Just in Case Some Evildoer Pretends I'm Lazy

Just in Case Some Evildoer Pretends I'm Lazy · Forgiveness? Or Capitulation? What is one asking of me? · Perhaps the Network Should Take His Advice? · Also from a Narcissist Network? · False Teaching on "How Jesus Handled Narcissists"

As Lex Meyer made a video on that topic, here is his video, here is my answer to such evildoers, hoping Lex Meyer isn't one of them:

What does the Bible say about Laziness
UNLEARN the lies | 31 Aug. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1jVEmI4bow

I note that you started on video 10 years ago.

Videos 26 * 4 = 104 Direct 4 ~ 3 (one in waiting) Podcasts 71 episodes Playlists excluding those podcasts short 13 heresy 10 speaking events 9 featured 10 end times 12

torah 8 Deity 6 Sabbath 5 eschatology of the individual 13 + 12 = 25 Christmas 5 VI & IX (or VII & part of X, on your view) 11 Monetary 2 Feasts 13 Passover 7

Total

104 + 3 + 71 + 13 + 10 + 9 + 10 + 12 + 8 + 6 + 5 + 25 + 5 + 11 + 2 + 13 + 7 = 314

3653 / 314 = 11~12 days per video

Last Maundy Thursday, some evildoers were pretending a bit close to my face, though not directly at it, I'm lazy.

I counted together 12 060 blog posts since 2008. So, in 5844 or a few more days, I made a medium of two posts per day.

Last monthly production I checked the word count on was September, I tend to write so much I have little time to actually check the word counts.

I wrote 129,703 words, or a medium of 4323 words per day.

If certain evil doers were not pestering me and my surroundings so as to make it difficult to get some blog to book publishing done, I would be living off my work, and even if I didn't write one word in all of 2025 (very unlikely!), what I had already written could earn me a very long vacation, if duly paid.

Two Videos that Concern Catholic Prayers, feat. Rosary

A, Lex Meyer's Video

Unfortunately has too many views, c. 11 thousand.

The TRUTH about prayer beads and praying the rosary | UNLEARN the lies
UNLEARN the lies | 22 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caM9gWGPyqs

0:29 The statue from 3rd C. BC, was it visible to Galilaeans of the 1st C AD?

Not just St. Thomas Didymus, when he came to India, but all of the audience in Matthew 6?

0:36 Jews have had a practise of learning the 150 psalms by heart.
They also probably have a practise of reciting them every day or every week or whatever the interval is.

With Copts, it's every day, with Greeks, it's every week, in order, with Latins it's every week with thematic rearrangements of the order.

Now, not everyone who wanted to live a religious life knew Latin or was able to say the psalms, the rules of St. Francis (died 1226) prescribe a repetition of specific numbers of Our Father's and Glory Be's in substitution for psalms, and to use knots on strings as, basically, prayer beads.

In the wiki article "prayer rope" I find this:

"The history of the prayer rope goes back to the origins of Christian monasticism itself. The invention of the prayer rope is attributed to Pachomius the Great in the fourth century as an aid for illiterate monks to accomplish a consistent number of prayers and prostrations in their cells. Previously, monks would count their prayers by casting pebbles into a bowl, but this was cumbersome, and could not be easily carried about when outside the cell. The use of the rope made it possible to pray the Jesus Prayer unceasingly, whether inside the cell or out, in accordance with Paul the Apostle's injunction to "Pray without ceasing" (I Thessalonians 5:17)."

It seems you are off by 1000 years. Unless for some reason you wish to make a point that a knot and a bead are different from each other in priciple, but I don't think so.

1:03 Lex Meyer, why do you go to KJV which was drafted in polemics against Catholics on certain topics, rather than the Greek text and old translations?

None of these have "use [vain] repetitions" as what you are supposed not to.

Greek - battologein "speak like someone stuttering"
Latin - multum loqui "speak much"
Syriac and Coptic (I checked on Quora) - both have words meaning "stutter" ...

Now if you stutter, you repeat, but involuntarily.
If you repeat, you use many words, only if you add up single occurrences.

"Stutter" and "use many words" can have other connotations, have you checked about the ethnics available in Galilee?

1:12 "pagans were known to use prayer beads to count the repetitions of their prayers"

For India - certainly.

For Romans and Greeks available to Galilee - not that I know of. Do you have any better material?

1:39 Could Mary do sth to get a miracle accomplished at Cana?
The main prayer invoking Her in the Rosary - check Luke 1:28 and 1:42, the Church then adds the name Jesus, which Mary and Elisabeth did not yet know in Luke 1. Usually also adding an originally separate prayer, which acknowledges Jesus is God by beginning "Holy Mary, Mother of God" ...

Can saints under the altar in heaven accomplish things for Christians persecuted on earth? Check apocalypse 6:9 and the two following verses.

1:46 "they can't hear those prayers"

More than you know?
Like, could God in Heaven be telling them whatever is part of their glory, like the people they intercede for?

Does ruling with Christ for a thousand years mean anything?

Abraham and Poor Lazarus were able to hear Richman, right?

Has hearing become worse since the blessed can enter heaven when they die?

Or is hearing someone on earth struggling to make it to heaven harder than hearing someone actually damned forever?

1:49 "they don't deserve such prayer"

Like:

• adresses used by God Himself to Mary?
• adresses to Mary underlining divinity of Our Lord?
• "pray for us"
  
  Have you asked someone to pray for you and are you sorry because he didn't deserve that, only God does?
  
  
• or the adress "blessed" which is what Jesus uses of certain categories in Matthew 5?

When we say "Holy Lucy, pray for us!" we are:

• affirming Lucy is holy or blessed in the sense Jesus meant in Matthew 5
• ruling with Christ for the thousand years
• asking her to pray for us.

What part of this doesn't she deserve?

2:01 If the Holy Spirit intercedes for you, is it ever by inspiring someone to pray for you?

Are you saying Lucy or others awaiting a glorious resurrection are cut off from the Holy Spirit?

2:22 When it says Jesus is interceding, do the mentions of His resurrection mean He does so as a man?

If the head does so, can the members do so?

Are only the Christians on earth members of Christ?

2:46 "a form of necromancy"

Certainly not one enumerated in Deuteronomy 18:
[9] When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee, beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations. [10] Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, [11] Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead.

What's your clue for what's necromancy? John Calvin's misleading commentary on this?

B, Redeemed Catholic's Video

unfortunately has too few views, only 184

Mary, Saints, Catholic Prayers | Unlearn the Lies REBUTTED
Redeemed Catholic | 9 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz77O5ONxOs

I hadn't seen this one by Unlearn or Lex, I'm not surprised, but this is likely to be among his less good ones ...

At 0:02 did he use a mistranslation of Matthew 6:7 too or at least avoid that blunder?

He used a mistranslation.

1:01 I predict as probable that he's going to bring up "like the heathen / gentiles" in the Matthew 6 context.

On this line, it may be more useful to note, prayer beads may have been a thing among hindoos, but they weren't in the greco-roman world.

The "gentiles" Christ referred to must have been identifiable to His first audience, it was not a prophecy about how to deal with later discovering Hindoos, it was a command about "gentiles" known from the experience of Hebrews in Galilee.

I was right. Lex did that.

4:40 Great point, I wonder what St. Pachomius would have said about being placed in the 14th C. ....

8:52 Considering what I know of Gentile prayers in 1st C. Greek and specifically Roman world, I would say ESV and RSV are closest from the translations visible on the screen right now.

Have you seen the Roman Historian Velleius Paterculus? His second book of Historiae Romanae, ending in AD 30, exact same year as Jesus began His preaching, ends on a Roman pagan prayer.

It definitely heaps up empty phrases.

10:13 They were not even reciting things over and over again.

They were making speeches to their gods.

"Dear Zardeena who watchest watchfully over our digestion, may I have no indigestion when eating the sardines, so that your glory may not be tarnished, dear Rye who ..."

This is if saying grace had been a pagan practise, it wasn't, it was in fact both a Jewish and a Christian practise.

11:05 To return to Velleius Paterculus' final prayer, Christ is not requiring each prayer to be from already existing faith and love, He is specifically forbidding to be nervous about whether God will hear.

Nervous people stutter.
People who are nervous about a request are specifically also prone to bolster it with explanations above explanations, which is precisely what Velleius did.

Jesus is comparing that second act to stuttering. Both involve beginning over and over again because one is insecure.

11:15 We need not actually focus all or even most of the time on the prayers coming from one's mouth.

When saying the Rosary, it is perfectly OK to use the Hail Mary's as a kind of drumbeat to get oneself into a daydream about what the prayer is about, namely the 15 mysteries.

17:34 I had missed that "God is the God of the living"

In connexion with Poor Lazarus, I am recalling Christ's words to Martha, Lazarus' sister:

John 11:26-26
Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live: And every one that liveth, and believeth in me, shall not die for ever. Believest thou this?

Hebrews 11 with 12:1, another go to.

20:57 This ending of the Greek and Coptic texts is obviously a go to against Greeks who deny the Immaculate Conception.

Someone Attacked Christmas

And he cited traditions of men for it.

The Original War on Christmas | UNLEARN
UNLEARN the lies | 17.XII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upiFUPFQWUk

I

"Have you ever wondered how the first American settlers celebrated Christmas? It might surprise you to find out that they didn’t."

I'd say Leif Eriksson, being a Christian, that is Roman Catholic, Viking did.

I'd say Columbus, Bobadilla, Ovando, Diego Columbus, Mendoza, being Christian, that is Roman Catholic, one Italian and several Spaniards, did.

Or did you mean the Palaeo-Indians?

Since they settled in the post-Flood lifespan of Noah, there was not yet any Incarnation of God the Son to celebrate.

Or did you mean the guys on Mayflower? Well, they were neither very Christian, nor very original settlers, even as Europeans go.

They would probably have killed you for keeping the Sabbath and for refusing Baptism of infants. You see, they didn't flee from a situation in which they were very actively persecuted, they fled from one in which they were not very able to persecute Catholics and Baptists under the later Stuarts as they had been able to under Elisabeth and James VI and I.

II

0:46 Excuse me, did you just call the half-Christian Puritans, that is Calvinists "Christians"?

Did you just call the traditions of the Catholic Church "pagan"?

0:54 "such as Christmas and Easter"

I think they celebrated Good Friday, on the usual dates as per Julian Easter calculations.

Not so sure they cared about ensuing Sunday of the Lord's Resurrection.

That they objected to Easter would need a documentation you have not given.

That they hated Christmas, I already know from Chesterton, whom I trust way more than you on such matters.

He proposed England should have a day of thanksgiving for Mayflower leaving England.

III

1:28 You rightly said "again" - in the meantime, Plymouth colony hadn't fared all that well without England, and England had insisted Christmas was legal.

"In 1686, the entire region was reorganized under a single government known as the Dominion of New England; this included the colonies of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. In 1688, New York, West Jersey, and East Jersey were added.[78] The President of the Dominion Edmund Andros was highly unpopular, and the union did not last. The union was dissolved after news of the Glorious Revolution reached Boston in April 1689, and the citizens of Boston rose up and arrested Andros.[79] When news of these events reached Plymouth, its magistrates reclaimed power.[78][80]"

"The return of self-rule for Plymouth Colony was short-lived, however. A delegation of New Englanders led by Increase Mather went to England to negotiate a return of the colonial charters that had been nullified during the Dominion years. The situation was particularly problematic for Plymouth Colony, as it had existed without a formal charter since its founding. Plymouth did not get its wish for a formal charter; instead, a new charter was issued, combining Plymouth Colony, Massachusetts Bay Colony, and other territories. The official date of the proclamation was October 17, 1691, ending the existence of Plymouth Colony, though it was not put into force until the arrival of the charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay on May 14, 1692, carried by the new royal governor Sir William Phips. The last official meeting of the Plymouth General Court occurred on June 8, 1692.[78][81][82]"

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

IV

2:12 "This is why it is no surprise that the first states to legalise Christmas were the southern states of Alabama, Louisiana and Arkansas."

It wasn't a question of "legalising" as if it had ever been outlawed there.

It may have been a question of making it legally a holiday. As in outlawing business on Christmas.

Let's take Alabama.

"With exploration in the 16th century, the Spanish were the first Europeans to reach Alabama. The expedition of Hernando de Soto passed through Mabila and other parts of the state in 1540."

1540 was definitely before Mayflower.

"More than 160 years later, the French founded the region's first European settlement at Old Mobile in 1702."

Ah ... were they likely to celebrate Christmas? I certainly think they were!

"After the French lost to the British in the Seven Years' War, it became part of British West Florida from 1763 to 1783. After the United States victory in the American Revolutionary War, the territory was divided between the United States and Spain. The latter retained control of this western territory from 1783 until the surrender of the Spanish garrison at Mobile to U.S. forces on April 13, 1813."

So, Alabama was at least fairly well guarenteed to celebrate Christmas up to 1813.

V

2:41 Oh, semi-Christian Spurgeon, abhorring the sacrifice of Melchisedec and of Christ is cited as an authority ...

VI

3:18 Spurgeon argues that he would need a divine institution of a feast, not a merely ecclesial one.

Well, two Old Testament feasts were not divinely instituted by Moses, but had a merely ecclesial institution after Moses.

Purim and Chanukkah.

See now the Gospel, on Chanukkah:

And it was the feast of the dedication at Jerusalem: and it was winter.
[John 10:22]

The ensuing verses show "Jews" (those rejecting Jesus, the Gospel was written after they had so usurped the name) breaking the peace of Chanukkah, but it doesn't show Jesus doing so.

Apparently, a feast being instituted by purely ecclesial authority was good enough for Our Lord.

Not so for Spurgeon.

VII

3:27 "It is as much our duty to reject the traditions of men, as to observe the ordinances of the Lord."

There is no ordinance of the Lord saying so.

Christ did not complain of Pharisees simply keeping some traditions of men, but of their voiding the law of God to do so with some other, less pious, traditions of men.

He never condemned the category "traditions of men" as a whole.

But Spurgeon did, and thereby he was observing a tradition of men, and of men outside the Church of God.

VIII

3:55 "[awareness that it comes from ancient] pagan celebrations, and actually have nothing to do with Christ or the Bible."

Wiccans and Atheists are being culturally informed by the likes of Cotton Mather and Charles Spurgeon, then.

It's like "awareness" that God has determined every sin we make, which is in fact not in the Bible, but a heresy of Calvin, nor in Catholic tradition, but a heresy of Calvin.

IX

4:30 "Many of the early Protestants"

Yes, and why are you so concerned with keeping alive their traditions of men, attacking those of the Church Christ actually founded?

5:10 I certainly found a perspective on the Reformation when Chesterton informed me of the same fact about early Protestants.

There is a reason why I reject and even hate the Reformation.

I may love someone buying in to it as a fellow man, as someone who might one day be Catholic, but definitely never ever will I love that horrible "theology".

... on Bible Versions

Main theme in here is good, Lex is explaining that there is very little significant variation in Bible manuscripts (English translations being another matter):

Why are there so many different Bible translations, and which ones should we use?
UNLEARN the lies | 11.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb67KvD8LRk

Several things to say on this one, Lex is wrong on detail in more than one place:

I

"During the first 1400 years of Christian history, all Bibles were handwritten copies ..."

I suppose you mean up to Gutenberg*, says this quibbler.

In fact, the very first decades, I don't think there were any Bibles, since a scroll is too small, by physical necessity to have more than one book.

For instance, if "Samuel" and "Kings" are now two books each, it is partly bc writing all of Samuel from "There was a man of Ramathaimsophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elcana, the son of Jeroham, the son of Eliu, the son of Thohu, the son of Suph, an Ephraimite:" to "And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered holocausts and peace offerings: and the Lord became merciful to the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel," on one single scroll would be cumbrous.

While a book like Genesis has that size, about, a Torah scroll in a synagogue is set in a cask to make scrolling columns easier.

So, up to when there were codices, there were even no single volume Bibles.

However, this doesn't make your comment untrue, as you were not saying they existed all of the first 1400 first years of Christianity.

However, 0:53 "that were written and copied by hand, and most of the time, these copies were not made by scribes."

I thought the first writer in the NT era was educated as one. St Matthew was a Levite, and a Levite who was not serving in the temple at the least was a scribe, by training, even if he was doing tax collecting some time instead.

So, why would most of the time the copies NOT be made by precisely scribes?

Why would the Catholic Church have preferred amateurs over proper training, when starting out with at least one properly trained among the first disciples?

*

1455 is actually 1422 years after Christianity was founded - and as mentioned above we didn't have any one volume Bibles for more than just two decades, as far as I can see.

II

5:06 I was just thinking of Corpus Caesareum the other day.

Bellum Gallicum, Bellum Civile, and a few more (not sure if all are considered his).

One manuscript from a 10th C or so manuscript in Gaul, or France as it could begin to be called, because the Bellum Gallicum was of relevance to them. Plus later copies usually of it.

III

6:29 "For example, Matthew 17:21 is missing from the Critical Text."

Have you checked Matthew 17:20? Douay Rheims has this:

Gospel According to Saint Matthew Chapter 17
http://drbo.org/chapter/47017.htm

[20] But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

This doesn't mean any verse content is missing, it means there is one division between verses less added.

You see, outside psalms, verses were added very late for reference. St Thomas Aquinas didn't have them, and only recently before him came the chapters.

In Matthew 17, the part when the father speaks has just one verse in DR, while KJV has one for fact of his speaking, other for what he says.

IV

8:26 "In this verse, the majority text makes it clear that God was manifest in the flesh, but the Critical Text using the pronoun He leaves it unclear if it was God or someone else"

Textus Criticus would have been somewhat ... based on Codex Sinaiticus, right?

I have heard that the circumstances of finding the codex were such, that the monastery itself did not really care to call it a Bible (and the researchers concluded they were ignorant, who didn't know a Bible) and I have also seen JW (Watchtower Society) value Sinaiticus.

I suspect that it could be an Arian copy, and that it was tucked away in a lowly place in a monastery once the controversy was over. And that therefore, the monastery was not sure whether it could be called a Bible or not, as some would not qualify New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as a Bible.

And that this is why it was preserved so long, because so little used.

12:09 "the Greek text says"

[already visible, Greek text plus] "purifying all foods"

Now, this does not mean that NIV gets it right.

Why? Because the manuscript has no quotation marks. This means, Greek doesn't show whether "katharizon" (ending in omega nun, not omicron nun, that is important) refers to Jesus talking or to a masculine noun Jesus has mentioned while talking.

NIV takes a position and says it's about a masculine noun in the discourse of Christ. Bc, "purifying all foods" in the English language refers to what went immediaterly before, while this is not a Greek rule.

Now, is there a masculine noun in that discourse?

After checking Nestle Aland, no. All nouns from when He says to them in verse 18, all nouns He mentions Himself, are neuter nouns. They could not be qualified by "katharizon" ending in omega nun. He himself as saying this could be so qualified.

My dear, lear a little more about Greek grammar before recommending NIV (and I'll be watching if you actually do that ...)

Sorry, NKJV.

No, they do not have a bias only, they have a knowledge of the fact that grammatical context cannot be limited to the verse, since these divisions are very late and sometimes do cut through sentences, and that katharizon ending in omega nun, which is the masculine singular nominative ending for a participle like this, needs a masculine singular nominative behind it.

This can be the understood "he" within a verb form, but it cannot be any noun in the discourse Christ gave, so it must refer to Himself. If however it had been the whole process actually purifying, well, that nounless purely verbal "subject" would take a neutre participle and it would have been "katharizon" with omicron nun.

But in Nestle Aland, I find the ending in omega nun : καθαρίζων.

In Douay Rheims, I find Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats?

In the wider context of the Vulgate:

Et ait illis : Sic et vos imprudentes estis? Non intelligitis quia omne extrinsecus introiens in hominem, non potest eum communicare : [19] quia non intrat in cor ejus, sed in ventrum vadit, et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas?

Now, in Latin "purgans" could be masculine, feminine or neuter. It could theoretically be, rather than the subject of "ait illis", the subject in previous sentence, namely, "omne extrinsecus introiens".

However, since "omne extrinsecus introiens" would be the "escas" themselves, and they are not purifying themselves and here they reappear in feminine plural.

Therefore, they could more properly be understoof of subject of "ait illis", namely Jesus.

However, if you would say that "since it could be neutre, it could refer to the process", no, in Latin that would be a gerund, not a participle (both are translated as present participle in both Greek and English). A gerund would be "purgando".

So, Vulgate also favours this as being a participle in masculine singular nominative, referring to Jesus.

V

Obviously, you should have a translation approved by the Catholic Church.

Douay Rheims.

DNW

The Reformation happened for a reason.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, there is a devil down in Hell, that is a reason ...

DNW

What's that supposed to mean?

Also, the Devil isn't in hell. He's very much in our midst, as he is the master of this world.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Is he still the master of this world?

I'd say that title was taken from him on Calvary.

He's roaming in our midst, as are his minions, but his permanent adress is Hell.

What it is supposed to mean, is, that I think the Reformation was the Devil's work.

I'm Catholic and I went Catholic after studying the Reformation.

DNW

Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth. That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism. The idea that Satan rules the underworld is pagan, not Christian or even Jewish.

Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Catholic traditions and dogma supersede Biblical truth."

The supersession is of NT over OT.

"Show me one Bible verse that says Satan rules hell"

Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?

"That's why the Reformation not only happened, but was necessary. Unfortunately, many of those traditions were still carried over into Protestantism."

Your idea is Islamistic, in so far as it states that Christian truth in its fulness was lost to the nations the Apostles were sent to very soon after they even started obeying Matthew 28:16-20.

If it was how come you can't take Muhammed as well as Luther or your latest Judaising parody of him?

Bc Muhammed contradicts the Bible? But so do you as far as Matthew 28:16-20 says sth about the Church.

Also, we certainly do not believe Satan rules all of the underworld, as for instance his only gain in Abraham's bosom was the righteous souls being kept out for a while from the Heaven he had been eternally cast out from, he couldn't touch them. Also the souls in Purgatory are righteous and he cannot touch them. When I said "Hell" I meant Gehenna, not Sheol.

DNW

"Show me one which says that either Testament, Old or New, every teaching needs a specific Bible verse?"

I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question. A church MUST be accountable to the Bible. Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell), or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon). Do you not see the danger of such a view? This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word.

Galatians 1:8-9(YLT) "but even if we or a messenger out of heaven may proclaim good news to you different from what we did proclaim to you -- anathema let him be! As we have said before, and now say again, If any one to you may proclaim good news different from what ye did receive -- anathema let him be!"

That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree. Accountability is not authority. Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends.

Colossians 2:8(YLT) "See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ,"

That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church).

Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before.

The Bible is the truth. I will never give spiritual credence to anything else. The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I cannot believe that anyone would ask such a ridiculous question."

I note, instead of giving even one Bible verse saying "all teaching must be directly and clearly backed up by a Bible verse", which is what I defied you to do, you gave two Bible verses which say sth other AND give a reasoning, which, if I accepted it, I would be accepting a teaching without (so far) one single Bible verse to back it up.

"A church MUST be accountable to the Bible."

Once again, no Bible verse exactly saying that either.

"Otherwise, you could just make up anything you want and call it doctrine(the catholic church in a nutshell),"

No, this is not the "Catholic Church in a nutshell" since the Catholic Church is accountable to Bible and Tradition.

If you tried today to make up a doctrine which was not given by tradition from back at the Apostles, you would meet opposition from Catholics since it is not traditional.

For instance, Anti-Pope "Paul VI" defied aspects of Tradition in Nostra Aetate and Gaudium et Spes, that is why there are Catholics rejecting his "papacy" as a non-papacy.

And his sending pills to nuns raped in Africa during a revolutionary war defied good morals, meaning calling him a saint also defies Catholic tradition, that is why there are Catholics rejecting the "papacy" of "Pope Francis" as a non-papacy.

"or fabricate a whole new book and say that it's the latest revelation from God(the qur'an, the book of mormon)."

Not with Catholics, since through the clergy all Catholics are accountable to Bible and Tradition. It is Catholic dogma that revelation is closed. No new content can be added after the last Apostle left the earthly life. A "truth" can be upgraded to "dogma" (a truth which all Catholics must believe), but a novelty can't be upgraded to dogma.

"Do you not see the danger of such a view?"

I even see a danger with saying anyone can interpret the Bible, since this gives free room for inventing new understandings of Bible verses, or for that matter of mistranslating the Bible.

That is the precise rationale on which the Catholic Church condemned Protestantism.

"This isn't a matter of telling a kid not to pull on a girl's pigtails, we're talking about the nature of the Devil and his place in creation. That sort of thing is too important to rely on anything other than the Word."

Except that The Word Made Flesh told us to rely on His clergy. Several times over in fact (including my favourite proof text against Protestantism, Matthew 28:16-20).

Galatians' quote - note "different from what we did proclaim to you" ... St Paul was not limiting this to what he had written only.

Note also "anathema let him be!" - St Paul was speaking in a Church able to anathemise people, which we also see from a more purely disciplinary matter in Corinthians.

Roman Catholicism, with its rivals Greek Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians, makes the claim to be that Church still around. Yes, there are only five confessions you can get by "symmetric" anathema. Bishop against bishop (even if Pope against bishop involves an assymetric relation in anathema too).

"That passage describes my position perfectly. Notice that Paul repeated himself. It must have been important, right? From these words, he is declaring that those who preach the Gospel are to be held accountable if they stray. Even angels are not exempt from this decree."

Catholicism perfectly agrees.

"Accountability is not authority."

Accountability implies authority. This means, if you have one hundred Christians in a parish who all together are accountable, whether to "Bible alone" which is as un-Biblical as it is un-Traditional, or to Bible and Tradition, the Biblical and Traditional solution, there must be someone within them having authority to tell the others how to live up to this. Especially if an "anathema" is involved. The 100 Christians presumably involve some toddlers who have just learned to talk and some teens and some of them not even married yet, and it would be somewhat irrational to put all on an equal footing in this matter.

"Paul and the apostles submitted to the Word in every way, and this was a clear warning against those who would twist Christ's words for their own ends."

As far as I could see what happened in Reformation, that is exactly what English and Swedish and Genevan reformers actually did, which is why the warning was for them.

Colossians again does not speak of Bible alone, and Reformers owed lots of their understanding of Bible passages or of what constitutes idolatry to the "rudiments of men" called Humanist Renaissance learning.

"That builds upon the verses from Galatians. This warns against those who would equate human fables and traditions with Christ's teachings(again, the catholic church)."

I didn't see "traditions" in your quote.

"Gehenna is not hell, but a burning landfill of refuse that existed outside Jerusalem in what is now called the Valley Hinnom. Christ referred to it as a contemporary example of ruin and destruction to drive his point about what awaits the wicked if they don't repent. Revelation cites the lake of fire as the final judgment of the wicked, where hell(Hades/Sheol) itself is also to be cast. There is no Biblical evidence for purgatory. All rest in Sheol until the resurrection, to be judged when Christ returns, not before."

This is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

Gehenna as the landfill was where Christ got His nickname for what we usually call Hell. All resting to resurrection is a teaching we condemn.

"The Bible is the truth."

Yes, read correctly.

"I will never give spiritual credence to anything else."

Even if the Bible requires us to do so?

"The words of God and His son are the most important things on Earth, perfect and complete."

Which doesn't mean that NT books are quite as complete a guide to them as the totality of Catholic tradition.

DNW

I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian. I don't mean to be rude, but equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy. You are putting your faith in men, not the Word. You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry. If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you. Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went. Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination. You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians.

Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings. As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites. I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn.

Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man. Stop performing your pagan rituals. Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath. Stop forced priestly celibacy. Stop counting your prayers on a rosary. Stop fetishism.

Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I apologize, but I cannot fathom how you can reasonably call yourself a Christian."

Thanks for showiing yourself narrowminded and incomprehensive, deliberately set on misinterpreting Catholics.

"I don't mean to be rude, but"

We have some more important issues here than who is rude.

"equating man-made tradition with scripture is clear heresy."

I agree. As long as the tradition in question is MAN-MADE, that is POST-APOSTOLIC, it clearly is heresy.

That is the precise reason why I reject both more Classic Protestantism, starting some 14 - 15 Centuries after the Apostles, and the even more recent Evangelical tradition, which you clearly belong to, which started out sth like after Freemasonry even (that is after 1717).

"You are putting your faith in men, not the Word."

False.

I am putting my faith in the Church which was founded by the Word as the Church of the Living God.

"You're implying that the Gospel is incomplete, and by extension, that Christ failed in His ministry."

Neither nore, I am implying that the written part of the NT would be incomplete without Apostolic tradition. But as the Apostolic tradition is there, Christ did not fail.

If you had been right, if we had to piece together original Christianity from Bible alone, Christ would have failed the promise given in Matthew 28:16-20.

"If you don't see how that's a problem, then I can't help you."

I am not asking you to, and you have more problems than helping me out, like helping yourself to not twist peoples actual words into whatever accusation best suits your defense for the indefensible reformation.

"Christ tasked His Apostles to carry on in His place, not to make it up as they went."

I totally agree on that one.

I also agree with the promise He gave them which implies one strand of clearly identifiable Apostolic tradition would last to the end of days.

Clearly identifiable means, it has to pass the test of Apostolic succession.

We cannot have one single day between Ascension and Doomsday, therefore not between Ascension and now either, when the Aposles did not have successors passing on exactly and precisely what they were supposed to pass on.

However, we can have Apostles not confiding every detail to writing (like the sign of the cross or the fasting on wednesdays and fridays), and we can have apostles confiding things to writing in such a way that some and even many would need tradition to know exactly what it meant, and that tradition would be necessary in order to get all of it right.

"Again, accountability is not authority by any stretch of the imagination."

Too bad you have too little imagination to see a very obvious point.

"You completely missed the point of the passage from Galatians."

Ah, you are conceding that the words as written can be misunderstood without tradition from those believing rightly?

Well, if so, who of us has a tradition going back to the Apostles? You or I?

"Although I'm not easily rattled, nothing frustrates me more than hypocrites, especially those within the church who ignore our Lord's teachings."

We are not within the same Church.

If the Catholic Church is what Christ founded and I belong to, feel assured, you are outside it.

"As I recall, Christ had a lot to say about hypocrites."

Yes, he specifically called one Jewish sect such, or even two (Pharisees and Sadducees are two different sects).

"I suggest you read the epistles again, but imagine that Paul is writing to the catholic church instead. You'd be amazed at the parallels that may be drawn."

Did you miss the point that St Paul was speaking about people keeping the old law and even considering it a matter of salvation?

"Stop praying to Mary, angels and your saints. Stop praying for the dead. Stop confessing your sins to a man."

Would you mind being precise about where in the Bible you get that admonition from?

I am neither getting it from Apostolic tradition, nor from any verse in the Writings of either Testament, as it is understood by the Catholic Church.

"Stop performing your pagan rituals."

I am sorry, but no verse in the Bible calls Catholicism Paganism.

"Stop calling Sunday the Sabbath."

Even if Christ told the Apostles to use it as the new Sabbath?

"Stop forced priestly celibacy."

Never was all over the Church and Pope Michael already did.

"Stop counting your prayers on a rosary."

What verse do you get that from?

"Stop fetishism."

Where in the Bible do you find a definition of "fetishism" and how exactly do you apply that to Catholicism?

"Only God can point you in the right direction, please seek Him out in earnest."

I would probably need to for my sins, but being too plagued by Protestants like you whenever I set my nose on the net, I do not find peace to do so.

I can't pray a rosary, and it's not the Hail Mary, except perhaps the "now" in the final part, it's more like "as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Protestants of some sort (perhaps ranging to Freemasons and Jews) have surrounded me, as to my internet activity, poking at me when I simply discuss matters, and the fact that I am in a Church you count as a trap for my soul is no reason to be impolite and play the father confessor to me. But also my readership is very well organised, my blogs getting around 600-700 readers per day, and youth being carefully kept away from them where I am.

Protestants are in a position to organise things like that.

You are losing the discussion or debate on the arguments, and you play the one "concerned for my salvation". That is a trump card you have no right to and that is real hypocrisy.

[+ Notified DMW of the fact this is reblogged. Sorry, DNW.]

VI

When it comes to dynamic translations, I think very many of them have Genesis 11:4 with a tower which reaches heaven - or even so tall it reaches heaven.

Word for word, no tallness is mentioned, and it specifically mentions that it is its top which reaches heaven. One could perhaps also translate the Hebrew word for "top" as "height", i e tallness, but both LXX and Vulgate have words meaning top.

And, I think this is significant.