Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Was Simon Peter Ever Called Niger?

Here is a recent video by Ray Comfort (there are three other guys on living waters, but this one is by him), here:

This Will Make You Think Differently About Catholicism...
30th March 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZesJt_8JBIg

Where I answer at time stamps 1:51 and 2:02, though, there is a clip with MacArthur, whom I answer. Apart from that I comment when Ray Comfort or someone he's talking to is talking.

0:37 A Roman Catholic who says "I'm not born again" is misstating a truth : he's not of the confession that's nicknamed "born again".

A better instructed Catholic - like normally any priest - will say "I was born again by water and spirit, in the sacrament called baptism".

1:02 No, that verse does not say that James, Joses; Simon and Judas and at least two girls were physically Her daughters. In Biblical language, "brother" and "sister" have a range of meanings, and one pertinent one is, if someone dies childless, who will marry his widow. If you read the book of Ruth, you know that is not always a full brother. It could be a first or second cousin. Or whoever is closest, unless the one actually closest gives his shoe to the one next in line. Nevertheless, the term in the law was "brother". The sisters would have been full siblings to these brothers, but it doesn't say they were so to Our Lord.

In the case of legal half brothers, they would share neither God nor Mary as parents, but Joseph as in one case actual father but for Our Lord fosterfather. See Proto-Gospel of St. James.

1:51 Needing a Saviour is not exclusive of having one, meaning, She is not portrayed hereby as having ever sinned or even had the stain of Adam's sin. All that is needed is, being in Her case free even from the first from that sin is a state She owed to Her Saviour.

Now, what exactly had St. Elisabeth told Her before She said that?

"Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"

What's the connection? It meant, She and Her Son were and are the "woman and her seed" of Genesis 3:15.

And as the angel had already said "blessed art thou among women" before She was pregnant with God, this means She had already in Herself a complete victory over the serpent.

There are only two women in the "bigger" Old Testament we use, only one of them in yours, who were in a sense called "blessed among women" - one won a complete victory over Sisera, and the other over Holophernes.

You can check that these days with a simple computerised search.

2:02 "because she was a sinner, and she knew it"
Doesn't say. You are, in your own classical words "adding to the Bible" - but what's worse, it's not from tradition.

2:33 That St. Peter had a wife is correct.

It doesn't say she stayed with him in married life, while he was a disciple.

I don't even think it says she was alive at this point, though a common tradition says she was.

2:41 it says "ειδεν την πενθεραν αυτου" - and "την πενθεραν" means, the mother in law.

Some languages (like French) would have to say "wife's mother" because the word mother in law in their language also means stepmother. In Greek and Latin this is not so, "socrum" cannot be confused with "materteram" in Latin. The wife as such is not mentioned in the text.

Mt. 23:9 - are you also literalistic about the command in Mt 5:29?

Or is there room for a spiritual meaning differing from the letter, in commands?

Like Mt 5:29 means cutting off occasions for sin, even if it hurts like ripping out your eye, and Mt 23:9 involves not taking any man, as man, for mentor.

3:41 In the New Testament, Our Lord Himself uses resumés for commandments, or approves them.

The division between the ten commandments, like between the 16 verses, is not textually transmitted, only the whole passage is.

When there are verses in Exodus 20, the chapter is called "Exodus 20" because of a Roman Catholic bishop who divided the Bible into chapters at a hunting trip (apart from being a hunter, he also knew the Bible by heart).

A certain passage is now known as verses 2 to 6, and as little as the passage was originally divided before the Renaissance into five verses, as little was there among Christians an agreed division whether this was one or two commands. No verse is skipped, because the enumeration of commandments is not a quote.

If that hunting bishop were asked to quote the first commandment from the Exodus, he would have answered:

Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis. [3] Non habebis deos alienos coram me. [4] Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper, et quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra. [5] Non adorabis ea, neque coles : ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis, zelotes, visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios, in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me : [6] et faciens misericordiam in millia his qui diligunt me, et custodiunt praecepta mea.

And some Jews who agree with you on the tenth, would quote the Hebrew equivalent only of Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus, qui eduxi te de terra Aegypti, de domo servitutis.

4:57 I am the Lord thy God, ... Thou shalt not have strange gods before me...

See what the catechetic version leaves out - both parts of verse 2 and everything after 3. It's not meant as a straight quote.

6:54 The guy uses "born again" as about a certain Protestant lifestyle centering on an experience.

He probably is born again around day 8 of his life outside the womb.

If he believes you don't need to be baptised, he has a problem both with John 3 and with the Council of Trent.

7:58 I'm on exactly the right day to object to the rigmarole pseudo-"confession of sins" here.

A man who today says "have you seen my new notebook - it rewrites on voice command" and after being at least half and half believed says "April fools" is not someone one would call a liar, normally.

Similarily, stealing small amounts from necessity is not the sin of stealing (it would be in a part of the world where one could beg that amount easily - the case for food, but not for transport in Paris).

8:25 "making a graven image with your mind" - what Protestants are doing when it comes to their imagination about God.

There is a difference between saying God's name without much care, and saying it with contempt.

Just because someone shouts it out about as loud as the S word doesn't mean it replaces the S word.

In the case of the S word, one could imagine a notion like "I found s..."

In the case of "oh God" one could imagine a notion like "oh God, why are you allowing this to happen!?!?"

The latter is being somewhat rude to God, not trusting Him, but not treating Him with actual contempt.

8:53 In fact, God will judge everyone on the commandments - but the sins will be those that are current.

Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven, so if one of the sins was committed, was mortal in its kind, was sufficiently deliberate for God to judge you on the act as your act, and therefore deserved Hell, if it is forgiven, you will still not go to Hell for that sin.

However, the verse I cited has been abused for OSAS - it doesn't say that.

The blessedness of those whose sins are forgiven at a given moment in their earthly life before it is over, can be taken away again, by new mortal sins. The blessedness of those whose every sin is forgiven when he dies and faces God, can't. Only that blessedness is guaranteed eternal.

12:04 What exactly does it say in John 3?

[14] And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up: [15] That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting. [16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

Sounds you are right if you stop there.

[17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Sounds you are right all believers go to Heaven, if you stop there.

[19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Oh, suddenly it sounds like we do have to keep the commandment after all, as part of the bargain here referred to as believing in Christ. Those who don't can't stand the light. They get themselves into judgement instead.

[21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

What does "doing truth" mean? It means keeping the ten.

Christ said so to the rich young man.

12:24 "confess your sins to God" ... good enough if you can't confess them to "God and men" in the context where a man, representing Christ, has authority to bind or lose you in or from your sins (John 20:21-3)

If you are near Topeka and committed sins after you were baptised, get ready to confess to Pope Michael or to Father Francis Dominic!

13:08 Wait a minite ... Quomodo ergo invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? aut quomodo credent ei, quem non audierunt? quomodo autem audient sine praedicante? quomodo vero praedicabunt nisi mittantur? sicut scriptum est : Quam speciosi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona!

Switching to English, I happen to know "quomodo audient" by heart, so this is where I go when I have to look this up ... ah, yes, it's also known as Romans chapter 10 ...

How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Eleven men were sent, directly by God, as we read in Matthew 28:16-20.

How does it go on after that? That's right. Apostolic succession. It's available through the sacrament of orders, but is effective for salvation on condition of being faithful to the tradition that Christ gave the eleven and the new twelfth. He said: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: - Meaning, even if you were a bishop with full sacramental validity, your preaching would be a trap and a snare for souls as long as you stand outside the universality of the Christian message as preserved by the Catholic Church.

And no new man gets sent only by God.

St. Paul had the epistemological authority of an apostle over and above that of other bishops directly by God. But he and Barnabas both get put into the chain of apostolic succession, linking us to Christ, before they go out and get souls saved.

[1] Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. [2] And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. [3] Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. [4] So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. [5] And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

Paul and Barnabas being sent by the Holy Ghost = Paul and Barnabas being sent by men who ordained them.

Here is the Haydock comment, from Acts 13:

// Ver. 3. Fasting and prayer, imposing their hands upon them. By which is clearly expressed, the manner in which the ministers of God were, and are still ordained bishops, priests, deacons in the Church. Witham.

— Interpreters are much divided in opinion, whether this imposition of hands be a mere deputation to a certain employment, or the sacramental ceremony, by which orders are conferred. SS. Chrysostom, Leo, &c. are of the latter opinion; nor does it any where appear that S. Paul was bishop before this. Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to S. Peter:

———Quem mox sacravit euntem
Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri
Omnia posse dedit.———

— See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian. — Following the practice of the apostles, the Church of God ordains a solemn and general fast on the four public times for ordination, the ember days, as a necessary preparation for so great a work, and this S. Leo calls also an apostolical tradition. See S. Leo, serm. ix. de jejun. and ep. lxxxi. c. 1. and serm. iii. and iv. de jejun. 7. mensis.

— Nor was this fasting a fasting from sin, as some ridiculously affirm, for such fasting was of universal obligation: nor was it left to each one's discretion, as certain heretics maintained. Vide S. Aug. hæres. liii. //

You may think it means, five men can (none of them having apostolic succession) get together and pray, and then all of them ordain one or two of them. Not what it means, not what the practise of the Church shows afterwards.

14:33 Ah, atheism!

I've recalled to celebrate it today!

(April Fools!)

14:57 How about you get a Haydock study Bible and start printing that instead.

Wait ... there are some Catholics left at TAN Books, they are still printing it:

The Douay-Rheims Bible, a Reproduction of the 1899 Edition of John Murphy Company
3rd June 2018 | R. Grant Jones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk6FE_sw5tM