Isn't it time for you all to repent of schism?

[BruceLeiter]

The Ephesian disciples that saint Paul found.

They should have debated their issues within the church to test the resilience of their claims. However, instead of engaging in debate, they chose to leave the church and establish their own.

Truth transcends opinion, both today and in the sixteenth century. There is no compelling reason to abandon the church established by Jesus. Any other church fundamentally represents a human endeavor established without divine intervention.

I challenge you to list the so-called "fabricated" doctrines which you believe are "not based on the Bible". We can then examine them individually, perhaps in separate discussions.

Open your eyes and explore for yourself; read the "Old Testament Apocrypha" that Martin Luther and his followers dismissed. Discover its contents. Open your eyes to Saint Paul's teachings about the great cloud of witnesses, his enumeration of the heroes of faith, and the Old Testament saints' prayers for their deceased compatriots and requests for angelic intercession. Refer to a Catholic catechism for an accurate explanation of Catholic teachings, rather than the claims made by opponents of Catholicism. Open your eyes and discern who has misled you.

You adhere to doctrines passed down by human tradition. You combine a Jewish Tanakh with a Catholic New Testament and consider it a bible, yet it is not. You accept a human tradition that omits seven books from the inspired scriptures and disregards portions of two others. Every Protestant denomination was founded by someone other than Jesus Christ. In contrast, the Catholic Church claims Jesus Christ as its founder, with Saint Peter and the other eleven apostles initiating an unbroken line of apostolic succession that continues to this day.

I'll take one belief about Mary, that we should pray to Mary so that she can pass it on to Jesus:
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
If Jesus is the "one Mediator between God and men," why should we pray to Mary, who emphasized that need in contradiction to Paul in this passage and to the writer to the Hebrews:
Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering,
Heb 12:23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect,
Heb 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Jesus is "the mediator of a new covenant," obviously between us and God the Father. Where is Mary in that situation?
According to Catholic sources, the idea of praying to Mary came from a saint in the 1500s, not from the Bible. That's the kind of addition based on a human source to which Protestants have a legitimate objection, because it doesn't come from and even contradicts what God's Word says. What do you say?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'll take one belief about Mary, that we should pray to Mary so that she can pass it on to Jesus

Is that a belief about Blessed Mary or a belief about the Lord Jesus Christ? I think it is about our Lord and saviour. He listens to his mother, and she intercedes for her children. And what does it mean when I write that she intercedes? It means that Blessed Mary prays for us. As the Hail Mary salutation and prayer says, Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
The first part is the angelic salutation from the archangel Gabriel to Blessed Mary which you can find in the Gospel according to saint Luke.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28 DRB) and, Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke 1:31 DRB).​

The second part is a request (a prayer) asking Blessed Mary, who is the mother of God (Jesus Christ) to pray for us to the Lord our (both Blessed Mary's God and ours) God.

And why do we ask anybody to pray for us when Jesus alone is the one mediator between humankind and God? We do it because of the example of the apostles who say:

• Then Simon [Magus] answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me. (Acts 8:24 DRB)
• Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thessalonians 5:25 DRB)
• For the rest, brethren, pray for us that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you: (2 Thessalonians 3:1 DRB)
• Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things. (Hebrews 13:18 DRB)

What more need be said. We ask Blessed Mary to pray for us because she is the mother of our Lord and is alive with him in heaven where the prayers of the righteous are powerful.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Is that a belief about Blessed Mary or a belief about the Lord Jesus Christ? I think it is about our Lord and saviour. He listens to his mother, and she intercedes for her children. And what does it mean when I write that she intercedes? It means that Blessed Mary prays for us. As the Hail Mary salutation and prayer says, Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
The first part is the angelic salutation from the archangel Gabriel to Blessed Mary which you can find in the Gospel according to saint Luke.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28 DRB) and, Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. (Luke 1:31 DRB).​

The second part is a request (a prayer) asking Blessed Mary, who is the mother of God (Jesus Christ) to pray for us to the Lord our (both Blessed Mary's God and ours) God.

And why do we ask anybody to pray for us when Jesus alone is the one mediator between humankind and God? We do it because of the example of the apostles who say:

• Then Simon [Magus] answering, said: Pray you for me to the Lord that none of these things which you have spoken may come upon me. (Acts 8:24 DRB)
• Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thessalonians 5:25 DRB)
• For the rest, brethren, pray for us that the word of God may run and may be glorified, even as among you: (2 Thessalonians 3:1 DRB)
• Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things. (Hebrews 13:18 DRB)

What more need be said. We ask Blessed Mary to pray for us because she is the mother of our Lord and is alive with him in heaven where the prayers of the righteous are powerful.

Yes, we all pray to the Father through Jesus for each other as Christians, but where in the Bible are we commanded to pray through Mary? Nowhere. We biblical Protestants depend on the truth of the Bible, not human so-called truth. Just admit it, when the Roman Catholic Church became the official church of the Roman Empire, they replaced the many gods with the saints and the Queen of Heaven with Mary. That was their basic mistake instead of basing their truth solely on the inspired Bible, and they have been adding human-made tradition ever since then.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, we all pray to the Father through Jesus for each other as Christians, but where in the Bible are we commanded to pray through Mary? Nowhere.

Where do you find a bible passage commanding that you ask your mother or friend to pray for you? Nowhere. Yet you do it, right?

We biblical Protestants depend on the truth of the Bible, not human so-called truth.

I see, no so-called human truths like the existence of gravity.

Just admit it, when the Roman Catholic Church became the official church of the Roman Empire, they replaced the many gods with the saints and the Queen of Heaven with Mary.

When Christianity replaced paganism, the pagans learned to pray for one another, seek the intercession of the saints and martyrs, and Blessed Mary, the mother of our Lord and God Jesus Christ. This was all very good.

That was their basic mistake instead of basing their truth solely on the inspired Bible, and they have been adding human-made tradition ever since then.

It took almost 300 years for the Church to declare which books were inspired and were to be used in churches as a part of the liturgy. The alleged people who relied solely on the bible didn't have a bible for 300 years.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I do not believe that it was a non-denominational statement of faith that Jesus said would be the rock upon which he would build his church, no sir, I do not believe that. But I do believe that Jesus said, "you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.", Peter being Rock in Greek. And since Jesus was speaking in Aramaic (rather than Greek) to the disciples he said in Aramaic to Simon "you are Cephas (rock) and upon this rock (Cephas) I will build my church ..."

Unfortunately for the Catholics, their Church is created on those words alone--if you want to go through the Catechism, refer to #s 80, 81. 82, 552, 553, 880. The entire Catholic Church and their claimed authority to speak from God came from their creation of theology, not from Jesus.

A thorough analysis of the Gospels shows that Matthew 16:18-19 was never stated by Jesus. First, the author of Matthew copied that event from Mark, but then those magic words appeared in that account. The same goes for Peter walking on water. Do the comparison yourself and you will see.

Second, search the Gospel of John and find where John documented Peter stating those same words with a recorded much different response by Jesus. John wrote that when Peter made that proclamation, Jesus warned about false teachers.

Third, consider the reaction of Jesus to award Peter for claiming something that the disciples had claimed all along. Peter's brother Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, then Peter went to meet Jesus. What is so special about that comment that Jesus would reward Peter for making it? Nothing--and it certainly wasn't worth the keys to the Church.

Fourth, there is a reference to Peter in Matthew 16:16-19 that is also an anomaly proving that it is an addition. Only once in the Gospel of Matthew is the term "Simon Peter" used to refer to Peter--the false teachers who added those words slipped up, as those committing a fraud often do.

Fifth, Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Church to lead is a powerful claim yet nowhere in the Gospels or the New Testament is that action validated by anyone. John, who wrote his testimony, ridiculed Peter rather than telling the world Jesus designated him to lead the Church. John beat him when they raced to the tomb, Peter had to ask Jesus a question through John as John leaned on Jesus' shoulder, and John had to get his religous leader friends to let Peter into witness Jesus' interrogation.

I've been thoroughly through the Catholic Catechism and the word of God, and there is nothing that validates the Catholic Church as coming from Jesus. In fact, prophecy tells the complete story of how a group of false teachers will take over the Kingdom of God thorugh a dead man. Jesus only specifically told one disciples he would be executed--Peter.

If history proves itself again, Catholics will get furious with me and ignore the evidence, but I challenge you to go through it. If you truly seek the word of God, find out what it says and quit following theology. WORSHIP JESUS AND FOLLOW WHAT HE SAID.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Unfortunately for the Catholics, their Church is created on those words alone

That sir is just untrue, it is a nonsense.

 

[JustTheFacts]

That sir is just untrue, it is a nonsense.

And that sir, is an expected response from someone who will refuse to consider and debate the evidence.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Unfortunately for the Catholics, their Church is created on those words alone--if you want to go through the Catechism, refer to #s 80, 81. 82, 552, 553, 880. The entire Catholic Church and their claimed authority to speak from God came from their creation of theology, not from Jesus.

A thorough analysis of the Gospels shows that Matthew 16:18-19 was never stated by Jesus. First, the author of Matthew copied that event from Mark, but then those magic words appeared in that account. The same goes for Peter walking on water. Do the comparison yourself and you will see.

Second, search the Gospel of John and find where John documented Peter stating those same words with a recorded much different response by Jesus. John wrote that when Peter made that proclamation, Jesus warned about false teachers.

Third, consider the reaction of Jesus to award Peter for claiming something that the disciples had claimed all along. Peter's brother Andrew told Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, then Peter went to meet Jesus. What is so special about that comment that Jesus would reward Peter for making it? Nothing--and it certainly wasn't worth the keys to the Church.

Fourth, there is a reference to Peter in Matthew 16:16-19 that is also an anomaly proving that it is an addition. Only once in the Gospel of Matthew is the term "Simon Peter" used to refer to Peter--the false teachers who added those words slipped up, as those committing a fraud often do.

Fifth, Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Church to lead is a powerful claim yet nowhere in the Gospels or the New Testament is that action validated by anyone. John, who wrote his testimony, ridiculed Peter rather than telling the world Jesus designated him to lead the Church. John beat him when they raced to the tomb, Peter had to ask Jesus a question through John as John leaned on Jesus' shoulder, and John had to get his religous leader friends to let Peter into witness Jesus' interrogation.

I've been thoroughly through the Catholic Catechism and the word of God, and there is nothing that validates the Catholic Church as coming from Jesus. In fact, prophecy tells the complete story of how a group of false teachers will take over the Kingdom of God thorugh a dead man. Jesus only specifically told one disciples he would be executed--Peter.

If history proves itself again, Catholics will get furious with me and ignore the evidence, but I challenge you to go through it. If you truly seek the word of God, find out what it says and quit following theology. WORSHIP JESUS AND FOLLOW WHAT HE SAID.

I too disagree with the Catholic doctrine about Peter; all believers have been given the Word of God, some of them formally and the rest informally. But your disregard of and rejection of parts of the Bible is the result, I believe, of what we used to call "higher criticism," which rejects parts of Scripture when they don't agree with their reasoning. Accepting or rejecting all of the Bible, you have the right to do one or the other, but please don't pick and choose, because the Holy Spirit led the early church to put together the Bible.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I too disagree with the Catholic doctrine about Peter; all believers have been given the Word of God, some of them formally and the rest informally.

We agree on something.

But your disregard of and rejection of parts of the Bible is the result, I believe, of what we used to call "higher criticism," which rejects parts of Scripture when they don't agree with their reasoning.

I don't outright reject any portion of the Bible, I just believe that there are portions of it that do not meet the definition of the word of God through God's Law specifiied in Deuteronomy.

Accepting or rejecting all of the Bible, you have the right to do one or the other, but please don't pick and choose, because the Holy Spirit led the early church to put together the Bible.

I don't pick and choose, I analyze and conclude. I have found that there are eyewitness statements of Jesus presented through Matthew (Nicodemus),. Mark (probably James, but I'm working on validating my earlier conclusions), and John. Silly me would think that eyewitness validation and verification of Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah would be a great thing for Christians. But Christians seem to be more focused and believe in theology, than critically taking a look at my results.

 

[BruceLeiter]

We agree on something.

I don't outright reject any portion of the Bible, I just believe that there are portions of it that do not meet the definition of the word of God through God's Law specifiied in Deuteronomy.

I don't pick and choose, I analyze and conclude. I have found that there are eyewitness statements of Jesus presented through Matthew (Nicodemus),. Mark (probably James, but I'm working on validating my earlier conclusions), and John. Silly me would think that eyewitness validation and verification of Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah would be a great thing for Christians. But Christians seem to be more focused and believe in theology, than critically taking a look at my results.

With what theology that Christians focus on do you disagree? I'm curious; I guess that's my fault in having a writer's curiosity. I look at the results of your analyzing and concluding; and after a lifetime of focusing on biblical interpretation after being an English teacher and then a pastor, I find that your methods make you arrive at conclusions that are outside of Scripture.

 

[JustTheFacts]

With what theology that Christians focus on do you disagree? I'm curious; I guess that's my fault in having a writer's curiosity. I look at the results of your analyzing and concluding; and after a lifetime of focusing on biblical interpretation after being an English teacher and then a pastor, I find that your methods make you arrive at conclusions that are outside of Scripture.

Funny that I prove that eyewitness testimony proves Jesus and you consider my work "outside of Scripture."

Theology such as the following are nonsense and cannot be validated with any evidence:
1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke---it's all theology as there is no proof. The dates of origin and author's names are all created.
2. John dying at an old age in a Patmos prison.
3. John receiving and documenting Revelation at the end of the first century.
4. End of time theology with the Antichrist, Rapture, and seven year tribulation.
5. Anonymous authors and apostles said to be speaking for God.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Funny that I prove that eyewitness testimony proves Jesus and you consider my work "outside of Scripture."

Theology such as the following are nonsense and cannot be validated with any evidence:
1. Matthew, Mark, and Luke---it's all theology as there is no proof. The dates of origin and author's names are all created.
2. John dying at an old age in a Patmos prison.
3. John receiving and documenting Revelation at the end of the first century.
4. End of time theology with the Antichrist, Rapture, and seven year tribulation.
5. Anonymous authors and apostles said to be speaking for God.

So, you discount all of those beliefs founded on the Bible. I agree with you about number four, but how can you say that about the first three gospels, which are mostly history of Jesus' ministry. Why do you discount their teachings?

 

[JustTheFacts]

So, you discount all of those beliefs founded on the Bible. I agree with you about number four, but how can you say that about the first three gospels, which are mostly history of Jesus' ministry. Why do you discount their teachings?

I'm glad you agree with me about #4. That proves to me that you have some critical thinking ability. Not one of those five points is from the Bible if you closely examine the claims and do the research. The Bible contents do not prove Matthew, Mark, and Luke as authors, and in fact they disprove them.

I don't discount the Gospels at all. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are proven eyewitness statements that validate the story of Jesus to be true, but only if the real authors are identified. The theology naming the authors is created fiction and not from the word of God. Luke cannot be considered reliable testimony because it is second hand or worse information. That does not mean that there isn't valuable information in Luke. In fact, the resurrection story in Luke describing the two men being visited by Jesus together with the minor detail in the Gospel of Mark, helps to validate Nicodemus as the author of Matthew. It helps prove that Jesus assigned Nicodemus to be an eyewitness.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I'm glad you agree with me about #4. That proves to me that you have some critical thinking ability. Not one of those five points is from the Bible if you closely examine the claims and do the research. The Bible contents do not prove Matthew, Mark, and Luke as authors, and in fact they disprove them.

I don't discount the Gospels at all. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John are proven eyewitness statements that validate the story of Jesus to be true, but only if the real authors are identified. The theology naming the authors is created fiction and not from the word of God. Luke cannot be considered reliable testimony because it is second hand or worse information. That does not mean that there isn't valuable information in Luke. In fact, the resurrection story in Luke describing the two men being visited by Jesus together with the minor detail in the Gospel of Mark, helps to validate Nicodemus as the author of Matthew. It helps prove that Jesus assigned Nicodemus to be an eyewitness.

My opinion is that if you pick and choose here and there what is authentic and what is not, you are the one being the authority and not the Bible, which is all God's Word, as the Holy Spirit guided the early church to assemble. Your caviat, "only if the real authors are identified" throws your whole acceptance of the Bible's truths off.

What about some of the letters like Hebrews, which was discussed by the early church because they didn't know who wrote it, unlike all of the gospels, which were? It agrees with the other accepted books unlike many other writings that varied from the accepted books. As a result, it was accepted; the others were not, rightly so.

 

[JustTheFacts]

My opinion is that if you pick and choose here and there what is authentic and what is not, you are the one being the authority and not the Bible, which is all God's Word, as the Holy Spirit guided the early church to assemble. Your caviat, "only if the real authors are identified" throws your whole acceptance of the Bible's truths off.

I don't pick and choose, I follow where the evidence leads. There's a huge difference. Where is your proof that the Bible is "all God's word?"
I already provided my proof for what I believe God's word is, per the Law of God, any documentation meeting Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, and 18:17-19. What is your criteria?

What about some of the letters like Hebrews, which was discussed by the early church because they didn't know who wrote it, unlike all of the gospels, which were? It agrees with the other accepted books unlike many other writings that varied from the accepted books. As a result, it was accepted.

Who decided it was the word of God? If I wrote something that agrees with the other accepted books, will that also become the word of God? The Catholics claim that their leaders speak the word of God, so do you accept that too? Muslims claimed that God spoke through Muhammad, so is that also the word of God to you? The criteria you presented here makes no sense.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I don't pick and choose, I follow where the evidence leads. There's a huge difference. Where is your proof that the Bible is "all God's word?"
I already provided my proof for what I believe God's word is, per the Law of God, any documentation meeting Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, and 18:17-19. What is your criteria?

Who decided it was the word of God? If I wrote something that agrees with the other accepted books, will that also become the word of God? The Catholics claim that their leaders speak the word of God, so do you accept that too? Muslims claimed that God spoke through Muhammad, so is that also the word of God to you? The criteria you presented here makes no sense.

I go by what the Bible itself says is inspired in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:16-21 as well as Jesus' preaching to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus:
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,”
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
2Pe 1:19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Luk 24:25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?”
Luk 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

All the New Testament books are consistent with the OT history and teachings; therefore, they are God's Word. The teachings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Muslims are not in agreement with the Bible.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I don't pick and choose, I follow where the evidence leads. There's a huge difference. Where is your proof that the Bible is "all God's word?"
I already provided my proof for what I believe God's word is, per the Law of God, any documentation meeting Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15, and 18:17-19. What is your criteria?

Who decided it was the word of God? If I wrote something that agrees with the other accepted books, will that also become the word of God? The Catholics claim that their leaders speak the word of God, so do you accept that too? Muslims claimed that God spoke through Muhammad, so is that also the word of God to you? The criteria you presented here makes no sense.

No, I don't accept the Popes' pronouncements if they vary from the Bible, which is the standard for interpretation of the truth.