Jesus Christ is our only 'mediator' as stated by St. Paul

[Richard_Kastner]

No, Richard. The primary purpose of the Epistles are not evangelistic, but pastoral. It is true that nothing in them contradicts what is contained in the gospels, but their thrust is to give direction to the believers - those that have already become members of the Body of Christ. If you look at the salutations of the Epistles, it is clear they are addressed not to unbelievers, but believers.

You have to be kidding with this post. What you are saying here is that the apostles were instructed to preach to each other and the few believers at the time of Jesus death (about 120) and that’s it. Wow, you really need to prayerfully rethink your theology.

Consider: Matt28:18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

These are the words of Jesus and I would think that you would take them to heart. Notice He says “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations” not just the body of believers.

You say above “The primary purpose of the Epistles are not evangelistic, but pastoral.”
Consider Ephesians4:11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Seems to me that this is saying that the work of pastors is evangelism. **Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: **
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. The bible is absolutely full of verses that tell both the apostles and us that we need to evangelize the world The salutations are addressed to believers, because that’s who the letters are addressed to.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

No, no witch hunt. We were making the point that the doctrine he has espoused is a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

The question about his denominational affiliation came up out of the curiosity over the origin of his “different gospel”.
]I agree with you that Richard is clearly passionate about his faith. I think he is even more passionate about the doctrines he embraces than he is passionate about bashing the Catholic faith, and that is a lot!

I really don’t think that I am bashing the Catholic faith. Merely pointing out some glaring discrepancies between it and the word of God

This is not really the right place, though, for him to “fight”, in the sense that he is not really here to use the forum for it’s intended purpose.

I don’t believe that I am fighting. It’s just that I must demand an accurate representation of both my words and the words of God. If I see misrepresentations of either. I feel that I must address them.

I think he needs another website where he can encourage Catholics to leave their faith, since it is against he rules here.

Ok, I did allude to Rev 18:4 and invited Catholics to come out of her. This was wrong and I apologize.

 

[1beleevr]

Okay, elvisman: Number one, the reason I ask if you are anal, is because you are usually unflinching in your posts; sort of like, it’s the catholic way, or no way! Let’s see, John 20:21-23; as far as commanding us to confess to a priest, these verses are rather vague; leaving the door open for what we have experienced, differences in interpretation! And we really don’t know if this is what the apostles passed down to the rest of usAnd 1 Timothy 2:5, well, 'nuff said! There is only Mediator, who can reconcile God and humanity; Jesus Christ, who did that very thing on the Cross! When the curtain was torn from the TOP down, we were granted access to the throneroom!(Hebrews 4:16)

 

[1beleevr]

tmac1956: Or maybe you carried it to its’ illogical conclusion! Jesus said,"If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments, of which, confess to a priest every Saturday, is not included! Believe me, there are enough catholics in this forum, to remind me of what sola scriptura means; but I have ner said that I live by that: I think it may be because I’m a non-catholic, that you believe I do And, there are some catholics, who whether they’re mocking non-catholics, or not, say,“Give me a verse, where is it in the Bible?” And I was just thinking that it was IRONIC that the catholics were headquartered in the FORMER evil Roman Empire

 

[1beleevr]

Peter Dawson: It is so easy to say that a certain verse means this or that, or that you’re right and I’m wrong, or vice versa! One other possible explanation(better highlight POSSIBLE), is that Mary, knowing that Jesus was no ordinary man, was feeling a bit anxious, because the guests were out of wine, and she knew that Jesus was capable of doing something extraordinary! And at the Cross, nothing is really clear, as to what Jesus meant, or what He expected from His mother, or His friend, John!

 

[SHW]

Howdy, shw: Whew, you said a mouthful; but still didn’t prove that Jesus told US, to confess to a priest!! On many occasions in this forum, when I have said, that Jesus speaks to us, through His Word, catholics have repeatedly said, He was speaking to Hid disciples, and because of apostolic succession, they speak to usAnd speaking of James 5:14-16, there is no clear indication here either, that a trip to the priest, what is it, every Saturday, is necessary In 1John 1:9, you have inferred that we must confess our sins to Him, through a priest! Let me ask you this; what is the "penalty from the church, for not going to confession? And given the rigidity of the catholic religion, how can there be such an animal as a “cafeteria” catholic? Maybe youse guys should call them “buffet” catholics Matthew 7:1-5,Luke 18::thumbsup:14,James 4:11,

There are many “Catholics in name only” (CINOs). We also call them “cafeteria Catholics” or just “bad Catholics.”

Since I see that you do not have the ability to “draw coherent conclusions” from the Scriptures that I have given you about the authority given to the Church (and not to individuals) from Jesus Himself, even though these conclusions are explained to you, I think it is pointless to continue this dialog because you desire to continue to claim this authority for yourself so that you can continue to be your own personal “little pope.”

 

[SHW]

Peter Dawson: And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement Why do you believe that Mary went from mother to “woman” in the blink of an eye? How much difference would it have meant for Jesus to say,“Mother, that’s not our problem, my time has not yet come.” And whatever shall I infer from John 19:26? What exactly did Jesus mean, when He said, “Woman,here is your son.” John was the disciple that Jesus loved, so it might possibly be that Jesus entrusted her care to John??? I guess we won’t know for sure until we see Jesus, huh?

Jesus calls Himself the Son of MAN (John 6:53), He is the new sinless Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Mary is WOMAN, she is the new sinless Eve. Calling her WOMAN is the highest sign of respect that He can give her because He is MAN.

John is given the care of His Mother because John is His nearest relative, which is what is done in Jewish culture in order to take care of widows who have no other living children. However, Jesus also gives us all His Mother to be our spiritual Mother just as His Father in heaven is our heavenly Father. Jesus shares all that He has Himself with us, including His own wonderful Mother!

 

[guanophore]

And I respectfully disagree with your disagreement Why do you believe that Mary went from mother to “woman” in the blink of an eye? t

What makes you think she did? God created Mary from the moment of her conception to be the mother of all living, to replace Eve, who did not obey God, as the model woman who obeys Him perfectly. Scripture states that Jesus was “born of a woman”, that woman whom the angel Gabriel greeted “Hail, Full of Grace!”

How much difference would it have meant for Jesus to say,“Mother, that’s not our problem, my time has not yet come.”

Good question. Both of them knew that the life they had lived up to that time would be no longer. They knew that, once He became manifest to the world, it would be a straight shot to the cross.

And whatever shall I infer from John 19:26? What exactly did Jesus mean, when He said, “Woman,here is your son.” John was the disciple that Jesus loved, so it might possibly be that Jesus entrusted her care to John??? I guess we won’t know for sure until we see Jesus, huh?

Catholics know for sure, because John knew for sure what Jesus meant, and John taught it to his disciples, and they to theirs, to the present day. Those persons who reject this apostolic instruction will, as you say, have to wait to find out.

 

[guanophore]

** It’s interesting, that the catholic church has its’ headquarters in the center of what was once one the most evil empires in history;**)

I just read a post of yours claiming that you are not “anti-Catholic”, then every now and then you manage to sling little slurs like this. If you think such derogatory remarks are lost on us you are mistaken.

 

[guanophore]

How do you get from this post that I am saying that we should not pray that men come to repentance? You know guano I don't think that you are misunderstanding me at all. I think that you are deliberately twisting what I say, because you don't like it that I disagree with you and your church, I find that a bit disingenuous to say the very least. (I'm holding back so as not to be rude)

I appreciate the restraint of your rudeness.

What is the difference between asking God to have mercy on sinners, and praying for the repentance of sinners? Does not praying for God’s mercy mean that the sinner will be led to repentance and escape the fires of hell?

 The point I was trying to make is that the righteous servant was feeding the lord's household. You say that it is hard for me to put across that I am righteous because I seem to have transgressed some man made rules for this forum.

Yes.

Well, maybe you have no problem putting across that you are righteous because you are feeding us, but for my part, I can testify that it does not seem like a reflection of the righteousness of God.

You are on a “man made” forum, and you violate the rules of that forum for your single minded agenda to “feed” us according to your doctrine. You are acting inconsistently with the purpose of the forum. CAF is here to provide Catholic Answers to persons with sincere inquiries. You have made it clear that you are not interested in learning about the Catholic faith.

Let me explain something to you guano riighteousness has nothing to do with how well you keep man's rules. What it has to do with is wether or not you have accepted Jesus Christ as both your Savior and Lord which in turn will lead you to keep His rules.** It is a fact that I am trying to feed both you and anyone else who reads this thread.** Wether or not you take and eat is out of my control. Wether or not you believe that I am righteous is not my concern, however, by doing so I feel that I have done my part.

My point is that you are misusing the thread. We are not here to be fed doctrines that contradict what was given to the Church by the Apostles. If you cannot keep such simple rules such as this, what kind of righteousness is it? You have come to a Catholic managed, Catholic funded site to pander your anti-catholic propoganda, and try to pursuade Catholics to leave their faith. You believe you are “righteous” in doing this, and that you are moved by God.

How have I departed from the apostolic teachings on heaven and hell. (please be specific)

The examples are numerous, but outside the scope of the thread. One of those “man made rules” for which you seem to have no regard is that we stay on topic.

 

[guanophore]

I have asked you to provide a post, any post, just an example, of my “departure” from apostolic teaching. You have failed to do so. I’m thinkin not because they are too numerous, but because you can’t.
.
What I said was. All sin is serious

See this is what I’m talking about. I’m not sure whether you don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Again, all sin is serious. John is sayig in v. 16 that we should not pray for mercy for the sinner who himself does not ask for mercy. (in other words has not repented

This is a good example. The Apostles taught that sins vary in severity. Those that have knowledge are in a more serious state than those who commit sins and don’t know any better.

You got it wrong again. I said Caiaphus and the Sanhedren (who is the high priest and the Jewish governing body) I never mentioned Herod.

Good. The Jews were more culpable because they knew more. To those whom more is given, more is required.

 Jn. 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

You will notice in this v. that there are only two types of people. Those who have everlasting life and those that are destroyed (not living in eternal torment, but destroyed). There is no middle ground, there is no purgatory, there is no second chance.

You have been misinformed about the Catholic faith, Richard. Personally, I don’t think you are here to get your misinformation corrected, but for the sake of the lurkers on the thread, I will point out your error. The Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is “middle ground” or a second chance.

I think you misunderstand me here. In v. 16 John says there is a sin unto death and that we should NOT PRAY for it. Now let’s get this straight. It’s not me saying this. It’s John.

Here is the post you refer to here. You say you agree with me on this point. The point that I am making is that John said it and not me. Then you say that you don’t agree with my interpretation. 1Jn5:16If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. **There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. ** So what I hear you saying here is that you disagree with John. Is that right?

No, I disagree with what you believe John is saying.

Again I ask you to give what the apostles did teach that is contrary to anything that I have said

It’s talking about sins that we should pray for or ask mercy for, these are sins that are repented of. John says however that there are sins that we should not even pray for. Again not my words, but John’s. The only difference between these sins is that one we should pray for and the other we shouldn’t. Both sins are serious. So why should we not even pray for one sin, if this was just explaining differing degrees of sins.

So you admit that praying for sinners is the same as asking mercy?

Ok, now I see why you are so adamant against what I am saying. Because, if you accept what I am saying (or more accurately what John is saying). You have to accept the fact that there is no purgatory, but also you must accept that the only way to have your sins forgiven is through faith in the ceansing blood of Christ. And not in the ability of some sinner in a box saying some words over you.

No, Richard. The Catholic Church teaches that the only forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Christ. You apparently have been misinformed about the Catholic faith. There is no power in sinners in a box. Forgiveness comes from the HS. If you read in James, it says clearly that it is the righteous who have great power in prayers, and that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins.

 

[elvisman]

Okay, elvisman: Number one, the reason I ask if you are anal, is because you are usually unflinching in your posts; sort of like, it’s the catholic way, or no way! Let’s see, John 20:21-23; as far as commanding us to confess to a priest, these verses are rather vague; leaving the door open for what we have experienced, differences in interpretation! And we really don’t know if this is what the apostles passed down to the rest of usAnd 1 Timothy 2:5, well, 'nuff said! There is only Mediator, who can reconcile God and humanity; Jesus Christ, who did that very thing on the Cross! When the curtain was torn from the TOP down, we were granted access to the throneroom!(Hebrews 4:16)

The Apostles certainly passed on the Sacrament of Confession as is written about in the 1st century document, the Didache.
It is also written about by their successors, Barnabas, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc.

As for 1 Tim. 2:2 - you’re absolutely right. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach - and nas NEVER taught that ANYBODY but Jesus can reconcile us with the Father. Asking saints - whether here on earth or in heaven - to pray for us is asking them for INTERCESSION - not salvation. Many Protestants get that wrong.

PS - I’m not unflinching and unwilling to admit when I’m wrong about something. BUT - when I speak about what the Church teaches - it is NEVER wrong. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Richard_Kastner]

:What is the difference between asking God to have mercy on sinners, and praying for the repentance of sinners?

Quite a bit actually. It is never not ok to pray for a repentant sinner. It is never not ok to pray for the repentence of sinners. What John is saying is that we should not pray for a sin unto death. That obviously is not what the CC would call venial sin. It’s not mortal sin because that can be repented of and forgiven. The absolute only thing left is the unrepented sin.

Does not praying for God’s mercy mean that the sinner will be led to repentance and escape the fires of hell?

One would hope so, but there is no guarantee. You see the one being prayed for has a free will and unless he cooperates with the grace of God and comes to repentance and the acceptance of Jesus he will be lost.

Yes.Well, maybe you have no problem putting across that you are righteous because you are feeding us, but for my part, I can testify that it does not seem like a reflection of the righteousness of God.

I’m sorry you feel that teaching according to the WORD OF GOD is not a reflection of righteousness

You are on a “man made” forum, and you violate the rules of that forum for your single minded agenda to “feed” us according to your doctrine. You are acting inconsistently with the purpose of the forum. CAF is here to provide Catholic Answers to persons with sincere inquiries. You have made it clear that you are not interested in learning about the Catholic faith.

Actually this is how Non-Catholic religions is presented on the home page.
Non-Catholic Religions (36 Viewing)
Comparing and contrasting beliefs
Guess I don’t have to make “sincere inquiries” to get “Catholic Answers” about the Catholic Faith at all. It’s provided to compare and contrast beliefs. And I don’t think that anyone will accuse me of not doing that.

My point is that you are misusing the thread. We are not here to be fed doctrines that contradict what was given to the Church by the Apostles. If you cannot keep such simple rules such as this, what kind of righteousness is it?

Please explain what rules I am violating. What doctrines am I feeding you that contradict what was given to the church by the apostles. You see without giving even one example of such doctrines, Your accusations ring hollow.

You have come to a Catholic managed, Catholic funded site to pander your anti-catholic propoganda, and try to pursuade Catholics to leave their faith. You believe you are “righteous” in doing this, and that you are moved by God.

I made one miscomment for which I apologised on another post. I never said that I was righteous.

The examples are numerous, but outside the scope of the thread. One of those “man made rules” for which you seem to have no regard is that we stay on topic.

You seem to have no problem breaking this one yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

ummm…Only God can forgive sins Mk 2:7

Amen, freedom! That is indeed what the CC teaches.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

This is a good example. The Apostles taught that sins vary in severity. Those that have knowledge are in a more serious state than those who commit sins and don’t know any better.

Here’s my post that you refer to here
See this is what I’m talking about. I’m not sure whether you don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Again, all sin is serious. John is sayig in v. 16 that we should not pray for mercy for the sinner who himself does not ask for mercy. (in other words has not repented

How in the world, do you get from this post that I am saying that sins do not vary in severity?

Good. The Jews were more culpable because they knew more. To those whom more is given, more is required.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you are reading some other thread and then answering it here. I have no idea what you are talking about here.

You have been misinformed about the Catholic faith, Richard. Personally, I don’t think you are here to get your misinformation corrected, but for the sake of the lurkers on the thread, I will point out your error. The Catholic Church does not teach that purgatory is “middle ground” or a second chance.

But it does teach that the temporal punishment for these venial sins can be payed for by works or prayers or indugences. In other words without the blood of the Lamb of God.

No, I disagree with what you believe John is saying.

I believe exactly what John is saying and that is, there is a sin unto death. So you don’t agree with that.

So you admit that praying for sinners is the same as asking mercy?

Her’s my post
It’s talking about sins that we should pray for or ask mercy for, these are sins that are repented of. John says however that there are sins that we should not even pray for. Again not my words, but John’s. The only difference between these sins is that one we should pray for and the other we shouldn’t. Both sins are serious. So why should we not even pray for one sin, if this was just explaining differing degrees of sins.

It fails me how you get the above assumption from this post.

No, Richard. The Catholic Church teaches that the only forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Christ. You apparently have been misinformed about the Catholic faith. There is no power in sinners in a box. Forgiveness comes from the HS. If you read in James, it says clearly that it is the righteous who have great power in prayers, and that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins.

Again you contradict yourself. First you say:

The Catholic Church teaches that the only forgiveness of sins is through the blood of Christ.

Then you say:

“James, it says clearly that it is the righteous who have great power in prayers, and that the prayer of FAITH is what heals the sick, and forgives sins.”

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[placido]

ummm…Only God can forgive sins Mk 2:7,

That is what the scribes said.

placido

 

[placido]

1beleevr:

It’s interesting, that the catholic church has its’ headquarters in the center of what was once one the most evil empires in history

I can see you are upset that Christ’s Chruch has triumphed even over “what was once the most evil empires in history”.You are of the opinion that evil empires shouldn’t be evangelized and converted to Christ. If given the opportunity to reformulate the Great Commission you would say: “Go therefore and make dissiples of SOME nations but please avoid that evil empire”.

placido

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Peter Dawson: It is so easy to say that a certain verse means this or that, or that you’re right and I’m wrong, or vice versa! One other possible explanation(better highlight POSSIBLE), is that Mary, knowing that Jesus was no ordinary man, was feeling a bit anxious, because the guests were out of wine, and she knew that Jesus was capable of doing something extraordinary! And at the Cross, nothing is really clear, as to what Jesus meant, or what He expected from His mother, or His friend, John!

Hi, good friend.

Watch what I do to your first sentence… “Peter Dawson: It is so easy to NOT say that a certain verse means this or that, or that you’re NOT right and I’m NOT wrong, or vice versa!”

You think that really are making a simple assumption and then placing faith in the power of good ol’ non-interpretive reading.

But, in the end, what you do is just another form of interpretation, and, without more, just as hazardous.

Suppose we are looking at a text, and this is what we see…

“DSX GSWXMO QPC NXWVXETXG XTEB PCO SEOXG; GEQNBXDKCG VKCDECYX KC PCO GYIIXW DSX NXCPBDR.”

I say, “Wow! I bet that that is an encoded phrase, concealing something interesting!”

You say, “It is so easy to say that a certain verse means this or that, or that you’re right and I’m wrong, or vice versa! Stick to the plaintext! Since that appears to be nonsense, it must be nonsense!”

But I go to work on it, and it successfully decodes to, “THE SHREWD MAN PERCEIVES EVIL AND HIDES; SIMPLETONS CONTINUE ON AND SUFFER THE PENALTY.” Proverbs 27:12.

So, the answer to your position is success.

If you hang in there with me, you will see that by using the same set of rules and essentially the same interps for particular phrases and their analogs, Scripture always yields a cognizable result, like the cryptogram up above.

But it takes hard work to see this – not a simple assumption worth about 2 cents of mental energy.

Give it a shot. Let me prove to you that I know what I am talking about.

 

[bicolmonk]

Only Catholics would know why we love the Blessed Mother. She’s the prime example of a co-redeemer just like all of us.

1 timothy 4:16 16 Attend to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

1 Cor 9:22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some.

James 5:19-20
19 My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back,
20 he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.

 

[placido]

Here’s my post that you refer to here
See this is what I’m talking about. I’m not sure whether you don’t understand what I’m saying or are deliberately twisting what I am saying. Again, all sin is serious. John is sayig in v. 16 that we should not pray for mercy for the sinner who himself does not ask for mercy. (in other words has not repented

That is not what John is saying. That is what Richard wanted John to say. Here is verse 16 verbatim: “If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that.”
As anyone here can see, there is no mention of “we should not pray for mercy for the sinner WHO HIMSELF DOES NOT ASK FOR MERCY”.

How in the world, do you get from this post that I am saying that sins do not vary in severity?

So, you are actually saying sins do vary in severity? That sounds Catholic!

But it does teach that the temporal punishment for these venial sins can be payed for by works or prayers or indugences. In other words without the blood of the Lamb of God.

“In other words” the last section is your fabrication.

I believe exactly what John is saying and that is, there is a sin unto death.

And there a sin which does not lead to death (1 John 5:16). Do you believe that too?

Her’s my post
It’s talking about sins that we should pray for or ask mercy for, these are sins that are repented of. John says however that there are sins that we should not even pray for. Again not my words, but John’s. The only difference between these sins is that one we should pray for and the other we shouldn’t. Both sins are serious. So why should we not even pray for one sin, if this was just explaining differing degrees of sins.

But what shall you say if I started calling the sins we are not to pray for “Mortal Sins” and the sins we are to pray for “Venial Sins”?

placido