Amazing Facts bible study guide

[Friedrich]

Hi Patrick
How lovely to hear from you again.

I think you missed the point I was trying make. My emphasis is on the WHO is allowed to interpret Scripture. Your church’s emphasis for over a thousand years has been: ONLY the church leaders can interpret Scripture – anybody who dares do this himself, is a heretic, due to burn in the flames.

Jesus spoke His words so that the ordinary man in the street can understand them, in parables, in simple words, yet their meaning was so deep that the Pharisees failed to grasp their meaning till they had condemned themselves. If it were not for the Reformation, you would not have the privilege today of owning your own Bible and studying it freely. Many Reformers were burnt at the stake in Europe and England for daring to translate the Latin Bible into the common language so that EVERY PERSON can study for himself what truth is.

SDA’s are not so arrogant to think we have re-invented Truth. Truth has always been on this planet since God instructed Adam and Eve in Paradise. The problem is that THE MAJORITY of people on this planet have invented their own truth – in the time of Noah multitudes drowned because they would not believe the truth that a minority (8 people) were preaching. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be …

In the time of Jesus, the Jews had had direct descent from Abraham, and they could prove it easily. Yet they did not have Truth – they could not stand the Truth as He came to die for them, their tradition had become so distorted, that it could not accommodate the First Coming of Jesus!
Are we not in the danger of repeating the same mistake with Jesus’ Second Coming?

God bless

Friedrich

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Hi Patrick
How lovely to hear from you again.

Jesus spoke His words so that the ordinary man in the street can understand them, in parables, in simple words, yet their meaning was so deep that the Pharisees failed to grasp their meaning till they had condemned themselves. If it were not for the Reformation, you would not have the privilege today of owning your own Bible and studying it freely. Many Reformers were burnt at the stake in Europe and England for daring to translate the Latin Bible into the common language so that EVERY PERSON can study for himself what truth is.
God bless

Friedrich

Hi Friedrich,

It is nice to talk with you again!! Regarding your quote above, I copied this post by mercygate, Post # 183, in the thread, “Doug Batchelor: HIs Catholic Church Attacks”. I’ve highlighted her remarks in red below regarding the Bible before the Reformation:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BibleTruth
Something of important note is that although Catholics may have done all that you said (I’ll just take your word for it since I haven’t studied the whole history of it and because the point isn’t who put it together, but that it exists),

I believe that it IS important who put it together because it couldn’t put itself together; it could not exist without the authority that put it together.
Quote:
in the Dark Ages they kept Bibles chained to the churches because they didn’t want anyone to learn the full truth on their own.

It was not because they “did not want anyone to learn the full truth on their own.” First of all, almost nobody could read except clerics. The very work “ink” comes from the Italian “inchiostro” = “in cloister”. One pulpit bible cost the lives of at least 250 sheep. Iit took about a year for scribes to hand-copy the text. The value in today’s dollars would be around $250,000. Those Bibles were chained because they were precious and needed to stay put to be used in worship.

When I was a student at Oxford, the catalog in the Bodleian Library was hand written in huge leather-bound books. They were chained to the desk. It was not because the Bodley didn’t want people to read the catalogs.

Quote:
Since the Dark Ages, knowledge of the truth has thankfully increased so we can learn the truth for ourselves and not what any man dictates as “truth”. With that said, the lies have been embedded into the minds of many and have been passed down from generation to generation.

Well one of the big “lies” is that those ages were “dark.” Another is that the Church chained Bibles so that people could not read them.

Quote:
I praise the Lord that the Bible was put together so we can all have access to the truth. I just pray now that all who claim the title “Christian” learn to follow Christ in that very truth.

John 8:32: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Free from the bondage of what you’ve been taught to believe.

Ditto.

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Gabriel of 12

Please understand how arrogant/strange your claim seems to people who are not Catholic!
– you believe that for 2000 years via Peter you have sole rights to God’s Word, based on a strange interpretation of Scripture regarding the keys of the kingdom – please check the original Greek – it refers to Peter as a little pebble, and Jesus as the ROCK. Jesus never built any church on a fallible person like Peter – in fact Jesus instructed Peter: Get behind me Satan!; Peter was a racist, who refused to eat with Gentiles under peer pressure from the Jews; Peter later repented, and was crucified upside down at his own bidding, because he was so humble that he would not die like his Master…

Sincerely yours in Christ

Friedrich

Hi Friedrich, A study in Greek and Aramaic:
**Peter the Rock
By James Akin

One of the key discoveries in Scripture that led to my conversion to the Catholic faith was the realization that Peter is the “rock” that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16:17–19. I can still remember when, one afternoon in August 1991, I was reading a Catholic book quoting the passage and my eyes fell on a structural feature of the text that required me to revise my views on it. Up to this point, I had always said to myself that Catholics were wrong in supposing Peter to be the rock on which Christ would build his Church. That rock, I held, was the revelation of Jesus’ identity as the Messiah. In the passage, I thought, the “small stone” Peter (petros) was being contrasted with the “large rock” (petra) of Jesus.

What I did not know at the time was that the linguistic argument made by some Protestants regarding the Greek text’s use of the terms petros and petra was off base. There had been a distinction between the meanings of these terms in some early Greek poetry, but that distinction was gone by the time of Jesus. In the first century, when Matthew’s Gospel was composed, the two terms were synonyms (cf. D. A. Carson’s treatment of the passage in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan).

I also had not devoted sufficient attention to the fact that Jesus and Peter did not speak Greek in everyday language, but Aramaic. (Greek was the language of commerce in first century Palestine; Aramaic was the language of everyday life.) Behind the Greek text of Matthew 16:17–19 there was an Aramaic conversation, and in the conversation there would have been no distinction between the terms representing petros and petra. In both cases, the same word—kepha (from which we get “Cephas”)—would have been used. Hermeneutically, one should read a translation text in harmony with the language that underlies it since the translation is simply a means to understanding what originally was said. Consequently, Jesus’ statement in Aramaic—“You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”—should be decisive for our interpretation.

I knew enough back in 1991 to know that the interpretation of the rock as the revelation of Jesus’ identity was not entirely secure. It was a general deduction based on the themes being talked about in the passage, not a specific deduction based on the structure and grammar of the passage. Then, as my eyes went over the text once again, I suddenly noticed a structural feature of the passage that tipped the balance in favor Peter being the rock. Instantly, I knew I had to do a major theological re-evaluation.

For some time, I had recognized that if Peter was the rock then he would be the head apostle and thus, when Jesus returned to heaven, the earthly head of the Church. That would make him, in essence, a pope. If Catholics could be right about Peter being a pope, they might be right about other things—about everything. And so I would have to do a thorough re-investigation. When I did, I was forced to conclude the Catholic Church was right, and I became a Catholic.

After the initial flash of insight into Matthew 16:17–19, I did further study on it and noticed several structural features of the passage that required Peter to be the rock. Basically, Jesus’ speech to Peter consists of three statements. The first of the three statements is a clear blessing on Peter. Jesus says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” The third is also a blessing: “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” But if the first and third statements are blessings then the middle statement—“And I tell you, you are Peter”— taken in its immediate context, must be a blessing as well. Jesus thus is not contrasting and belittling Peter as a small, insignificant stone with the second statement. It, like the ones before and after it, is a blessing that builds him up.

I noticed that the structure of the three statements required Peter to be the rock. Each statement consisted of two parts: first a basic declaration and then a longer explanation which unpacked the meaning of the declaration. (The explanations also had two parts, an assertion followed by a contrast, but this need not detain us since it does not affect the fact that Peter is the rock.) Jesus’ first statement, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!” is explained by “for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” This is a reason why Simon is blessed. The third statement, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” is explained by Jesus’ remarks on binding and loosing. The power to bind and loose is part of what it means to have the keys to the kingdom. That being the case, the second statement, “And I tell you, you are Peter” is explained by “and on this rock I will build my Church.”

No two ways about it. Peter is the rock. **

 

[SDA2RC]

Friedrich,
The problem is that the Ten Commandments, which are identified as the Old Covenant in scripture, have been done away with according to scripture. Their content is still valuable to us in learning about natural law, but not ceremonial. This is why we follow the New Covenant, we keep those laws that are contained in the Gospel, not the Old Covenant.

Brandon

Dear Nan S

Thank you for reminding us of Jesus’ 2 commandments. Earlier in this forum there was a long discussion on the 10 commandments, numbering etc. Somebody showed us that the CC has a summary' of the 10 commandments in the cathechism -- Jesus also gave a summary’ of the 10 commandments!
1-4 = showing of love and respect for God
5-10 = showing love for your neighbour as yourself.

Jesus did not make up anything new, He just summarized what you and I believe anyway.

God bless,

Friedrich

 

[jay29]

Friedrich,
The problem is that the Ten Commandments, which are identified as the Old Covenant in scripture, have been done away with according to scripture.

According to WHOM?

Their content is still valuable to us in learning about natural law, but not ceremonial.

The 10 Commandments are MORAL LAW and NEVER go away.

This is why we follow the New Covenant, we keep those laws that are contained in the Gospel, not the Old Covenant.

Jesus Christ did not come to do away with the law but to PERFECT it.

You are way off base here.

 

[SDA2RC]

Dear Gabriel of 12
Please check your facts – the SDA church was founded in 1863. The Millerite Movement predicted a second coming for Christ in 1844 – they were all Methodists. Some of them later became Seventh day Adventists.

FriedRich,
Please check your facts. The SDA Church was founded only LEGALLY in 1863 as a legal entity that could own land etc., however, the SDA Church had been around since approx. 1844, just not as a legal entity. The goal of the original founders of Adventism (pre-1863) was to avoid official organization, which they felt would slow down their movement, therefore they purposely DID NOT organize legally until they absolutely had to do so. However, they were around long before this.

Second, it was those VERY people who had set dates in 1844 for the return of Christ that founded the Adventist church! The founders of the Adventist Church, including Ellen G. White, your prophetess was very involved in setting dates for Christ’s coming and continued her prophecies regarding Christ’s coming into her ministry.

Finally, your last error is in saying that they were all Methodists. LOL Actually, William Miller who founded the Millerite Movement, but rejected Adventism, was a Baptist Minister, not a Methodist. Many other of the Adventist founders were not raised Methodist… however Ellen White was.

The Advent Movement was largest among the baptists, not Methodists.

 

[mercygate]

But our wonder should be far greater when we find that in obedience to the words of his priests - HOC EST CORPUS MEUM - [etc.] . . .

Richard, you would do well to take your Catholicism “straight” and not filtered through Michael Scheifler’s warped lens. These lengthy cut-and-pastes are annoying. For example, you have plucked the statement about “creating the creator” – which is a sensitive devotional gloss and not a substantive theological position – and pumped it up into a theological absurdity.

Two comments re: your comment that Our Lord’s statement in John 6 that “the flesh availeth nothing” but “the spirit giveth life” – There is a difference between MY flesh and THE flesh. Throughout the Bread of Life Discourse, Our Lord refers to “MY” flesh. “The” flesh, throughout the New Testament refers to the worldly mind that cannot receive spiritual truths.

As for “the spirit giveth life” – YES! The Holy Spirit is “the Lord and giver of life.” The tendency in reading this passage with a non-Catholic mind is to believe that “spiritual” equates to “not real.” But God IS “spirit” and God is the source of all that is real. Our Lord’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament is entirely “spiritual” and, therefore, entirely “Real.”

 

[SDA2RC]

According to WHOM?

Scripture!

The 10 Commandments are MORAL LAW and NEVER go away.

Then I suggest you quit attending the Catholic Church… we do not follow the 10 Commandments. We create statues, and worship on Sunday. Both against the Ten Commandments. You cannot say that the Law never goes away and then claim the ability to ignore its precepts. This is why the New Testament SPECIFICALLY the Ten Commandments the Ministry of Death, and that covenant which causes slavery. We are now under a New Covenant.

Jesus Christ did not come to do away with the law but to PERFECT it.

The Ten Commandments (if that is what you mean by Law) were written with the finger of God, they were already perfect… they had no need to be “perfected”. This is your conjecture not scripture.

If you alter the law in any way… i.e. by saying that you need not keep the Jewish Sabbath… then you have done away with it. Its not a Burger King… you cant have the Ten Commandments “Your way”. This is not an option in scripture.

You are way off base here.

As I believe you are! I am not sure you totally understand the issues.

 

[mercygate]

I’m not sure I know what you are getting at brother. I did read those posts. They seem well put together and except for a few minor points I agree with them. Reading those posts is not what depresses me nor did I say that it did. What depresses me is the completely arrogant and blasphemous quotes that I posted. Here is an excerpt from one of your posts awhile back.

And here is one of the quotes I posted:
Thus the priest may, in a certain manner, be called the creator of his Creator, …

“The power of the priest,” says St. Bernadine of Sienna, “is the power of the divine person; for the transubstantiation of the bread requires as much power as the creation of the world.”

As the Word of God created heaven and earth, so, says St. Jerome, the words of the priest create Jesus Christ.

Source: The Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, translated from the Italian, edited by Eugene Grimm, copyright 1927 by Very Rev. James Barron, C.SS.R, pgs. 26-27.

Source: Ibid, pgs. 32, 33.

These are not from my interpretation.These are the words of saints of the Catholic Church. There is nothing in these quotes about “accessing” the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no hint that they beleive that the transubstantiation is acomplished by any other means than by the power of the priest.
Do you beleive what this quote is saying Patrick?

In Christ Richard

Yes. We believe it! The “power” of the priest IS the power of the Holy Spirit. It is not the priest’s to wield independently of the intention of the Lord. The Eucharist includes the prayer of “epiklesis” or “calling down” the Holy Spirit upon the bread and wine that they may become the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

 

[jay29]

Scripture!

Then I suggest you quit attending the Catholic Church… we do not follow the 10 Commandments. We create statues, and worship on Sunday. Both against the Ten Commandments. You cannot say that the Law never goes away and then claim the ability to ignore its precepts. This is why the New Testament SPECIFICALLY the Ten Commandments the Ministry of Death, and that covenant which causes slavery. We are now under a New Covenant.

The Ten Commandments (if that is what you mean by Law) were written with the finger of God, they were already perfect… they had no need to be “perfected”. This is your conjecture not scripture.

If you alter the law in any way… i.e. by saying that you need not keep the Jewish Sabbath… then you have done away with it. Its not a Burger King… you cant have the Ten Commandments “Your way”. This is not an option in scripture.

As I believe you are! I am not sure you totally understand the issues.

Are you telling me that we can ignore the 10 Commandments as meaningless???

Catechism:

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, *grave *obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.

I suggest you start reading here:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2.htm

 

[mercygate]

I’m sorry MarysRoses not so much that I called these quotes garbage altho that probably was not the best word. What I truly am sorry for is the fact that you hold this as a “cherished beleif”

Can’t you see the arrogance and blasphemy of these statements. A mighty all powerfull God does not submit himself to sinful mankind. It is us who are to submit ourselves to Him as not only our Savior, but probably more importantly as our Lord. That means He gets to call the shots and we as his created beings are obedient. I have great respect for you MarysRoses. But I cannot have respect for this “cherished beleif” that the priest is above God.

In Christ Richard

The “mighty and all powerful God” submitted Himself to the Blessed Virgin Mary in taking flesh from her womb. He submitted Himself to sinful mankind when he accepted the Cross for our salvation. He “calls the shots”-- of humility, of patience and servitude. The priest is not “above God” in submitting to Our Lord’s command to “do this” and in accepting His promise to be fully present in this Holy Sacrifice and Sacrament.

 

[SDA2RC]

Are you telling me that we can ignore the 10 Commandments as meaningless???

No! That is why I said they are important to us to learn the natural Law and 9 of the precepts are repeated in the New Testament, however, the prohibition against creating any likeness on heaven and earth, and the SAbbath are not repeated in the Gospel. Which is why we take the Natural law of the Commandments… i.e. the duty to worship God and yet do not observe the ceremonial aspect of the the same commandment…i.e. to worship God, by keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day!

If The Ten Commandments as the 10 Commandments (Old Covenant) still stand as written, then the Seventh-Day Adventists are right… then we would be required, as were the Jews, to Keep the 7th Day Sabbath, for this is what the 3rd commandment says to do!

However, we follow the Law as revealed in the Gospels, not the Old Covenant, however the Natural Laws found in the 10 Commandments are part of the Gospel… This requires worship of God, but not the 7th day Sabbath Rest. The principles, or Natural Laws are the the same and are imprinted in our hearts. But the outward observances of the 10 Commandments through their ceremonial aspects have not been enjoined in Christians.

 

[mercygate]

No… In my experience, it is generally only confusing to people who are trying to use them as an authority, rather than pastoral council or opinion, when they are not meant to be authoritative. I have not heard of any Catholics that have stuggled with this.

Brandon

But SDA2RC, these quotations carry a great deal of weight; they are beautiful expressions of our faith in the Eucharist. Some are from Doctors of the Church. The problem is not with the quotations, it is that Richard’s interpreter is reading them through a post-Reformation lens that rejects the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[mercygate]

I went to the Vatican web site and the commandments are listed, exactly the way I have them listed under the heading Traditional Catechal Formula along with The commandments as found in Exodus and Deuteronomy. I probably was mistaken in saying they where official. But whether or not they are official or not is beside the point. The CC presents this summary as you call it as the Ten Commandments and the fact that they have been changed you cannot really dispute.

In Christ Richard

You are correct. But the word “change” is incorrect because Scripture gives them as more than 10, so everybody who calls them the “10” Commandments must in some way summarize them.

 

[SDA2RC]

Jay,
I know exactly what these sections on the 10 Commandments state… I have read them many times… particularly because of this very issue.

I dont think the writers had the issue of Sabbatarians in mind when they wrote it… and their language etc. is not infallible, otherwise, they contradict themselves…

For example… Paragraph 2072 that you quoted below:

“They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere.”

Paragraph 2175
“Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ”

So in one paragraph the Catechism says that they are immutable (which means: **unchanging or unchangeable: **not changing or not able to be changed) but then they tells us that Sunday observance replaces that the of the Sabbath of the 4th Commandment.

So you tell me… which is it? Are they unchangeable? Or did the Church just say in that they replaced the 7th day Sabbath with the observance of the 1st day… and do the VERY thing that you quoted them as saying couldn’t happen? They changed it!

My guess is that you have never studied this in detail.

Are you telling me that we can ignore the 10 Commandments as meaningless???

Catechism:

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, *grave *obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.
2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.

I suggest you start reading here:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2.htm

 

[Friedrich]

Dear Patrick

Thank you once again for your friendly reply. The quotes regarding chaining of Bibles to the pulpit for safety makes sense to me, so no problem.
But please tell me why would the Waldenses have to hide hand-written portions of scripture in the hems of their garments while `selling goods’ from door to door, and then secretly sharing these portions of Scripture with fellow believers? Or hide Bible portions in dough and bake it in the oven to keep members of the inquisition from discovering these treasures?
And why would Bible translators be burnt at the stake for their efforts?

God bless,

Friedrich

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dear Gabriel of 12
Please check your facts – the SDA church was founded in 1863. The Millerite Movement predicted a second coming for Christ in 1844 – they were all Methodists. Some of them later became Seventh day Adventists.

So as not to duplicate the posts, I will ask please see, SDA2RC post #206. It is not my interests to refute your doctrinal belief’s, I previously put it to you in a question, not a statement.
I am not arrogant enough to claim any God-given powers to interpret Scripture as if it were God’s instructions to me. The only way to interpret Scripture is through prayer and guidance by the Holy Spirit, who inspired Scripture.

**Friedrich, The Catholic church allows me my freedom to study scripture and receive inspiration from the Holy Spirit through prayer, meditations, and reflections for my personal life between myself and God. But what God reveals to me, does not mean that I can go out and start another christian religion, to compete with the one Jesus already built his church upon the Rock of Peter, which today as you know is the Catholic church. You just do not accept Jesus words from scripture, from your interpretation, when Jesus built his church upon our first Pope (Peter). **

Please understand how arrogant/strange your claim seems to people who are not Catholic!
– you believe that for 2000 years via Peter you have sole rights to God’s Word, based on a strange interpretation of Scripture regarding the keys of the kingdom – please check the original Greek – it refers to Peter as a little pebble, and Jesus as the ROCK. Jesus never built any church on a fallible person like Peter – in fact Jesus instructed Peter: Get behind me Satan!; Peter was a racist, who refused to eat with Gentiles under peer pressure from the Jews; Peter later repented, and was crucified upside down at his own bidding, because he was so humble that he would not die like his Master…

**Friedrich, Friedrich, please understand; As to Peter, Jesus spoke Aramaic not Greek. I can assure you that the Aramaic translation supports the Catholic interpretation of Jesus built his church upon “Kephas” Peter.(Please see post #203, Patrick gives a beautiful testimony to this fact).

The Catholic church is fully divine (infallible) and fully human (subject to error). That is why Jesus promises to never leave his Cathoilc church, because he will be present, when she is attacked by the enemy whether internally or externally. **

You know Jesus suffered this internal crisis with one of his chosen Judas the betrayer, so yes the Catholic church is not free from betrayals and sin, and because Jesus never left the Cathoilc church, the enemy has not and will not ever prevail against her, which is his body. So every institution has had Judas’s, but only one has survived these 2000 years because the Catholic church is full divine and fully human.

**Now as to my arrogant statement, Historical facts prove that the Catholic church canonized the books of the bible from the third century, as the books inspired by God, and to be used in the Mass, teaching, instruction and defending Catholic teaching and doctrine. Do you think that the Catholic church is going to canonize a bible like the one you have, that disagrees with her doctrines? No, the Catholic church does not have sole rights to the Word of God, the Catholic church by the authority of the Holy Spirit and the commandment by Jesus to bind and loose, gave you and me the bible as God’s true Word. The KJV bible you have is just missing 7 books, and added the word "alone’ to Romans, by Martin Luther.

The fact of the matter is the Catholic church has the God given authority to interpret her doctrine through sacred scripture and sacred Tradition these last 2000 years and until Jesus returns to claim his bride. The Catholic church must remain a virgin, and adhere to the commandments of Jesus placed upon Peter, and find Peter feeding and tending his sheep. The arrogance you wrongly imply does not come from me or the Catholilc Church, the arrogance you see, is the obedience the Catholic church holds to Jesus commandments and teachings.**

Lets say (I don’t believe this) Jesus DID give Peter the keys to the kingdom, as you claim in quote no. 2. Let’s judge Peter’s successors by their ACTIONS – were they like Jesus?

• Could you imagine Peter giving instructions to hide the Bible for 1500 years from the ordinary man in the street, and to BURN AT THE STAKE ANYBODY WHO DARED DISOBEY?

Could you imagine Peter giving instruction to annihilate 1 million God-fearing Waldenses because they insisted on following the Bible instead of Peter/the Pope?

• Could you imagine Peter issuing an order to massacre 200 000 sincere Christians on St Bartholomew’s Day, and after this gruesome orgy commemmorate this wonderful achievement?

Could you imagine Peter claiming infallability, and at one stage have him involved in a holy war with another `Peter’, both of them calling each other the antichrist?

• Could you imagine Peter organizing his church so that there would be torture chambers in houses of worship, to sort out anybody who did not agree with him?

****Please understand, I grew up under an evil system called apartheid. I do not take any responsibility for the atrocities committed by it’s leaders. But that does not mean I am to turn a blind eye to the wrongs of those leaders!. Likewise, I am not trying to down anybody’s religion, or hurt your feelings, but when you claim a pure undefiled direct connection with Jesus via chosen bishops, it seems to contradict the facts of history, and make me wonder how you come to such a conclusion.

Gabriel of 12
**You have tapped into some history, that deserves much clarification, before accepting your interpretation of the events you mention. For one your accusation of these events are not accurate, so without taking them case by case, I think your comments should be labeled as an opinion of yours not fact.

The Catholic church is not that; what Hollywood movies has made her out to be. The truth is the Catholic church suffered much Martyrdom and sacrifices to bring the Gospel teachings of Jesus these 2000 years today to the world. But this type of truth does not sell box office tickets for hollywood. Remember the Catholic church’s mission given directly from Jesus to Peter, to feed and tend the sheep (God’s chosen, and bring back the lost sheep to God), not deliver hardship, murder, torture, and prevent people from the truth. True history records the Catholic church giving her life for the Truth to be spread, and she protects this Truth, so that it does not get twisted or distorted by those who misinterpret the sacred writings.******

Peace be with you

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Dear Patrick

Thank you once again for your friendly reply. The quotes regarding chaining of Bibles to the pulpit for safety makes sense to me, so no problem.
But please tell me why would the Waldenses have to hide hand-written portions of scripture in the hems of their garments while `selling goods’ from door to door, and then secretly sharing these portions of Scripture with fellow believers? Or hide Bible portions in dough and bake it in the oven to keep members of the inquisition from discovering these treasures?
And why would Bible translators be burnt at the stake for their efforts?

God bless,

Friedrich

Dear Friedrich,

Yes that does make sense in the light of the history of why they were chained…and 250 sheep to make one Bible…wow…and now most versions are online. I actually just learned that from mercygate’s post this month. She is very knowledgeable about many things…she is very very well studied. And we can actually research and veryify what she has said.

Regarding the Waldenses, I am somewhat familiar with their story, and yet I am not very studied in that area. Perhaps other’s on here can address that better. But as I said in an earlier post today, there have been evil things done by those who profess to follow Christ. Pope John Paul II apologized for the actions of the Church during that time period. For much of my life I believed that only the Catholic Church committed atrocities in the name of religion. But in my studies over the past few years I began to discover many of the atrocities committed by Protestant Reformers against other Reformers and Catholics. Unfortunately there seems to be plenty of evil to go around for everyone. There is evil to always be guarded against both in and out of the churches. When you feel in danger, you take measures to protect yourself. Based on my limited knowledge, that would be my reason as to why the Waldenses did what they did…to keep from getting killed. But I do not know that whole story and cannot therefore address it adequately. These are just my uninformed opinions…and I could be wrong.

Did you get a chance to read that article I posted regarding the Greek and Aramaic language regarding Peter as the rock? That has been an interesting study for me over the past few years. One that once all the evidence was in, compelled me to accept a belief which I never thought I would ever accept!

God bless you!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No! That is why I said they are important to us to learn the natural Law and 9 of the precepts are repeated in the New Testament, however, the prohibition against creating any likeness on heaven and earth, and the SAbbath are not repeated in the Gospel. Which is why we take the Natural law of the Commandments… i.e. the duty to worship God and yet do not observe the ceremonial aspect of the the same commandment…i.e. to worship God, by keeping the Sabbath on the 7th day!

If The Ten Commandments as the 10 Commandments (Old Covenant) still stand as written, then the Seventh-Day Adventists are right… then we would be required, as were the Jews, to Keep the 7th Day Sabbath, for this is what the 3rd commandment says to do!

However, we follow the Law as revealed in the Gospels, not the Old Covenant, however the Natural Laws found in the 10 Commandments are part of the Gospel… This requires worship of God, but not the 7th day Sabbath Rest. The principles, or Natural Laws are the the same and are imprinted in our hearts. But the outward observances of the 10 Commandments through their ceremonial aspects have not been enjoined in Christians.

I agree with your commentary here, If you dont mind I would like to just add a phrase;

While we as Catholics walk in grace, we are freed from the natural Law because the law cannot judge the Spirit, but if we fall from grace into the flesh( sin), then we fall under the Law and the law judges us. Thank God for the ministry of reconciliation, that offers the blood of the lamb for our offenses to God.

Peace

 

[SDA2RC]

Friedrich,
I would be happy to look up the instances you were speaking of if you would provide me some citations regarding what you are claiming the Waldensian people did.

The Waldensian movement was a Catholic Offshoot… Waldo was a Catholic who was very rich and then left his wife and had his two daughters consigned to a Monastery so that he didnt have to care for them. He then took a vow of poverty and began preaching doctrines that were considered heretical, still are by Catholics. When the local leaders told him and his followers to quit preaching in the streets and begging, they continued to do it anyway, breaking the law. They begain hiding their true mission and hiding their scriptures etc. from the public eye when they were in fear of being arrested for doing what they had been told not to do!

It is no different today… if you break the law, whether you agree with it or not, you are arrested etc.

Dear Patrick

Thank you once again for your friendly reply. The quotes regarding chaining of Bibles to the pulpit for safety makes sense to me, so no problem.
But please tell me why would the Waldenses have to hide hand-written portions of scripture in the hems of their garments while `selling goods’ from door to door, and then secretly sharing these portions of Scripture with fellow believers? Or hide Bible portions in dough and bake it in the oven to keep members of the inquisition from discovering these treasures?
And why would Bible translators be burnt at the stake for their efforts?

God bless,

Friedrich