Scriptural Basis for Mary's Assumption

[justasking4]

But you go too far even to say that ONLY the scriptures are inspired-inerrant.

Do you have some support from the catholic church there is something else that is inspired-inerrant? I’m not aware of this claim being made by them.

As I said in my last post, nearly every word Christ spoke during his three years of ministry, and many words the Apostles spoke, even those which weren’t written down, were inspired-inerrant.

How do you know when a specific person is being led-inspired by the Spirit? What criteria do you use to determine this?

 

[justasking4]

Paul doesn’t say Bishops must

be married. He says IF married, they should only be (have been) married ONCE - so if they’re widowers, or divorced, they can’t remarry.
Your right he didn’t say that you must be married but he does use marriage as a criteria. What your church does is to FORBIDS all married men from being priest. That is the issue. That is circumventing the Scriptures.

Paul says quite the opposite elsewhere, in fact. He says that everyone who has the ability to remain chaste and celibate should do so as he himself did -

I’m not aware of any place where he refers to himself in this way. Can you show me where?

 

[LilyM]

justasking4:

LilyM:

Paul doesn’t say Bishops must be married. He says IF married, they should only be (have been) married ONCE - so if they’re widowers, or divorced, they can’t remarry.

Your right he didn’t say that you must be married but he does use marriage as a criteria. What your church does is to FORBIDS all married men from being priest. That is the issue. That is circumventing the Scriptures.

Actually the RCC doesn’t - priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (who are just as much members of the RCC as the majority Latin Rite Catholics) can be married. Any man who wants to be a married Catholic priest merely has to switch from the Latin rite to one of the others.

Paul says quite the opposite elsewhere, in fact. He says that everyone who has the ability to remain chaste and celibate should do so as he himself did

This saying is not in the context of church leadership.

There’s nothing that indicates that this passage about celibacy applies only to the laity and not to church leaders. Show me where this is indicated?

and he himself was a Bishop after all.

I’m not aware of any place where he refers to himself in this way. Can you show me where?

He called himself an Apostle, and was acknowledged by the Apostles as one of their own. He thus had the same status and authority that they did, and was in role if not in name, a Bishop.

 

[justasking4]

We have our Lord’s guarantee that the Church will be free

from error in her infallible teachings through the course of
her life until the end of time.

 

[justasking4]

Actually the RCC doesn’t - priests in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (who are just as much members of the RCC as the majority Latin Rite Catholics) can be married. Any man who wants to be a married Catholic priest merely has to switch from the Latin rite to one of the others.

Why should a man have to switch to the Latin rite to be a priest?

There’s nothing that indicates that this passage about celibacy applies only to the laity and not to church leaders. Show me where this is indicated?

I don’t think this can be sustained by the Scriptures.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think this can be sustained by the Scriptures.

Galatians 1:1 - ‘Paul, an apostle, …’

Galatians 1:9 - ‘and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go the Gentiles and they to the circumcised’

Sounds an awful lot like he’s claiming full equality and equal authority with the other Apostles here, no? And moreover that the other Apostles are reciprocating the feeling. Hence the fact that he immediately goes on to argue with Peter in the following passages.

As for a man ‘having to switch rites’ to be a priest - well, why not? Why do we ‘have to’ go to church on Sundays? Why do we ‘have to’ celebrate Easter and Christmas? Why do we ‘have to’ do anything if we don’t want to? Sometimes what we ‘have to’ do doesn’t coincide with what’s easiest.

 

[justasking4]

What i’m referring to Paul being a bishop.

Galatians 1:1 - ‘Paul, an apostle, not from human beings …’

Galatians 1:9 - ‘and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Peter and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go the Gentiles and they to the circumcised’

sounds an awful lot like he’s claiming full equality and authority with the other Apostles here, no? And moreover that the other Apostles are reciprocating the feeling.

 

[LilyM]

What i’m referring to Paul being a bishop.

All the Apostles were, de facto if not by name, bishops.

You imagine anyone else, even if he had the title bishop and one of the Twelve or Paul didn’t, could order them (or Paul) around? Certainly they were all bishops - and more.

 

[guanophore]

Do you happen to know exactly what these unwritten words were passed on?

Some of them. We know the words Theotokos, and Perpetual Virgin. Mostly we know of concepts and ideology. The words passed into Greek, Latin, Chaldean, and many others.
justasking4;2409904:

I understand this chain of passing on things. However what i want to know is what were the unwritten words of Christ not recorded in the gospels?

Don’t we all! One of these teachings we have is the famous “It is better to give than receive”, not found anywhere in the gospels, but preserved in the Apostolic writings.

Huh? When you hear a homily from a priest do you consider what he is saying to be infallible and inspired?

Unfortunately, no. Too many priests do not preach scripture well, and don’t preach the catechism. If they did, there would be a lot more infallible instruction going on!

The Scriptures in which we are to know very well, pastor- teachers who are to teach us the scriptures and the Holy Spirit. All 3 must be in harmony if we are being truly guided. The problem with the marian doctrines is that they lack the scriptural support and are out of harmony with the Spirit.

This is an interesting perspective, since it was the overshadowing of Mary by that same Spirit that resulted in her pregnancy! How can the spouse of the HS be out of harmony with that Spirit? She was completely submitted to that Holy Spirit. “Be it done to me according to Your will”.

Quote:
Not so. We know for example that the OT scriptures were already in existence and we also know that the letters of Paul were being passed around the churches.There was quite a lot copying of the works of the apostles i.e. NT in these early centuries.

Yes, the NT was being birthed while Mary was still alive. She outlived much of the NT composition, though, and that is one reason that information about her dormition is not contained therein.

When you look at the context for this in John 16:12-13 He is specifically speaking to His disciples who would later write much of the NT. That’s why Paul can say in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declare that the scriptures are adequate.

Paul was not talking about the NT, which did not exist at the time. He was talking about the OT. They could not possibly be sufficient for the Christian life apart from the Apostolic Teaching. Jesus is never even mentioned by name in them!

I would agree to a point. I suspect we would both agree that this would include the scriptures. However we must also keep in mind that false teachers would also come into the church itself and decieve many with their false doctrines. So how do we determine what a true teaching is apostlolic with a false one?

This is an excellent question. I think it is important to compare the doctrine to scripture, but that is not enough, because there are so many different ways to interpret scripture.

Jesus said, when we have a dispute or disagreement, take it to the Church. He gave the Keys to the Apostles, and the authority to be arbiters of disputes and disagreements. He empowered them with authority to resolve them. Those who refused this Apostolic Authority, were not considered part of the Body. However, this question should go on another thread.

No doubt the church has the responsiblity to teach the truths of Christ. The church has the responsiblity to proclaim the Word. However there is no guarantee that this would always be done. We know for example as i’ve said previously that false teachers would come into the church itself and lead people astray.

Having false teachers does not subtract from the truth. Jesus chose Judas, but that did not subtract from the authority he gave to His Apostles, or make what he taught them any less true. He taught us to let the wheat and the tares grow together, and trust that the Lord of the Harvest would cut down and burn the weeds.

The test of course is Apostolic succession - the Apostles could and did pass on the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. When they did so, along with the Spirit they also passed on the same gift of being able to transmit it to others in the same fashion.

I don’t understand this. Who in the 2nd century or 3rd was considered an apostle?

Another excellent question that also belongs on another thread.

If you look at this kind of thing in Scripture you will see that the apostles are not passing on to others their apostleship.

REally? What do you see that Paul passed to Timothy? Don’t answer that, it belongs on another thread!

 

[guanophore]

Quote:
Hearing a homily from you would be a different matter.

In what way?

You reject the Apostolic Authority appointed by Christ, therefore, anything you have to say is suspect.

Justasking4: “What I want to know is what were the unwritten words of Christ not recorded in the Gospels?”

Quote:
Good Fella : You are being unkind.

Huh? How is asking such a question unkind? Does not your church claim in some kind of oral tradition?

Good Fella is right, you are just taking the opportunity to make jabs. How do I know that?

Any claim to have some kind of oral tradition of the apostles is absurd.

You have rejected any answer before you ever asked the question!

Of course the gospel writers mention Mary. What they don’t mention are many of the claims your church makes about her. Take her supposed her supposed immaculate conception. Such a thing is never mentioned anywhere in Scripture about her.

When one reads the scriptures in accordance with the Apostolc Authority, one can see these passages and how they are relevant. When one reads with a bias against the authority Christ appointed, one will conclude against that authority. It is a form of rebellion. That is where we get the word “protestant”.

Never claimed to be. Keep in mind this is true of everyone. No man or institution is inspired.

If this is true, then how can your bible be inspired, having been written by men? How could Jesus promise to guide His church into all truth, if He was unable to inspire men to know the truth?

Luke 24:45-46
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures"

2 Peter 1:20-21
21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

It is a lie, then? Men are NOT inspired by God?

Quote:
And you certainly have not been graced with the ‘charism’ of infallibility as has the Sacred Magisterium of the Church.

What is the ‘charism’ of infallibility"?

Another excellent question that belongs in another thread.

I have asked this many times. Where then is the infallible and authorative interpretation of the Scriptures to be found in the catholic church? Can you direct me to this work that tells me what each verse and passage means?

And you have been directed many times to the catechism, and other documents produced by infallible sources. You reject the authority of all these sources. This is your right of course, but don’t try to pretend it does not exist.

 

[guanophore]

I looked these words up in a Greek lexicon and here is what they mean:Adequate-Complete, sufficient, completely qualified (2 Tim. 3:17). More closely syn. with one in which all the parts are complete or whole and what they are supposed to be, so that they might serve their destined purpose. Equipped-to furnish or fit completely (2 Tim. 3:17). Paul states that inspired Scripture can make the man of God ártios, competent, proficient, adept or capable.

I agree with you on this point. I think it was a mistake to say that the scriptures are not adequate. What we need to take into account here is that there was no NT at the time, and that Paul is speaking of the OT canon. There is NO WAY that a person could be properly instructed in the Christian way of life using the OT without Apostolic guidance.

this refers to the Old Testament not the fullness of the Gospel we have now so it can’t be adequate.
justasking4;2411632:

Did Paul preach the fulleness of the Gospel?

Yes, I believe he did, and although we don’t have all of it still in writng, I believe that Jesus revealed all truth to him that he needed to advance the kingdom. Could you imagine evangelizing about Christ using only the OT? What a task!

i have no problem with the Word but with how teachers who either ignorantly pervert the Word or dilberately do so. Its the interpretations that are the problem as with the marian doctrines.\quote]

I think this is only a problem for you because you are separated from the Apostolic Authority Jesus appointed.
justasking4;2411632:

Were these men considered Apostles?

If you were to accept that they did inherit the Apostolic Authority, would you then have to accept the Marian doctrines?

Quote:
They were, in fact, passing on their authority to teach and guide the new church. Paul, himself, tells of people appearing and teaching in the name of Christ that were not given the authority of the apostles. Authority being the keyword. Everything comes back to authority. Who must settle disputes in matters of faith and morals and God’s Will?? Authority.

Can you give me some specific verses that show that it is "authority" that determines these things?

Yes, but this belongs in another thread.

Have you ever studied what the structure of the NT church was like and compared it with your church? One of the things you will find is that it is not even close to being identical. Look up in I Timothy 3:1-5 where being married was actually used as being a criteria for leadership. In your church, you are disqualified from leadership (priests-bishops etc) if you are married. Big difference.

 

[guanophore]

Your church got some things right. I have no problem with that. What i have a problem are the various doctrines that it promotes that are not grounded in the Scriptures. The marian doctrines are one of these things.

No, The Apostolic Teaching reflected in the Holy Scriptures is certainly binding. However, the scripture was not given the “keys”. The keys were given to the Apostles, who transmitted their authority to their successors until the present day. This authority is empowered by God to interpret the scriptures correctly so that we understand HOW they are binding.

The scriptures say that Mary was 'full of grace". The Apostolic Authority tells us that this means sin did not exist in her life. Believing what the scriptures say, then, becomes binding. This is how Jesus set it up.

 

[guanophore]

Have you ever studied what the structure of the NT church was like and compared it with your church? One of the things you will find is that it is not even close to being identical. Look up in I Timothy 3:1-5 where being married was actually used as being a criteria for leadership. In your church, you are disqualified from leadership (priests-bishops etc) if you are married. Big difference.

You are not properly understanding the context, or the Teaching. In the Graeco-Roman world, polygamy was common. Paul taught that the bishop should be the husband of ONE WIFE (as opposed to a whole harem). He also taught that it was better to be celibate, just as Jesus taught. The Catholic Church recognizes that marriage is a full time vocation, and so is the priesthood, and does not want her ministers distracted by trying to please their wives. Celibacy is the higher calling.

 

[guanophore]

Do you happen to know where i can the source for these claims? \quote]

No, justasking. I think, since you reject the Apostolic Authority that was appointed by Jesus, there is no source available that will satisfy you.
justasking4;2411685:

Not so. The marian doctrines do at a number of places. Take the claim that she was without sin. That claim is in direct contradiction of Romans 5:12.,18.

It only seems that way because you are misunderstanding the meaning of Romans 5:12.,18.

How do you know when a specific person is being led-inspired by the Spirit? What criteria do you use to determine this?

This is an excellent question, but belongs in another thread.

 

[guanophore]

Your right he didn’t say that you must be married but he does use marriage as a criteria. What your church does is to FORBIDS all married men from being priest. That is the issue. That is circumventing the Scriptures.

This is not true. The Church allows ordination of married men. This topic belongs in another thread. Since all of your complaints boil down to a rejection of Apostolic Authority, why not start a thread on that?

Quote:
Paul says quite the opposite elsewhere, in fact. He says that everyone who has the ability to remain chaste and celibate should do so as he himself did -
justasking4;2411704:

This saying is not in the context of church leadership.
I’m not aware of any place where he refers to himself in this way. Can you show me where?

1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. "

The Catholic Church wants the utmost for His highest. She wants ministers who are not anxious about worldly affairs, or with divided interests. She wants ministers who can focus entirely on pleasing the Lord.

Matt 19:10-12

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

The Apostles recognize that Jesus’ is teaching that it is not expedient to marry. However, only certain persons are called to celibacy. Those who are called to it should receive it. The Catholic Church recognizes that those who are called to the priesthood are called to celibacy.

Your right he didn’t say that you must be married but he does use marriage as a criteria. What your church does is to FORBIDS all married men from being priest. That is the issue. That is circumventing the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church wrote the whole NT justasking. She nowhere circumvents the work of her hands. She does not forbid all married men from being a priest.

Quote:
Paul says quite the opposite elsewhere, in fact. He says that everyone who has the ability to remain chaste and celibate should do so as he himself did -

This saying is not in the context of church leadership.

REally? Perhaps you can enlighten us to the context? Again I will warn you this is off topic, and when it comes to the attention of the moderators, the thread will be closed.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think this can be sustained by the Scriptures. The passages you use below make no such claim that the church would be free from error. In fact the scriptures warn that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. 2 Peter 2:1 for example. If the church were guaranteed to be kept from error then this verse and others like it would absurd. We also know from Revelations 2:14-15;20 that these churches were rebuked for holding to false teachings.If the was a guarantee then this would not have happened.

I think you are confusing the charism of infallibility as applying to all individuals who teach, and this is not the case. The charism was given to the church. Individuals do err, and false teachers have emerged (such as Arius, Nestorius, and Luther). Members of churches can also espouse false teaching. Whole congregations followed after Arias.

You are not applying the concept correctly.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think this can be sustained by the Scriptures. Why should a man have to switch to the Latin rite to be a priest?

Actually, I think that post is in error. It think there are regulations about switching rites, and a protection against persons doing so for the purpose of embracing two vocations at the same time.
justasking4;2411758:

Celibacy was never a requirement.

You make this statement because you are unfamiliar with the divine deposit of faith that has been passed to us through the Apostolic Succession. If you were familiar with it, you would realize that it has been so since the first century.

There are some of the teachings you will not find in your scripture.

 

[Good_Fella]

JustAsking4 : “If you look at this kind of thing, you will see that the apostles were not passing on any apostleship.”

Good Fella :The New Testament is clear about apostolic succession. There are recorded instances of this tradition, as is the case with the appointment of bishops by the apostles and further appointments by those who were ordained by the apostles (Tit 1:5-9) St.Paul himself was never a freelancer unlike our Protestant religious founders and independent pastors. St.Paul assumed his leadership role in the early Church only after being commissioned by Church leaders: “After fasting and praying, they laid their hands on them ( Paul and Barnabas) and sent them off.” (Acts 13:3) Moreover, we should keep in mind that not all of the New Testament was written by the original disciples of Jesus. In some cases, texts were written by disciples who were chosen by the Twelve. These texts contain what was handed on to these writers by apostolic authority. What was then written down has been handed on further in the Church. Yet Jesus committed his teachings, not merely to a book, but to living men who were part of a living tradition and who handed on our Lord’s teachings to others. The apostles and their successors were appointed and commissioned to purvey both the Word and Sacrament. Paul, in turn, appointed Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus, and so from one generation to the next until the present day in the episcopal life of the Catholic Church. Your assertion contradicts what is clearly revealed in our “infallible and inerrant” Bible. This is what I mean by saying that your “homily” would be a different matter, for you tend to contradict the teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church by erroneously interpreting the Bible as a lone individual. The single Protestant denominations fare no different as they continue to flourish in their erroneous beliefs and disagreements with each other.

Justasking4 : “What is the charism of infallibilty?”

Good Fella I take it that you disbelieve in this gift of the Holy Spirit, originating with Christ, and conferred on his Apostles on Pentecost as promised by our Lord while he was still here on earth. We find an instance in which the apostles exercise this charism of the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:28. When the apostles assembled at the Council of Jerusalem (our first Council) around 49AD, they made the momentous decision that Christians were to be exempted from the ritual Mosaic law that had bound the Jews. They attributed their decision to the work of the Holy Spirit. “It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit (the promised Advocate) and to us to lay upon you no greater burden.” They were certain of the infallibilty of their decision warranted by the working of the Holy Spirit.

The charism of infallibilty may have been first promised by our Lord when he said to Peter, "I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith may not fail, and you, once converted, confirm your brethren. (Pope Pius Xll confirmed Catholic belief in the Assumption in his Apostolic Constitution.) The Lord has promised to support the faith of Peter and his successors so that they will know his truth in matters of faith and morals. Our Pope supports the faith of the bishops who in turn support the faith of the Church. The words of our Lord in Luke 22:32 assure us that the Sacred Magisterium cannot stray from the truths revealed in Sacred Scriptures when formulating essential doctrines and promulagating articles of faith. Meanwhile, the pope and bishops are not “(name removed by moderator)eccable” being inclined to sin like the rest of us.

Although individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibilty, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrines infallibly. Infallibilty belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops, like Peter was the head of the apostles (Mt 16:17-19; Jn 21:15-17). It is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Thus his definitions (that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin), of themselves, and not from the ‘consent’ of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him through blessed Peter. (Cf. Lumen Gentium 25) The dogma of papal infallibilty is also rooted in this Petrine text: “You are Peter…” (Mt 16:18)

Christ commissioned Peter and the Apostles to preach everything he taught (Mt 28:19) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth ( Jn 16:13). Our Lord’s mandate and his promise guarantee the Catholic Church will never fall away from his teachings and the Word of God even if false teachers like Arius, Apollinaris, Macedonius, Marcion, Nestorius, Pelagius, Sabellius, and Luther come along. Heretics are excommunicated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t think this can be sustained by the Scriptures.

JA-

You have become quite active in the forum recently, and you are asking some good questions to which we would like to respond with thoughtful replies. This will be easier if you take a few moments to learn

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is. It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

You don’t even need two brain cells to see how idiotic the teaching of the eucharist really is.

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

It was so important that Peter, who wrote two epistles, overwhelms the reader with the topic of the eucharist.

Hope this helps.

Thanks. :tiphat:

 

[Good_Fella]

Justasking4 : “The scriptures warn us that false teachers would come into the Church (not churches?) itself and deceive many. If the Church were guaranteed to be kept free from error, then this verse ( 2 Pet 2:1) and others like it ( Rev 2:14-15, 20) would be absurd.”

Good Fella : The false teachers this verse refers to are not Peter or any of the apostles, so Christ’s promise to guide the Church “in all truth” is still in force. Let us not suggest that our Lord would break his promise to his immediate disciples. He did claim to be “the Truth”. The false teachers who are condemned by the Church’s apostolic authority are ring leaders of heretical sects which existed at the time of the infant Church and sprung from within, but contrary to the teachings handed down from the apostles. Heresies concerning the person of Jesus were sprouting left and right at this time, since the Church had not yet solemnly defined any doctrines pertaining to Christ and the Holy Trinity. One reason why the oral tradition was put into writing was to assert a unity of faith, as opposed to the false notions that were spreading about, and to establish the Church’s apostolic identity in the world. Verses such as this one express a great concern for the loss of faith among individual believers. There is no warning against the erroneous teachings of the apostles as a whole. A local elder or a bishop may err in his teachings, but a lone cleric is not graced with the charism of infallibility and does not represent the Church if he rejects the teachings which come to us through the apostles.

As for the Bishop of the Church of Laodicea in Revelation 2, he was not even a heretic. Christ admonishes him for being tepid and lacking sufficient apostolic zeal. There is a strong need of a spiritual reform in the hearts and minds of the Bishop and his congregation. Again, the charism of infallibilty and the integrity of the the doctrines of the early Church have nothing to do with this situation. The problem with this weak Bishop is that he is as lethargic in his self-confidence as is most of his congregation. And so he neglects his pastoral duties to them in this regard. He believes he is virtuous enough and that any more virtuous behaviour would amount to fanaticism. He is confident he will get to heaven and so degrades the virtue of hope. He is too proud and thus spiritually blind like a pharisee. Christ will pass judgment on him and his flock if they fail to reform their spiritual lives.

Certainly, if our Lord had failed to keep his promise, it is possible that even Peter and Paul could have fallen into grave error in their teachings and lead the faithful off the path of salvation. We could not even be sure whether the New Testament is entirely true. Muslims believe that the authors of the sacred texts twisted our Lord’s words to fit their own agenda - an absurd and unsupportable charge. The false teachers alluded to in the New Testament are individuals with no apostolic authority, who taught contrary to the teachings of the appointed apostles as a unified body. Christ has promised to guide and protect his One Holy and Apostolic Church until the end of time, and the gates of hell - lies- will not prevail aginst it.