Who is the Rock?

Helen replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, you asked why I linked the Christmas Star article. It was to show you that the choice of Dec. 25 was probably not a date taken in an attempt to transform a pagan ritual, but rather it was originally a far more special date, and that the visit of the magoi might be the reason we use that date.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, I agree that it was not something that was done deliberately to off-set a pagan celebration but only that there are several theories that attempt to explain why it was so. I am sensitive to the charge that "Catholicism is pagan," with others using the 25 December coincidence as an example.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The second reason I linked it is because the author is my husband and I am very proud of him!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hah! An ulterior motive huh? Well, I don't blame you here!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But yes, I do think the Catholic church is 'encumbered with paganistic elements' to quote your choice of words. I just don't think the date of Dec. 25 for Christmas happens to be one of them, despite popular belief to the contrary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your last sentence, of course…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But here are some to think about:

1. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread. The disciples ate pieces of broken bread, which was symbolizing the death of Jesus which would occur the next day. The Roman Catholic church, however, for centuries used perfectly round wafers. These were taken directly from sun god worship and represented the disc of the sun, having nothing to do with the broken bread of the Last Supper. This is thoroughly documented by J Gardner Wilkinson.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my goodness! Please don't get hooked on that nonsense, Helen! The Byzantine Rite, which is as "Catholic" as can be (being "in union with Rome") uses tiny pieces of bread in a pellet form. The Roman/Latin/Western Rite (The Roman Catholic Church), as well as some of the other Rites, uses the host in round wafer form because it is easier to pack in a ciborium, are less subject to fracturing off into fragments, and "round" is a common geometrical form, like the wheels on my car!

Also, I get the feeling you read this from a Jack Chick tract, as I recall reading something like that in one of them. I did say something about this in a response I did to a Jack Chick tract about a year ago! Here is a link to that tract:

http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/w/p/wputnam3/Chick%20Tract.htm


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Lent: "* It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early observed by many professing Christians, in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March. *
That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence so long as the perfection of that primitive
Church remained inviolate." * Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, * who have
inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, * where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox.... began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. * This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his Sabean Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. *" (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/2bab015.htm)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, I don't think that any traditional observance by Catholics could escape any attempt by others who wanted to plant the charge of "paganism" on the Church. Who today sees any pagan origin on Lent in this day and age? It became traditional that 40 days of some sort of reflection, penance, "getting back to the basics" of the Faith, etc., and a good thing too, don't you think? It's sort of like a "40 day of revival" if you will, appropriate in preparation for the celebration of the glorious resurrection of Our Lord. In fact, we Catholics are now observing season of Advent, which is sort of a "mini-Lent" in preparation for the observance of the Birth of the Savior on the 25th! Does it have a "pagan past"? I have no idea, but it amazes me how others, seemingly with an attempt to discredit the Catholic Church, go to extremes to show "pagan origins" in this or that.

I have even heard the charge that St. Peter's Basilica in Rome located on the ancient Vatican Hill is built upon a site that was rampant with pagan atrocities and ceremonies! And my answer is: So what? Who remembers Vatican Hill for anything other then the place where Peter was buried, and over whose tomb that great church was built?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3 Mary as the wife of any 'part' of God. Read the following from the Orphic Hymns, and see if you can't see where the Roman Catholic Mary comes from:

royal Juno, of majestic mien,
Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed Queen,
Throned in the bosom of caerulean air,
The race of mortals is thy constant care… <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Helen, but I see nothing of the kind here, not at all!

Where do you get this stuff anyway? It kinda reminds me of another story often told concerning the finding of baby bones under the dirt floors of ancient Catholic convents in England, or the finding of "secret passages" that connected convents with monasteries. The rash assumption made? That the dead babies were the aborted infants of nuns who have had affairs with priests! And that the "secret passages" were there so that their little trysts could be consummated! What is the truth? Well, not only were the skeletons of infants found in those ancient convent basements, but adults skeletons as well. And in addition, the same thing was found, I understand, under the dirt basement floors of ancient other governmental buildings as well. Why? Because during the great plagues, governmental office buildings and convents were conscripted for use as hospitals, and there were many patients who died on their pallets… and buried immediately under the very place they died! Oh, about those those "secret passageways" - it seems that during the great persecutions of the Catholic Faith in England, they were escape routes for the clergy to escape detection and imprisonment!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The list of pagan symbols and rites in the Roman Catholic church is enormous and extraordinarily well-documented for several hundred years by those who have studied the classical literature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And we burn incense, light candles, and use water for baptism, all traceable to pagan use as well! So what, Helen? What was once pagan is not blessed as an authentic Christian rite! And no where in Rome could St. Peter's basilica have been built that would not, in one way or another, infringe on some ancient pagan usage! The whole idea is bogus, non sequitur on anything other then to attempt to discredit the Catholic Church in any manner possible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding your conversion to Catholicism, you said you had a 'similar feeling' regarding what I described as being born again. But I was not talking about feelings, Bill. I was talking about the change in me as a person. My feelings can run the scale at any given time, but the absolute change God has made in my life since He gave me that new life have nothing to do with my feelings, but with changes taking place in the very core of my being. This is quite different from an emotional experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I think feelings are important, but they prove nothing, actually. They are important to me for my own benefit. But my conversion did make a marked change in my life, my relationship with God, and certainly my relationship with Jesus and His gospel. Now, I was not the "perfect Christian" by any means, and I still fall short of the glory of God in that respect, but it was indeed, a marked change in the course of my life. Has it made a deep change in my life? Looking back, I can see the progress, but the journey is not over by any means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked if my 'new heart' can be soiled. I don't know. I really don't. I do know that I am completely covered by Christ and that, when He is finished maturing me, my heart will be pure then. But can further sin 'return us to a state even worse than before?" No, absolutely not. Jesus said He has not lost one, and I'm not scheduled to be the first! When I wander, He comes looking for me and hauls me back in. And sometimes there is discipline (Hebrews 12), but never am I not His. His Holy Spirit indwells me and as I grow in Him, God is fulfilling His purpose for me (Philippians 1:6.). God is utterly faithful, and I am utterly His.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, I will never criticize you for feeling that way, and all I can say is, praise God for it! We Catholics have no exclusive claim on what ever graces, God my shower upon you in your "road to Emmanus." But I know I can fail in my faith, and I am tempted always to do so. And always, I feel secure in the knowledge that my sins are forgiven ever time I leave the confessional. So are you a better Christian then I? I must assume so, for every Christian I meet, Catholic or Protestant, as to assume otherwise is to set me up for pride and a fall.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Getting back to the Rock - God very clearly said He is the ONLY one and knows of no other. God is the same eternally - past, present, and future. Therefore that will not change. The name given to Peter is the SAME NAME given to each of us, as Peter himself referred to us ALSO as 'living stones.' That 'also' is very important. Peter KNEW what Jesus meant. It is the Roman Catholic church that has twisted that into a form of paganism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So far as I can tell, Simon was the only one Jesus made a name change, and Rock was that name. I do not consider myself a rock at all but rather poor mush that must always be on guard to sin and the temptation to sin. God is THE ROCK, Christ is THE ROCK, and Peter is THE ROCK in perfect usage of metaphor for just about any worth superlative you wish to use for what the metaphor ROCK represents. Christ, THE ROCK, changed Simon's name to ROCK and declared He would build His church upon that ROCK. Which rock? Peter, of course, a ROCK, and the ROCK He will build His church upon. Those two words, within the same sentence, makes it plain which ROCK Christ is building His church upon. Christ is a ROCK, but is not the rock He is speaking of here. God is a ROCK, but again, not the same rock Jesus speaks of, all given in Matthew 16:18.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said "Matthew simply had to conform to those grammar rules and write 'You are Petros, and upon this petra will I build my church." There are NO Greek grammar rules concerning the use of these words in this way! If Matthew had meant that Jesus had said that Simon was the same rock upon which the church was to be built, then the same word would have been used. There is not a Greek grammar rule that has ever been in existence which would require otherwise. The two words were used by Matthew for the distinct reason of separating the name Christ gave to Simon and the rock upon which the church would be built. Simon Peter HIMSELF delineates upon the concept of us ALL being rocks in his first epistle. Nowhere in the Bible is Peter shown to have primary authority among the Apostles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, again, I am no Greek language scholar, let alone the proper grammatical rules, but as I understand it, it would be improper grammar to say "…you are Petros and upon this petros I will build my church." And neither could he have said, "…you are Petras and upon this petras (giving Peter a feminine name) I will build my church." All I can say is, get the book I recommended! It explains it better then I ever could, and besides, quoting too much of it violates copyright. (But I can quote some of it if you wish.) And by the way, Protestant scholars are quoted in the book that concedes the point of exactly who Christ was building His church upon - Peter and Peter only.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the 'keys' goes, ONLY God has the power to open or shut heaven for people, as ONLY God is the judge. That is the context of the entire Bible! Given that primary doctrine, it is impossible that Simon Peter or any other human being was given God's authority.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you going to deny that God can delegate power to others, Helen? What are the "keys of the kingdom" of not a metaphoric symbol of authority as shown in Isaiah 22:22? How is it that God also delegates authority in John 20:21-23 as well? If you say only God has this power, how is it that He delegates that power? Answer that question and you will be fine, Helen!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As far as the canonization of Scriptures is concerned - that was simply a validation of the Scriptures that had been in use from the beginning, over and against those spurious bits and pieces that kept cropping up. The Bible did not come from the Catholic church. It came from God through the chosen writers. It is HIS Word, and He has always been in charge of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary, there was concern and confusion of what constituted the canon of at least the New Testament (since the Septuagint documented already, the contents of the Old Testament, including the deuterocanonicals.) I don't what I said in my last reply to you, but I think I did mention the Didache, didn't I? Some local churches considered it divinely inspired scripture, Helen. Or how about the Gospel of Thomas? Some local churches it included as well, and on the other hand, some churches looked with great suspicion, the books of Revelation, Romans and, I think, Hebrews. So there was no consensus on the New Testament. So it was a lot more then simple validation, Helen, there was determination as to which writings are to be included and which one were not. This was done starting in about the 3rd century with the councils of Carthage, Hippo and Rome and the process started that has determined the canon of scripture as we have it to this very day (at least the New Testament part.) The last action was the Council of Trent, where merely ratified the decrees of the earlier councils.

That concluded the confusion and any controversy concerning the canon…until Luther challenged it and decided to throw out the Septuagint (LXX) deuterocanonicals. And by the way, he also wanted to through out one or two of the present New Testament books as well but apparently, was persuaded not to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The church is invisible, because it is spiritual. As Jesus told the woman at the well, the time will come and has come when true believers will worship in spirit and in truth. This was over and against her question about a physical place of worship. Paul said we are a body. And we are. I have traveled a reasonable amount in my life and no matter where I am, or what language the people speak, Christians know each other. Spirit recognizes Spirit and I can't put it any other way. It doesn't matter which Christian church they worship in - it matters that they are born again in Christ and know our Lord as their Head. We are each directly accountable to Him and obedient to Him. Among those who are born again there is the most remarkable sense of recognition. And I have no other way to explain it. We are an invisible church in that sense. It is the visible people who carry the Gospel to the world as Christ has directed us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, an "invisible" church cannot spread the gospel and "make disciples of all nations…" per Matthew 28:19. It must be visible, with leadership and an organization. No other church can come close to the successes of the Catholic Church's missionary efforts that spread from the New World to the Far East. That took a visible church, Helen.

But a visible can also be spiritual as well, don't you think, Helen? You speak that "Christians know each other." Boy, is that true, especially when you see the familiarity of the Mass in some foreign church, who have at least the same liturgy, even if it is spoken in the vernacular. And the rest of your statements is just as applicable to the Catholic Church family of Christians as you may claim for your community. So if you do not see me minimizing that in your community, please do not minimize it in mine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is the contention of the Roman Catholic church that they are the visible church Christ created on this earth. If so, then Christ has failed miserably, for no other religious organization has, through history, been responsible for so much slaughter, immorality, and agony as that which has been done by the Roman Catholic church. From the rampant immorality of so many popes and bishops and other clergy through time to the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the slaughter of groups who did not agree with them, and cultures who did not agree with them - I cannot think of any one organization in the entire world's history which has been responsible for as much bloodshed, violence, and immorality as the Roman Catholic church. There is NO WAY that this is the church of the Jesus Christ of the Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh balderdash nonsense, Helen! Get off of Jack Chick and search for the truth!

Certainly the Catholic Church has it's "skeletons in the closet" as any human organization has, but look at the claims, for example, of persons executed in the Inquisitions. The numbers are inflated into the millions! If fact, I saw one claim that if it were true, would decimate the population of all of Europe, and be far greater the even the worse of the great plagues that infested Europe.

How many truly immoral and wicked popes have we seen, Helen? I count about six. Now, subtract that number from all of the popes of history. Then please note the hundreds of good and holy men you find there. Now, I do not know what community of Christians you belong two but there is one community that comes to my mind that I could almost use up my fingers and counting the scoundrels they have produced. But instead of concentrating on them, I concentrate on all of the good pastors this community has had. I pray for the souls of those who have fallen by the wayside. And sure, we have then too, Helen, so please join me and pray for them as well. But speaking of Inquisitions, please don't look too closely as you might just find some embarrassing history, for which I will give you a hint:

Look into why the first English Bible of any importance was written by exiled Catholic priests in France, in the city of Douay and the city of Rheims. (The Douay-Rheims bible came out about two years before the 1611 Authorized Version, King James Bible.) Why did they have to do this in France anyway?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You wrote: Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as applied to Simon now renamed Peter (ROCK) in Matthew 16:18!

That is exactly my point, Bill. Peter was not what the church was built on. Christ was and is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

(Sigh!) Helen, let me repeat this veeeeeeeery sloooooooooly for you so that you can understand as best I can make it.

When Jesus spoke the words kepha, ROCK, Petros (take your pick) who was He addressing? Why Simon, now instantly remaned Kepha, ROCK, petra (again, take your pick). Therefore, when Christ said "…upon this ROCK I will build my church, IT IS YOUR STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING OF ANOTHER CONTEXT, IN ANOTHER BOOK IN THE NT, WHEN HE IS REFERRED TO AS THE CORNERSTONE!!! What other "rock" is Jesus speaking of that just happens to be seen in that very same sentence? Carefully move your eyes onto the first occurrence of the word "ROCK" (Kepha, Petros, Peter, take your pick.) Take that sentence to any English teacher and have him or her explain what "rock" Jesus is talking about. There can only be one "rock" that it can be referenced to and that is the first occurrence in the sentence!

Now, Bill Putnam, take a break and fix yourself a cup of Navy coffee………

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You asked for documentation regarding the keys being a matter of opening heaven to people's understanding rather than a carte blanche to judge people worthy or unworthy of heaven. The documentation is the entire Bible. Only God can judge. And what you see Peter doing from the first is explaining about Jesus to people, and it is through Jesus and Jesus only that heaven can be gained. Peter indeed used his 'keys' to open heaven to people. But heaven is still a matter of Jesus and the individual, and Peter has no place as any kind of 'doorkeeper.' Christ said HE is the gate for the sheep.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My only reply is Isaiah 22:22 which shows the best context of what the "key" metaphor is used for in Jewish history - authority. Yet you are going to say that the "entire bible" somehow explains it when I see absolutely nothing in scriptures that comes anywhere close to explaining what the "keys" are except for the Isaiah quote, and you said nothing about it from my last message (I think I spoke of it in my last message - getting old and forgetful…) Helen, do not be fearful of this word:

AUTHORITY!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Peter was the only one who had the fortitude to go to where the trial was being held. No, he wasn't. In John 18, John quotes exactly what he heard and tells what he saw. You have your choice of that or that he was making it up or taking it as hearsay!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, I really don't know if Peter went alone to where the trial was being held. All we have is Peter being mentioned as being there. And because John records the event does not prove that John was there to hear it! It could be just as well that John records the events as Peter tells him, in his own shame and confession to the others, what happened then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You will read that, at the time of Jesus' arrest, "Then all the disciples deserted him and fled." (Matthew 26:56). ALL. Not 'except Peter.'

ALL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John as well? And you just got through telling me he wrote what he heard! I am sure Peter fled as well, but apparently came back, walking at least some distance away to see what was happening. He is the only one recorded doing that, and apparently alone at that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then Matthew, at least, and John, as well as Peter, must have followed at a distance and then gone into the courtyard. We know Peter was there, but both John and Matthew give eyewitness accounts of what happened. And it was only Peter who denied Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speculation, Helen. First, we know they all fled.

Then we see recorded by John (whether he was there or not) record the actions of Peter an no one else in the college of the apostles. (And somewhere, Judas hanged himself, of course.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Were the others more cowardly than Peter? John was at the foot of the cross with Mary. That is cowardly? Peter was evidently back in the crowd with the others. But John was identifying himself with Jesus, and thus risking execution, too. Matthew talked to the soldiers and got their story. Was that cowardly? He could have been arrested for being a known follower and there he was, interviewing soldiers who were at the tomb!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good for John but was he the "blessed disciple" to whom Jesus said "Behold, your mother"? (John 19:27)

And Helen, I am quite sure that any danger of arrest was much abated when Christ died on the cross. Where were the rest of them? We are not sure, and the writings of the others does not necessarily pin-point where each individual apostle was. I can only presume that Peter was in solitude, weeping for the cowardly denial he had done.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Inasmuch as they were cowards, they were all cowards together. I don't see that Peter was particularly brave. Rash, yes. But don't confuse that with bravery. And that rashness was the reason Peter was constantly being rebuked by Jesus. Peter had a chronic case of 'foot in mouth' syndrome!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not deny that cowardly instincts took over all of them, but I find it strange to see Peter seemingly place himself in the greatest danger, not to mention his attempted defense of Jesus when He was taken into custody.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said: Peter's denial is profound, but his brothers sins are even worse!

And I would ask you "Who made you judge?" And upon what standard are you judging? That Jesus did not have to correct and rebuke the others as much as He did Peter? This made their sins greater? I have a very hard time with that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee whiz, Helen, I am not judging, just surmising what happened in scripture. Heavens to Betsy, you Protestants do this all the time! So does it surprise you so much when a Catholic indulges in it as well?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And, if Peter was to be the strong one, why was Mary not given into HIS care? Perhaps it was because Peter was too afraid to get near the cross???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here I go, surmising again! I suspect it is for two reasons:

1. The "beloved disciple" was the one Jesus loved the most, so it is natural for Him to place His mother into his care.

2. Jesus know that Peter had a far greater mission as the chief of His own apostles, knowing full well that his own life would be taken in martyrdom - in Rome - Upside down on the same type of cross, but since he is reportedly to have said, "I am not worthy to be put the death in the same manner as my Lord," and thus the Roman soldiers accommodated him; the cross was placed into the ground top side down, and Peter was thus nailed to it upside down.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You said that Paul's confrontation of Peter showed Peter's primacy! That is an impossible leap, Bill. Are you telling me that if Peter were not a leader that Paul would not have confronted him publicly? And, as far as Paul referring to Peter as Cephas - that just shows that Matthew could have done the same except for the fact that Matthew had a strong point to make.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, suppose Paul was to confront any of the other apostles (not Peter) with the same admonishment? What purpose would it have served to be inscripturated? That Paul confronts Peter "to his face" has a far greater significance since Peter is Peter, the Rock, the "Chief of the Apostles!"

What news would it have made if a certain nun were to confront a bishop (or her superior) with the admonishment that there should be a female priesthood? Zilch, nothing, nada, but a did indeed, confront John Paul II with that exact admonishment! T'was splattered across the entire printed media world! St. Catherine of Sienna confronted the reigning pope of her time to have him return to Rome, from where he presently resided - Avignon, France.

But to get back to Paul, I am sure it took courage for him to admonish Peter, but he saw a weakness in Peter that needed to be corrected. Peter may be the first pope , but Peter is still a fallible man in ordinary things, and suddenly refusing to eat with the gentiles when it was now OK for Christians, in the company of Christian Jews, (as I understand the issue) was a weakness that Paul had to call his attention to. And because it was Peter, and not any of the others, it is recorded.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You mentioned the title of the pope as "vicar of Christ." 'Vicar' is the root of 'vicarious', meaning 'in place of.' That is pure blasphemy. It is the Holy Spirit who represents Christ on earth in the hearts of Christians. There is no human authority representing God. That, too, is directly from paganism - such as the 'god-kings' of Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it "blasphemy" when the "chief shepherd," that being Christ, entrusts another to "feed His sheep" per John 21:15-17? When Christ ascended to the Father in heaven, he left Peter in charge! He is the head of the inner core of the early church, the "first clergy" and hierarchy of the church that would continue Christ's mission. And it is as paganistic as I am Chinese! Peter is neither a god or a king and neither his successors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And don't call me a liar about reading the book you recommend. Yes, you could lie to me about reading the Bible cover to cover. Would you? It appears as though, like every Catholic I have ever asked to read the Bible cover to cover, by itself, no commentaries and no apocrypha, you refuse. That is very strange to me as a Christian, for the Bible is the food for the spirit in a man. Reading bits and pieces as dictated by some authority or guide along with their 'explanation' is taking away from the impact of the purity of God's Word. Why are you afraid of that? Don't you think God had a purpose in having the Bible put together as He did?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where did I call you a liar, Helen? Gee, this message started off so nicely, and look at the tone of it here!

Did I get under your skin that bad, Helen? Let me tell you this: I have never read the bible from cover to cover, and I probably never will!

Did you get that loud and clear, Helen?

You see, I see little value is read the bible that way! What I do read is what is important (on a given issue at hand at the time) to read and understand. I tell you what, Helen; you read your bible your way and I will read mine my way, OK?

We can compare notes later…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather

the scattered sheep


and watch over those

you have gathered.


Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,

your Son.


You have marked them

with the seal of one baptism,

now make them one

in the fullness of faith

and unite them in the bond of love.


We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Helen:
Hi Bill,
(snip)
1. At the Last Supper, Jesus broke the bread. The disciples ate pieces of broken bread, which was symbolizing the death of Jesus which would occur the next day. The Roman Catholic church, however, for centuries used perfectly round wafers. These were taken directly from sun god worship and represented the disc of the sun, having nothing to do with the broken bread of the Last Supper. This is thoroughly documented by J Gardner Wilkinson.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One hesiatates to ask what J Gardiner Wilkinson would think of the fact that the traditional form of maztah (you know, Helen, the bread that we Jews eat on Passover) is round, and flat (unleavened, dontcha know). The last supper was during Passover, was it not? What form of bread is eaten during Passover by Jews, Helen? Matzah, is it not?


Ya know, I have no interest in advancing any Christian sect over another, but sun worship? Sheesh.

 

Helen,
When I talk to students in my classes about Baptists, is it important that I tell the truth? And to tell the truth, do I have to understand what Baptists really believe and practice or not?
Pauline

 

oneness,
It wasn't difficult to figure out that you are United Pentecostal from your posts.

I live in Oregon now. But have moved around the west. Of the people I knew who were United Pentecostal, one lived in California, the other lives in Washington state. The one from Washington state came to visit me last summer. She no longer attends any church. She says she got burnt out by contradictions she saw in people calling themselves Christian. I pray for her. And try to talk to her about the Lord Jesus Christ when I can. But one can say only so much that the other person will listen to.
Pauline

 

Helen,
I think you wasted your money -- that is if you really want truth.

That Catholics took over pagan gods for their Saints is one of the biggest and most foolish lies I've ever heard. It is grade school level study to find the martyrs who died and the godly men and women who lived and died and who are named Saints by the Catholics Church.

Do you or do you not consider it a serious sin to pass on falsehood about other people?
Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And my response is that so much -- the wafer, the various feast days, the elevation of Mary - all these are not just based on paganism, they ARE pagan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to let you know Helen, the use of the wafer at least in Lutheran churhes was born more out of convience than anything else. The idea of the wafer representing the sun god sounds like something off of a Chick tract.

 

Helen --

The sacrifice of Christ took a world which belonged to the devil and gave it to Christ. In other words, that which was pagan and given over to pagan worship was returned to God. The Church's mission has been to go out and take over all that the devil has stolen and return it to the Lordship of Christ Jesus.

That you wish to continue to see the pagan links to certain dates, times, and practices, rather than see Christ's Lordship over all, his taking away the pagan importance from these days, does not speak well of your mindset. Just WHO is your Lord anyway? Some wuss without the ability to rule over the world He redeemed and change it back to holy purpose and holy useage? Sure seems so.

Our Lord, as conquering KING, has CROWN RIGHTS over all that He conquered. Therefore, just as the Israelites took the gold of Egypt and the other pagan nations and formed holy vessals for useage to Almighty God, so does the Lord take those ceremonial days dedicated to false, pagan gods and rededicate them to the events of His life and the life of the Church that the Church may be in constant celebration of His victory.

Regarding your objection to the wafers of the host being symbols of the "sun god", what do you do with this passage of Scripture then which describes Christ:

Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.

In Hebrews 8:5, Moses is warned to make all the implements of the OT tabernacle according to and with no deviation from the pattern which God has shown him. Do you know WHY this is? It is because, according to Hebrews 9:24, these were types of the true which is in Heaven. When you go to Revelation and read, you see the true. You see the Great High Priest, of Whom the earthly high priest was a type, you find incense in Heaven, elders, priestly vestments, and a host of other items which WERE FOUND IN JEWISH WORSHIP and are continued in the worship of the Catholic Church.

There is no doubt that the world had a very dim light of truth regarding the coming of the Messiah through the Blessed Virgin. The mother/son worship of Seramis/Tammus is evidence of the very, very early understanding of this promise of a coming redeemer who would be the seed of the woman. Where else but the Protoevangelium of Gen. 3 do you think that these pagan tribes would have come up with that idea? Do you KNOW that there is record of 13 CRUCIFIED "SAVIORS" of the world PRIOR TO THE COMING OF CHRIST?

I heard of this and went and asked my friend who is Hindu and runs the local Dunkin' Donuts. His answer? "Oh, yes, that is Vishnu, who came from god to teach us the way"

So now are you going to cease to believe in Christ because there are 13 false legends of paganism built upon the coming One Who really would be the Savior of the world? Does this mean that our Christian faith in the crucifixion is mere paganism with a "Christian veneer?"

Or what of the Trinity? There existed triads of gods in pagan mythology long before it was defined by the Church at the council of Nicea. Is our visiting friend, Mr. Oneness, correct in his assessment? Is this paganism with a "Christian veneer?"

I want to hear your answers on this.

Cordially in disagreement,


Brother Ed

 

I don't know if this has been addressed by somebody else, I got lost trying to read some of those encyclopedia posts . But I have been doing some reflecting on Matt 16:18. I have another alternative to interpretation to verse. What if Jesus was not refering to either himself or to Peter. What if he was really referring to Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Maybe he meant that the Church would be built on the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

Helen,
You are responsible that you research enough to be sure of the truth of your assertions. If you are only offering opinions, then make that clear in your posts. It sounds to me like you are claiming that your assertions are undisputable fact and truth.

The one about the Saints being only pagan gods renamed is not true. Do you stand behind it?

The one about the Church helping Hitler is not true. Do you stand behind it? Will you go against the chief rabbi of Rome during the time of the Hilter regime? Will you stand up to the words of Golda Mier?
And what about what the New York Times wrote during that same regime? Do you know how much money Pope Pius XII spent to save lives, how many lives he saved? Do you know of Hitler's plot against the Papacy? This is all documented. Well documented. Do you want to still stand by your accusations against a pope who did much good and call him a man who did evil?

There were some Catholics in Germany who caved in to the Nazis. But a Lutheran pastor's wife who was in Germany at the time, when she learned I was studying to become Catholic, told me it was the Catholic priests who first spoke out against Hitler and who were hauled away to the concentration camps or killed for it. She told me about one priest going out among the German people and trying to talk to the people, to warn them. And she said, "We did not listen to him."

One of those Saints you accuse of being only a warmed over pagan god was St. Maximilian Kolbe. Kolbe was a Catholic priest from Poland, put into a concentration camp of the Nazis. Kolbe gave his essential food to other suffering people. He gave his place in the medical line to let others who were ill or injured go before him. He risked his life to minister to others. And when a prisoner escaped, and the Nazis were going to starve ten other prisoners to death in retaliation a young father was chosen as one of the ten. St. Maximilian Kolbe stepped forward and said, "Let me die in this man's place." And they did. Starved him with nine others for two weeks. Kolbe kept the others praying and singing hymns. He transformed the experience of death for that group. And he affected many other prisoners with his heroism. As one said, "He taught us we did not have to live like animals." Are you going to call Maximilian Kolbe a pagan god?

I've only begun to offer evidence against your assertions. There's much, much more. Do you still want to stand behind them as true facts?

BTW, have you answered my question about whether or not it is important that when talking about Baptists, I tell the truth about what they really believe and practice?
Pauline

[ December 13, 2001: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

Pauline --

Hatred and bigotry like Helen's does not want any facts except its own. So what if Maximillian Kolbe gave his food away and died for another. In her eyes, he's just another deceived pagan idol worshipper who is in hell right now.

Let's pray for this gal. We've said our piece. It will only be the work of the Holy Spirit through our prayers that will change her outlook on us "papists" in the "Whore of Babylon".

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Godmetal,
Mt 16,18 cannot be read to understand that the rock is just Peter's confession. I mean, he was just named Rock by Jesus.

At the same time, you noticed an important point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses it this way: "On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

Peter's confession was revealed to him by the heavenly Father. And that is very much connected to the fact that he is then given the name Rock and that Christ says the Church will be built on him (Peter - Rock).

This is another part of God showing that He will be with Peter, revealing truth to him,
giving him what is needed to fulfill his position and mission as leader of the Church.
And Mt 28,19-20 shows us further that Jesus promised be with Peter, as well as the other apostles, until the end of time. The only way Jesus could keep that promise is if Peter and the other apostles had successors.
For they all died long before the end of time. Add to that Christ's words that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, His making Peter shepherd over His flock and strengthener of the other apostles. Then add the accounts of Peter as spokeman for the Church, the one with authority to administer discipline (case of Ananius and Sapphira), etc. And you can see from Scripture that Christ set up His Church for all time left on earth, provided for it's leadership and promised to keep it from error in it's teachings.

Brother Ed,
I think the Catholics on this board are giving Helen every opportunity to speak for the truth. I'm praying she will do so. I hate to see any Christian get caught up in passing on statements that aren't true. It hurts the body of Christ.
Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is another part of God showing that He will be with Peter, revealing truth to him,
giving him what is needed to fulfill his position and mission as leader of the Church.
And Mt 28,19-20 shows us further that Jesus promised be with Peter, as well as the other apostles, until the end of time. The only way Jesus could keep that promise is if Peter and the other apostles had successors.
For they all died long before the end of time. Add to that Christ's words that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, His making Peter shepherd over His flock and strengthener of the other apostles. Then add the accounts of Peter as spokeman for the Church, the one with authority to administer discipline (case of Ananius and Sapphira), etc. And you can see from Scripture that Christ set up His Church for all time left on earth, provided for it's leadership and promised to keep it from error in it's teachings.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, I don't quite see it that way. I see that God used Peter quite extensively in the early formings of the church. But I still don't see it for what the rcc has made it into i.e. the papacy.

 

Helen,
You did say that our Catholic Saints are only pagan gods. Are you going to hold to that assertion in regard to St. ignatius of Anioch? To Polycarp? Ignatius was fed to the lions rather than cave in to paganism. Polycarp was burned because he wouldn't cave in to paganism. These are another two of those who you have named "pagan gods"

What about Lucy. A fiery young man wanted to marry her. She refused to marry him so he turned her in for being a Christian. Her throat was slit. Which pagan god is she? Then there's Agatha, Agnes, and many others.
Their bodies were carefully gathered up by the Christians and carried away. Do you hold that the earliest Christians made gods of these?

Oh, and I have some more stories to tell you about Catholics during the Nazi regime. But I'll wait until you tell me if you stand by your assertions on all of the above cases.

Then there's the Inquisition. Can you tell me how many people were executed by the Spanish Inquisition? What the crimes were?
Were they Muslim, Jew, Protestant or Catholic that were charged? Which years was the Spanish Inquisition most active? What were the prisons like in Spain? What were they like in England, Germany, Holland? Were there more executions in Spain during the most active years of the Inquisition than there have been in the USA during it's years of existence? Were there more executions in Spain during those years than in England, Germany, Holland, etc.? What was going on politically during those years? Especially in England? And in Holland? And what did this have to do with the Spanish Inquisition?

You know the Spanish Inquisition is one of the best documented events in history because records were kept in the local office, sent to the central office in Spain and sent to the Vatican. You likely know that there has been a great deal of study in recent years of that documentation.

And please tell me exactly how many people Catholic Mary Tudor had executed and for what reasons? Then tell me how many were executed under Protestant Elizabeth 1 and for what reasons?

And also, please tell me, what you think of abortion, euthanasia (involuntary in some cases), of suicide, of outlawing marriage, and of favoring fornication over valid marriage? Of murder? Do you think people who do such things ought to be arrested and charged with crimes or should they be allowed to stay free? What do you think of terrorism -- should it be allowed to continue? Are the terrorists heros?
Pauline

 

Godmetal,
I really didn't expect you to see it the way I explained it, since you are not Catholic.
But many Protestant doctrines have been built on much less evidence from Scripture than that I gave you about Peter.

Whether you agree or not with my conclusions, I think if you honestly consider all that I gave you, you'll see a pretty strong case. In other words, I'm hoping you'll be able to say, "I don't agree, but I can see how the Catholics come to their conclusions."

And I didn't even mention the many proofs from history. The writings of early leaders in the Church. All of your forebears believed in my conclusions down to Wycliffe.
So it's part of your heritage too.
Pauline

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
Helen,
You are responsible that you research enough to be sure of the truth of your assertions. If you are only offering opinions, then make that clear in your posts. It sounds to me like you are claiming that your assertions are undisputable fact and truth.
The one about the Saints being only pagan gods renamed is not true. Do you stand behind it?
I've only begun to offer evidence against your assertions. There's much, much more. Do you still want to stand behind them as true facts?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, It seems that everytime someone questions the Catholic faith, the first thing that Pauline does is question that person, sometimes to the point of calling them a liar (that's a more simple word for accusing one of bearing false witness). When Missionary to Mexico came on this board some time ago and testified of all the idolatry that went on in Mexico, in Mexican Catholic churches, among Mexican Catholics, Pauline questioned the Missionary as to the veracity of his statements, and then just dismissed what he said said saying that he must be confused; he didn't know what he was talking about; he didn't understand Catholicism.
I was treated the same way when I described the idolatry that went on in Pakistan-- Pakistani Catholics offering animal sacrifices before a statue of Mary. I was accused of bearing false witness, even though that is what I saw with my own eyes. Catholics are unwilling to compare their practices both here and abroad, both in the present and in the past, with an objective standard that is called the Word of God!
DHK

 

Hi Helen,

You wrote, "if Kolbe or anyone else was/is depending on their own goodness and acts to get them into heaven, they won't make it."

Now I hope you understand that Roman Catholics do not believe that their own goodness and acts get them into heaven one iota, but that only "Christ working through" them does get them to heaven. It is only because of Christ and through Christ that we merit anything. And, yes, we do merit, but not on our own accord, but with, through, and in Christ's divine sonship.

How do you translate St. Paul's words in his epistle to the Roman church?

"For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury."

You may be interested that the first and last time that faith is mentioned in Romans are:

"to bring about the obedience of faith" and "to bring about the obedience of faith."

God bless,

Carson

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Helen,

I would also appreciate a response to my post halfway down the page at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=28&t=000459&p=4

which is on page 4 of this topic.

God bless,

Carson

 

DHK,
Do you remember that I researched what the missionary said? I got a statement made by a Mexican Archbishop. My research did not back Missionary's assertions that Mexican Catholics were commiting widespread idolatry. And as he and I kept communicating, the thing that decided the issue for me was that it became apparent that he considered all of our Catholic rituals to be idolatry. And that was when I said he did not understand Catholicism.

Furthermore, neither do you. Remember the case of you insisting that we thought holy water is a Sacrament and that we do not renew our baptismal vows when we use the holy water as we enter the church nave. Such a simple thing. But you didn't know what Catholic belief and practice was.

And I don't think it is wrong to ask Helen to clarify her position in regard to her assertions? Do you? If she stands by those assertions, then I can provide her with some documentation. It is a pretty serious charge to say that the Catholic Church (meaning Pope Pius XII) financed Hitler. And that our Catholic Saints are only renamed pagan idols. There are some other very serious accusations in that list.
Pauline

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Pauline ]