Hi Bill,
OK, let's have a go at this.
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.
The second reason I linked it is because the author is my husband and I am very proud of him!
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.
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.
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)
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:
O 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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You wrote:
Documentation please, Helen. Christ being the "chief cornerstone" is not the same "stone" as pplied 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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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!
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!
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!
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???
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.
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.
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?
I didn't ask you to prove that you had read it. I was willing to take your word. You are the one who said your word might not be good. So be it. I'll accept that.
Pauline: you asked why God gave Peter revelations He gave no one else? Why did He give Paul revelations He gave no one else? Why did He give John Revelation He gave no one else?
Nor was Peter the only one made a shepherd. Peter was the one restored to that position after he had been the only one to actively deny Christ!
In silly mood, couldn't help myself. Latin and I don't get along, a dispicable language to translate, particularly when working with Cicero.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>