Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Asaph Vapor

Showing posts with label Asaph Vapor. Show all posts

Friday, December 13, 2024

About a Certain Typ of Prayer

Two Miracles I Witnessed Recently
Brian Holdsworth | 10 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMCyHTX2YsA

4:55 OK, might say something about your mentality.

Let's put it like this.

DON'T use prayer that way for me to get an argument for sth which you suppose I'm ignorant of.

As I will share this, this is valid for other people too who may have done this.

I get bogged down in de facto anonymous internet users or youtubes in my feeds giving me a response about an argument I have made.

The HUGE problem is, the one so praying misses out on my answer.

If someone had instead taken responsability for contradicting me, like a friend or a content provider, that someone might have had to change approach, after hearing my argument, which I would have appreciated. This is not valid for people like Asaph Vapor or David Harp* or people who really make the same and the same points over again in what appears to be desperate attempts at communicating to me I have to "come out of" (as in Apoc. 18!) the Catholic Church. People who won't take no for an answer.

But people who pray in order to avoid getting no for an answer are not necessarily much better.

* Couldn't find such from the user name.

Monday, October 5, 2020

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
1.
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.

Scripture
G1124 (Thayer)
γραφή
graphē
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.

Conclusion:
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?

3. CATHOLIC CHURCH CHANGED BIBLE VERSE Gen 3:15 TO CREATE THE DOCTRINE OF MARY AS QUEEN
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.
Bible
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
Bible
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: Indeed.

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: 2.
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.

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.

On Papacy and Apostolic Succession to Asaph Vapor

//Battle of Dijon: A coalition of Franks and Burgundians crush the forces under Gundobad. King Clovis I pursues him to Avignon, where he surrenders and promises to pay a yearly tribute.//

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD_500

Gundobad was an Arian. Clovis I had become a Catholic after the Battle of Tolbiacum. But Eastern Orthodox would consider he was an Orthodox. Like with Gundobad's son Sigismund, considered a martyr by both Catholics and Orthodox. Meanwhile, John I was neither, he is only venerated by Copts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_I_of_Alexandria

Armenians had just had one other "Saint John I" as Katholikos in Dvin, and had his successor Babken I (490–516):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholicoi_of_all_Armenians

And Assyrians were obeying 23:rd Catholicos of the East, Babai (497–503):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_the_Church_of_the_East

In other words, RCC / EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians were all present in 500, all are in that respect valid claimants to the promise of Matthew 28:20.

Arians were also present back then, but you would consider them heretical, rightly so, and they can also be ruled out bc of this criterium, since they were all gone by AD 1000.

«How else the gospel is passed down till today?»

As you say : by true believers.

«You mean in AD500, all believers disappeared ?»

No, but those who you would call so had not appeared yet.

«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.'«

Well, yes, it is valid, how else was the Gospel transmitted?

Plus you miss, ekklesia does not mean a population (like believers), it means _an institution of_ a population (like a town hall, a coetus populi, a diocese or all dioceses together.

Building is simply a red herring. Or a way of making a parody of what we say.

«Successor?
Where? Which Scripture?
Chapter verse?»

Matthew 28:20. The Apostles themselves in person are no longer around, so being with them "all days" must involve "with them andd their successors". Plus several places in Acts and letters to Timothy and Titus showing there was an organised succession.

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

I was asking you for an example there was one, one who was known and one whom YOU would consider as a believer. On YOUR theory that RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians are "un-Biblical". I have already given examples, if I am right on where the Church was, there were believers.

Where are the believers in AD 500 on your theory?

«So who were the 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles. Pls list them out»

First, this is a red herring. Episcopate are conjointly successors of the 12, like presbyterate conjointly of the 72 and diaconate conjointly to the 7.

Second, some of them in a sense did have successors of the kind you ask about. All of them had successors not in dioceses as much as in the series of imposition of hands.

1 St. Peter's successor in Rome : St. Linus. Before that he had a successor in Antioch, who was not Pope, since he retained papacy when going to Rome.
2 St. Andrew's successors in Byzantium were just presbyters prior to Constantine, after that he also has full bishop successors there.
3 / 4 Sts James and John have no such known successors, as far as I could see.
5 St. Philip, dito
6 St. Bartholomew seems to have had successors among the territory later under Armenian schism.
7 St. Matthew seems to have no such known successors
8 St. James of Alphaeus may be the brother of Jesus who succeeded the twelve and was therefore first bishop of Jerusalem
9 St. Thomas established seven Churches in Kerala, and therefore has successors in 7 places in India (in some cases united with Rome)
10 St. Simon the Zealot seems to have joined St. Bartholomew and St. Jude Thaddaeus
11 St. Jude Thaddaeus also had successors in Armenia.
12 Judas the Traitor had St. Matthias as replacer, Acts 1. St. Matthias seems to have no such known successors.

«So who are the modern days 12 APostlse who succeeded the Original 12 Apostles?»

Refuse, since that is not what Apostolic succession means, as already stated.

«1. So which part of the BIBLE says 12 new Apostles succeeded the Original 12 Apostles? Chapter verse?»

None, as you interpret the claim. Matthew 28:20, Acts 1, Acts 13:3, epistles to Timothy and Titus, Apocalypse 2 and 3 for the claim as it actually stands. Episcopal dignity started with the 12, but did not end with them.

«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!»

For the Pope, I'd say Pope Michael. For "twelve in general" two bishops were reconciled with him before consecrating him a bishop. One or both of them would still be in communion with him.

Tradition is recorded by lots of people who are now departed, like the Church Fathers, therefore I have to cite people you call dead, and I call alive in Christ.

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

Exact reason why beside the local ekklesia also called diocese there is a worldwide ekklesia, also called Catholic Church. Note very well, EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians all of them claim to be or be parts of that Church.

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.

You have another translation of verse 27.

*Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member.*

*Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro.*

Meaning diocese or Church of Corinth is a member and all members of it are members of a member.
«What requirements arrogant?»

[missed this]

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._

Mis-cited. ALL DAYS, not "always.

YOU = 11. ALL DAYS => they had successors. TEACHING ALL THINGS => the successors (or at least one line of these) preserves all correct doctrine + (as they were teaching nations) are teaching in public. This means they can be documented. As can their true teachings.

That is why I am requiring you to cite who YOU think this applies to in 500 AD and how THEIR teaching is what YOU consider as Biblical.

«1. Which part of Mat 28:20 says you need to have successors ?»

Since Peter, Andrew, James and John and the rest were not immortal, the part that says "all days".

«Nowhere says Apostolic Succession. BIBLE says its leadership succession! Titus 1:5.»

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

Perfect example. St. Paul was an apostle on par with the 11 and Matthias, by the vision Christ gave him. He got succession from them through presumably successors in that line of them in Antioch as per Acts 13, along with Barnabas. He in his turn laid hands on Titus, and he required Titus to lay hands on others.

How many generations of apostolic succession? 1) original apostles, 2) disciples in Antioch, 3) Paul and Barnabas, 4) Timothy and Titus from Paul (and St. Narn of Bergamo from Barnabas, if I recall correctly), 5) those on whom Timotyhy and Titus laid hands.

«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?»

Again, "all days".

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.

Again, miscited with the more general and fluid "always". Pasas tas hemeras means all days. (Or if it was pasais tais hemerais)

500 was 366 days of those, 2000 was 366 days of those, 2020 will have been 366 days of those. If St. Peter and the others are not personally around those dates, they need to have successors these dates.

«So according to you Jesus only directed 11 Apostles?»

With that particular promise yes, and they were apostles.

«Which part says you need a successor who succeed the APostles? WHere?»

The "all days" part.

«You are spinning as you go.»

No, you are evading the obvious.

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

Irrelevant, since such is not our claim.

«You are not answering my question ""Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?»

In English that is not a question. If you wanted a question, it is "since when is anyone calling etc?" or "since when does anyone call etc.?"

I took it as a statement, and answered it by a refutation.

So, "since when is anyone calling Bergoglio "Pope Francis"?" - answer : since a pseudo-election in 2013 those adhering to his equally non-pope predecessor "Pope Benedict XVI" are usually considering him as "Pope Francis". I am one of those rejecting both.

«Conciliar Church is still RCC.»

As in not Protestant? Not EOC? Not Yes. As in the historic RCC? No.

«Neo Catholic is still RCC.»

No, they are dissenters from it, even if perhaps more numerous than the remnant of true RCC. Depends on how many who think Bergoglio is Pope are nevertheless true Catholics, if confused such.

Answering Asaph Vapor on Blessed Virgin Mary and Church

On Eucharist, Confession and some Other Matters, to Asaph Vapor

Asaph Vapor: Let's see. Why dont you prove these:
Where is Mary = Pachamama in the BIBLE? Or Lady of Lourdes? Or Fat Timah? Or Lady of Guadeloupe?

Are you sure its just "my polemics against them"?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: It's even fairly insane polemics to bring in Patxamama into the equation.

Patxamama is the Andine version of the demonness Ceres or Demeter.

Obviously, Our Lady of the Visitation is in the Bible. Luke 2.

Lourdes, Fatima and earlier Guadalupe apparitions are in Church history.

Church history does not need to be proven from the Bible, since about facts occurring later than Acts 28.
Asaph Vapor: Since when i said you cannot use OT to support NT?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: There is a difference between having the OT and having Christ's exposition of the OT.

Jews do have the OT, but not this exposition.

We have the OT and we have the exposition from tradition.

You pretend we find the exposition in the OT itself, which is going beyond the text, or in the NT, which NT is too short for.

It's between us and Jews, not you.
Asaph Vapor: Really? WHo says the Lord's Day is Sunday? Or sign of the cross comes from Apostles? Or Papacy passed to Linus? WHo says all these come from traditions of Apostles? Or traditions of other ECFs? Where? How do we know its not fabricated?

Do you have proof that it comes from the APostles? ROME was called the mother of forgeries!
WHere is your proof?

So someone comes and show you a writing, how do we know for sure its by the Apostles? Are they infallible source?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: The Catholic tradition says the Lord's day is Sunday. The Catholic tradition says the sign of the cross comes from them. And that papacy passed to Linus. AND that 27 books are in the NT.

Btw, I don't know what ECF means.

How we know it's not fabricated? Like we know NT is not a fraud. We trust this tradition, or we don't. Pretending we have any other source for canon list is false. Canonisation of each book happened in 1st C. but collecting to 27 book list happened when even you cannot deny the actor is the CC in some sense of the word. What tradition do you trust for your Church history not being a fraud?

"Do you have proof that it comes from the APostles? ROME was called the mother of forgeries!"

1) By whom? When?
2) The things I enumerated are confirmed by the parallel traditions of EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

"So someone comes and show you a writing, how do we know for sure its by the Apostles? Are they infallible source?"

The Apostles are an infallible source. If we speak of someone living now and showing me sth, how did you get to know the Gospel? St Peter or Andrew gave you an apparition? No. So, someone showed you a writing.

There are two possibilities : Apostolic tradition was preserved (excludes restorationism, like that of 7DA), or Christianity is false (also excludes restorationism). The restorationist "possibility" isn't one, since it both contradicts Matthew 28:20 and makes a gap between when the Gospels were written and now that is not credibly bridged.
Note one above: I have published my answers here, before submitting them to Asaph Vapor on youtube.

This is because I am behind his schedual, and so I take some haste. He has got a link to this blog and to one post in the series.

His own words are copied from youtube and these ones are in the context of the answers above it.

[Sacrifice for firstborn, not sins of mother]

«Which verse is that? Chapter verse?»

Luke 2:23 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:

The sacrifice was not for purification after childbirth, as purification is needed in OT law after every childbirth, but to pay God for having the firstborn male.

«Lol ... this is new.»

To you. Not to St. Thomas Aquinas.

«So RCC priests and clergies can be non celibate parts of their life and have a wife and mother in law concurrently.»

In Pope Michael's obedience even while being priests in Latin rite, in other (previous) RCC since Gregorian reform, you can become priest after being a widower, after divorce from a wife in a non-sacramental marriage (this was St. Thomas Aquinas' view of St. Peter, his marriage to his wife was according to law of Moses and not a marriage between two baptised Christians, so it could be dissolved), or after dispensation when separating from a wife even in a sacramental marriage (the case with St. Nicolas of Flüe). AND even while being priests in rites that also exist within the confessions of EOC, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians (when the rites are in RCC they are called Uniate rites), provided the marriage came before the ordination.

"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.

«Claims. You still cannot prove Mary was sinless. THis is "begging the question".»

Did you read the passages you quoted? Matthew 27:56 does not mention the Blessed Virgin having offspring other than Jesus, it is another Mary. But ... oh, you tactically omitted the ones I thought of. I am sorry, I thought you were citing this:

Matthew 12:47 And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.

Now in Matthew this is less clear, here it is like all the titles are in singular:

"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother."
[Matthew 12:50]

But the parallel in Luke gives a contrast between singular and plural:

"Who answering, said to them: My mother and my brethren are they who hear the word of God, and do it."
[Luke 8:21]

One person doing the word of God = His mother.

Several doing it = His brethren (la fratrie).

«Deut 25? Surely you are plucking from the air.»

Not the least. We see from book of Ruth that others than the actual brother born of same parents can fulfill the duty of levirate. There are two concurrent notions of who the brethren were mentioned in Matthew 12 and living with the Blessed Virgin, until She moved in with St. John. One is, they were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, the other is, they were His cousins. Either way, they would have been those closest to him.

«Which part says Mary was Perpetual Virgin?»

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 7:14]

«I bet you dont even know what you were copy pasting! Dont copy paste blindly clown!»

I think you may be guilty of what you attribute to me. I have copy pasted two things : Bible texts (with references) and YOUR arguments. I have not copy-pasted any argument presented as mine. So why did you guess I did? I guess you may have done so with 15 Roman Catholic heresies or the time you gave notice on Bergoglio desecrating the ground near the bones of St. Peter (because I guess, you would not yourself admit the Vatican holds the bones of St. Peter or that ground holding these is holy).

If I had copy-pasted, I'd have been faster. But you seem to be somewhat paranoid about when you get refuted.

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

He is God. God does forgive through absolution of the priest when we confess to Him adressing us to the priest as being there on His behalf. The point is not that the place in that book, chapter, verse, proves need of a priest. It doesn't. The point is, you cited is as disproving need of a priest, which it doesn't either.

«Yes typo. I meant Romans 10:9-10.»

This is not about the confession of sins in 1 John 1:9, but about confessing Christ as Lord:

[9] For if thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [10] For, with the heart, we believe unto justice; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation.

Now, does St. Paul say this is enough for salvation? If verse 9 were all the clues we had on the matter, we might think so. B U T, we have other clues, from Gospels. Almsgiving is also needed, as per Matthew 25. Getting absolved by either Christ, or one of the eleven, or their successors, is needed according to John 20:21-23.

«Nowhere in John 20 says RCC priests. It refers to Apostles.»

RCC claim their priests are successors of these apostles. EOC claim theirs are. Copts claim theirs are. Armenians claim theirs are. Assyrians claim theirs are. Now, John 20 was said to the eleven to which Christ spoke Matthew 28:18-20, and as the apostles personally are no longer around, and it is still before Doomsday, their successors wield the same power.

«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.»

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

I am not misquoting, because "successors" is not a quote. I am concluding from the two facts, that the eleven have died, while the promise is valid to Doomsday, which means it is also valid for their successors. Even the Protestants who either misquote or guess wildly that this was spoken to more than the 11, like to 500, are also concluding for successors, just they conclude for successors to the wrong group.

«Mat 6 does say confess to GOD directly.»

Oh yeah?

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.

Yes, and what part was about confessing sins? None of the parts! You are misapplying. Saying "our debts" is not specifying which debts, but confessing sins very much is specifying which debt, unless already known (in the case of the psalm Miserere, King David, Nathan, and everyone else knew it was the guilt about Bathseba and Uriah).

«John 6 says nothing about disciples leaving because of that.»

It seems they did.

«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.»

Let's see:

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.

Now, Jesus was in fact not filtering away Judas.

«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.»

It would actually seem to be somewhat correct.

Joh 6:64 (65) 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 (66) 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."

But in John 6:66 (your version, 67 mine), we learn of the people who went away: and the passage starts

Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it? (v61 in Catholic Bibles)

And what were they saying that to?

[51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever. [60] These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.

In other words : they left bc of the disbelief in this very clear statement of the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, by God Himself.

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."

Nice try, but you are omitting the closer context of actual disbelief, verses 51 to 60 giving Christ's statement, and verse 61 (verse numeration as per Catholic Bibles) stating their rejection of precisely that.

«4. Only those who truly believed in Jesus stayed on.»

Not Judas.

«- Those only looking for food left.»

Probable, but not so clearly stated as those disbelieving in the Eucharist.

«- 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»

They though Jesus could not give them His real flesh and His real blood. You very cautiously omit the explanation which you want to presume as excluding the Catholic meaning when it doesn't.

Saturday, October 3, 2020

Continuing the Answer to Asaph Vapor

Asaph Vapor: @Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU:
"Thank you for telling me all are unbiblical then."

Yeah, right, tell me where you historically find a Biblical one, in 500 AD?

ME:
From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh!

YOU:
"None from Scriptures. All unbiblical stuff then."

Un-Biblical = not directly in Scriptures. Let me tell you one thing more which is un-Biblical in that sense, but also as in directly contradicting the Bible : Sola Scriptura!

ME:
SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out
1
2
3

YOU:
"Thank you for confirming the colours."

Other view of them, the end times counter-Church is reducing pastoral to these two colours (penance and martyrdom or exaltation), taking in practise away the white of innocence and of purity of faith, the green of peaceful growth.

Or Dimond Brothers, considering the counter-Church as formally founded at Vatican II "has the colours of the bride, but is not the bride".

You seem to think the presence of these colours is in itself a sign of being the counter-Church. Or harlot.

ME:
Again confirming the colours.

YOU:
"Yes why? What are you proving?"

That the souls of St. George and St. Maurice are under the altar of God in Heaven, and therefore praying for us.

ME:
You clearly do not understand Scriptures. Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!

YOU:
"Can Mary come back from the dead to appear in the 7 years Tribulations for Israel in future? Mary have to stay in the wilderness for 3.5 years." What if She stayed in the wilderness of Egypt for 3 and 1/2 years when fleeing to Egypt?
Also, She is not dead.
Also, Israel is not mentioned.

ME:
Its a future event ignorant! Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Mary!

YOU:
"Catholics claimed Mary had only one offspring. Then why Vs 17 says "the rest of her offspring"? So either way Catholics fall into a lie."

Not if the rest of Her offspring start out with St. John the Gospeller (John 19:26) as adopted and spiritual offspring.

ME:
Nice try ignorant!
You are clearly twisting Scriptures!

YOU:
// Rev 12:6 says the woman ran into the wilderness.
>>>> Rev 12 happens during the Great Tribulation (2nd half of the 7 years Tribulation, a future event Daniel 9:27, Mat 24).
>>>> Mary was already dead. She cannot appear in the Tribulation to run away from Satan. So neither is she the queen Catholics claimed she is. //

The Flight to Egypt prefigures parts of the tribulation. Herod was possessed by Satan.

ME:
Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!

YOU:
// >>>> The woman refers to Israel going through the persecution running into the wilderness and mountains; a way of escape from God. //

Refers to Israel is interpretation, not the text itself. In Catholic interpretation, "daughter Sion" refers to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

ME:
Except its not Mary. It directly contradicts Vs 6 and 17.
Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church.
Let alone RCC!

YOU:
// >>>> The only Queen of Heaven in the Bible is a demon actually. Catholics are worshipping demons. //

Except the demon mentioned in Jeremiah is hated by God for taking a title God was reserving for His upcoming Mother.

ME:
WHy would GOD named HIS beloved servant after a demoness in OT? Catholics are clearly clowns!

YOU:

// >>>> vs 17. Dragon make war with the rest of Mary’s offspring? Can’t be Jesus. Read. “the rest of her offspring” which refers to more than one! So NO! Not Mary! //

Spiritual offspring, starting with John 19:26.

ME:
Which part of the BIBLE says Mary has offspring?
Spiritual? Since when John become spiritual offspring ? WAs John a disciple of Mary ?
Physical adoption? THen its physical offspring.
DOnt twist the Scriptures Catholic!

YOU:
// >>>> vs 17. Dragon make war with the Israel’s offspring? Yes. //

Perhaps notably with Palestinian Christians ...

ME:
No comments.

YOU:
// Catholics even changed Gen 3:15 from “HE” to “she” to make Mary Queen!! //

It would seem, Hebrew has female pronouns for "seed" as well as for "woman". LXX renders pronoun to fit "sperma" as neuter, or even as masculine, but Vulgate has "she" referring to woman. Together they reflect that Hebrew is ambiguous about "woman" or "her seed". There is however a part of the verse, where there is no ambiguity at all: And I will put enmity Between you and the woman

Enmity with Satan = not sinning. Bc sinning = slavery under Satan.

ME:
None of the versions says "she".
Including LXX (which Catholic BIBLEs are translated from).
RCC is desperate to make Mary queen!

YOU:
"No other churches exalt Mary as queen of heaven!"

All Christian Churches I know of in 500 AD do.

ME:
Lies. Proof?

YOU:
"Neither do they include pagan goddesses into the pantheon of false Marys."

I am not considering Bergoglio, the Patxamama worshipper, as a Catholic.

"WHich part of the BIBLE says Pachamama the Amazon naked pregnant fertility goddess = Mary?"

None, neither does the Catholic Church.

Note, Patxamama is not an Amazonian, but an Andine version of Ceres / Demeter.

ME:
Lies!
At Amazon Synod 2019, Rome’s Church OFFICIALLY acknowledged the worship of an Amazon naked fertility pagan goddess called Pachamama.

>>>Pachamama “prayer” included in an official booklet of the mission agency of the Italian bishops’ conference. Here is the full prayer, as translated from the Italian:

Pachamama of these places, drink and eat as much as you like of these offerings, so that this land may be fruitful. Pachamama, good Mother Be propitious! Be propitious! Let the oxen walk well, and let them not get tired. Make the seed taste good, that nothing bad happen to it, that frost may not disrupt it, that it produce good food. We ask you: give us everything. Be propitious! Be propitious!
(Prayer to the Mother Earth of the Inca peoples)

Interestingly, the original Quechua version of the prayer and its Spanish modern translation are slightly different.
The first two lines read as follows:
Pachamama of these places, Drink, chew coca, and eat as much as you like of these offerings…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
YOU:
"Or lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe?"

We can take Luke 1, where Elisabeth said : Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

ME:
Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe.
Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Asaph Vapor Quickly one point:

"From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh! "

Matthew 28:20 specifies "all days" so up to 100 is not enough.

"SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out"

1 Twelve Disciples or 72 ([Luke 10:16])
2 St. Peter (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.)
3 Word of mouth by St. Paul
Asaph Vapor: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: Yeah, right, tell me where you historically find a Biblical one, in 500 AD?
me: From AD33-100. From the Scriptures duh! "
Matthew 28:20 specifies "all days" so up to 100 is not enough.

ME:
AD33-100 is the scope of NT Scriptures. That's where all the Original doctrines come from.
How is infallible Scriptures not good enough you ignorant??

YOU: "SS is biblical. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures? Pls list out"

1 Twelve Disciples or 72 ([Luke 10:16])
2 St. Peter (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.)
3 Word of mouth by St. Paul

ME:
THank you for admitting its all the early church. Not RCC.
Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"
1
2
3

Pls prove from Scriptures, RCC = the Church Christ founded.
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Asaph Vapor I was not even arguing that.

I have proven from Scripture YOUR Church is NOT the Church Christ founded.

Matthew 28:20. Since every day in AD 500 falls under the timespan between just before Ascension and Doomsday, every day in AD 500 Christ was with His Church which was active on earth more or less well obeying but not blatantly misbeying the injunction to teach all nations to obey all things whatsoever Christ has taught His first clergy. Same applies to every day in 499 and 501.

This does not immediately clinch to RCC, but narrows down to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. For back then, Monothelites may have been an option, while the difference RCC / EOC did not yet apply, but, since then, the Monothelites have joined the RCC and are now known as Maronites, one of the Uniate Churches.

A Church that was absent in 500 (neither present separately nor present in a larger unity since then split) is most definitely NOT an option.

And neither is a back then invisible Church so, since God did not light a lamp to put it under a bushel, nor build a city on a mountain so it could remain hidden.

@Asaph Vapor "THank you for admitting its all the early church. Not RCC.
Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"

1 Successors of twelve or 72 disciples
2 Successors of St. Peter
3 Continuation of the word of mouth which was not written down in epistles in the NT canon.

Why do all these need successors, continuation? Bc Matthew 28:20!

I forgot one in early Church which for exact same reason is still there today : the Church Herself.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

@Asaph Vapor "AD33-100 is the scope of NT Scriptures. That's where all the Original doctrines come from.
How is infallible Scriptures not good enough you ignorant??"

I am very much not pretending any new doctrines have come about in AD 500. However, in Matthew 28:20 it is very definite, if AD 500 arrived before Doomsday (and it did) there would be (and there was) a Church perpetuating the doctrines given back then.

Where is YOUR alternative for that Church?

I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like, and then raised it again, as far as His omnipotence is concerned. But NOT as far as His faithfulness to the promise is concerned. Precisely as God could have created Adam very gradually over many thousands of generations from apes, as far as His omnipotence is concerned, but arguably not as to His goodness, and definitely not as to His truthfulness.

The infallible Scriptures are for 500 AD not enough because they very clearly state they will never be enough in the sense of dispensing from existence of a Church.

@Asaph Vapor "Again confirming the colours."

More precisely, extant in Novus Ordo on Good Friday, as well as in EOC and High Church Anglicanism ...

"You clearly do not understand Scriptures. Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Church."

When in AD 33 to 100 did that doctrine come into the Scriptures?

"Let alone RCC!"

Dito.

"Its a future event ignorant! Rev 5-19 refers to the nation of Israel going through the 7 years Tribulations. Nothing to do with Mary!"

All of it being future is again sth which I do not find in the Scriptures that the Church left us from 33 to 100 AD.

"Nice try ignorant!
You are clearly twisting Scriptures!"

That was not an answer.

Repeat of doctrine from outside the writings from 33 to 100, a k a NT canon.

"Except its not Mary. It directly contradicts Vs 6 and 17."

Unless offspring is taken as spiritual offspring. Even St Paul claimed to have such.

Repeat of doctrine from outside the writings from 33 to 100, a k a NT canon.

"WHy would GOD named HIS beloved servant after a demoness in OT? Catholics are clearly clowns!"

Why would God name Mary "queen of heaven"?

a) why would He name Her queen of Judah? Because Her Son is King of Judah.
b) why would Judah be in Heaven? Bc in Apocalypse we see the capital of heaven as Jerusalem, i e the capital of Judah
c) why would He name Her for a demoness, bc He didn't, the demoness was usurping a title Satan had known for thousands of years God was intending to give His Mother.

"Which part of the BIBLE says Mary has offspring?"

Luke 2 for physical offspring, John 19:26 for spiritual.

"Spiritual? Since when John become spiritual offspring ? WAs John a disciple of Mary ?"

He became Her adopted son, see John 19:26.

"Physical adoption? THen its physical offspring."

Adoption is not physical.

"DOnt twist the Scriptures Catholic!"

You are the one doing so to avoid obvious conclusions.

"No comments."

Indeed, somewhat off topic, since not quite the exegesis of Apoc 12 we were discussing.

"None of the versions says "she"."

For Hebrew original having a feminine word for seed, I refer to Heinz Lothar Barth:

Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15) (Livre en allemand) (Allemand) Broché – 1 décembre 2000
de Heinz L Barth (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Ipsa-conteret-Maria-Schlangenzertreterin-Protoevangelium/dp/3934692036

"Including LXX (which Catholic BIBLEs are translated from)."

Catholic Latin OTs came in two versions :
* Vetus Latina from LXX
AND THEN
* Vulgate either directly from Hebrew or from Hebrew via Aquila, according to how the learned consider the language capacities of St. Jerome. In Genesis 5 and 11 you can check very easily that the Vulgate is NOT from LXX.

"RCC is desperate to make Mary queen!"

Except the point was more on co-redemptrix, which the words of St. Elisabeth confirm independently of exact translation of Genesis 3:15.

Queen is a syllogism : Christ is King of Heavenly Jerusalem, Mary is Mother of the King, in Judah the Mother of the King is Queen, and therefore Mary is Queen of Heavenly Jerusalem.

"Lies. Proof?"

Check with EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

"Lies!
At Amazon Synod 2019, Rome’s Church OFFICIALLY acknowledged the worship of an Amazon naked fertility pagan goddess called Pachamama."

Bergoglio is NOT representing Rome's Church, and neither is the Amazon synod doing so.

BBL, perhaps, will check time left.

@Asaph Vapor Had time to finish:

"(Prayer to the Mother Earth of the Inca peoples)"

Thank you and the Inca peoples are in the Andes, not the Amazon jungle.

"Pachamama of these places, Drink, chew coca, and eat as much as you like of these offerings…"

Not the least surprised.

"On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter."

Agree except in calling Bergoglio "pope Francis". He is neither Catholic nor Pope.

"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people."

And real Catholics don't encourage that confusion or syncretism.

"Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe."

It says sth about Mary appearing before Elisabeth.

"Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?"

Why do you love to use two measures, you get away with adding things not in the text itself, while we must stick to bare text only without comment? And without application and without reasoning about what it implies, why?
Asaph Vapor: @Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
I have proven from Scripture YOUR Church is NOT the Church Christ founded.

Matthew 28:20. Since every day in AD 500 falls under the timespan between just before Ascension and Doomsday, every day in AD 500 Christ was with His Church which was active on earth more or less well obeying but not blatantly misbeying the injunction to teach all nations to obey all things whatsoever Christ has taught His first clergy. Same applies to every day in 499 and 501.

This does not immediately clinch to RCC, but narrows down to RCC, EOC, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians. For back then, Monothelites may have been an option, while the difference RCC / EOC did not yet apply, but since then the Monothelites have joined the RCC and are now known as Maronites, one of the Uniate Churches.

A Church that was absent in 500 (neither present separately nor present in a larger unity since then split) is most definitely NOT an option.

And neither is a back then invisible Church so, since God did not light a lamp to put it under a bushel, nor build a city on a mountain so it could remain hidden

ME:
Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to Assembly of believers. Not some sect called RCC.
Church is the Body of Christ consisting of all worldwide believers. Nothing to do with RCC.

Church = believers.
There was always Church aka believers at any given time in history.
Your theory that "church (organisation) must be there at every point in history" is not valid.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
1 Successors of twelve or 72 disciples
2 Successors of St. Peter
3 Continuation of the word of mouth which was not written down in epistles in the NT canon.

Why do all these need successors, continuation? Bc Matthew 28:20!

I forgot one in early Church which for exact same reason is still there today : the Church Herself.

"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
[1 Timothy 3:15]

ME:
1. THen pls prove from Scriptures, RCC priests or poops are the successors and that they are infallible.
2. Can you find any other infallible authorities other than Scriptures in present days? Pls list out"

--
--
--

3. Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to assembly of believers. Nothing to do with soem sect called RCC. Church aka believers is the pillar of truth. Surely it is.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like,

ME;
1. You are confused. I am talking about doctrines. Not church.
2. 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.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"On October 4, Pope Francis attended an act of idolatrous worship of the pagan goddess Pachamama. He allowed this worship to take place in the Vatican Gardens, thus desecrating the vicinity of the graves of the martyrs and of the church of the Apostle Peter."

Agree except in calling Bergoglio "pope Francis". He is neither Catholic nor Pope.

ME:
Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. ... As it is a syncretic religion, the figure of the Virgin Mary was associated with that of the Pachamama for many of the indigenous people."

And real Catholics don't encourage that confusion or syncretism.

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

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU:
"Lies. Luke 1 says nothing of "lady of lourdes or Fat Timah or Lady of Guadeloupe."

It says sth about Mary appearing before Elisabeth.

ME:
1. Again you point is not even a point.
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.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
YOU: Why Catholics love to lie and twist Scriptures?"

Why do you love to use two measures, you get away with adding things not in the text itself, while we must stick to bare text only without comment? And without application and without reasoning about what it implies, why?

ME:
What is two measures?
Since when i added things in text? Pls list out
1
2
3

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Why Catholics cannot prove your 95% RCC doctrines NOT from SCRIPTURES?

RCC has no truth. RCC is a cult.
95% of RCC doctrines are MAN MADE and not from the Bible, neither from Jesus or Apostles.

Catholics are NOT Christians.
Catholics know very well there is something wrong with their doctrines.

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.
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.
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.
4. Catholics say confess to priests. Yet BIBLE says confess to GOD directly. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6, Romans 14:11.
5. Catholics say drink of the literal blood of Jesus. Yet BIBLE says do not drink blood. Acts 15, Lev 7:26.
6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19.
7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5.
8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it.
9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18
10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it.
11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10.
12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16.
13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6.
14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it.
15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity.

Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a cult disguising as Christianity deceiving many. Worse than satanism.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bogus claims of Roman Catholic Cult and Catholics
1. RCC claimed to be the Church Christ founded. Yet BIBLE says Jerusalem Church was the Church Christ and Apostles founded. Whole Book of Acts says so.

2. Catholics claimed early church was catholic aka RCC believers. Yet BIBLE says early Church was Christian. Mary, Apostles and early believers were all Christians. Acts 11:26. All early writers were all Christians.

3. RCC claimed to be the One True Church. Yet BIBLE says in Original Greek word for Church means Assembly of believers. Not some sects. No sect can represent the whole Church which is the Body of Christ.

4. RCC claimed to come up with the canon. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church discovered the canon over time. RCC merely took credit for that list.

5. RCC claimed NT comes from RCC. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church and Apostles wrote the books. RCC wrote nothing. By AD100s, NT 27 books were already in all churches. Not AD300s as claimed by Catholics!

6. Catholics claimed Scriptures were inspired because they compiled them in AD300s. Yet BIBLE says Scriptures were already Scriptures the moment they were written. Apostles affirmed one another’s books as Scriptures. Disciples accepted the books as Scriptures.

7. RCC claimed all its doctrines were from Apostolic traditions. Yet a good check shows 95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from traditions of Apostles or Jesus. Only 5% were from Apostolic Traditions. 95% of RCC doctrines were invented by RCC’s magisterium and false traditions over the millennial.

8. RCC claimed Peter was pope. Yet real history says papacy only came much later in the centuries.

9. RCC claimed it has Primacy. Yet there is no such thing as Primacy of a Church.

10. RCC claimed there is such thing as Apostolic Succession. Yet BIBLE says elders replaced the 12 Apostles. Titus 1:5. Not new Apostles. Catholics cannot list out 12 new Apostles back then and now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Heretical claims of Catholics
1.
Catholics claim:
Not everything needs to be in the BIBLE. That is only an excuse for them to put in their false doctrines.

BIBLE says:
While it is true not everything is in the BIBLE, but BIBLE says all doctrines of the faith are in the BIBLE. 2 Tim 3:16-17.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?

2.
Catholic claim:
Doctrines can come from traditions of RCC.

BIBLE says:
Yet BIBLE says only Past traditions of Apostles are accepted. Not future false traditions of RCC. 2 Thes 2:15.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?

3. Catholics claim:
Scriptures is not the only infallible source.

BIBLE says:
Yet BIBLE says traditions of Apostles are Past Tense. 2 The 2:15. In the absence of traditions of Apostles now, isnt Scriptures the only infallible source? 2Tim 3:16-17. Yet Catholics cannot find any other infallible sources.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?

4.
Catholics claim:
their doctrines come from Apostolic traditions.

Yet a good check with RCC history, 95% of RCC doctrines come from RCC's own invention and not from traditions of Apostles.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?

5. THERE IS NO HONEST CATHOLIC HERE WHO CAN ANSWER THIS? GOOD GRIEF! NO WONDER RCC IS A CULT!
If Catholics claim Scriptures is not the ONLY INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY FOR DOCTRINES NOW IN MODERN DAYS, then kindly list out other infallible authorities for doctrines now in modern days.
1
2
3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~’
Heresies of Roman Catholic Church on salvation
1. RCC says outside RCC there is no salvation.
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation. John 14:6. John 3:16.

2. RCC says apart from pope there is no salvation!
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation! John 14:6. John 3:16.

3. RCC says Mary is the Gateway to heaven. No one can enter Heaven but through her means.
BIBLE says apart from Jesus there is no salvation! John 14:6. John 3:16.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ask for proof!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bogus claims of RCC:
1. RCC claimed only RCC has the authority to interpret Scriptures. But cannot show us any proof of its authority.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?

2. RCC claimed you need an infallible interpreter. Yet in the BIBLE all believers interpreted Scriptures and they were not infallible.
You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hans-Georg Lundahl: @Asaph Vapor I spent two hours replying, now I start to post:

"Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to Assembly of believers."

Agreed.

"Not some sect called RCC."

Remains to be disputed.

"Church is the Body of Christ consisting of all worldwide believers."

Agreed.

"Nothing to do with RCC."

Except for identity.

"Church = believers."

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

"There was always Church aka believers at any given time in history."

Sure. Where was it in 500 AD?

"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.

"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.

"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.

"3. Church in Original Greek Ekklesia refers to assembly of believers."

And in original NT that assembly was organised. The disciples were divided into the general ones and the 72, the 72 were then the source of the 12, and the 12 for St. Peter. That is in the Gospels. You cannot ask me to ignore the actual context just because you know the meaning of a word.

Btw, "assembly" in the sense of a constitutional assembly. Not of just any gathering, but one gathered or assembled according to a precise constitution. The Athenian ekklesia did not assemble according to Spartan constitution and the Spartan ekklesia not according to the Athenian one.

"Nothing to do with soem sect called RCC."

So, EOC, Copts, Armenians or Assyrians? Or do you have any other Church with a precise constitution that existed in 500 AD?

"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 had said: I mean, God could have allowed the Church to vanish in 100 or in 325 or whatever you like,]

"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.

"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.

"Since when anyone calls "Bergoglio "pope Francis""?"

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

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

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

"1. Again you point is not even a point."

You have ears and do not hear.

"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.

"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!"

"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.

"Why Catholics cannot prove your 95% RCC doctrines NOT from SCRIPTURES?"

Not from Scriptures means nothing. You can have things:

1 contradicting Scriptures
2 outside the scope of them (could be true or could be false, depends on other evidence)
3 outside their text, but inside their scope and the tradition in which and to which they were given

"RCC has no truth. RCC is a cult."

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

"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. 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.

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.

"Catholics are NOT Christians."

You wish.

"Catholics know very well there is something wrong with their doctrines."

Only if they fall into the trap of equating "not in the Bible text" with "contradicting the Bible".

"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?

"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.

"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.

["]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:

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"?

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).

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.

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.

"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.

"6. Catholics say pray to Mary and "saints". Yet BIBLE says do not contact the dead. Deut 18:11, Isaiah 8:19."

Catholic comment to Isaiah:

[19] "Seek of pythons": That is, people pretending to tell future things by a prophesying spirit.-- Ibid.

[19] "Should not the people seek of their God, for the living of the dead?": Here is signified, that it is to God we should pray to be directed, and not to seek of the dead, (that is, of fortune-tellers dead in sin,) for the health of the living.

Text on Deut. Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead.

We do not consult saints through mediums.

"7. Catholics say their statues are not idols. Yet BIBLE says do not bow down to graven images (statues). Deut 4, Exo 20:4-5."

Exodus 20 has one commandment from verse 2 to verse 6. Verses 4 and 5 are not a separate commandment.

"8. Catholics say Holy Water. Yet BIBLE mentions nothing about it."

Irrelevant if true.
Not true.

"And said to him: Go, wash in the pool of Siloe, which is interpreted, Sent. He went therefore, and washed, and he came seeing."
[John 9:7]

"He answered: That man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said to me: Go to the pool of Siloe, and wash. And I went, I washed, and I see."
[John 9:11]

And the other pool of blessed water, John 5:

Now there is at Jerusalem a pond, called Probatica, which in Hebrew is named Bethsaida, having five porches. [3] In these lay a great multitude of sick, of blind, of lame, of withered; waiting for the moving of the water. [4] And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.

"9. Catholics say Peter was pope. Yet BIBLE says Peter was just a leader of the Jerusalem Church. Gal 2:9, Mat 16:18"

The Bible specfically mentions his leading (over the others, actually) Jerusalem, but it does not deny his ruling the Church from there, for instance Samaria or Antioch, until he moved to Antioch, from whence he came to Rome (mentioned as Babylon in his epistles).

Matthew 16:19 very clearly states what is also repeated in John 21:15 and following, Peter is being made Christ's plenipotentiary, His vicar for any kind of business.

Galatians 2:9 may be speaking of some other Cephas, as St Paul calls Peter Peter elsewhere in the epistle.

"10. Catholics say there is a seat of Peter. Yet BIBLE says nothing about it."

Jerusalem was his first seat and also that of the other 11.

"11. Catholics say there is a NT clergy priesthood. Yet NT says OT priesthood was done away with. There is no clergy priesthood in NT. Heb 7:27, 9:12, 10:10."

Clergy mentioned in NT : 72, 12, Peter, 7 deacons. And a few more.

But OT clergy is indeed no longer relevant.

"12. Catholics say work for salvation (faith + good works + 7 sacraments + obedience = salvation). Yet Bible says believe in Jesus to be saved. Acts 16:30-31, John 3:16."

Matthew 25 says work for salvation by giving alms. 7 sacraments are not works, they are part of the faith. Obedience to commandments is a corrolary to faith and is in the context of John 3.

"13. Catholics says they must do penance to atone for their sins. Yet Bible says repent, confess and sins will be forgiven. 1 John 1:9, Mat 6."

It does not say anywhere someone who is forgiven can go on to make a party without doing an act of repentance, also known as penance, first.

"14. Catholics say Mary went straight to heaven without dying. Yet Bible says nothing about it."

Without dying is more than we say for certain, and St. Thomas would consider She died, was buried, and resurrected and went to heaven.

"15. RCC says Islam and Christianity have the same GOD. Yet Islam doesn't believe in death and resurrection of Jesus and Trinity."

As with Patxamama incident, you are confusing Conciliar Sect - if that is what the quote from Nostra Aetate means - with the RCC proper.

"Roman Catholicism is full of contradiction and anti Scriptures. Nothing is more evil than a cult disguising as Christianity deceiving many. Worse than satanism."

You have shown some against the Conciliar Church, none against RCC.

"@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bogus claims of Roman Catholic Cult and Catholics"

We'll take one and one.

"1. RCC claimed to be the Church Christ founded. Yet BIBLE says Jerusalem Church was the Church Christ and Apostles founded. Whole Book of Acts says so."

It is the first see of the RCC. No longer the foremost, but the earliest. Christ founded any Church anywhere, and in Samaria you can see how it went on from Apostles (Acts 8).

"2. Catholics claimed early church was catholic aka RCC believers. Yet BIBLE says early Church was Christian. Mary, Apostles and early believers were all Christians. Acts 11:26. All early writers were all Christians."

We most definitely claim Christian means Catholic. Any other Christians are half measure Christians.

"3. RCC claimed to be the One True Church. Yet BIBLE says in Original Greek word for Church means Assembly of believers. Not some sects. No sect can represent the whole Church which is the Body of Christ."

The Bible says "ekklesia" and that does not mean any crowd, of believers or otherwise, it means a constitutionally assembled crowd.

"4. RCC claimed to come up with the canon. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church discovered the canon over time. RCC merely took credit for that list."

Councils of Carthage and Rome between 350 and 400 gave the canon, that is the list of what 27 books are inspired.

"5. RCC claimed NT comes from RCC. Yet real history tells us Early Christian Church and Apostles wrote the books. RCC wrote nothing. By AD100s, NT 27 books were already in all churches. Not AD300s as claimed by Catholics!"

We Catholics definitely claim it is by RC like Sts Matthew, Mark, Luke and John living in FIRST century. Don't misrepresent our claim.

"6. Catholics claimed Scriptures were inspired because they compiled them in AD300s. Yet BIBLE says Scriptures were already Scriptures the moment they were written. Apostles affirmed one another’s books as Scriptures. Disciples accepted the books as Scriptures."

The councils from 350 to 400 were assembling the full list of 27 books to which this process happened.

"7. RCC claimed all its doctrines were from Apostolic traditions. Yet a good check shows 95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from traditions of Apostles or Jesus. Only 5% were from Apostolic Traditions. 95% of RCC doctrines were invented by RCC’s magisterium and false traditions over the millennial."

What exactly is your source for Apostolic traditions? Bible only? That is not just against Apostolic traditions as we have received them historically, but against the Bible.

"8. RCC claimed Peter was pope. Yet real history says papacy only came much later in the centuries."

What you call "real history" I call pseudo-analysis of real events.

"9. RCC claimed it has Primacy. Yet there is no such thing as Primacy of a Church."

Acts 8 shows Jerusalem exercising primacy over Samaria.

"10. RCC claimed there is such thing as Apostolic Succession. Yet BIBLE says elders replaced the 12 Apostles. Titus 1:5. Not new Apostles. Catholics cannot list out 12 new Apostles back then and now."

Bishops and presbyters are titles of those replacing apostles. But this replacement is called apostolic because it starts with the 12.

"Heretical claims of Catholics"

I'll take them one by one.

"Catholics claim: Not everything needs to be in the BIBLE."

Yes.

"That is only an excuse for them to put in their false doctrines."

You read the hearts and kidneys of people?

"BIBLE says: While it is true not everything is in the BIBLE,"

Thank you.

"but BIBLE says all doctrines of the faith are in the BIBLE."

No.

"2 Tim 3:16-17."

Let's confer with 1 Tim 3:15.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

So, the same man already knew Church as deposit of truth, before being told of Scriptures. I'll go back one verse before you cited:

[15] And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. [16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

1) No mention of all doctrines of faith are explicitly mentioned in the Bible
2) There is a specific mention of the "man of God" which is a function of the Church
3) It does not say the Bible is enough for every single reader, even of goodwill, to be perfect
4) The Scriptures in question were OT Scripture, since St. Timothy could not have known even the earliest writing, Gospel of St. Matthew, of the NT when he was a child.

"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"

I see how heretical Protestants lie.

"Catholic claim:Doctrines can come from traditions of RCC."

Which faithfully continue those of Christ and the Apostles.

"BIBLE says:Yet BIBLE says only Past traditions of Apostles are accepted."

And we agree.

"Not future false traditions of RCC."

Would you mind showing any Catholic tradition to have been in NT times as yet only "future"?

2 Thes 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

Have learned in the past, before St. Paul wrote this. [see for future a few lines down]

And we agree, the last man to add to this was St. John.

"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"

I can see how heretical Protestants lie.

"3. Catholics claim:Scriptures is not the only infallible source."

Correct.

"BIBLE says:Yet BIBLE says traditions of Apostles are Past Tense. 2 The 2:15."

which you have learned is past tense
stand fast; and hold are imperatives, which are automatically present to future in meaning

"In the absence of traditions of Apostles now,"

Where does it say the tradition would cease? Nowhere in all NT.

Where does it say all of the Church would cease to stand fast; and hold the traditions, except when copying or translating Bibles? Nowhere in all NT.

"isnt Scriptures the only infallible source?"

No.

"2Tim 3:16-17."

It says Scripture (more specifically OT Scripture, but applies to NT too) is infallible, but as per previous epistle, comparable place, most definitely not the only such.

Where does it say the Church would cease to be the pillar and ground of truth? Nowhere in all the NT.

"Yet Catholics cannot find any other infallible sources."

I gave four, you cannot show they have ceased. Claiming they ceased is against Matthew 28:20.

"You see how all these heretical Catholics lie?"

I see how all these heretical Protestants lie.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere

Pages