Not Convinced.....

[benidict]

The Old Testament is full of references to ritual washing. Of particular note are Elisha’s instructions to Naaman in 2 Kings 5 to ritually wash himself in the Jordan as a cure for leprosy, a biblical symbol of sinfulness. It is also a noteworthy part of Jewish tradition that the Jewish people from ancient times to the present have had ritual baths known as mikvahs. In fact, ancient mikvah sites have been found by archaeologists in the Holy Land.

The mikvah was commanded under Jewish law to cleanse a person of ritual impurity (e.g., a woman would go to a mikvah after her period of ritual impurity during and after menstruation). So it is likely that the people to whom John the Baptist preached had a good idea of what he was referring to when he instructed them to be cleansed of their sins in the Jordan, which, because it is a natural body of water, could itself have possibly been used as a mikvah.

Hope this helps?

thank you Nicea. yes, i am familiar with the mikva. it is still in use today, not only by women only, as was the custom in the o.t. but men partake of it too. it is a fascinating ritual. there are also prayers that go along with this cleansing. also, if im not mistaken, baptisms like John was performing, were already in practice before he came along. the pharisees didnt seem to have a problem with the practice itself. they were very familiar with the tradition by that time. Peace

 

[Nicea325]

thank you Nicea. yes, i am familiar with the mikva. it is still in use today, not only by women only, as was the custom in the o.t. but men partake of it too. it is a fascinating ritual. there are also prayers that go along with this cleansing. also, if im not mistaken, baptisms like John was performing, were already in practice before he came along. the pharisees didnt seem to have a problem with the practice itself. they were very familiar with the tradition by that time. Peace

You are welcome. I believe it was St.Augustine who said:

The NT is concealed in the OT and the OT is revealed in the NT.

Very true.

 

[barboza21]

Sorrry if I repeat what many have said here… I didn’t have time to read all the pages. but i still wanted to contribute to your post. ") hopefully, it is of some help to you.

TE=simeonhuff;7333871] I personally believe that if the Bible was not alone sufficient, than God would somewhere explicitly state it in scripture.

Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say to venerate Mary, and nowhere does it say that she is sinless, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Because, even when, in the Bible, she was honored,(but not worshiped), Jesus corrected her and said that rather, those who obeyed God’s commandments were blessed.

I am not trying to officially say it (the Catholic faith) is false, of disrespecting it’s beliefs, but I am just not convinced that Catholicism is the right path. Please correct me if I am wrong, and please, if you correct or explain, to go into as much detail and explanation as possible, to make sure I understand.

Hi! I stumbled upon your post and thought it was a good one.

Umm, sola scriptura means that the bible is sufficient and that only what is written in the bible is what ‘counts’ (if you will).
However, nowhere in the bible does it say that the bible is SUFFICIENT. Ironic huh? The bible does give a warning to those who igore the teaching authority of the church. (matt18:17-18) (luke 10:16)

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (luke 1:1-4)

30Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you maya believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (john 20: 30-31) NOT ALL WAS WRITTEN.

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. (1 thessalonians 2:13)

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. 14I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name. (3 john 1:13)

Not all was written, and traditions also hold.

You say:
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
well, did jesus, who was human, sin? do babies? did john the baptist since he was filled with the holy spirit since the womb?
if you use the word ALL in the absolute… then in romans 3:10-12 * As it is written: There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” *
then NO ONE seeks for God. Then neither you or me are seeking God?

That’s not true, is it?

Umm also, where was she honored that jesus corrected her? i am not sure what you are talking about…

and I appreciate you wanting to understand catholic beliefs

May God bless you.

 

[Genesius]

they sure did Richard. read the Didache. it is based off the oral tradition of the apostles, and in it are taught things NOT taught in the new testament, that apparently the person who wrote it thought were essential to salvation. he being a disciple of at least one of the apostles, i think would be a very reliable source. baptism also is a tradition held over from Judaism. it was practiced long before the new testament was written. did John the baptist just pull this out of a hat? i would say not. peace

Not to add fuel to fire for Richard, but I can see a possible question arising from this post that begs the question. If something were in the Didache that was essential to salvation…something that important, why would the Didache not have then made it into the canon?

 

[Genesius]

The teachings against “Euthanasia, abortion, and infanticed” are taught in the bible.
Ex20:13Thou shalt not kill.

Yes…thou shalt not kill, and yet God commanded the Israelites several times to kill…hmmmm. How then do we understand “thou shalt not kill”? Does that mean we shouldn’t step on ants? Or does it mean premeditated murder? How do we define, “thou shalt not kill”, and better yet, who has the authority to interpret what it means?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

So you think that “the assumption of Mary? asking the saints for intercessory prayer” are necessary for our salvation?

Yes, as are all other doctrine. I wonder what question we have already answered many times is going to come up next and that we are going to answer despite you not wanting to believe us.

“you cannot deny the Churches traditional teaching of Mary, without getting dangerously close to denying the Trinity” How do you figure this Ben?

I believe he is referring to “Mary is the Mother of God.” (Correct me if I am wrong Benedict.) He does not “figure” this. He KNOWS this and rightly so. But notice the latter half of his statement though.

What he is saying is that to deny Mary as the Mother of God is to come close (if not actually there) to denying the Second Person of the Trinity; that is, “the Word made flesh.” To deny that Mary is Jesus’ mother is to deny His fleshliness (if there ever was such a word) or that He is the Son of Man. To deny Jesus is God, well… You get the point. One can say that she just used Mary to get to this world. I would say that there must be a purpose that He used HER and not just some other woman. One can also say that she was an incubator, but that is even harder to believe considering He passed “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle…” (Hebrews 9:11). And God-bearer is another way of saying Mother of God. Just like suffering, sorrow and carrying the cross are different aspects of the same exact thing, so it is with this case.

John 19:26 “He saw His MOTHER…” (Emphasis added). Mary is Mother of God. That clearly dictates that Christ is the Son of Man and Son of God. Is this the end of the story for the doctrine “Mary, Mother of God?” Nope. It is a mystery just like all Christology and Mariology (which is ChristoLOGICAL) and will never be completely understood. About the “Mariology is always a Christology” thing… All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. This is not a perfect parallel but hopefully, you get the point. Mary’s sinlessness, Virginity, Assumption, Queen, etc… go to Christ.

 

[benidict]

Yes, as are all other doctrine. I wonder what question we have already answered many times is going to come up next and that we are going to answer despite you not wanting to believe us.

I believe he is referring to “Mary is the Mother of God.” (Correct me if I am wrong Benedict.) He does not “figure” this. He KNOWS this and rightly so. But notice the latter half of his statement though.

What he is saying is that to deny Mary as the Mother of God is to come close (if not actually there) to denying the Second Person of the Trinity; that is, “the Word made flesh.” To deny that Mary is Jesus’ mother is to deny His fleshliness (if there ever was such a word) or that He is the Son of Man. To deny Jesus is God, well… You get the point. One can say that she just used Mary to get to this world. I would say that there must be a purpose that He used HER and not just some other woman. One can also say that she was an incubator, but that is even harder to believe considering He passed “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle…” (Hebrews 9:11). And God-bearer is another way of saying Mother of God. Just like suffering, sorrow and carrying the cross are different aspects of the same exact thing, so it is with this case.

John 19:26 “He saw His MOTHER…” (Emphasis added). Mary is Mother of God. That clearly dictates that Christ is the Son of Man and Son of God. Is this the end of the story for the doctrine “Mary, Mother of God?” Nope. It is a mystery just like all Christology and Mariology (which is ChristoLOGICAL) and will never be completely understood. About the “Mariology is always a Christology” thing… All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. This is not a perfect parallel but hopefully, you get the point. Mary’s sinlessness, Virginity, Assumption, Queen, etc… go to Christ.

no correction required gregg. you read my mind. that was the question i was thinking of. then we also have to ask who is Jesus? and does Richards church believe what the Catholic Church teaches. on the surface it would seem so…but. they also believe that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. just like the JWs. this is the deceptive nature of many of these movements. the gnostics had Jesus in their teaching too. but, they did not believe the same things the Church taught about him. yes there is a reference to in daniel to Michael the chief prince coming to the aid of israel. but, hebrews in the opening verses ask us, a very important question. to which of the angels did He say "sit at my right hand. etc. Jesus is not the archangel Michael. Peace

 

[placido]

So you think that “the assumption of Mary? asking the saints for intercessory prayer” are necessary for our salvation?

I am not sure whether you know the difference between what is “necessary” and what is “helpful”. Intercessory prayer, reading the Bible, listening to a beautiful sermon … those are helpful but not necessary for one’s salvation.

“you cannot deny the Churches traditional teaching of Mary, without getting dangerously close to denying the Trinity” How do you figure this Ben?

Denying that Marys is Mother of God, for instance, is in fact denying that Jesus is God; and if Jesus is not God the Trinity doesn’t exist.

placido

 

[benidict]

Not to add fuel to fire for Richard, but I can see a possible question arising from this post that begs the question. If something were in the Didache that was essential to salvation…something that important, why would the Didache not have then made it into the canon?

yes. and heres something else. if the Catholic Church was into adding additional books, this certainly would have been one to put in. i think that the didache is strong evidence that the council of nicea, was truly guided by the Holy Spirit, as to what books to put in. as strongly as this document supports Catholic teaching, it did not make it in. this says somthing about the men who decided what was, and what was not, going to be in the cannon.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

Richard do you agree with the above definition of SS and if so could you explain the portion in bold?

Thanks

I have no idea what “in a due use of the ordinary means” means.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

The whole problem revolves in how the Word of God is implemented. And who is going to do that and how is it going to be done?

leaving people to their own…look at the examples given us in the Epistles of the unruliness and misunderstanding and how the people repeatedly had to be taught, the faith clarified…it is human nature.

How do you think the word of God should be implemented and who do you think should “implement” it. I would ask “how is it going to be done?” but thats the same question as the first one.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

thou shalt not kill does not adress abortion and euthanasia Richard. nor infanticide.

You don’t think that the commandment not to kill includes the unborn and anyone that we deem suffering to much. That’s really strange ben.

if it did, then God would not have ordered the Israelites to kill all of Jericho including the Children.

Your reasoning is faulty here ben. God gives life and God can take it away. The fact that He told the Isrealits to kill the people of Jerico was because He saw that if they were to live His plan of salvation in His chosen people would be in jepordy.

if it did, then God would not have given the recipe to the priest to make a bitter drink that would induce an abortion if the wife had been unfaithful.

Numbers 5 says nothing about aborting an unborn. Your interpretation here is wrong.

if it did, then it would have said something about saul sinning after he asked his armour bearer to kill him, after being wounded in battle.

Why do you think it would have said that Saul sinned? Don’t you think he sinned?

this verse is about murdering a person who has already been born in cold blood period. not about warfare, not about abortion. not about assisted suicide or euthanasia. if it were, then God violated his own law, by having Israel doom cities, and giving the priest a concoction that induced abortions. Peace

You don’t think that euthanasia, mercy killing, abortion, killing the unborn, suicide, killing yourself and those that assist are committing sin?

 

[KathleenGee]

First of all, Richard,…how doe one define worship…Is it something you create or is it something that God dictates?

How is Christian worship compared to Jewish worship?

And in the structure of worship, how do you set it up? Do you think it is something you set up? How would you then set up a worship after Pentecost?

What would you do if there were influential people that you know are deliberately or mistakenly not accepting your good intentions, and they are getting people to believe in concepts about Christ that you know are wrong?

So how do you know you are wrong? People did not always believe Christ is God, Christ is Man? Do you? How would you go about correcting errors? Would you do it by yourself? Who would check you to make sure you know what you are doing…

We all have our blind spots…so how do you know in your creation of a church, your implementation of it now being an official churcn …where would you even get the official and recognizable and acceptance that you are the person to have the authority?

How about all the commandments…what should you do if the faith is spreading into other regions of cultures and peoples…do you think you understand their language enough…what should you do if they are not understanding you or use the same words but for different things? So then what would you do to make sure the same message of Jesus is transmitted to peoples outside your orbit??

So on and so forth…

What would you do?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Richard,
Of course he knows that people who are involved in that commit sin! How did you come to that conclusion that he, even in the most minimal sense, thinks those are not sins? In your defense, you did ask, but the fact that you ask might imply that you are wanting to jump to a conclusion that would make the Catholic view wrong. Or did you just not have an answer for it?

 

[benidict]

Richard,
Of course he knows that people who are involved in that commit sin! How did you come to that conclusion that he, even in the most minimal sense, thinks those are not sins? In your defense, you did ask, but the fact that you ask might imply that you are wanting to jump to a conclusion that would make the Catholic view wrong. Or did you just not have an answer for it?

Gregg. how come you get it, and he doesnt? ive tried every way to phrase and rephrase. i must come to the conclusion that Richard is in serious need of some caffeine or hes just playing symantic word games. lol! peace hold it, i dont think he can have caffeine.

 

[benidict]

You don’t think that the commandment not to kill includes the unborn and anyone that we deem suffering to much. That’s really strange ben.

Your reasoning is faulty here ben. God gives life and God can take it away. The fact that He told the Isrealits to kill the people of Jerico was because He saw that if they were to live His plan of salvation in His chosen people would be in jepordy.

Numbers 5 says nothing about aborting an unborn. Your interpretation here is wrong.

Why do you think it would have said that Saul sinned? Don’t you think he sinned?

You don’t think that euthanasia, mercy killing, abortion, killing the unborn, suicide, killing yourself and those that assist are committing sin?

uh…really Richard? then i challenge you to find one rabbinical scholar that will agree with you that, thou shalt not kill refers to abortion. after all, the law is by and for the Jews. i think they have been given the understanding to interpret their own work havent they? your own founder who supposedly had the “spirit of prophecy” claimed the bible was silent on the issue of abortion, and that she couldnt take a side, because there was no “thus saith the Lord!” although it appears she flip flopped on this a little bit, and said later on, that a father that would allow this, could “almost” be accused of murder.James White was more prolife than she was. he actually condemned it for what it was. maybe HE had the spirit of prophecy! just kidding. of course i believe these are sins Richard. but not because the bible says they are. the bible does not. the Catholic Church however states these are grave sins. the apostles stated these are grave sins. i have something to ask about marriage Richard, but i will save it. this could get very interesting. Peace

 

[Genesius]

Just for the sake of clarification, I believe the Catholic Church offically does not recognize the title “church” in referring to Protestant denominations. There is only one Church. It does, however, recognize them as “denominations”, and local as either “assemblies”, “congregations”, “groups”, etc. I don’t know of a specific CCC reference, but I think I did read it. If any other Catholic knows, can you please post the reference. Thank you.

 

[Genesius]

How do you think the word of God should be implemented and who do you think should “implement” it. I would ask “how is it going to be done?” but thats the same question as the first one.

I would like to answer this one (although, I’m sure that Richard already knows the answer). It is going to be implemented, or done, the exact way that is has because that is the way God has implemented it through Christ Himself…by establishing and guiding the Catholic Church (which is the ancient 1st century Church) as He promised He would through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Christ founded the Church when He gave St. Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt. 16). The Apostles clearly had been given authority to interpret to, and teach the masses all that Christ taught them. As has already been mentioned in this thread…not ALL that Jesus did is recorded in the Sacred Scriptures. So what does that leave? The teaching authority of the Magisterium…the Bishops and priests in union with the head bishop of Rome (the “pope” if you will)…bishops that can all trace their ordination back to one of the original Apostles.

How do you think it should be done or implemented?

 

[rikkk1958]

I am a junior member here and trying hard to learn as much, the debates that occur here in the non-catholic forums gave me lots of information though one need to confirm the truthfulness because it may not be in accord with the catechism of the Church. We all know that it needs a Phd degree to study the theology of the Church but I figured that if one uses logic, history especially, it is easy to understand the Catholic Church is the Church that is referred in the New Testament.

Protestants are our closest brothers and sisters in Christ. Some of them may not even know how they believed otherwise from the Catholic Church. Most of them are young generation Protestants that relies on the charisma and wisdom of their eloquent pastors. I find that when Evangelicals wished to study hard on the history of the Church, especially reading through the early fathers, doctors of the Church, etc., they become more convinced what the Church is all about.

Many Catholics that do not take the faith seriously because of their lack of knowledge of the Church are easily swayed by many evangelicals who they thought had full authority in interpreting the Scriptures. This is the reason why most priests are telling Catholics to just “ride the boat” and just trust the teachings of those who are learned because it take years to study them. This is true because not all humans have equal knowledge, and some are even impaired. This is also the reason why the Church has to employ Sacraments so that “everyone” will have the opportunity to be in Communion with God.

In the advent of new technology and having this kind of communication through the internet, many Catholics like myself are becoming more aware what the Church is all about. Up to this point, when I read the arguments of our Christian brothers here, I sometimes thought that their arguments are valid however, most of them refers only to certain verses that justify their arguments. They seems to support their arguments with verses from the Scriptures not allowing the whole story to confirm their theories.

Church Apologetics would often say that whatever our Protestant brothers and sister does in believing the Word of Christ is always “good”. In my opinion, it is a matter of how they will obey because after all it was Jesus who commanded His Apostles to build His Church so that everyone will be in communion with Him. Giving the early members of the Church this opportunity, it is therefore acceptable and trustworthy that they have been following the instructions of the Lord on how to worship Him since the beginning.

I say to all of our posters, Merry Christmas and may the blessings of the Lord will continue pouring on you and your families so that we will all continue to walk in faith with Him.

 

[benidict]

First of all, Richard,…how doe one define worship…Is it something you create or is it something that God dictates?

How is Christian worship compared to Jewish worship?

And in the structure of worship, how do you set it up? Do you think it is something you set up? How would you then set up a worship after Pentecost?

What would you do if there were influential people that you know are deliberately or mistakenly not accepting your good intentions, and they are getting people to believe in concepts about Christ that you know are wrong?

So how do you know you are wrong? People did not always believe Christ is God, Christ is Man? Do you? How would you go about correcting errors? Would you do it by yourself? Who would check you to make sure you know what you are doing…

We all have our blind spots…so how do you know in your creation of a church, your implementation of it now being an official churcn …where would you even get the official and recognizable and acceptance that you are the person to have the authority?

How about all the commandments…what should you do if the faith is spreading into other regions of cultures and peoples…do you think you understand their language enough…what should you do if they are not understanding you or use the same words but for different things? So then what would you do to make sure the same message of Jesus is transmitted to peoples outside your orbit??

So on and so forth…

What would you do?

]chirp chirp chirp chirp… and the answer to these clear, concise, intelligent questions, from this dear ST. of a Lady go unanswered… :bowdown: