Monday, October 5, 2020

Asaph Vapor refuted some more

Answering Dr. John Barnett: on Catholic Oral Tradition · his "7 Reasons Roman Catholicism is Wrong" · on "Origin of the Catholic Church" or on what happened with Constantine

Answering "Asaph Vapor": Answering Asaph Vapor · Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor's long answer, part I · On Papacy and Apostolic Succession to Asaph Vapor · Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church · On Eucharist, Confession and some Other Matters, to Asaph Vapor · Asaph Vapor refuted some more

Asaph Vapor
False. I did not "tactically" miss Vs 15 you clown!
You clearly did not read what i wrote! Already refuted clown!

Refute 2 Tim 3:15-17 as referring to OT
2 Timothy was the last book Paul wrote before he was martyred in AD67. By then, all Petrine letters, Pauline letters, 4 gospels, Acts, and some others were already written. About 3/4 of the books of NT were already there and circulated to all churches.

When Paul wrote Scripture, he referred to whichever available Scripture including some parts of NT.
Scripture is a generic Greek word Graphe that means whichever available sacred writings, partial or full.

G1124 (Thayer)
Thayer Definition:
1) a writing, thing written
2) the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents
3) a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture

2. Vs 15.
Timothy from childhood till he met Paul had a chance to read OT in childhood and read whichever available NT in his adulthood. Moreover it uses Scriptures instead of Scripture.
So your point is not valid at all.

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

3. By AD 100s, Scriptures were in all churches.

Scripture Alone is dependent on Scriptures. Not BIBLE.
At any point of time there was Scriptures. OT or/and NT.

Hans Georg Lundahl
And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures,

But already circulating NT Scriptures cannot have been known since St. Timothy was an infant.

St. Paul was saying OT could perfect a Christian bishop, not that NT was to contain all doctrine. By 67, three Gospels existed, St. John wrote his after the Apocalypse. After getting away from Patmos.

Asaph Vapor
1. What lies. Expounding from Moses to Prophets doesnt mean JEsus covered every verse you clown! You know how many verses there were? Let alone Gen 3:15.

Dont add things to Scriptures that is not there clown!

2. What are you trying to prove anyway from Luke 24?

All other versions on Gen 3:15 says "his heel" except DRB (Catholic Bible) says "her heel"!!
"His heel" refers to Jesus' heel.

Original Hebrew Bible
>>Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.".
>>>> 'He' and 'His' referring to Christ.

>>Septuagint LXX
(Brenton) Gen 3:16 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, he shall watch against thy head, and thou shalt watch against his heel.
>>>> 'He' and 'His' referring to Christ.

>>>>Erroneous Catholic DRB Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; She shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise Her heel."
>>>'She' and 'Her' refers to Mary.

All other versions on Gen 3:15 says "his heel" except DRB (Catholic Bible) says differently!!
Genesis 3:15
(ABP+) AndG2532 [2hatredG2189 1I will put]G5087 betweenG303.1 youG1473 andG2532 betweenG303.1 theG3588 woman;G1135 andG2532 betweenG303.1 G3588 your seedG4690 G1473 andG2532 betweenG303.1 G3588 her seed.G4690 G1473 HeG1473 will give heed to yourG1473 G5083 head,G2776 andG2532 youG1473 will give heed toG5083 hisG1473 heel.G4418
(ASV) and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(Brenton) Gen 3:16 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed, he shall watch against thy head, and thou shalt watch against his heel.
(DRB) I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall cursh thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
(ISV) "I'll place hostility between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. He'll strike you on the head, and you'll strike him on the heel."
(KJV) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(KJV+) And I will putH7896 enmityH342 betweenH996 thee and the woman,H802 and betweenH996 thy seedH2233 and her seed;H2233 itH1931 shall bruiseH7779 thy head,H7218 and thouH859 shalt bruiseH7779 his heel.H6119
(KJV-1611) And I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy seed and her seed: it shal bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.
(KJVA) And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(NKJV) And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."

Mary was never queen. She was just a normal believer of God who was blessed by God. She is dead like others awaiting the final resurrection.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Genesis 3:15 was a very key verse. Our Lord would have covered that even from Jerusalem to Emmaus.

Also, St. Luke continues, Acts 1:3:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion, by many proofs, for forty days appearing to them, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

I note that you are citing from English versions, on Genesis 3:15, and I also note they all say "the woman" when it comes to enmity with the serpent.

If we get to Luke 1 and 2, the Blessed Virgin was greeted twice as having won a very destructive victory - crushed the head or sth - of an enemy of Israel.

For "Blessed Among Women", I can name parallels Jael and Judith, you only Jael. Crushing or severing heads of Sisera and Holophernes. The second greeting, which also mentioned Her Son, is the one which came closest to Genesis 3:15. And the one when She understood what it meant (the first greeting, She was puzzled).

As soon as Jesus was King, automatically, Mary was Queen. At the end of the Gospel and beginning of Acts, She was still in Her earthly life. There is one apostle of the 12 who died before Her deathbed and empty tomb (except for Her belt and veil) : St. James of Zebedee, who was already martyred. This leaves room for this to occur between Acts and the martyrdom of Sts Peter and Paul. We have it from Apostolic tradition, as accepted by EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians along with ourselves.

Context for next
[Sacrifice for firstborn, not sins of mother]

Asaph Vapor
1. Of course i know RCC's toadology. It consists of twisting Scriptures and adding your own narratives.

2. Why dont you prove from Scriptures, Mary = Pachamama? You cant. That's what i meant when i said "RCC doctrines are NOT from OT or NT! 95% of them".

3. Where is your verse that says "Sacrifice for firstborn, not sins of mother"?
Chapter verse?

Hans Georg Lundahl
1. You have so far not proven it, partly not as to knowledge, and totally not as to our twisting or adding.

Obviously historic narratives are added after Acts 28.

2. Mary being Patxamama is not a RCC doctrine. I think even antipope Bergoglio or his men denied the identification, while defending, apostatically, the veneration of Patxamama. Parody is not becoming more successful, when already denounced as irrelevant to RCC.

3. Ah, now, here is a point.

Luke 2:23-24 says : As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: [24] And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:

Exodus 34 has:

[19] All of the male kind, that openeth the womb, shall be mine. Of all beasts, both of oxen and of sheep, it shall be mine. [20] The firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep: but if thou wilt not give a price for it, it shall be slain. The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem: neither shalt thou appear before me empty.

If your ewe had a first lamb that was male, it was sacrificed, if your cow had a first calf that was male, it was sacrificed. If an ass had a first foal that was male, it was either redeemed with a sheep or slain, AND if a woman's first child is a son, it was redeemed with exactly the kind of sacrifice that Luke 2:23 refers to.

Ewes, cows, asses are not sinful. Their first and male offspring is sacrificed as "holy to the Lord". And the Redeemer was redeemed by the sacrifice of two doves, not because He needed it, He was holy to the Lord anyway, but to fulfil the law.

Asaph Vapor
1. You clearly omitted Luke 2:22 which says "her purification". Not the baby. Which means Mary was a sinner you clown!

Luk 2:22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord
Luk 2:23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, "EVERY MALE WHO OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD" ),
Luk 2:24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, "A PAIR OF TURTLEDOVES OR TWO YOUNG PIGEONS."

Hans Georg Lundahl
Actually, the quotes from Luke are here correct.

Asaph Vapor
2. Lev 12:7 says it is for atonement for the mother. Again exposing your lies that it is for the baby!
Atonement already tells you its for sin.
Sin offering also tells your its for sin.

Leviticus 12:6-8 (NKJV)
6 'When the days of her purification are fulfilled, whether for a son or a daughter, she shall bring to the priest a lamb of the first year as a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering, to the door of the tabernacle of meeting.
7 Then he shall offer it before the LORD, and make atonement for her. And she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who has borne a male or a female.
8 'And if she is not able to bring a lamb, then she may bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons—one as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering. So the priest shall make atonement for her, and she will be clean.'

Hans Georg Lundahl
Leviticus 12 is the only piece to the point.

I'd like to see what the original Hebrew had for "atonement", DRB and Vulgate have cleansing.

[6] And when the days of her purification are expired, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring to the door of the tabernacle of the testimony, a lamb of a year old for a holocaust, and a young pigeon or a turtle for sin, and shall deliver them to the priest: [7] Who shall offer them before the Lord, and shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth a man child or a maid child. [8] And if her hand find not sufficiency, and she is not able to offer a lamb, she shall take two turtles, or two young pigeons, one for a holocaust, and another for sin: and the priest shall pray for her, and so she shall be cleansed.

[6] Cumque expleti fuerint dies purificationis suae, pro filio sive pro filia, deferet agnum anniculum in holocaustum, et pullum columbae sive turturem pro peccato, ad ostium tabernaculi testimonii, et tradet sacerdoti, [7] qui offeret illa coram Domino, et orabit pro ea, et sic mundabitur a profluvio sanguinis sui : ista est lex parientis masculum aut feminam. [8] Quod si non invenerit manus ejus, nec potuerit offerre agnum, sumet duos turtures vel duos pullos columbarum, unum in holocaustum, et alterum pro peccato : orabitque pro ea sacerdos, et sic mundabitur.

This is not about cleansing from sin, but about cleansing from a ritual uncleanness, following from the shedding of blood at childbirth.

Asaph Vapor cites
Lev 14:19 "Then the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make atonement for him who is to be cleansed from his uncleanness. Afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.

Lev 15:30 Then the priest shall offer the one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, and the priest shall make atonement for her before the LORD for the discharge of her uncleanness.

Lev 16:16 So he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, for all their sins; and so he shall do for the tabernacle of meeting which remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Leviticus 14, 15, 16 certainly speak about sin, as leprosy is sometimes a punishment for individual sin, as sleeping with a woman in her flowers was a sin under the Old Law, as 16 is about Yom Kippur, which is instituted for sin.

But all this is irrelevant for impurity after childbirth. The loss of blood with impurity is a punishment for Eve's sin, not for the woman's own.

Asaph Vapor
Who cares about Aquinas the heretic?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nice way out when you have shown yourself ignorant of real RCC, by ignoring what he said on the matter.

If "Roman Catholics" claim St. Peter was celibate all his life, they are arguably cleaning ladies or similar who had very little Catholic instruction and where bamboozled when you plucked out the reference to Mother in Law, since it proved wrong what they thought Catholicism was saying.

The Church even more clearly than just a theologian teaches St. Peter was married. The second feast on May 31:st is:

Romae sanctae Petronillae Virginis, filiae beati Petri Apostoli, quae, conjugium nobilis viri Flacci spernens, et, acceptis triduanis ad deliberandum indiiciis, interim jejuniis et orationibus vacans, tertia die, mox ut Christi Sacramentum accepit, emisit spiritum.

The words I put in italics mean "daughter of the holy Apostle Peter".

Asaph Vapor
1. Who cares what RCC says. Celibacy was never a criteria stated in Scriptures for clergies. Thank you for proving RCC do not follow Scriptures. RCC follows its own man made traditions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
You have omitted that St. Paul was celibate.

1st Cor 7:
[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. [2] But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. ... [6] But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. [8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

In other words, he recommended celibacy. It later became a needed qualification for bishops and even later for priests, in the Latin rite, except this was (for priest)revoked by Pope Michael.

Asaph Vapor
2. BIBLE says the only criteria for clergies are:

Hans Georg Lundahl
No, the Bible never says these are eternally the only criteria. It is rather so that the Bible mentions only these criteria, as being eternal.

Asaph Vapor
Qualifications for Overseers

Hans Georg Lundahl
For bishops. Episkopoi can be analysed as "over-seers", or "over-viewers". But the series of bishops has not ended, and the name for them as the series comes to our time is, in English, bishops. "Overseers" are Calvinistic pretended reconstructions of what the bishops were originally "before they later became bishops", but Calvinists cannot show this change actually occurred. Therefore bishop is the correct word.

Quoted by AV, ackn. by HGL
1Ti 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 1Ti 3:3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 1Ti 3:4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 1Ti 3:5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 1Ti 3:6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Asaph Vapor
Qualifications for Deacons

Quoted by AV, ackn. by HGL
1Ti 3:8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 1Ti 3:9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 1Ti 3:10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 1Ti 3:11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 1Ti 3:12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 1Ti 3:13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Noting that - as per St. Paul to Corinthians - marriage is not a requirement. It is a requirement to have no more than one wife. If they are married the wives must have certain qualities. This is of course a reason why married clergy (which exists in the RCC) must be married before ordination: so that the quality of their marriage may be ascertained.

Asaph Vapor
What lies! None of the verses says Mary was sinless.

Hans Georg Lundahl
You omitted Matthew 12:49, mother in singular and brethren in plural. He appeared to deny His mother, but He counted Her as doing the will of the Father.

Asaph Vapor
So how does it prove Mary was sinless? Dont copy blindly.
It's Boaz. Not Booz!

Hans Georg Lundahl
In arguing two things, I cite two things, and you think each argues both?

Deuteronomy 25 argues - with Ruth - that "brother" has a wider meaning than children of the same mother. In other words, I cited this in support of perpetual virginity, not of sinlessness. Not in support as direct proof, but in support as germain objection to your supposed disproof.

In the Catholic Bible it is Booz.

Asaph Vapor
What a strawman argument!
Mat 27:56 also doesnt mention you having offspring. That doesnt mean you are perpetual virgin!
Mat 27:56 also doesnt mention other people having offspring. That doesnt mean other people were all perpetual virgins! ?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Matthew 27:56 doesn't mention the Blessed Virgin having any son, you are the one trying to bring this in against the perpetual virginity, when it is totally beside the point.

More on the Blessed Virgin

Asaph Vapor
DOnt twist clown. THis doesnt prove Mary was PErpetual virgin you clown!
Nowhere says Jesus was referring to spiritual brothers you clown!
BIBLE even mentioned "carpenter's son". Is that spiritual brothers to you?

Mat 13:55 Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?
Mar 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So they were offended at Him.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Don't twist my argument.

Refuting you is not limited to just proving the thesis contrary to yours, and one has a right to refute another one, in passing, than the one you were pushing.

I mentioned the passage where Christ called His Mother the Church and where He said She did the will of the Father. In passing.

As to your argument, I went on to that one, and said his brothers can have a technical sense related to Deuteronomy 25. Both first cousins and sons of Joseph in a previous marriage would certainly do for that and at the same time avoid your conclusion, the error of Helvidius, in pretending Our Lady had more children after Christ.

Note, if they were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage or first cousins to Jesus, the people cited would have known they were not her sons. It is neither stated directly that they were her sons nor that they were even the carpenter's sons. In other words, if brother is not "very precise" (our sense only), which Deut 25 makes at least doubtful, the passages you cite do not prove they were children of Mary/

Asaph Vapor
Yes Virgin. So which part of Isaiah 7:4 says Perpetual Virgin?
You know what is perpertual?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If God valued Her virginity - which Isaiah 7 suggests - it is reasonable He preserved it perpetually. It is also know from Tradition He did so.

Asaph Vapor
[here gives 4 points of an answer, and I take up each separately:]

Asaph Vapor
1. There are 1000001 reasons why Jesus wanted Mary to move in with John. Why must it be "Mary was Perpetual Virgin"?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, there aren't reasonably. I was also not even arguing this as one of the proofs, though it would be one : if it had been Her sons, they would have been obedient to Her and She would not have needed to move in with a stepson given Her at the Cross.

Asaph Vapor
2. Catholics claim Jesus' brothers were HIS cousins. Yet the first priority according to Jewish customs was for Mary to move in with relatives. Not John. So RCC's theory is not valid.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
On any theory, She moved away from them. Btw, a tradition confirmed by Her apparition to St. Bridget, says St. John was Her nephew.

Asaph Vapor
3. There are also other possibilities. Why must it be "Perpetual Virgin" theory? Catholics are just forcing this doctrine into Scriptures. It could very well be: Jesus wanted Mary to be with believers. His brothers and sisters were not believers yet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
We do not try to calculate from Scripture only what is the most reasonable interpretation. We do not have Scripture as only clue, we have first and foremost Apostolic tradition as to the general outline, and we have Scripture so as not to forget the details. Which doesn't mean it contains all of them. So, try that on someone who believes in "sola Scriptura" we don't. You know it's wrong for 1st C AD, and your pretense it has become true since then is itself not in the Scripture.

Asaph Vapor
4. Still nothing to do with levirate. Not sure what you are spouting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Levirate has something to do with how widely the word "brother" can be used. The law said "brother" and in Ruth we have two people who were not sons of Naomi in a discussion about who of them was to fulfil that law.

Precisely as "firstborn" has a technical meaning, a male opening the womb, and does not imply there were more children afterwards.

More on Confession
same layout as previous 4 points:

Asaph Vapor
1. Dont add to the Scriptures you clown!
Which part of 1 John 1:9 says "God does forgive through absolution of the priest when we confess to Him"?

None. And we do not need it. We only need what we have got : nothing in 1 John 1:9 excludes it. Plus it is fairly well stated elsewhere, see below.

Asaph Vapor
1 John 1:9 clearly says "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.".
Not some RCC priests absolving sins. There is no such word "absolving" in the BIBLE too. Another invention of pagan ROME!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Look at Matthew 16:19, to St. Peter:

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

What is "loose" in Latin? I think you are French, so you even known a French word for it, even if it adds a "re" first. In French, you exchange "re" for "ab" and you have it.

Et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis : et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.

Verb solvere, noun solutio. Now, "solvere aliquem a peccato" can take the preposition and turn it into a prefix "absolvere aliquem a peccato" or in poetry even replace the preposition totally, "absolvere aliquem peccato".

Obviously the power given the Apostles in John 20 is of the same kind.

Asaph Vapor
3. RCC priests cannot absolve anything. Nowhere in the BIBLE says RCC priests can absolve any sins. Catholics' sins remains. No need to misquote John 20. John 20 says Apostles. Not RCC priests. Not RCC poop. Not RCC cardinals. No such offices in the BIBLE! All man made traditions of RCC cult.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Matthew 28:20, spoken to all the ten who had heard John 20:21-23, says the Apostles have successors. Not RCC priests? Well, are they EOC priests? Coptic priests? Armenians priests? Assyrian or Malabar priests? Where are the successors now and where were they in 500 AD. If you say it applies to Apostles personally only, you are contradicting Matthew 28:20 who called these "you" and promised to be with them "all days" in a certain task namely "baptising" and "teaching" all nations. St. Peter personally is not around on earth baptising or teaching nations, neither was he in 500 AD. Therefore the promise only makes sense if the eleven (including himself) had successors.

No comments: