I can't trust you
to use any of your files. Again read your Bible, try Galatians,
it's a good epistle about grace vs Law.
I am afraid that
your attitude sounds legalistic. Are you so afraid of the truth
that you refuse to accept any evidence that your prot minister
has not pre-chewed and digested for you? Or has your minister
forbidden you to study and think for your self? Why do you trust
him and not the rest of us or yourself? If you have a position to
defend, then you have a moral and religious obligation to do so.
In the New Testament, Pope St Peter said in his First Encyclical
...but in your
hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a
defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that
is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence…(1
Peter 3:15)
We are awaiting
your reply.
I think the only
verse that you are allowed to memorize is James 2:24.
Which verse on its
own refutes the Protestant error about justification.
Where, in the
history of the first century church (the book of Acts), do you
find priests offering sacrifices for sins, people seeking
indulgences to remit punishment for their sins, prayers for souls
in purgatory, church leaders forbidden to marry, infallible
popes, salvation dispensed through the sacraments. Where do you
see rosaries, scapulae, holy water and statues?
You also do not
find anyone preaching double predestination, justification by
faith alone without doing good works, baptism as a mere ordinance
without efficacy, eucharist as a mere memorial, altar calls,
vacation Bible schools, aggressive bus ministries, personal
interpretation of the Scripture, vernacular Bibles, or any
evidence of a democratic church order. What you don't seem to get
is that the Church's life develops organically. She grows in
depth and knowledge under the superintendance of the Holy Spirit.
Her practices follow suit over time. Even a Protestant has to see
that the Church in the book of Acts is only an embryonic form of
what was to come. No Protestant group looks exactly like them
either.
Genesis 3:15
"He will crush your head" was changed to "She
will......" This was to get the RC members to believe that
Mary was our Savior as opposed to Christ.
I disagree with
you. In Biblical Hebrew there is no difference between the
pronoun for 'he' and 'she'. The currently used Hebrew text (the
Masoretic text) added vowel marks to the original text in the 8th
Century AD. This nikudot distinguish the words but they were not
present in the original autograph. The noun for 'Strike" is
masculine, but in Hebrew it is often true that a forceful action
by a feminine subject uses the masculine noun form.
There is also a
threefold synonymous parallelism in Gen 3:15 -
I will put enmity
between YOU (Satan) and THE WOMAN between YOUR child and HERS SHE
will strike at YOUR head and YOU will lie in wait for HER heel.
So the particular
translation that you don't like is a possible reading of the
text.
Genesis 14:18
Melchizedek was said to have "sacrificed" bread and
wine. The church changed this to bring in the transubstantiation
concept.
The Hebrew
actually says that Melchizadech was a priest-king who came
OFFERING bread and wine. The word for offering can be understood
in a sacrificial sense. Most likely, he came with a sacred
offering of cakes and libation used as a communion with God. This
was a foreshadowing of the Eucharist for certain.
Genesis 6:5b The
human heart "only and always set on evil" was changed
to "prone to evil". This was changed to take away the
doctrine of original sin.
Here is the
Revised Standard Version: Genesis 6:5 "The LORD saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually."
Here is what the
Vulgate says: Genesis 6:5 videns autem Deus quod multa malitia
hominum esset in terra et cuncta cogitatio cordis intenta esset
ad malum omni tempore.
I don't know how
good your Latin is, but they say the EXACT same thing.
John 14:26 said
the Holy Spirit "will reveal whatever [Jesus) will say"
to His church, rather than "did say." This was to
support tradition.
This is the
Revised Standard Version: [John 14:26] "But the Counselor,
the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will
teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I
have said to you."
This is the Douay
Rheims version based on the Vulgate: John 14:26 But the
Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind,
whatsoever I shall have said to you.
This is the
Vulgate: John 14:26 paracletus autem Spiritus Sanctus quem mittet
Pater in nomine meo ille vos docebit omnia et suggeret vobis
omnia quaecumque dixero vobis
No difference. I
think you are mistaken AGAIN!
In my opinion, the
Vulgate is second only to the New World Translation in inferior
translations.
Looks to me that
you need to learn a little more before you form your opinions.
;-)
The New Testament
says that salvation is through Christ alone,
Which is Catholic
Dogma as well.
Arinze responded,
"If a person were to push what you said a little further and
say that if you're not a Christian you're not going to heaven,
we'd regard that person as a fundamentalist...and theologically
wrong.
Amen. Cardinal
Arinze speaks the truth. Let me sample a few Scriptures for your
education:
Therefore thou
art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for
wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for
thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that
the judgment of God is according to truth against them which
commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that
judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that
thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the
riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not
knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up
unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of
the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man
according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in
well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal
life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the
truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth
evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory,
honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew
first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of
persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law
shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in
the law shall be judged by the law; (For not the hearers of
the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall
be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having
not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work
of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing
or else excusing one another;) In the day when God shall
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel. (Romans 2:1-16)
Also, there is the
words of St. Peter in Acts:
And Peter
opened his mouth and said: "Truly I perceive that God
shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears
him and does what is right is acceptable to him. (Acts
10:34-35)
And of course we
have the words of My Lord and Savior:
John said to
him, "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your
name, and we forbade him, because he was not following
us." But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one
who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to
speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.
For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to
drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means
lose his reward. (Mark 9:38-41)
I would say that
Cardinal Arinze has good Scriptural warrant on his side. ;-)
I caution you not
to be too niggardly with the grace of God. God may save anyone he
wants to by any means he wants to. His word has already told us
this. The Christian faith is the ORDINARY means by which men can
be saved, but God may choose to act in an extraordinary manner.
His word tells us so.
It also says we
are not saved unless we subject ourselves to the pope:
Absolutely. Unless
you come to God in the way that God prescribes, you cannot enter
Heaven. The only way to do that is through HIS Catholic Church,
not through some man made prot cult. Just picking up the Bible
and imagining that what you read empowers you to speak in the
name of Christ is like reading the Constitution and then
declaring that you are empowered to be president. No Protestant
cult has any depth in history beyond it immediate HUMAN founders,
and none of them lived before the 16th Century.
Truly, truly,
I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door
but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a
robber; but he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the
sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep hear his voice,
and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When
he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the
sheep follow him, for they know his voice. A stranger they
will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not
know the voice of strangers." This figure Jesus used
with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to
them. So Jesus again said to them, "Truly, truly, I say
to you, I am the door of the sheep... I am the good shepherd;
I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and
I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And
I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring
them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one
flock, one shepherd. (John 10:1…16)
Jesus goes on in
John 21:
When they had
finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon,
son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to
him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said
to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to
him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said
to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He
said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the
third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?"
Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time,
"Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord,
you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus
said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you,
when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you
would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands,
and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish
to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to
glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow
me." (John 21:15-19)
So riddle me this,
after Jesus ascended into heaven who was the ONE shepherd of the
ONE flock on Earth? Jesus is always our Heavenly Shepherd, of
course, but when he left, he designated St. Peter to be the
vicarious shepherd in his absence. That is why the Successors of
Peter are called the Vicars of Christ.
It is also why we
take Jesus' words seriously:
He who hears
you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who
rejects me rejects him who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
So if you refuse
to join the ONE Church that Jesus actually founded and instead go
after false shepherds. Draw you own conclusion.
