" or "those who watch") did not choose "wives", they chose "women." The Hebrew text indicates that these sex-crazed angels were lusting after "women" rather than choosing "wives." (Smyrna:mistranslation, do your homework!)
It is nonsense to think that the angels talked to the human fathers of these women and discussed contracts and legal issues (which is what usually went on before marriages could take place)!

Gavin then writes "Also notice that the Nephilim came first, then the “sons of God” married the “daughters of men.” Most purposely ignore the time order. Thus the conclusion is that righteous people intermarried with worldly people giving the predictable result of less and less godly people in the world, as stated in Genesis 6:5 "

Smyrna: This is where he really gets in trouble. First he decides that the nephilim and the "sons" of God are two distinct creatures!

Gavin chooses the most rigid fundamentalist view (Sethite)of which it has been said:

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:06 AM

Why did God send the judgment of the Flood in the days of Noah? Far more than simply a historical issue, the unique events leading to the Flood are a prerequisite to understanding the prophetic implications of our Lord's predictions regarding His Second Coming.1

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim." So it was also understood by the early church fathers. These bizarre events are also echoed in the legends and myths of every ancient culture upon the earth: the ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, the South Sea Islanders, the American Indians, and virtually all the others.

However, many students of the Bible have been taught that this passage in Genesis 6 actually refers to a failure to keep the "faithful" lines of Seth separate from the "worldly" line of Cain. The idea has been advanced that after Cain killed Abel, the line of Seth remained separate and faithful, but the line of Cain turned ungodly and rebellious. The "Sons of God" are deemed to refer to leadership in the line of Seth; the "daughters of men" is deemed restricted to the line of Cain. The resulting marriages ostensibly blurred an inferred separation between them. (Why the resulting offspring are called the "Nephilim" remains without any clear explanation.)

Since Jesus prophesied, "As the days of Noah were, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be,"2 it becomes essential to understand what these days included.

Origin of the Sethite View

It was in the 5th century a.d. that the "angel" interpretation of Genesis 6 was increasingly viewed as an embarrassment when attacked by critics. (Furthermore, the worship of angels had begun within the church. Also, celibacy had also become an institution of the church. The "angel" view of Genesis 6 was feared as impacting these views.)

Celsus and Julian the Apostate used the traditional "angel" belief to attack Christianity. Julius Africanus resorted to the Sethite interpretation as a more comfortable ground. Cyril of Alexandria also repudiated the orthodox "angel" position with the "line of Seth" interpretation. Augustine also embraced the Sethite theory and thus it prevailed into the Middle Ages. It is still widely taught today among many churches who find the literal "angel" view a bit disturbing. There are many outstanding Bible teachers who still defend this view.

Problems with the Sethite View

Beyond obscuring a full understanding of the events in the early chapters of Genesis, this view also clouds any opportunity to apprehend the prophetic implications of the Scriptural allusions to the "Days of Noah."3 Some of the many problems with the "Sethite View" include the following:

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:07 AM

1. The Text Itself

Substantial liberties must be taken with the literal text to propose the "Sethite" view. (In data analysis, it is often said that "if you torture the data severely enough it will confess to anything.")

The term translated "the Sons of God" is, in the Hebrew, B'nai HaElohim, "Sons of Elohim," which is a term consistently used in the Old Testament for angels,4 and it is never used of believers in the Old Testament. It was so understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, by the Septuagint translators in the 3rd century before Christ, and by the early church fathers. Attempts to apply this term to "godly leadership" is without Scriptural foundation.

5. The "Sons of Seth and daughters of Cain" interpretation strains and obscures the intended grammatical antithesis between the Sons of God and the daughters of Adam. Attempting to impute any other view to the text flies in the face of the earlier centuries of understanding of the Hebrew text among both rabbinical and early church scholarship. The lexicographical antithesis clearly intends to establish a contrast between the "angels" and the women of the Earth.

If the text was intended to contrast the "sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain," why didn't it say so? Seth was not God, and Cain was not Adam. (Why not the "sons of Cain" and the "daughters of Seth?" There is no basis for restricting the text to either subset of Adam's descendants. Further, there exists no mention of daughters of Elohim.)

(Message edited by smyrna on March 11, 2007)

oneway

03-11-2007, 06:10 AM

smyrna,

you stated: "Genesis 6 doesn't say anything about the angels marrying women."

But Matthew 24:38 sure says they(whoever they may be) were marrying and giving in marriage. Matthew 24:38 is without a doubt referring to Gen 6:4. So which is it then? Do fallen angels marry women or don't they?

Matthew 24:38 *For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 *And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:29 AM

Now here Gavin really BLOWS IT:

"The Philistines were hybrids, giants i.e. Goliath. As were most of the races that Joshua and Israel had to conquer once Israel were freed from Egypt. The giants never went out of existence, they just went "underground" to return later, now, during these last days." ...”

Gavin does not know his CANON:

"For Og only King of Bashan remained of the remnant of the giants:
behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the lentgh thereof, and four cubits was was the breadth of it after the cubit of a man" Duet. 3:11

Next, of the Book of Enoch, he wrote:

"Here my thoughts from research why the Book of Enoch was rejected as Scripture. Listed as a pseudoepigraphal work. i.e. a work with a false author (or written under a pen name). There are a number of these works dating from the time between the Old and New Testament through the first few centuries. It appears to have been a writing fad for a while.'

Maybe he can include Esther among his "fad" books that did make it into the canon.

Esther: Not written by Esther, but Mordecai
Of late origin, the only OT book not represented by known fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls.

Ruth may also fit this criteria, since it also was of late origin, possibly even later than Malachi,(considered the last of the OT period) neither of those books are considered to have been written by authored with those names.

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:32 AM

I'm not even half way through with his ridiculous post. But already he has fallen on his face.

So I'll stop here and see if he has the guts to show up here.

If not, he is a coward, like I have already noted, but he has this chance to prove me wrong.

smyrna

03-11-2007, 06:45 AM

Oneway,

You yourself say you aren't sure who the THEY were, so your post is nullified.

And marriage is not clearly defined,(as I indicated in comments on Genesis 6) it can mean cohabitating i.e. bearing children, in other words a sexual liason, not necessarily marriage that is blessed by God, and certainly the pairing of the fallen angels and women were not blessed through the sacrament of marriage.

Now if you want to claim that Jesus said the fallen angels mating with women was a blessed event approved of by God, hey, go for it.

I will ignore your posts from now on, because you yourself said you were not going to waste your time with me. So stand by your word.

oneway

03-11-2007, 06:53 AM

smyrna,

you stated: "I will ignore your posts from now on, because you yourself said you were not going to
waste your time with me."

Of course you're going to ignore my posts. And you call them cowards? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

This doesn't have anything to do with me wasting my time with you. It's just that everytime you mess up, I want to be there just to point it out. I won't have time for much else, will I? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

(Message edited by oneway on March 11, 2007)

terluvire

03-11-2007, 07:01 AM

Hey Smyrna, Look at this:
http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/BookOfEnoch.htm

I think that is where Gavin (who I think is Franklin) got his post.

The reason I think Gavin is Franklin is because of his usage of the word "DUH" and the punctuation [!?!]. You will find quite a few posts of Franklin's with "DUH!?!" used.

smyrna

03-11-2007, 07:07 AM

Ter,

I thought the same things about the Duh! being used. It doesn't really matter who it is, because, as I suspect, they are all cowards.

I looked at the site you referenced. Damn, you are good!

His post and that site are almost verbatim! No way he didn't copy that stuff.

He has no conviction, and copying websites won't get him very far, whoever he is. You an see that already.

GREAT job, Ter! THANKS!

terluvire

03-11-2007, 07:10 AM

You're welcome Smyrna....anytime!!

Gee, can't they do their own research instead of passing off someone else's work as their own?? lol

smyrna

03-11-2007, 07:16 AM

So far we have Oneway claiming that Jesus, who IS God, sanctions marriages between women and rebellious angels.

He conveniently ignored my explanation so he can claim I "messed up," but that is why I am going to ignore him. He is an idiot, a heckler, and nothing more.

We also have "Gavin" claiming that the Sethite approach is the way to go in determining the events chronicled in Genesis 6, which of course would have to deny the material such as Enoch, other texts, the early Church Fathers, etc. in order to do so.

Not to mention all his other errors, of course.

So for him to be correct, all those sources must be wrong.

oneway

03-11-2007, 04:03 PM

smyrna,

you stated: "So far we have Oneway claiming that Jesus, who IS God, sanctions marriages between
women and rebellious angels."

So far we don't have Oneway claiming any such thing. Even by your own statement "Oneway,

You yourself say you aren't sure who the THEY were, so your post is nullified." proves that I couldn't be claiming anything. But since posting last night, I have come across a very interesting read. Perhaps you are already familiar with it, but nonetheless it's given me something to really consider and search out. I believe the first 7 chapters of this book are online. I'm starting to consider that there are more to these giants than meets the eye. And if these giants were fallen angels, this would even further prove that satan didn't have sex with Adam or Eve. What would be the point of all these fallen angels interbreeding with mankind if satan himself already had and he had a physical son because of it? Pretty silly isn't it? Even if I come to the conclusion that the giants were fallen angels and the result of fallen angels mating with women, I could NEVER come to the conclusion about satan having sex with Adam and Eve because that part just doesn't add up and did not happen.

http://www.stevequayle.com/books/Angels.chpt1.3.html

smyrna

03-11-2007, 04:31 PM

I'm still waiting for Frankie/Gavin to come to the defense of their claims about Enoch.

I would like to go further, and address the rest of his post. However, being the fair guy that I am, I will be willing to wait a bit longer for a rebuttal.

smyrna

03-11-2007, 04:42 PM

Ter,

I was thinking this morning that you are so right on when identifying Franklin with Gavin. I could see how there would not be enough evidence just pointing out the use of "Duh" in posts. But intriguing is the use of the line up of punctuations.

What would be the chance of two people lining them up like that? I'd say the odds are slim that this would happen on the same board.

It also shows they don't have enough players in their space game, so they have to have dual roles. How silly is that?

The best part about that is, it helps bolster my accusation that Frankie has overinflated his site stats over at CB, which isn't really relevant anyway, though he sure thinks so.

oneway

03-11-2007, 05:29 PM

"I would like to go further, and address the rest of his post. However, being the fair guy
that I am, I will be willing to wait a bit longer for a rebuttal."

Why?http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lame.gif He didn't make his post on Factnet, so he is not obligated to come here to submit to a rebuttal. DUH!?! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif If so, then why doesn't AM come here for a rebuttal about what he says and teaches? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

(Message edited by oneway on March 11, 2007)

terluvire

03-11-2007, 06:04 PM

Good Morning Smyrnahttp://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

Yes, Franklin LOVES to use the word "duh". He uses it often, with that punctuation, in many of his posts here at FN.

If you read Gavin's posts in the star date one thread, the style and word ususage it very very similar to Franklin.

Also, it looks like Gavin is very comfortable using other peoples work and passing it off as his own.

If you look at the star date one thread....Gavin's last post there:
Gavin
Jr. Member

Offline

Posts: 46

Re: Star Date One
« Reply #1698 on: Yesterday at 10:58:14 AM »

http://www.cultbusters.com.au/index.php?topic=145.msg10733;topicseen#new

Part of his post is verbatim from http://www.answers.com/topic/anti-irishism which someone posted from Wikipedia. You can find the same thing on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Americans

His post has, verbatim, selected passages from that site, incorporated into his post. Not once is a link offered as his resource.

(Message edited by terluvire on March 11, 2007)

(Message edited by terluvire on March 11, 2007)

(Message edited by terluvire on March 11, 2007)

smyrna

03-12-2007, 04:29 AM

Once again, great work Ter,

Frankie has no original thoughts. He just twists with the wind.

But no matter what name he goes under, it's doubtful he will come here. It's their new game. They don't have to face anyone challenging what they say over there. Cowards I tell 'ya.

But, and this is funny, since their threads don't really get much exposure, who cares what they say, other than for the pure entertainment of it all.

Preachers_daughter actually tried to convince me
that they have plenty of people coming there, but their own stats do not reflect this.

I did the math, using their published statistics.

No matter how you figure it, 30,000 page views over nine months isn't much, if they claim all these people are coming there every day.

Anyway, like I said on the other thread, they consider page views as progress. They refuse to see that it doesn't matter.

It doesn't tell them what people are coming there for. Look at us. We go there for more comedy material!

Anyway, I'll leave the rest of these types of comments for the From-GC thread.

This Enoch discussion can be interesting, even if Franklin Gavin doesn't show.

smyrna

03-12-2007, 06:39 AM

A few more points from Franklin Gavin's post at the SC thread of CB:

He wrote (or copied)"Why are people interested in the Book of Enoch? Jude 14-15 . Notice that Jude doesn’t state he is quoting from a writing of Enoch. Since multiple Enochs are mentioned in the Bible, he clarifies which one he is quoting. How could Jude know what Enoch said 4,000 years later?"

Smyrna: No there are NOT "multiple Enochs in the Bible."

There are two: one that was the son of Cain,(Gen. 4:16) the other the son of Jared (Genesis 5:18) and we don't even have to guess which Enoch was taken to heaven.(Genesis 5:24)

Certainly not the son of Cain!

Here is another one to laugh at:

"Matthew 5:17-18 - Jesus stated that not the smallest mark of the Old Testament would disappear before it is fulfilled."

Not so. Jesus said "For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the LAW till all be fulfilled."

Even students of theology 101 know that the books of the Law are known as the Torah/Pentateuch, which are the five books of Moses, otherwise known as the Books of the Law.
That is NOT a minor error.

Let's move on.

Franklin Gavin asks:

"How could ancient writing of God disappear? Would God have allowed it?"

Smyrna: The answer is YES. What happened to the Book Of Jasher? The writer, whether Frankie copied the question or he is asking it, apparently does not know Jasher is mentioned in Joshua 10:13, and also II Samuel 1:18.

Here are just a few of the Books mentioned in the Bible that are not canonical, because they are missing!

* The Covenant Code

Referenced at Exodus 24:7

* The Manner of the Kingdom[2]

Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25.

* The Acts of Solomon[3]

Referenced at 1Kings 11:41.

* The Annals of King David[4]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 27:24.

* The Book of Samuel the Seer[5]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

* The Book of Nathan the Prophet[6]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

* The Book of Gad the Seer[7]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

* The History of Nathan the Prophet[8]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 9:29.

* The Prophecy of Ahijah[9]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 9:29.

* The Visions of Iddo the Seer

Referenced at 2Chronicles 9:29.

* The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet[10]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 12:15.

Also, there are Psalms that were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls that were not known until the Scrolls discovery. One, Psalm 151 was known, but for some reason, it never got into the common canon. Once again, like Enoch, it is included in the canon of the Ethiopian Church.

This is what happens when someone just copies and pastes websites, and has no real background in Biblical studies.

Franklin/Gavin has no clue. He's just a copy and paste pirate that only grabs stuff he agrees with. Some scholar.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

ezekiel_37

03-12-2007, 06:21 PM

Hello all,

Oneway, how are you today!

I have some words from the bible and from me, for you to think about.

Hebrew words have an origin. One word is the for-runner for many other words. The root of a Hebrew word will give you its direct meaning, and this is especially important with doctrine that ones traditional beliefs doesn’t agree with. It is a valuable study tool. If in fact, the normal word is not used, this should make one aware of a possible other meaning, even if in English it may seem strait forward. Concordances are great for doing this research.

Why is it so much of a stretch to some, to see the connection of fruit and sex between Satan ('Nachash'-brilliant shiny one) and the woman who Adam named Eve?

consider

Hail Mary, “full of GRACE”, blessed art thou above all women and blessed is the “FRUIT” of thy womb, Jesus Christ.

The fruit of the womb is the babe inside his/her mother.

Christ said speaking to the scribes, “You generation of vipers.”

Again this is speaking of 'their' father, in which Christ says...'they' were "born of fornication".

and...You are of your father the devil.

The tares are the children of the devil.

In Exodus 21 We can read of some Laws that Yahaveh declared to the Israelites at Siani. It is important to realize that in these laws we can read that....

Exodus 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The term that is used is “FRUIT”. If she does not bare “fruit”….If she looses the “fruit” of the womb.

Now fruit can imply...an edible fruit,...the fruit of the womb...the fruit of your labours/hard work. Fruit is the product of a UNION.

We have the line to Christ(Gen3:15)-the womans SEED-depicting the fruit of the womb, starting with Adam…onto Noah…..onto Abraham, Issac and Jacob….etc.

We have the opposition’s seed line, also stated in Gen 3:15. The Serpent (Devil) also has seed…which produces fruit.

Satan can transform himself into an angel of Light, thus his name in Genesis 3 is given as nachash, which contrary to belief doesn’t always mean serpent. In fact serpent or snake has a different name altogether. Nachash is given for the shiny skin. This was NOT a snake, but a being that was illuminated.

The two trees in the middle of the garden of Eden…the root of the word for 'tree' suggests a body/backbone, something that a normal tree doesn’t have. It is also not the normal word for tree. The two trees are two beings. One gives eternal life, and the other causes death.

How can these ‘types’ be ignored?

With all of these strait forward teachings, we still have the majority of Christians that don’t see this as a possibility...not even a chance!

Well, I didn't really spend a lot of time on this, if I had it would be more thorough. But before that happens, I would ask you if you believe your tradition over the Word, (I'm sure you think that you don't)'cause (without trying to sound mean) that is what it seems like. Most every Shepherd's Chapel student came from that very place, a place of tradition...we had to leave that tradition of man aside and learn the truth about the Word. Pleas try not to find this letter offensive, as it was not my intent.

Peace to you in Christ
c

smyrna

03-12-2007, 06:43 PM

Ezekiel,

You wrote to Oneway: "How can these ‘types’ be ignored?"

The answer is easy: he is not really interested in truth. He is playing games. He is merely a heckler, as you can see both here and on the other threads where he has posted.

It's not about truth for him, It's about trying to prove he is right, even when he clearly is not. Look at the above dialog for proof.

He ignores anything that shows he is wrong, so that he can claim he is right.

This guy is just a clown, and that is why I have chosen to ignore his posts.

I suggest you do as well.

ezekiel_37

03-12-2007, 07:30 PM

No offence meant Smyrna, but I will attempt dialogue.

I do have a few Catholic questions that I would be interested in knowing your responces to!

I was born and bred RC and enjoyed the choir as a child and youth. My family ran the choir (and it was a good one)lol.

After we moved, new church, pure boredom.
Chose not to attend church (16yrs old)

Went astray...still moral (i think) but I was really secular, believing without knowing why.

Now that I study and LOVE our Father, I cannot find any bible teaching that allows for praying to Saints and Mother Mary.

The Saints and Mary are just people(wonderfull), but not our intercessor. I just cannot see past this. God specifically warns us not to pray to anyone else but Him. Mary has become Daified(sp) and I have many family members that go to church and repeat the RCC creeds. I can no longer repeat those creeds, and besides weddings/funerals/Christinings, I won't go there. I guess I wanted to know how or why you still hold to the RCC.

Not meaning to divide, just curious!
Peace in Christ
c

terluvire

03-12-2007, 08:22 PM

HI Smyrna,
You said:
This is what happens when someone just copies and pastes websites, and has no real background in Biblical studies.

That is what amazes me! They search out info which agrees with them, but they don't do their own research to see if it's truth or not.

Fragments of Enoch, of the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been found in Qumran cave 4. It was written in Aramaic, which is suppose to be an early semetic language.
A fragments says:
Ena I ii
12. ...But you have changed your works,
13. [and have not done according to his command,
and tran]sgressed against him; (and have spoken)
haughty and harsh words, with your impure mouths,
14. [against his majesty, for your heart is hard].
You will have no peace.

Ena I iii

13. [They (the leaders) and all ... of them took
for themselves]
14. wives from all that they chose and
[they began to cohabit with them and to defile
themselves with them];
15. and to teach them sorcery and [spells and
the cutting of roots; and to acquaint them
with herbs.]
16. And they become pregnant by them and
bo[re (great) giants three thousand cubits high ...]

Enoch was included in the 1611 KJV until 1885. Also, It depended on who was doing the printing if books remained in the KJV bible or not. There were many different printings and revisions of the KJV which omitted the book of Enoch along with the other Apocraphyl books. The printing of the 1630 edition of the KJV included those books. Also a version of the 1629 KJV, printers included the apocraphyl books; printers by the names: Bonham Norton and John Bill, which included in their title pages "printers to the Kings moft excellent Majestie".

There were also printings of the KJV which completely omitted the Old Testament. So for them to claim those books which include the apocrypha as unscriptural because of them being omitted, is ridiculous. Their argument is flawed for over the years many books of the bible have been omitted or reinstated. It all depends on the printers, what they will add and what they will not.

oneway

03-12-2007, 08:44 PM

ezekiel_37,

I always seek the truth no matter what smyrna says. All I've been doing was giving him a dose of his own medicine, just trying to make a point. The same things that I have been doing to him, he has been doing to others. My intent was not malice or disrespect, but sometimes, some people have to be shown in like manner before they can perceive that what they are doing is uncalled for. It doesn't seem to be working in smyrna's case so I will just leave it there. Even tho we might not ever be able to agree on certain things, I do discern that you and even watchman_2 have forgiveness towards others no matter how they come off such as smyrna has perceived me to be. If smyrna wants to have unforgiveness in his heart and push the ignore button, while at the same time he claims that others who do this are cowards, then smyrna has to work this out on his own.

smyrna

03-12-2007, 08:46 PM

No problem Ezekiel,

You say you can't get past the idea of praying to the Saints, including Mary, as intercessors.

Like many aspects of understanding the Bible, there are exercises, or behaviors that are not directly mentioned, yet common sense, which many if not most of us have, allows us to "hear" the Spirit on such issues.

Were that not so, I guess it would be alright for those disposed to snorting cocaine or injecting heroin, since nowhere in the Bible do you have a direct prohibition.

Probably the main reason I converted to Catholicism is that I accept that Jesus said Himself that He would build His Church(assembly)and he did not mean this in the plural. This assembly necessarily need a hierarchy to protect its teachings.

Scripture speaks of James being the head of the Jerusalem assembly, but once again common sense plays into the determination that Jesus knew this assembly would certainly grow outside the walls of Jerusalem, it would stand to reason that a central Church would have to be in place in order to defend against enemies of that Church, of which we have seen throughout history.

This ties in with the subject of intercessory prayer, as the Church did not have any protestation leveled against it for centuries, other than the heretics, who came in the form of numerous groups, such as the Gnostics.

Therefore, as the Church does have explanations to offer non-Catholic Christians and others for their beliefs and practices,the Church stands forum in its place as the only Church founded by Christ Himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_devotions#Veneration_vs._worship

Though the spirit of ecumenism has certainly ebbed and flowed throughout the history of the Church post schism and reformation, the Church will not compromise its doctrines, beliefs and practices, and I respect that.

skooter942000

03-12-2007, 10:31 PM

'i' have an Original 1611,
- (Written in Old English). From Nelson Pub 301

- Enoch in not included.
(received it from the Chapel)

'i' would be careful with this WORK.
- We know what Enoch taught.

And the book of Jasher is another questionable
work.

(HINT)
- Look at the NAME (& what it means)
- it points to the UPRIGHT - (KINGS)

- And there are 4 Books from these.
(1Samuel is #1)

SC does not See these works as 100% FACT.
- or Authentic.

- Neither do i.

They are Spurious WORKS.

They contain Certain facts and Truths.
- Yep,Yep!!!

- Stolen TRUTHS (Perhaps).

...................But.......................

Not looking to cause Conflict.

- Just noting what Pastor has Said.

Be Very Careful of so-called LOST-BOOKS (?WORKS?)

- Thomas is another.

We have 66 WORKS/BOOKS to GLEAN FROM.
And the FEW Good works from the Apocrypha.

Deu 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand [went] a fiery law for them.

|
|
V

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

i bet ENOCH DID,
- but he MOUTHED IT.

- Who Penned it?

Hmmmmm

smyrna

03-12-2007, 11:20 PM

Skooter,

I understand your caution, and agree with it, And let me help clarify your comments, if I may.

There was a Book of Jasher, as it is mentioned in the Bible. The Book of Jasher that is now published is gereanlly regarded as no being genuine.

But the issue is not Jasher,this was a digression.

The issue was that either Franklin Gavin or whoever he was coying, claimed that there are not lost books, via a rhetorical question that is slanted in such a way as to doubt there ever was.

I provided a list of Books mentioned within the Bible that we do not have, they indeed have been lost.

As for Enoch, yes I believe it is true that not all in the Book, as we know it to be a compilation,is historically accurate. However, neither is Esther, no matter whether it is Esther's canonical material or the Septuagint additions.

My point is that canonicity was not decided due to who wrote Books in the Bible, but who and why certain books were passed down through the centuries, that all were linked by certain proclaimed truths, such as Yahweh is the Lord God of all creations, the Law, etc.

I'm not going to lay out the entire history of the Bible here, anyone can do that study.

My issue here is what Franklin Gavin is claiming, not just about Enoch, but in his cut and paste jobs mixed with his own ignorant statements.

I think Scooter may be right about Enoch being orally transmitted, because it is clear that the other writings were as well.

terluvire

03-12-2007, 11:42 PM

I agree with you also Skooter.

My post was to show how they copy and paste without doing any research on their own.

Personally, I've only read Enoch as an interesting read. I never document God's Word by quoting Enoch.

The 66 books of the bible is enough for anyone to document God's truth within. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

smyrna

03-13-2007, 01:38 AM

Ter,

Good point. Like the Apocrypha, Enoch is great reading,and more highly regarded than the detractors would be comfortable with, hence their zeal to discredit it.
What I do think is the Book of Enoch has great value in affirming what the Bible already states about the fallen angels.

But we know the Canon is complete, as the Holy Spirit guided the Counsels which ratified the canon.

However, I am convinced that many of the ancient writings that have come down to us today, such as the DSS, are a reiteration of God's Word, such as the Psalms found among the scrolls material.

I also think the lost Chapter of Acts may be authentic, since if harmonizes with the rest of Acts, and really doesn't have any earth shattering
revelations or anything that would create any controversy, at least among people who are normal.

The detractors could find something they don't like about anything, because they are professional whiners.

ezekiel_37

03-13-2007, 07:26 PM

Smyrna,

What about God's warning of the dead having NOTHING to do with the living....and us having NOTHING to do with them?

They cannot help us, and I don't think that Christ said that they could....or that we should pray to them. The 'Our Father' is our Example of prayer, not the Hail Mary.

Again, not wanting to divide us, but these are issues that I have had for a long time.

I have an old Sunday Mistle (sp) and in this, the end times are completely avoided.

I mean Mat 22, Mat 23, Mat 26, Mat 27.

I have NEVER heard a sermon on the end days, or on almost any controversal(sp) topic....and those are the topics that we(christians) need the help with the most.

I see tradition of man, turning the Holy Communion into a daily/weekly ritual(weakening the symbolism), confessing sins to humans(instead of to YHVH)...and those humans supposedly having the power and authority to forgive you. Last I checked, God is the forgiver, not a priest in a small closet.

I know that God used the early church. I know that through that time till now, His real church will not be contained by brick and mortor. The RCC is not the only way to God as they claim.

Prophecy states that the people will come out of those unsatifactory churches (Rev2-3) and my opinion is that the RCC is one of the 'un' churches.

The 'Hail Mary' smells of spiritism to me...something I do not want to be judged on. Thank God for Repentance and forgiveness.

Just can't get past this!

Peace in Christ
c

smyrna

03-13-2007, 09:38 PM

Ezekiel;

"What about God's warning of the dead having NOTHING to do with the living....and us having NOTHING to do with them?"

Then Moses and Elijah broke that commandment as you interpret it, by appearing to Jesus and those disciples present.(Matt. 17:3)

Your (and the Bible's)admonition has do do with ancestor worship, which included necromancy, and the Church does not endorse necromancy.

"The RCC is not the only way to God as they claim."

The Catholic Church does NOT claim this. I am reasonably sure they may have in the past, when the Church was threatened with heretics, but the modern Church emphatically endorses ecumenism, and
John Paul II was a staunch supporter of ecumenism as well as reaching out to our Jewish brethren.
(he was the first Pontiff to visit the Synagogue in Rome)

Funny you mentioned the hail Mary, which is part of the Rosary prayer. It quotes Luke 1:28 and 1:41 almost verbatim.
Speaking of Luke,in 1:48 Mary prophesied that "ALL generations shall call me blessed"

Indeed, this has come to pass, except in the Catholic hating Churches.

"The 'Hail Mary' smells of spiritism to me...something I do not want to be judged on."

No Catholic wants to practice necromancy with the hope of producing a Marian vision, if they wish to
adhere by Church(i.e. Biblical teachings)

Your opinion that the RCC, the only Church founded bu Jesus Himself, the only one that existed for centuries before any others (study the great Schism) is not just any Church.

Jesus never used a plural term to describe His Church, and those who chose to plit away from it are DENOMINATED from it, hence the term, so the RCC is NOT a denomination.

I did not address the Sacrament of Reconciliation (confession)

You need to read here:

http://www.ancient-future.net/reconciliation.html

david_munson

03-14-2007, 04:02 PM

Jesus didn't found the RCC.
Where did you ever get that idea?

The RCC came about around the year 300 Ad.
Most scholars at the time had nothing complimentary to say about that "Romish" church which adopted earthly governing practices in spite of what the scriptures said.

It was at this time that the church began to be vehementally anti-semetic and came up with the erroneous doctrine of "replacement theology".

The original church body consisted of "Jews".

}

ezekiel_37

03-14-2007, 05:39 PM

HI there Smyrna,

You wrote...
Then Moses and Elijah broke that commandment as you interpret it, by appearing to Jesus and those disciples present.(Matt. 17:3) 

It has not been proven that Moses and Elijah have died (yet)in the flesh. Most scholars (including many SC'ers)believe them to be the two witnesses in the end days. Those bodies were transfigured, and Mary's (bless her forever) was not. Therefore they are in a different category. Mary did not appear after her death...unless you count the numerous apperitions (ghostly) that some claim. I believe them to be demonic ... Fatima.

Besides that, God obviously sent them to see Christ, as an example for us.

I Love Mary, but won't worship her or pray to her or ask her to pray for me. I do not see that commandment, Or allowance in the Word. Could you please (seriously)point me to the place where I can read of permission for this? The living can pray (interceed-sp)for the living...ie. Me for my mom, me for you....but the dead? I just don't see this example, and I go by example in the Word, not tradition.

Your (and the Bible's)admonition has do do with ancestor worship, which included necromancy, and the Church does not endorse necromancy. 

Wouldn't Mary be an ancestor? The RCC does endorse praying to dead people...asking certain Saints for protection....

Many of these Saints weren't even real people but rather the RCC's attempt to turn more pagan symbols into deified fictional Saints.

ecumenism...

Do you really want to co-operate with denominations that teach faulty doctrine?

Do you really want to have an accord with Islam?

PM teaches (in many ways)to "get out" unless God has put it on you to be there (to help others out of the Devil's influence).

(hypothetical) Would you go to a 'rapture' church for truth? Would you worship in unknown tongues?

The RCC was most definitely used by God to further His Work. I am not doubting that. but as you know, even the early churches were infiltrated with "others" and "other doctrine", even in the times of the Apostles. Imagine what happened after they died when there were no longer any witnesses left, or after Paul passed on. The workings of the devil were evident then as now.

Funny you mentioned the hail Mary, which is part of the Rosary prayer. It quotes Luke 1:28 and 1:41 almost verbatim.
Speaking of Luke,in 1:48 Mary prophesied that "ALL generations shall call me blessed"


Agreed, but no where does Christ or the gospel writer or any penner of the Word state that we are to pray to her, or the Saints. We can call them blessed, and understand their sacrifices, and even follow their examples, but we are NOT to pray to them. Mary has NOTHING to do with us now, as she died some time ago.

But most Catholics will flock to a potato chip that they think has an IMAGE of Mary on it... or to a bleeding statue.

Your opinion that the RCC, the only Church founded bu Jesus Himself, the only one that existed for centuries before any others (study the great Schism) is not just any Church. 

I'm sorry but I do not understand what you are saying here. What is my opinion above?

The RCC was started LONG after Christ and the Apostles passed on. Satan's influence was obviously in effect, but we serve The Mighty God, which will use all (even the bad) for the ultimate good.

con't.

ezekiel_37

03-14-2007, 05:42 PM

The RCC is a denomination, as there are more than one type of church in existence. They were not the first, as we can read in scripture of the "types" of churches that Paul addressed and the "types" warned against in Rev.

The church is not built of brick hewed by human hands. There are no physical walls to the true church, the body of believers that set tradition aside for truth.

I know that you didn't mention the Sacrament, but growing up in this church, I saw and participated in this. Tradition of the church says that one should go to confession (to a man)before receiving the Sacrament. Again I ask for an example in the Word. If there is none, then what?

...just picking your brain.

David...

The original church body consisted of "Jews". 

to that I would add also Gentiles.

Peace in Christ to you all.

c

skooter942000

03-14-2007, 06:46 PM

Ezekiel and i see Eye to Eye (Pretty much).

I am not going to attack the Catholic Church.
- (much).

GOD is JUDGE ,
- (not 'i').

[Simple Discernment]

|
|
V

But their FAULTS are Pretty apparent.

I don't Believe this is the CHURCH CHRIST FOUNDED - (FIRST),
Through Peter.

BTW/
- CHRIST founded all CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

- They are One Denom , (out of MANY).

The members LOVE CHRIST.
- But follow (man).

- That's all i'll say. (About that)

MARY is not our CO-REDEEMER.

Confessing to man ,
(and asking for GRACE from a man ),
- is not Biblical.

That is placing a 'man' upon a Pedestal.

That is not what James 5 Teaches.

And don't get me started on the term (father).
- i won't use it. - (or Reverend)

- Sir will do, - or Brother - (or Pastor).
(or Ones actual Name).

"GOD is GOD"
- ("YAH is EL" [&] "EL is YAH")

No one can or should try to take HIS Place.

This CHURCH is mentioned in Rev 2 & 3
- But it is not a CHURCH without FAULT.

- They have Many Faults.

If we keep our EYES on CHRIST,
- (And not on "MAN"), we should do well!!!

Mankind has shortcomings.
"CHRIST" alone - does not.

The TRUE CHURCH is in it's members.

Not in "sum"/"some" building, made of sticks and bricks (or stone).

Remember what THE LORD said to King David,
- When David decided to BUILD GOD A HOUSE.

We cannot put limits on GOD.

That HE resides here or there (ALONE).

If you Believe upon "THE SON".
- (You have "THE FATHER").

- if you HAVE these "TWO" ,
- (the "HOLY SPIRIT" is also "YOURS").

THE FATHER, (SON), HOLY SPIRIT - (Are ONE).

After this , (After John 3:16 takes place)

If SIN enters into the PICTURE,
This will lead you away from GOD.

- Farther and Farther away.

After a while ,
- (Can you even see HIM from where you dwell)?

But no doubt, - (HE can see 'you').

Repentance
- (Gives us all , a CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH).
- Keeps us CLOSE TO HIM. (When we FALL SHORT)

- And we all do, (at times).

If a person never Repents, (After 20 years),
do they still have "ALMIGHTY GOD" with them?

- Think about it.

HE will still LOVE YOU.
But will HE be at your side ,(When you ask)?

- See Isaiah 43:24-26 ...(28)

If you Don't BLESS GOD, will HE Still Bless you?
- As much as a Child in "good standing"?

Common sense says [ X______________________ ]

- We all shall answer for ourselves here.

Anyone can claim to be a CHRISTIAN.
- But what FRUIT/(WORKS) do you show forth?

- Think about it.

A bit off topic?

- (perhaps) -

- (or Perhaps not) -

Don <*))><

ezekiel_37

03-14-2007, 07:04 PM

Ezekiel and i see Eye to Eye (Pretty much). 

I was thinking the same thing Don.

I am not going to attack the Catholic Church. 

I didn't mean to attack, many others here can do that, as is evident on other threads.

I again grew up in this DENOMINATION, and am just saying what I know, not speculation. If God has "one" there for a reason, great. If "one" thinks that "they" will find true MEAT there, I believe "one" would be in error to believe that.

Not that you would Don.

I do not mean to get negative with Smyrna, as we see much meat the same way.

I am interested in knowing why (Smyrna) decided to become a Catholic. Knowing what I know now, I couldn't... but that's me, and I love you and Smyrna as brothers in Christ. Differences aside.

Peace in Christ
c

david_munson

03-15-2007, 03:58 PM

There are many beautiful and spirit filled believers within the organization called the Catholic church that truly love our Lord and Saviour.

There are also many erronious man made doctrines like many other denoms have in their theology.
(they are not alone)
The question that they need to know is "who is Christ?"
Knowing and acting upon this is what saves people.
Salvation is of the lord.

There are lost and saved in most groups called "christian" because there are serious seekers in all walks of life and Christ comes to those who seek Him with all their heart regardless of some doctrinal error they may have.

Once they get to know Him (born from above) He can root out the error as they grow in the knowledge and grace of the lord.(it takes time)

Smyrna is a catholic.
I do not automaticaly assume that he prays to dead saints.(I think he knows that is wrong)
Many Catholics know some of the error and avoid it.

There are many brethren within this org.
Many.

Zeke,
I don't see that you where attacking anyone by stating what you know as fact.
You have been quite pleasant in your communication and just stating facts isn't an attack.
I'm not 100% sure but I think Smyrna might agree with this but I will let him speak for himself.

}

smyrna

03-16-2007, 02:57 AM

I am going to answer what I can do so in this brief time, as I am at work.

I first wish to apologize for going off topic, as this is not a Catholic apologetics board, and qutie Frankly, I am not a canon lawyer or Catholic theologian. I can only go so far in explaining.

Now Dave wrote: "Jesus didn't found the RCC.
Where did you ever get that idea?"

The RCC consdiers Peter the frist Pope, and those who followed him his successors. Those who refused to acnkowledge this, and severed themselves from this Bishop's office, which is waht it is, were considered to have severed (went into schism, so let's use that prhase instead of "denomination" which will help Ezekiel unsderstand)

Wlikepedia puts it this way: "In episcopal churches, the Apostolic Succession is understood to be the basis of the authority of bishops (the episcopate). Specifically in the case of the Catholic Church, the Apostolic Succession as passed on through Saint Peter is also the basis for the specific claim of papal primacy. Within the Anglican Communion this is seen more as a symbolic precedence, not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople. In any event, all these communions recognize Apostolic Succession as the determining criterion of a particular group's legitimacy as a catholic Church."

Since the Patriarchs of those Churches cannot lay claim to the throne of Peter,and their offices did not exist prior to the role Peter palyed in the brith of the Christian religon, one would assume his authority usurped all others.

After all, Jesus said that what (he (Peter shall bind on earth, shalll be bound in heaven, etc.

Gotta go, others are waiting for the computer. more later.)

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:26 PM

The Roman Catholic Church, headquartered in Rome, Italy, has its own powerful City-State, the Vatican, and claims over 968 million members worldwide and 60 million in the U.S. and Canada (as of 1996). (Catholic membership figures are considerably misleading, though, in that they count as members every person who has been baptized Catholic, including millions of people who were baptized as infants but who are not practicing Catholics.) The Roman Catholic Church, in its pagan form, unofficially came into being in 312 A.D., at the time of the so-called "miraculous conversion" to Christianity of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Although Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire until the edicts of Theodosius I in 380 and 381 A.D., Constantine, from 312 A.D. until his death in 337, was engaged in the process of simultaneously building pagan temples and Christian churches, and was slowly turning over the reigns of his pagan priesthood to the Bishop of Rome. However, the family of Constantine did not give up the last vestige of his priesthood until after the disintegration of the Roman Empire -- that being the title the emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood -- Pontifex Maximus -- a title which the popes would inherit. (The popes also inherited Constantine's titles as the self-appointed civil head of the church -- Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Bishops.)

Prior to the time of Constantine's "conversion," Christians were persecuted not so much for their profession of faith in Christ, but because they would not include pagan deities in their faith as well. Then, with Constantine's emphasis on making his new-found Christianity palatable to the heathen in the Empire, the "Christianization" of these pagan deities was facilitated. For example, pagan rituals and idols gradually took on Christian meanings and names and were incorporated into "Christian" worship (e.g., "saints" replaced the cult of pagan gods in both worship and as patrons of cities; mother/son statues were renamed Mary and Jesus; etc.), and pagan holidays were reclassified as Christian holy days (e.g., the Roman Lupercalia and the feast of purification of Isis became the Feast of the Nativity; the Saturnalia celebrations were replaced by Christmas celebrations; an ancient festival of the dead was replaced by All Souls Day, rededicated to Christian heroes [now Hallowe'en]; etc.). A transition had occurred -- instead of being persecuted for failure to worship pagan deities, Christians who did not agree with the particular orthodoxy backed by the Emperor were now persecuted in the name of Christ! "Christianized" Rome had become the legitimate successor of pagan Rome! This is the sad origin of the Roman Catholic Church.

Continued
}

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:29 PM

Below are the highlights of what Catholics believe concerning their source of authority; God, Christ, and Mary; salvation and the sacraments; and heaven and hell. So much more could be said concerning not only the items listed below, but also concerning other areas of Catholic teaching (such as the claims of the Roman priesthood and its supposed origin in the Apostles; the nature of the pope's alleged infallibility and the supposed origin of his office in the Apostle Peter; the nature of the Confessional; the doctrine of penance/indulgences; practices concerning rituals, ceremonies, and relics; the doctrine of Celibacy; policies on marriage and divorce; the role of the parochial school; etc.). Excellent reference sources for a thorough treatment of Catholicism’s origins, beliefs, and practices would be Roman Catholicism (466 ppgs.) and A Woman Rides the Beast (544 ppgs.).

1. Source of Authority. With respect to the Bible, Catholics accept the apocryphal books in addition to the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. They also accept tradition and the teaching of the Catholic Church as authoritative and at least equal to that of the Bible (cf. Mk. 7:8,9,13; Matt. 15:3,6,9; Col. 2:8). With respect to papal infallibility, Catholics believe that ecumenical councils of bishops and the pope are immune from error when speaking ex cathedra about faith and morals (i.e., "from the chair" -- by sole virtue of position or the exercise of an office). (And by "infallible," Catholics mean much more than merely a simple, de facto absence of error -- it is positive perfection, ruling out the possibility of error. For more on infallibility, see notes on Vatican II below). In actuality, Roman Catholicism places itself above Scripture; i.e., it teaches that the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible and that the pope is Christ's vicar on earth. Catholics also maintain the belief in sacerdotalism -- that an ordained Catholic priest has the power to forgive sins (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).

2. Jesus Christ. Catholicism teaches that Christ is God, but they, nevertheless, do not believe that Christ's death paid the full penalty for sin; i.e., they believe that those who qualify for heaven must still spend time in purgatory to atone for sin (cf. Jn. 19: 30; Heb. 10:11,12).

Continued
}

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:32 PM

3. Mary. The Catholic Church gives honor and adoration to Mary that the Scriptures do not; she is readily referred to as "holy," the "Mother of God," and has been dubbed the "Co-Redemptrix," thereby making her an object of idolatrous worship (e.g., the rosary has ten prayers to Mary for each two directed to God). In 1923, Pope Pius XI sanctioned Pope Benedict XV's (1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ, and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated Mary the "Queen of Heaven" and "Queen of the World." Catholics claim not only that Mary was perfectly sinless from conception, even as Jesus was (doctrine of Immaculate Conception, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX in 1854), but that the reason she never sinned at any time during her life was because she was unable to sin (cf. Lk. 1:46,47; Rom. 3:10,23; 5:12; Heb. 4:15; 1 Jn. 1:8,10). Catholics also believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin (cf. Ps. 69:8; Matt. 1:24,25; 13:54-56; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 7:5), and that she was assumed, body and soul, into heaven (doctrine of Assumption of Mary, declared ex cathedra by Pope Pius XII in November of 1950 -- that Mary was raised from the dead on the third day after her death, and anyone who refuses to believe this has committed a mortal sin). The consequence of all this veneration of Mary, in effect, establishes her authority above Christ's -- Rome says, "He came to us through Mary and we must go to Him through her." All this is so obviously idolatrous, one wonders why Catholics take offense when their religious affections are called cultic.

4. Salvation. Catholics teach that a person is saved through the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments, especially through baptism; they do not believe that salvation can be obtained by grace through faith in Christ alone, but that baptism is essential for salvation. Catholics believe that no one outside the Catholic Church can be saved (Unum Sanctum) (cf. Jn. 5:24; Eph. 2: 8,9; Gal. 2:21; Rom. 3:22,23). (See also The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism and the New Catholic Catechism (paras 819 and 846.) They also believe that one's own suffering can expiate the sin's of himself and of others, so that what Christ's suffering was not able to achieve, one can achieve by his own works and the works of others (Vatican II).

5. Sacraments. Catholics have seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, Eucharist (mass), penance/reconciliation (indulgences), extreme unction (last rights), marriage, and orders (ordination). Although not even formally decreed until the Council of Florence in 1439, the Council of Trent later declared all to be anathema whom do not hold Rome's position that it was Christ Himself who instituted these seven sacraments! (The idea behind the sacraments is that the shedding of Christ's Blood in His death upon the cross is of no value unless it is somehow dispensed and applied "sacramentally" by the Catholic priesthood.) Although Catholics believe that the first five sacraments are indispensable for salvation (because without any one of them, a mortal sin has been committed), baptism is considered the most important. Catholics believe that a person enters into the spiritual life of the Church through baptism; i.e., baptismal regeneration -- that a person can be saved through baptism (actually, 'on the road to salvation,' because Catholics never know exactly when they are saved). They practice infant baptism because they believe baptism erases original sin (cf. Jn. 3:18).

Continued
}

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:34 PM

6. The Mass. Unknown in the early church, the mass did not become an official doctrine until pronounced by the Lateran Council of 1215 under the direction of Pope Innocent III, and reaffirmed by the Council of Trent. The Church of Rome holds that the mass is a continuation of the sacrifice that Christ made on Calvary -- in effect a re-crucifixion of Christ over and over again in an unbloody manner (cf. Heb. 9:22; 1 Jn. 1:7). They believe that by this means Christ offers Himself again and again as a sacrifice for sin (cf. Heb. 7:27; 9:12,25,26; 10:10,12,14,18), and that this sacrifice is just as efficacious to take away sin as was the true sacrifice on Calvary. Catholics thus teach the doctrine of transubstantiation (meaning a change of substance) -- that the bread and wine (at communion) actually become (by the power of the priest!) the body and blood of Christ, which is then worshiped as God Himself! Indeed, the sacrifice of the mass is the central point of Catholic worship, as evidenced by the fact that those abstaining from attending mass are considered to have committed a mortal sin.

7. Purgatory. Though of pagan origin, the doctrine of purgatory was first conceptualized in the professing church in the second century; the Roman Church proclaimed it as an article of faith in 1439 at the Council of Florence, and it was confirmed by Trent in 1548. The Catholic Church teaches that even those "who die in the state of grace" (i.e., saved and sins forgiven) must still spend an indefinite time being purged/purified (i.e., expiated of sins/cleansed for heaven). (Technically, this "purging" can occur in this life rather than in purgatory itself, but as a practical matter, purgatory is the best the average Catholic can hope for.) Some Catholics will admit that the doctrine of purgatory is not based on the Bible, but on Catholic tradition (which, by Catholic standards, is equally authoritative) (cf. Jn. 5:24; Lk. 23:43; 1 Jn. 1:7,9; Phil. 1:23). (Others teach that it is based upon the interpretation of several Scriptural texts -- 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Pe. 1:7; 3:19; Matt. 12:31.) They teach that those in purgatory can be helped by the prayers and good works of those on earth (which would include the "purchase" of masses and/or other indulgences), but they are not certain how these prayers and works are applied (cf. 2 Pe. 1:9; Heb. 1:3; Jn. 3:18; 19:30; 2 Cor. 5:6-8).

8. The Church Councils. There have been three major Roman Catholic Councils: Council of Trent (1545-1563), Vatican I (1869-1870), and Vatican II (1962-1965). The last Council, Vatican II, offered no new doctrines nor repudiated any essential teaching of the Roman Church; it referred to Trent dozens and dozens of times, quoted Trent's proclamations as authority, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. Even the New Catholic Catechism (1992/1994) cites Trent no less than 99 times! There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican council, Pope John XXIII stated, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent," and all of the Catholic leaders who attended Vatican II signed a document containing this statement. (The current pope, Pope John Paul II, has even cited the Council of Trent as authority for his blasphemous position on Mary.):

Continued
}

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:36 PM

Council of Trent -- The Council of Trent was held in an attempt to destroy the progress of the Protestant Reformation; it approved many superstitious and unbiblical beliefs of the Middle Ages (all to be believed under the threat of "anathema"):

(a) Denied every doctrine of the Reformation, from Sola Scriptura to "salvation by grace through faith alone";

(b) Pronounced 125 anathemas (i.e., eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what evangelicals believe and preach today;

(c) Equal value and authority of tradition and Scripture (in actuality, tradition is held above Scripture);

(d) Scriptures for the priesthood only (prohibited to anyone in the laity without written permission from one's superior -- to violate this was [and still is in most "Catholic countries" today] considered a mortal sin);

(e) Seven sacraments;

(f) Communion by eating the bread only (not drinking the wine);

(g) Purgatory;

(h) Indulgences;

(i) The Mass as a propitiatory offering.

Vatican I

(a) Defined the infallibility of the pope;

(b) Confirmed Unum Sanctum (no salvation outside of the Catholic Church).

Vatican II -- made no new doctrines, nor did it change or repudiate any old ones; Trent and Vatican I stand as is (i.e., Vatican II verified and validated all the anathemas of Trent). Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as papal supremacy; the Roman priesthood; the mass as an unbloody sacrifice of Christ; a polluted sacramental gospel; Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture; Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-Redemptrix with Christ; auricular confession; Mariolatry; pilgrimages to "holy shrines"; purgatory; prayers to and for the dead; etc. (Although the restriction against laity reading the Scriptures has been removed, it is still a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic anywhere to read any Protestant version of the Bible. That the real attitude of the Vatican toward the Bible has not changed is shown by the fact that in 1957 the depot of the British and Foreign Bible Society in Madrid, Spain was closed and its stock of Bibles confiscated and burned.)

(a) Reaffirmed the infallibility of the pope (and even when he does not speak ex-cathedra, all Catholics must still give complete submission of mind and will to what he says);

(b) Divided Catholic doctrine into that which is essential core of theology, and must be received by faith, and that which is still an undefined body of theology which Catholics may question and debate without repudiating their essential Catholicism;

(c) Established 20 complex rules concerning when and how any indulgence may be obtained, and condemned "with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them ... [for] the task of winning salvation." [Back to Text]

Continued
}

david_munson

03-16-2007, 04:43 PM

A Sampling of the Anathemas of Trent:
If any one shall deny that the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as a sign, or in a figure, or virtually -- let him be accursed (Canon 1).

If any one shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation -- let him be accursed (Canon 2).

If any man shall say that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any peculiar festal celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy, and universal rites and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be publicly set before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters -- let him be accursed (Canon 6).

If anyone shall say that the ungodly man is justified by faith only so as to understand that nothing else is required that may cooperate to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is in no wise necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the motion of his own will ... let him be accursed (Canon 9).

If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed (Canon 12).

(source,Rapidnet
-----
My appologies to any Catholic that finds offence in this material.It is not my intention to cause offence.
Sometimes the truth can be hard to accept.

All of us have things in our theology that we need to clean out because of error.
This does not make any less of you.
It is just a part of the process of growing in the grace of our Lord and savior ,Jesus the Christ.

}

smyrna

03-16-2007, 09:42 PM

Mr. Munsun,

I am at work, and therefore cannot indulge your extravagant and protracted copy and paste job of material I have already read.

Furthermore, this thread is not the place to discuss such issues, though I admit it is common to digress from the intended purpose of a particular thread.

I do respect those who wish to involve themsevles in a discussion of Catholicism.

I will close by stating that whatever Church you may belong to, it probably would not exist, or not exist in the form it has taken, were it not for the historical actions of the Catholic Church, which certainly was led by God.

david_munson

03-16-2007, 09:59 PM

I respect that Smyrna but I would go back a bit further than the catholic church for any credit to the expanse of Christianity today.

I think I'd go back to the Apostles.
Paul in particular.

}

skooter942000

03-17-2007, 07:06 PM

Anyone who claims CHRIST (As their Savior)
is a CHRISTIAN. (This Fulfills John 3:16)

- After this, - (It is all about WORKS/DEEDS).

Following CHRIST is not all that hard to do.

When in trouble.
- [THINK]

What would CHRIST do (here).

- Then do that.

We all fall short of this at times.
- (*_if_ or _when_ we do*).

Repentance cleanses us from our MISTAKES.
And presents us before GOD ,
- (as a SPIRITUALLY CLEAN CHILD).

- And this make FATHER (HAPPY).
If a person is SPIRITUALLY CLEAN.
....HE can use you (In Servitude)

[FOR HIS HONOR AND GLORY]
(...one would HOPE)

1Cr 7:22 For he that is called in the Lord,
[being] a servant, is the Lord's freeman:
likewise also he that is called, [being] free,
is Christ's servant.

1Cr 7:23 Ye are bought with a price;
be not ye the servants of men.

Don <*))><

smyrna

03-17-2007, 10:20 PM

Dave,

The Catholic Church is the only Church that can be traced directly back to the Apostles, which is my point. In the early days of Chrisianity, though there were different assemblies, as we even read in the NT, James was head of the Church at Jeruslaem, and Paul where, later at Antioch? The others stood in unity with the each other, not at odds, with contradictory doctrines and traditions, as we have today.

We had some guy on here, who was it, Obadiah, that claimed that the Antiochian Church was the "true" church, yet this is Monday morning quasrterbacking at its finest.

Other than that, all the assemblies worked together, and had Bishops overseeing them, and in Rome, where Peter is said to have died, this Bishop of Rome was the direct receiver of the Apostleship of Peter, since Peter was considered the first Bishop of Rome:

http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050400.htm

david_munson

03-18-2007, 03:51 PM

Many organizations have a "head pastor" who in this day and age are put on a pedestal above the other members of the congregation.

I include almost all churches when I say this.
There has crept in a system of abuse that ,through misapplied and false doctrines ,control the laity.
There was never meant to be a single person who was "in charge with authority over the layman."

When Paul spoke of the Spirit giving "some pastors,some teachers,some evangelists
it was not singular but was intended to have a plurality of overseers.

The singularity of the pastor in today's churches is out of line with how the church is supposed to operate.It is supposed to have the gifts applied while being overseen by the elder members.(more mature in the things of the Lord)

Christ is "THE" only head of the church.
None other can claim this without violating scriptural indicatives.

This is the point I make.
None is above another in the economy of God.
As the body is given to be our example of this we can see that each member is no less or more important than any other with the exception that we are to give more honor to the weaker vessels in order to strengthen them.

This is not confined to any denomination but to all the people of the body of Christ universal.

The catholic church has presented both good and evil things but so have many other denoms.This is life this side of eternity.

No one is required to give their allegiance to any man but Christ.That would be idolatry.

Any man claiming authority over others is doing that thing which Christ hates which is called Nicolaitanism.This too is not confined to Catholicism. but is prevelant in most churches today.

The individuals independant relationship with Christ on a personal level is interfered with and the gifts that the Spirit has placed within is quenched by the so called pastors of today's out of order church.

We are all called to be believer priests.
Christ is my Pope and no other.
I will kiss the hand of Christ and no other.
I will never bow before the Pope in adoration that belongs to my Savior.The Pope is a sinner saved by grace like me and every other follower of Christ and has nothing above any other member of the body.(he is not the "holy see")
The same goes for any pastor of any church org. as well.He's just a man and nothing more.
---
petroV Petros pet'-ros

apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle:--Peter, rock. Compare 2786.
---
petra petra pet'-ra

feminine of the same as 4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively):--rock.

Here we have the definitive remarks that reveal that Christ spoke of Himself when He said upon "this rock" Petra:mass of stone after telling Peter that he was a Petros:small stone.

Much like when Jesus answered the question,"when shall these thing come to pass"? He told themm that "this" generation ,which speaks of the generation alive when Israel came back into the land,would not pass till these things be fulfilled.
Peter was a small stone but Christ is the Rock and foudation of the Kingdom.
The chief cornerstone if you will.

Peter is not the foudation like so many mistakenly think.
He is just a small stone.

Each believer is a priest.

}