Asaph Vapor's long answer, part I

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

Below is first part of a long answer by Asaph Vapor. I have not published this before writing answers to it, see below, just above the footnote, and the second part will, God willing, be answered when I have given answers to that one too.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: "Church = believers."

Yes. Roman Catholic believers. And as believers, also organised as Christ and the Apostles inspired by the Holy Ghost organised them.

ME:
I noticed you love to make false claims without any scriptural proof. Pls prove from Scriptures, Church = RCC believers.
Chapter verse?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"There was always Church aka believers at any given time in history."

Sure. Where was it in 500 AD?

ME:
Why AD500? There was always true believers. Dont you know history?
How else the gospel is passed down till today?

You mean in AD500, all believers disappeared ?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Your theory that "church (organisation) must be there at every point in history" is not valid."

It is unless you want to pretend the NT Church was not organised.

ME:
You know what i meant. Church refers to believers. Not some church organisation or building or institution!

Still ....
"Your theory that "church (institution) must be there at every point in history" is not valid."

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"1. THen pls prove from Scriptures, RCC priests or poops are the successors and that they are infallible."

Not yet the issue. I have already proven from Scripture successors there are, for all days and therefore all ages. You may not be able to document a believer for January 1st 500, but you should at least be able to document one between 480 and 520.

ME:
Successor?
Where? Which Scripture?
Chapter verse?

No believer in AD480-520? Where is your proof?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"

Exact same ones as NT times and through history : Apostles and successors. We need to have successors of Apostles up to Dommsday, which has not yet occurred. Your options on this issue are limited to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

ME:

So who were the 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles. Pls list them out
1
2
3

.
12

So who are the modern days 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles?
Pls list them out
1
2
3

.
12

~~~~~~~~~~
Questions remained:
1. So which part of the BIBLE says 12 new Apostles succeeded the Original 12 Apostles? Chapter verse?

2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out the actual people. DOnt say same as the past. THose in the past were all dead!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: "Church aka believers is the pillar of truth. Surely it is."

Not "believers" as in single believers spread out, but believers gathered into a precise assembly with a precise constitution.

I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like,

ME:
False. Church in the BIBLE does refer to worldwide believers. Not just the gathered! BIBLE says Church is the Body of Christ.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"1. You are confused. I am talking about doctrines. Not church."

Then you were confused unless you imagine you get to direct the conversation whereever you want, which is arrogant. I was talking about CHURCH, which is a requirement according to Matthew 28:20.

ME:
'You were confused unless you imagine you get to direct the conversation whereever you want, which is arrogant.'

What requirements arrogant??

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Jesus and Apostles gave infallible doctrines (all NT scriptures were written before AD100). That's the only doctrines we adhere to. Not some fallible doctrines that came much later by RCC cult."

One of the infallible doctrines was given in Matthew 28:20 and it says you need to have successors of the apostles in 500 AD and in 2000 AD and even in 2020 AD, since Doomsday hasn't arrived. If you look at the context in Matthew 28, he was not speaking the words to all believers in general, but (verses 16 into start of 18)

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them,

So, it's not just the disciples as believers, it's the apostles as directing believers on Christ's behalf, that need to have successors in all days.

ME:
1. Which part of Mat 28:20 says you need to have successors ?
Nowhere says Apostolic Succession. BIBLE says its leadership succession! Titus 1:5.

2. Which part of Mat 28:20 says you need to have successors in 500 AD and in 2000 AD and even in 2020 AD? You are clearly adding to Scriptures arent you?

Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
you look at the context in Matthew 28, he was not speaking the words to all believers in general, but (verses 16 into start of 18)
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them,

So, it's not just the disciples as believers, it's the apostles as directing believers on Christ's behalf, that need to have successors in all days.

ME:
So according to you Jesus only directed 11 Apostles?
Which part says you need a successor who succeed the APostles? WHere?
You are spinning as you go.

Nowehre in the BIBLE says new 12 Apostles succeeded the Original 12 APostles!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?"

Except some Catholics, including me don't. For Patxamama incident among others.

ME:
You are not answering my question ""Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?

YOU:
"Amazon Synod is Roman Catholic. Thank you for admitting RCC is a cult."

No, it's Neo-Catholic, belongs to the Conciliar Church.

ME:
Conciliar Church is still RCC.
Neo Catholic is still RCC.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"1. Again you point is not even a point."

You have ears and do not hear.

ME:
Still .... your point is not even a point.
Which part is?

YOU:
"2. Still Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of Lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe." You are still misquoting! Luke 1 doesnt even prove any of the points."

St. Mary appeared to Elisabeth, and Elisbeth reacted as to the Ark of the Covenant. Since She also appeared in Lourdes, Fatima and Guadalupe, we should consider these places as a place where the Ark of the Covenant has been.

ME:
Since when Elizabeth reacted to Ark of Covenant? You are "begging the question".
You are surely a clown who assumes.
Nowhere in the BIBLE says ""lady of Lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe."
Nowhere in the BIBLE says Mary = ark of new covenant.

Pls prove from Scriptures! Dont "beg the question"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are assuming its true without any single scriptural proof clown!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"What is two measures?"

Your measure for yourself : you may say things that aren't in the text as conclusions from the text or supposed history about what happened after Acts. If I do the same, you shout out "Luke 1 didn't say a word about that!"

ME:
Since when i say things arent in the text clown?
Pls list out
1
2
3

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Since when i added things in text? Pls list out"

1 That ekklesia means any kind of unorganised or continuously reorganised "assembly" rather than a constitutional one
2 That Apocalypse 12 is about Israel
3 That offspring cannot mean spiritual such.

ME:
1. Since when i said "means any kind of unorganised or continuously"?
Original greek word Ekklesia means assembly of believers. Ekklesia means believers. Nothing to do with some Church institution. That's what i meant.

2. Mat 24, Daniel and Rev 5-19 all says its Israel.

3. Since when i said "Offspring cannot be spiritual"? Which part of the BIBLE says Mary made disciples? Where? Chapter verse?
WHo are these spiritual offsprings? Where are they now ?

Clearly you are plucking from the air without any Scriptural proof!

~~~~~~~~~~`
Yes i might not have mentioned the Scriptures behind what i said. Its a totally different topic. Longer than this.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"RCC has no truth. RCC is a cult."

Yeah, repeating this shout of hatred and condemnation makes you so credible ... not.

ME:
BIBLE says RCC has no truth. Not me!
GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. John 17:17.
95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from Scriptures!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"95% of RCC doctrines are MAN MADE and not from the Bible, neither from Jesus or Apostles."

A doctrine can be from Jesus and His apostles without being from the actual text of the Bible.

ME:
1. Really? So somewhere out there there are doctrines floating around from Jesus and Apostles NOT in Scriptures? Can you name a few?
1
2
3
~~~~~~
2. BIBLE says Scriptures is sufficient for all doctrines of the faith. 2 Tim 3:16-17. Catholics say it is not enough.

YOU:
Where in the NT do you find Jesus' doctrine on Genesis 3:15? Yet he certainly gave one. Luke 24:27 says:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.

ME:
Luke 24 says nothing about Gen 3:15. So what NS are you spouting?

YOU:
OT is thicker than NT. Jesus gave a complete OT exposition. This would not be thinner than NT, yet passages explicitly exposing OT definitely are, therefore His OT exposition is in His still existing Church.

ME:
Surely it is. Since when i said doctrines cannot be in OT?
Still RCC doctrines are NOT from OT or NT! 95% of them!

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"1. Catholics say Mary was sinless. Yet BIBLE says Mary offered a sinner's offering. Lk 2:23-24, Lev 12:6-8, Rom 3:10."

There was a sacrifice for Jesus as firstborn as well*. Are you saying He was a sinner?

ME:
Which verse is that? Chapter verse?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU:
"2. Catholics say Peter was celibate. Yet BIBLE says Peter had mother in law. Mat 8:14-15, Mar 1:30-31, Luk 4:38-39."

We do not say Peter was celibate all of his life.

ME:

Lol ... this is new.
So RCC priests and clergies can be non celibate parts of their life and have a wife and mother in law concurrently.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU:
"3. Catholics say Mary was perpetually virgin. Yet BIBLE says Jesus had brothers and sisters. Mk 6:3, Mat 13:55, Mat 27:56, Mar 6:3, Mar 15:40, Mar 15:47."

Thanks for putting forth passages where Mary is described as doing the will of the Father, i e as being sinless.

Deuteronomy 25 mentions brother as needing to marry brother's widow. According to Ruth, Booz was brother of Ruth once another brother had renounced his right of being that brother. Yet neither he nor Booz was son of Naomi.

ME:
Claims. You still cannot prove Mary was sinless. THis is "begging the question".

Deut 25? Surely you are plucking from the air.
Which part says Mary was Perpetual Virgin? I bet you dont even know what you were copy pasting! Dont copy paste blindly clown!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

YOU:
"4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 14:11"

Your first quote says:
1 John 1:9.
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

Where does it say "to God directly" or "without a priest"?

ME:
So who is the "he" in 1 John 1:9? Your RCC priests or GOD?

~~~~~~~
YOU:
Your last quote says:
For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Here "confess to God" is not equivalent of confessing one's sins to God.
Matthew 6, are you speaking about the instructions on prayer? Bc, they are not about when one gets forgiven, even if verses 14 and 15 speak about one condition (which is enforced in confessionals).

ME:
Yes typo. I meant Romans 10:9-10.

~~~~~~~~~~
YOU:
None of your examples say literally you can be forgiven without going to confession, when confession is available. John 20, verses 21 to 23 says:

He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

ME:
Nowhere in John 20 says RCC priests. It refers to Apostles.

YOU:
As per Matthew 28:20, these men with this privilege have successors today. They need to know someone's sins and repentance before forgiving, and this knowledge is acquired when the people confess to them.

ME:
Mat 28:20 says nothing about successors. You are just misquoting.

ME:
Mat 6 does say confess to GOD directly.
Mat 6:9 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
Mat 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26."

You reason like the guys who rejected Christ in John 6.

ME:
John 6 says nothing about disciples leaving because of that.

1. Why people left? vs 64. Jesus was filtering people who did not really believed. Jesus was only interested in those who are there bcos they were drawn by the Father.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.

2. vs 65. Jesus further hinted it’s a "test" of belief; whether these people truly understood spiritual stuff. Jesus knew those who did not believe and was trying to filter them away.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him.
Joh 6:65 And He said, "Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father."

3. Why people left? vs 27. A lot of the people only came for food. But Jesus wanted to offer more than physical food. He wanted to offer eternal life. Clearly indicates not physical (food), but spiritual (eternal life)
Joh 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

4. Only those who truly believed in Jesus stayed on.
- Those only looking for food left.
- Those who did not understand the spiritual meaning left. They thought Jesus was referring to real flesh and blood. Jesus later explained to the disciples

Here begins next part of his long answer:

ME:
Did Jesus and Apostles teach and practised cannibalism? NO!

Meanwhile, check out my answers to this part:
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

Footnote:

* I was wrong to add "as well". There was only a sacrifice for Jesus as firstborn male.