SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[MariaG]

MariaG

I will give you the information about Elijah and Enoch being “taken” provided you will promise me you will read the Scriptures I give you.

I always read the scriptures people post to me. Scriptureis always profitable.

First I am sure you know there are three heavens. Paul spoke of the third heaven and referring to the very dwelling place of God.

To be completely honest, I never studied anything, in the Catholic Church nor my Protestant ones about the three heavens as posted in your link.

The explanation seems reasonable though, in light of scripture and even seems compatible with Catholic teaching on this However, again, I have never truly studied the concept of specifically, three heavens. Interesting though. I did a search and read other links, and scripture, including one at New Advent.

The first heaven is the earth’s atmosphere.

Deut. 11:17 Then the LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce…

Deut. 28:12 The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands.

Judges 5:4 – "O LORD, when you went out from Seir, when you marched from the land of Edom, the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds poured down water.

Acts 14:17 – "Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons;…

The second heaven is outer space.

Psalm 19:4,6 – In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun… It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other;…

Jeremiah 8:2 – *They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens which they have loved and served… *

Isaiah 13:10 – The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light

The third heaven is God’s dwelling place.

1 Kings 8:30 (phrase repeated numerous times in following verses) – then hear from heaven, your dwelling place…

Psalm 2:4 – *The One enthroned in heaven laughs; The LORD scoffs at them. *

Matthew 5:16 – In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The highest heaven, the third heaven is indicated by the reference to the Throne of God being the highest heaven.

1 Kings 8:27 – "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you.

Deut. 10:14 – *To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it. *

Realize that at the time of ancient Israel, they did not understand the universe as we do today. They wrote in terms they were familiar with. They spoke of three heavens.

I had help in obtaining this description of the three heavens from here:

carm.org/questions/threeheavens.htm

(cont’d

 

[Old_Scholar]

Where does he say everything?

Hehe. You just did.

“And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Eli’jah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus.”

So where did Elijah and Moses come from, then?

You have the usual habit. Quoting only what you want to show and ignoring the rest. Read this:

Matt 17:9 *And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, **Tell the vision ***to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.[/iI

Do you think God could not make anyone He want to appear? This was a **vision and they were not looking at heaven. Those men are dead and in the ground, awaiting the resurrection.

 

[VociMike]

I didn’t say your church can’t teach on this. What i’m saying is that catholics do not have any advantage in interpreting scripture over anyone else since their magisterium has never interpreted infallibly or offically most verses of the Bible. This means that catholics cannot claim with any certainty what a verse means.

You seem to have the odd notion that teaching and preserving the faith is merely an exercise in interpreting verses of the Bible. That is very far from the truth. The Christian faith does not come from the Bible. The Apostles and those around them knew the faith before they wrote down one word of the New Testament.

What Catholics have is the advantage of receiving the entire deposit of faith without error. That does, among other things, translate into the fullest understanding of scripture, since scripture (one component of the deposit of faith) can never conflict with that entire deposit of faith.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I always read the scriptures people post to me. *Scripture *is always profitable.

To be completely honest, I never studied anything, in the Catholic Church nor my Protestant ones about the three heavens as posted in your link.

The explanation seems reasonable though, in light of scripture and even seems compatible with Catholic teaching on this However, again, I have never truly studied the concept of specifically, three heavens. Interesting though. I did a search and read other links, and scripture, including one at New Advent.

---

I certainly appreciate your candor. It is the object of this forum to learn and it works both ways. I have learned a great deal and am still anxious to learn.

My personal opinion is that the Bible teaches that everyone who has died is in the ground awaiting the resurrection. No one has gone to heaven, as the Scriptures tell us. If they have, then why did Christ say He could raise up David? If we are in heaven when we die, then why do we need a resurrection, since we are already promised a new body?

 

[justasking4]

VociMike;3220817]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
I didn’t say your church can’t teach on this. What i’m saying is that catholics do not have any advantage in interpreting scripture over anyone else since their magisterium has never interpreted infallibly or offically most verses of the Bible. This means that catholics cannot claim with any certainty what a verse means.

VociMike
You seem to have the odd notion that teaching and preserving the faith is merely an exercise in interpreting verses of the Bible. That is very far from the truth.

Understanding what the scriptures mean in context is absolutely essential for correct doctrine and practice. You must interpret the Scriptures. Without it, you will arrive at a false understanding of the Scriptures and what God intends for us. You will not have the truth without interpreting the Scriptrues correctly.

The Christian faith does not come from the Bible. The Apostles and those around them knew the faith before they wrote down one word of the New Testament.

Think about what you are saying here. Jesus and the apostles were steeped in the OT Scriptures. That is the foundation for their teachings. Christianity has always been a religion of the Book.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Church Militant

There is as much as history will supply. A lack of a body is a good start as is the lack of a grave site. The fact that there is an account that says that the apostles were there when she died, whether you accept it or not is a source that cannot be reasonably discounted.

I am very much interested in what you have that shows the apostles were present when Mary died. Who were they and where did she die. Can you also give something historical to say when it was?

Thanks!

 

[MariaG]

First, I wish to thank you for the time you spent providing me with scripture I know it can be time comsuming, even when you can find a good site to gather the info from.

MariaG

If you believe Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven, let me give you a little information.

(cont’d)

Church Militant’s explanation of Abraham’s bosom until heaven was opened by Christ’s sacrifice has always sufficed for me:shrug:

Please by all means show me the scriptures that you feel tell us that Enoch and Elijah did not go to heaven. Most people believe that until Christ came and opened the way that all righteous Jews went to the “bosom of Abraham”, which meant that they were as good as going to heaven. either way, it DOES mean that they were taken to their reward, so the point is both irrelevant to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin, since at the point where she was assumed she could indeed go directly to heaven.

Mary easily fits the same criteria that saw the OT men assumed.

BTW, the two words assumed and ascended are most definitely NOT the same thing. Moses, Enoch, Elijah, and the Blessed Virgin Mary were assumed into heaven by God.

The Lord Jesus Christ ascended (under His own power!) into Heaven where He is seated at the right hand of the Father. No one else had the power to do that.

I will begin with Elijah and see what the Scriptures say “really” happened to him. Reading the following Scriptures will give us a very good indication that Elijah was sent all over the world as they knew it then:

Intriguing! What an interesting thought and one that I certainly will continue to pursue!

But truly, the point is we both know that whether or not Elijah was in “Abraham’s bosom” or sent all over the world, he was there due to the power of God and none of his own.

Assumed or taken, whether to heaven, Abraham’s bosom, or sent all over the world, (which is eerily akin to Catholic beliefs about Mary and all the apparitions of her ), all did so by God’s power and not of their own. Whereas Christ ASCENDED into heaven by His own power.

BTW, I tried to repost the scripture and your explanations of Elijah, but not enough room. Thank you again for the scripture

 

[VociMike]

Understanding what the scriptures mean in context is absolutely essential for correct doctrine and practice. You must interpret the Scriptures. Without it, you will arrive at a false understanding of the Scriptures and what God intends for us. You will not have the truth without interpreting the Scriptrues correctly.

This is one of the great errors of Protestantism.

Christianity has always been a religion of the Book.

This is another of the great errors of Protestantism.

 

[MariaG]

I certainly appreciate your candor. It is the object of this forum to learn and it works both ways. I have learned a great deal and am still anxious to learn.

Thanks. I too am still anxious to learn. The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know

My personal opinion is that the Bible teaches that everyone who has died is in the ground awaiting the resurrection. No one has gone to heaven, as the Scriptures tell us. If they have, then why did Christ say He could raise up David? If we are in heaven when we die, then why do we need a resurrection, since we are already promised a new body?

Hmm, like a soul sleep? Yes, I have heard that, but it was not part of my set of beliefs either as a Protestant or now as a Catholic.

While I do think that they were in a “soul sleep” before Christ’s death and resurrection, I believe they are now in heaven and do not have to wait for the general judgement but enter heaven(or hell) upon their particular judgement. I believe the following scripture bears this belief out of immediate sentence of particular judgement.

:bible1: Luke 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried;
23] and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Laz’arus in his bosom.

Although, I will concede that since the above verse speaks of Abraham’s bosom only, that one could choose to believe in the continued existence of “Abraham’s bosom” instead of believing that heaven has been opened. Although I do not believe in the continued existence of Abraham’s bosom based on other parts of scripture, specifically Hebrews 12:1 and in Revelation 5:8 where it speaks of the elders.

As for why we would need to resurrected, it is because while our soul recieves particular judgement, we will not recieve our new reserrected bodies until the general judgement? That is my belief, one that I am not sure if it is in line with Catholic teaching .

God bless,
Maria

 

[justasking4]

VociMike;3220956]
Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Understanding what the scriptures mean in context is absolutely essential for correct doctrine and practice. You must interpret the Scriptures. Without it, you will arrive at a false understanding of the Scriptures and what God intends for us. You will not have the truth without interpreting the Scriptrues correctly.

VociMike
This is one of the great errors of Protestantism.

How so?
Are you saying that context etc does not matter in determining doctrine and practice?

Quote:justasking4
Christianity has always been a religion of the Book.

VociMike
This is another of the great errors of Protestantism.

Do you deny then that the Christianity has always believed in the inspiration of the OT and Jesus and His apostles based their teachings on it?

 

[rtconstant]

Think about what you are saying here. Jesus and the apostles were steeped in the OT Scriptures. That is the foundation for their teachings. Christianity has always been a religion of the Book.

More accurately Christianity has always been a religion of The Word, and The Word is Christ.

The Apostles for the most part were steeped in Jewish tradition. Yes there were various compilations of Sacred Scripture available in the ancient world the Septuagint being the most common during the time of Christ. However, it wasn’t like everybody had Bibles and study aids at home to really get cranking on study and research. Most of the faithful heard scripture on the Sabbath in the Synagogue but for the most part would have gained their knowledge of the faith through the teaching of rabbis and parents.

In addition the books of Sacred Scripture are themselves simply recounting of real life words and actions. The teachings and actions happened first then the scriptures grew out of those. So no, Scripture wasn’t the foundation of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. The teachings themselves were the foundation. Scripture simply recorded certain aspects of it.

If proper understanding of Scripture wasn’t dependant on the teaching of the Faith then Jews and Christians would be the same religion. A Christian reads the Old Testament and sees prophesies that announce the coming of Christ. A Jew reads it and sees nothing of the sort. The difference is the teachings we were raised with that give us a lens through which to view the Scriptures.

The Bible is written for believers.

 

[Pax]

…
…

The church councils kept including some, eliminating others, then changing them again and putting them in and out. It was only at Trent that the “infallible” church agreed. Is that really infallibility?

This is a falsehood. All of the Duetercanonical books that we have today were included in the list of books at Hippo, Carthage, and Rome. Moreover, the Council of Florence affirmed the same Canon. You have quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia in another post in an attempt to discredit the Catholic Canon. Naturally, you failed to include the following taken from the same.

The “Decretum Pro Jacobitis” by Eugenius IV contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.

Many theologians believe that the statements concerning the Canon contained in the “Decretum Pro Jacobitis” to be infallible.

This is the same list of books infallibly “declared” canonical at Trent. You conveniently ignore these facts and attempt to claim that Trent added books to scripture. You have been asked over and over again to show even one council that did not include the Deuteros as listed by Trent. So far you have not done so. Your argument is pure sophistry.

You also continue to make false claims about Jerome. You have done this by ommission. Please note the following:

In his later years St. Jerome accepted the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. He even defended their status as inspired Scripture, writing, “What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn’t relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us” (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Mark Shea in an article for Envoy magazine also pointed out that, "In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He “followed the judgment of the churches.”

The books were not added to the canon at Trent. The Council of Trent, Session Four, stated: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.”

Jerome “followed the judgment of the churches.” The question that must now be posed is:

Will you follow the judgment of the churches?

 

[CentralFLJames]

John 3:13 " And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Well if we want to start tossing fundamental views of scripture around, then technically I think we can assume that Mary was not a man either was she?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Church Militant:

Please by all means show me the scriptures that you feel tell us that Enoch and Elijah did not go to heaven. Most people believe that until Christ came and opened the way that all righteous Jews went to the “bosom of Abraham”, which meant that they were as good as going to heaven. either way, it DOES mean that they were taken to their reward, so the point is both irrelevant to the assumption of the Blessed Virgin, since at the point where she was assumed she could indeed go directly to heaven.

Actually CM I have to disagree here in favor of OS in this area. They were taken to a place called “paradise”. This is an area of peace and tranquility that is not in heaven. It is a special reserved area (i speculate associated with the highest levels of purgatory very close to heaven). All men except those born into the Kingdom must die. Thus Enoch and Elijah also will die. God will re-convey them to earth at the appointed time to become the 2 witnesses. They will teach the Jews about Christ in the end times and will convert them to Christianity. They will be killed by anti-Christ and then a few days later resurrected just before Anti-Christ attempts to ascend to heaven to proclaim himself Lord. Then St. Michael under the direction of Jesus slams antiChrist screaming in horror to earth to his destruction. The rest is our salvation.

James

 

[MariaG]

Well if we want to start tossing fundamental views of scripture around, then technically I think we can assume that Mary was not a man either was she?

James

But Mary did not ASCEND up to heaven even if she was a woman. Basic difference between assumption and ascension.

Christ ascended by His own power and is the only one man (or woman) to have done so as scripture rightly states and the Catholic Church rightly teaches.

 

[Pax]

Distinctions can and should be made, but paradise can be considered part of heaven. Naturally, this part of heaven does not include the beatific vision. Nevertheless, there is a real possibility that the OT figures that are said to be “assumed into heaven” could be exceptions. These points are, however, confined to the realm of theological speculation. No one knows for sure.

The main argument is that Elijah and Enoch were “assumed.” It is a distinct possibility that Moses was also but scripture is not at all clear on this one. Nevertheless, Moses presence at the Transfiguration makes it appear that he had been granted some special heavenly glory. If all of these things are true than it is reasonable to believe that Mary was assumed into heaven as a special privelege and that Revelation 12 is the proof thereof.

 

[VociMike]

How so?
Are you saying that context etc does not matter in determining doctrine and practice?

I’m saying scripture is not necessary to determine the teachings of the Christian faith. The fullness of those teachings is possessed by the Catholic Church.

Do you deny then that the Christianity has always believed in the inspiration of the OT and Jesus and His apostles based their teachings on it?

I don’t deny the former. The latter I do deny. At most the OT was used to confirm their teachings, which is exactly the situation today as well.

 

[justasking4]

VociMike;3221422]I’m saying scripture is not necessary to determine the teachings of the Christian faith. The fullness of those teachings is possessed by the Catholic Church.

This is a shocking statement. I wonder if other catholics believe the samething as you do.
Do you think other catholics would agree with you?

I don’t deny the former. The latter I do deny. At most the OT was used to confirm their teachings, which is exactly the situation today as well.

If what you say is true then why does the NT use the OT so much? We would not have the NT without the OT.

 

[guanophore]

Since I reject the notion of infallibility, how else could I describe it?

Ok. You stated that you believed the canon was a fallible collection of infallible materials.

Now, you are saying that you reject the notion of infallibility. Do you see why I am confused?

I think Jesus did that, I just don't think an "infallible" body was involved.

OK. How and when did Jesus define the canon? I am trying to follow you here but I am having some trouble.

What exactly were the people told to “do”? Do we know the limits of this command?

Matt 23:1-8
23:1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. 4 They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, 7 and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.

From the context, I would say that the limit is around arrogance and pride.

I agree that the Pharisees held the seat of Moses (maybe the Sadducees too?) and that they had authority but in the NT, we see clearly that authority doesn’t equal infallibility.

I think that Jesus transferred the authority to teach and make disciples to the Apostles. I agree that authority does not necessarily equal infallibility, but the infallibility is certainly part of the authority. Infallibility cannot exist without authority. I guess, then, the question would be, what is the extent of the teaching authority given to the Apostles?

Slaves are told to obey their masters, children are told to obey their parents, citizens the government, etc. so there is no need to read infallibility into the seat of Moses.

Are you saying that people in authority teaching wrong things is not a problem?

If the seat of Moses was an infallible office (for lack of a better way to describe it) one has to overcome several problems:

a.) Why did they mis-use the corban rule? In Mark and Matthew as well we see Jesus discussing this issue and telling the Pharisees that:
i.) They were teaching as doctrine the precepts of man.
ii.) They were invalidating the word of God by their tradition which they were handing down.
iii.) They set aside the commandment of God in order to keep their tradition.

I agree. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they were fallible persons, in charge of an infallible rule. Why else would Jesus tell them "so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do" ??

So if in a matter of morality and faith an “infallible” body can be so wrong, what good does it do? Their are other problems with the seat of Moses having in infallibility attached to it as well.

One would have to be able to distinguish between the teachings and the praxis.

If the seat of Moses gave it’s holder the charism of infallibility, why didn’t they recognize Jesus as who He said He was?

That is not how the charism works? Anyway, some of them did. Nicodemus and Joseph of Aramathea among them.

Additionally, the Pharisees who held the seat did not accept the deutero’s as being canonical yet your church says they are.

We use the canon that Jesus and the Apostles used, that included the deutero’s. They are a more appropriate authority for Christians, don’t you think?

But, again, I agree that it seems they would have been able to recognize the canon.

So, if the occupier of the seat of Moses was infallible, why didn’t they accept the deutero’s as canonical?

There are other issues as well but I will be interested in seeing you response.

Well noted.

I didn’t mean to imply the list of canonical books fell out of the sky.

I am relieved to hear that, but if not that, then how? Do you think that man can reach infallible decisions without divine intervention? Since you say the canon is fallible, are you saying that they used these certain criteria, but they may have gotten it wrong?

 

[guanophore]

Nonsense-Sirach was commonly used by the early Christian church that it was known as"THE CHURCH BOOK".:

And in the book of Wisdom are found some phrases copied into the NT about the actions of those around Jesus’ crucifixion:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training.
13
He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the LORD.
14
To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,
15
Because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.
16
He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
17
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him.
18
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
19
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience.
20
Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him."
21
These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them,
22
And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.
23
For God formed man to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made him.
24
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it.