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
«BIBLE says RCC has no truth. Not me!»
Let's see ....
«GOD's WORD IS TRUTH. John 17:17.»
We agree.
«95% of RCC doctrines are NOT from Scriptures!»
If you mean cannot textually be found in them, neither can 95 % of your polemics against them. The other 5 % are correctly cited as to text (when not mistranslated) but misapplied.
«1. Really? So somewhere out there there are doctrines floating around from Jesus and Apostles NOT in Scriptures?
Can you name a few?»
1 Lord's day on Sunday
2 Sign of the Cross
3 Where St. Peter died and left his papacy and that he left it to St. Linus.
«2. BIBLE says Scriptures is sufficient for all doctrines of the faith. 2 Tim 3:16-17. Catholics say it is not enough.»
"all doctrines of the faith" is in fact not mentioned textually in II Tim 3:15-17. Specifically as St. Paul (see verse 15 which you tactically omit) was not speaking of NT Scriptures.
«Luke 24 says nothing about Gen 3:15. So what NS are you spouting?»
I don't know what NS stands for, but Luke 24 does. Verse 27:
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
Now "Moses" = five books of Moses, beginning with Genesis 1:1. Genesis 3:15 is not before Genesis 1:1 and also not after II Maccabees 15:40 (or whatver book you prefer as ending OT).
You could claim only few parts of OT actually deal with Him, but you will hardly deny He is "seed of the woman" as per Genesis 3:15, which means the verse does concern Him and He did deal with it while walking to Emmaus.
«Surely it is. Since when i said doctrines cannot be in OT?»
That was not my point. My point was not that the OT passages He gave an exegesis of are lacking from OT. My point is His exegesis of them is lacking from the actual text of NT.
«Still RCC doctrines are NOT from OT or NT! 95% of them!»
Most of these times it is a question of your not knowing the Catholic exegesis of an OT passage, or not knowing the OT parallel to an NT passage. Sunday worship, sign of the cross, what actual place St. Peter left the papacy being a few of the exceptions.
- 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.
