Pelosi clings to — and misquotes — her Bible
posted at 11:15 am on April 24, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Maybe Democrats can’t understand the call to faith many Americans feel because they’ve been reading the wrong Bible. Via the boss, CNS News provides evidence for this conclusion with Nancy Pelosi’s Earth Day speech on Tuesday. Apparently hoping to reach out to the bitter gun-hugging xenophobes of middle America, Pelosi adopted the Sunday Schoolmarm pose and told us that God wanted us to worship Gaia:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is fond of quoting a particular passage of Scripture. The quote, however, does not appear in the Bible and is “fictional,” according to biblical scholars.
In her April 22 Earth Day news release, Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’ On this Earth Day, and every day, let us pledge to our children, and our children’s children, that they will have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and the opportunity to experience the wonders of nature.”
Cybercast News Service repeatedly queried the speaker’s office for two days to determine where the alleged Bible quote is found. Thus far, no one has responded. …
Claude Mariottini, a professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Cybercast News Service the passage not only doesn’t exist – it’s “fictional.”
“It is not in the Bible,” Mariottini said. “There is nothing that even approximates that.”
I wrote about Barack Obama’s impulse to do some text-searching of Scripture ex post facto to cover for his Crackerquiddick comments. As I wrote then, people with religious faith are used to people throwing Bible quotes out of context at them to challenge their faith and their values. It’s the hallmark of someone who treats Biblical faith with contempt. But at least they usually get the quotes correct, even if out of context.
Let’s see if we can get something close to what Pelosi said from Bible Gateway, a fairly encyclopedic search engine that covers several different editions of the Bible. “Minister to the needs of God’s creation” comes up with no hits. “Environment” comes up with no hits. “Dishonor” comes back with 29 hits in the NIV (only 10 in KJV), none of which have to do with stewardship over God’s creation. Even “Steward” comes back with only 10 hits, none on point.
We do, however, find this in Genesis 1:28:
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
No one argues that mankind has stewardship of God’s creation, with the exception of the enlightened atheists that somehow insist on telling us what our own Bible says. However, the essentially illiteracy of our betters in San Francisco — the same crowd who laughed in approval to Barack Obama’s description of middle America as bitter xenophobes who cling to our Bibles because the GDP didn’t expand last quarter — perfectly exemplifies the contempt in which they hold our faith and the condescension they exude when trying to talk down to us.
I’d say that Pelosi may really be clinging to the Bible out of desperation, but desperation borne out of her own political ineptness. Maybe while she’s clinging to it, she could open it up and actually read it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
If you think I’ve lost my temper, your ability to discern is lacking.
Your tendency to lash out and accuse people of libeling you simply because their opinion differs is a mark of a very immature person.
It is worth noting that you cannot qualify your accusation of libel, so your words have fallen flat to the ground.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Dude, I’m not Catholic. I’m Orthodox :)
‘I believe in One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins’. I think that sums it up. I don’t know what all of the rest of this is.
As for the thief being baptized in his own blood, Baptism is not legalistic; it is mysterious. If God willed to baptize you in oil or wine and forgive you your sins, I’d say let him do it. It is often said of the Martyrs that they were baptized in their own blood. All in all, We do not know who is saved until we witness the judgment.
You cannot refute the fathers with scripture, because they wrote it. Scripture does not interpret scripture. Baptism does not forgive sins because the Bible says so, but rather the Bible says so because Christ established this mystery (which was being foreshadowed prior to the Resurrection) and the Apostles heard and wrote it down.
If the Fathers are saying that the thief was baptized in his own blood, they simply mean that to say that there are not a set of legal requirements to be saved. Saint Mary of Egypt was never baptized at all. We are saved by the grace of God only; and if he grants us baptism, communion, confession, the Fathers and Saints, the Church, and all manner of days and fasts – we do not treat them legalistically (for as Paul says condemned is he who keeps days and feasts) but rather eucharistically; giving thanks to God for providing a great host of witnesses and mercies unto our salvation.
Does that make sense?
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:09 AM
By saying the ‘fathers’ wrote the Bible, you mean the Apocrypha?
The “fathers” did not write the Canon. The books in the Catholic Bible that are in conflict with the Canon are doubtless the problem here. The ‘fathers’ have no credibility with me because they wrote books that do not belong in the Bible and only appear in the Catholic Bible.
Your post is a bit confused – I believe you are saying that there are various methods of salvation, any or all of which are equally sufficient. This would be contrary to John 14:6 and Romans 10:9.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Thank you so much. I can feel your prayers for me, and it is wonderful. I would greatly appreciate your continued prayers.
To clarify, I was 23 when I accepted that Jesus gave His life for me, but even after accepting that it took me several years to finally give my life 100% to Jesus. I encourage any Christians who are still hanging onto something they know is wrong: please, let it go. Let go and let God show you the amazing things He has in store for you. It is awesome living in his Devine will.
When you pray:
Put yourself into it:
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 11:26 AM
DevineDivineRed Pill on April 25, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Really good questions. Will try to answer briefly since have to go to work soon.
That was the Holy of Holies curtain of the Jewish Temple. Opinions differ on the complete significance but most Christians, including Catholics, believe that it meant the end of the need for the Jewish temple and its animal sacrifices, since Jesus had been sacrificed “once for all”; also that the separation between God and each believer had been ended by Jesus’ bridging of the gap (only the Jewish High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies).
There are boundaries and standards set for believers all through the New Testament which God expects us to follow. These aren’t the “legalistic concepts” to which you refer, I don’t think. My example from 1 Cor 11 would be one of these standards which Paul sets which wouldn’t be a “legalistic concept.”
Also a really good question. As mentioned above, Catholics believe salvation is by grace through faith. Grace alone, not faith alone (as James makes clear). We differ with other Christians on how Jesus wanted that grace is applied (Catholics believe Jesus gave us the free gift of sacraments for example) but we agree with other Christians that we can do zero, zip, nada to save ourselves. God does it ALL (I quoted Philippians 2 above: we are expected to work but it is God “who works in us both to desire and to work”.
The communion rule has nothing to do with whether Catholics consider other Christians Christians; we do and Catholic teaching makes that very clear. Unfortunately (some) other Christians don’t believe that. Actually I thought Lutherans didn’t believe in transubstantiation but consubstantiation (the bread being there in addition to the Body), and not even all Lutherans believe that – some believe that it’s an “ordinance” given by Jesus but not in the Real Presence. Correct me if I’m wrong on that; could very well be. (But the fact that this is a deciding factor is shown by the fact that other Christians like the Eastern Oorthodox [is that the right denomination?] who believe in the literal Real Presence are not fully “Catholic” but we have intercommunion.
You’re right. And interpretation is a big factor, as we see above.
To take just one obvious example, not the time for a huge discussion here, gotta go to work, but why other Christians, who take the Bible pretty literally otherwise, don’t take Jesus literally in John 6 (if he meant “it’s only a symbol” then why didn’t everyone stay, as they did when He called Himself the door, the gate, the only way, the Resurrection, the Truth and the Life? Those are far more “outlandish” claims than “my body is a symbol for accepting Me in faith”, yet no one left in droves when He said THAT) is a mystery to us Catholics.
Anyway. Gotta get to work but it’s been an interesting thread. Have a good day all.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Not at all. I said there is only one method of salvation: the grace of God. Christ is God. The canon was written by the Fathers, including the four evangelists, Paul, and others. They were not just Apostles but Fathers of the Church.
With all due respect the one who is confused is you. The Bible is a written account of those who experienced and knew God.
What does it mean, would you reckon, to come to the Father through the Son? What is the strait gate? Were we not saved through the cross? Through Mary, because of her birthgiving to God? All things that lead us to Christ are mercies given by God to bring us to salvation.
Also, the original canon had more books than the Catholic Bible has – so.. er.. you know. The deutero-canon contains books that are of lesser importance but still considered scripture.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
I haven’t been reading the other discussions going on here, but even skimming over them I can see enough to know that people are debating the differences between different branches of Christianity.
I feel strongly in my spirit that God wants you to realize that you have more in common than you have different. The closer you draw to Jesus Christ, the closer you will draw to one another.
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 11:33 AM
There is a reason the Catholic Church professes some of it’s doctrines unbiblical language.
In the earliest days of Christianity, self-serving opportunists swarmed in to usurp the power of the Gospel. Gnostics hatched the “sola scriptura” gimmick in the first century A.D. Gnostics opened up the bible & picked out whatever they needed to proof-text what was effectively an elitist, pagan-utopian ideology (not surprisingly having strong resemblance to modern day leftist ideology).
The true Church understood that it had to respond to this tactic, the tactic of using scripture against us to destroy Christianity; the Church did this by articulating the meaning of scripture, it’s coherence and narrative as a whole. We introduced technical language like homoousis to define precisely what we meant when we said the Christ was one in being with God. This term isn’t in scripture, but it rendered the Gnostics impotent because it forced them out of their arbitrary, self-serving abuse of bible quotes out of context, and forced them to confront the coherence of their own claims against ours. They failed.
With apologies to protestant friends, sola scriptura (the bible alone) is old stuff, it’s been tried and found wanting, and it threatens to do similar damage again. The great Augustine, whom many protestants revere for his anti-pelagian thought, wrote a significant commentary on the book of Genesis, in which he warned that those who try to use the literal words of scripture to win hearts in the world are doing more harm than good, because scripture was not meant to be a natural science text book. He warned that, if Christians were to be crazy enough to start teaching creationism, the dark forces in the world would capitalize on the incoherency of the account, and use it to argue that all of Christianity is a joke.
Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc. etc. are laughing their way to the bank thanks to sola scriptura.
jeff_from_mpls on April 25, 2008 at 11:37 AM
The Bible bears witness to the Word of God who is a Person, not a book. That person is the one, fully man and fully God, Jesus Christ. There were things which Christ said which are not written in those books. What shall we say of them? Were they not said? What we need is not necessarily a book but the Truth, the very Light of Light, God himself in us and us in Him.
Our doctrine must match the Bible but neither can be reduced to the other. Who were the parents of Mary? Who is the Zechariah that Jesus claims was slain between the sanctuary and altar?
Etc.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:32 AM
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 11:31 AM
One question: If I am a Catholic, and I refuse to partake in any of the sacraments, am not baptized in the Church, and do not confess my sins to the priests, but as you say I wholly put my faith in the grace of Christ and repent of my sins, where does my soul go when I die?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I’ll put it to you this way, if you have the right doctrine it will be able to write the entire scripture from scratch.
Because that’s the doctrine that those who wrote it understood either explicitly or implicitly.
The scriptures did not magically arrive whole cloth – they are a description of experiences and knowledge of God by men. They are scripture because they agree and thus reveal that they describe the same God, the Existing One, the Faithful, the Holy Trinity, the Righteous Judge, who is Love, Life, Light and Salvation to all mankind: The one who created and sustains all.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:41 AM
God only knows. I do not judge the souls of men, lest I speak and reveal my ignorance, call righteous judgment upon my head, or speculate idly on things which only the Father knows.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:43 AM
False dichotomy. The “grace of Christ” if you are a believing Catholic, means that you think (and you believe the Bible teaches that) Christ intended you to be baptized etc. Doing them would be an act of obedience and part of “repenting your sins,” one of which is prideful disobedience to the known will of Christ.
If you don’t believe God wants to you do any of these things, then you are not a Catholic Christian. If you are not a Catholic Christian and you put your faith in the grace of Christ and repent your sins (that includes efforts to stop doing them with Christ’s grace, unless you’re about to die in the next ten minutes and can’t sin anymore), then you will go to Heaven, of course. (this is Catholic teaching BTW)
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 11:44 AM
I should have clarified, because your post is true, that only God knows whether we have “truly repented” and “put our faith in God.” Paul said that he did not even judge himself and considered himself not to have reached the goal yet. But. If you have truly done both those things then the Bible and the Church both say you will go to heaven.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM
One other detail…you can’t allow yourself to be the administrator. I downloaded and installed the software, but my wife has the only administrator password.
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 11:47 AM
The Experience and Knowledge of God Himself precede all manner of scripture. Thus when the gnostic ‘Christians’ and Arians and all manner of heretics rose against the Church, things such as the creed and the canon were created to fence out falsehood. The canon does not say that it is the only true things that have been said about God. The creed does not say that it is the only way to profess faith in God. They both, however, point to a standard which is true; and that which contradicts the standard is falsehood. Furthermore, that which seems entirely different but agrees with both may indeed be true. Words are words – it is the meanings which are of importance.
I have to get back to work. If there is a question feel free to ask.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Since the topic of this thread is Nancy Pelosi’s inaccurate quote, I’d really like to know what people thought of my two posts on that topic referenced above.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM
I dodn’t know where you get this stuff from….do you make it up?
Actually that’s absolutely backwards. The dark forces in this world are the ones teaching the non scientific state religion of evolution/secular humanism.
Is this what catholicism produces?
People who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Word of God and people who are deceived by the anti Biblical satanic religion of evolution?
SaintOlaf on April 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM
The Word of God is inerrant. The Bible is not the Word of God. The Word of God is the second person of the Trinity, the very Son of God, Jesus Christ.
Otherwise you worship ‘God made Ink’ which would be unnecessary since ink already obeys God.
Pelosi takes a quote from a Godly source out of context – unsurprising. She is a dyed-in-the-wool Social Gospeller. It means that she sees the Gospel as writ for a better society, not for the Salvation of all souls to the invisible and transcendent God. She ‘makes the kingdom earthly’ when, “My Kingdom is not of this world”, “Thy kingdom come,” “The kingdom is at hand” and “The Kingdom of God is within you”. Additionally, we have, “I tell you the truth that among you some will not taste death before witnessing the Kingdom of God.” (referring to the transfiguration on Mt. Tabor.)
Pelosi can not corretly interpret scripture, even if she quotes it properly (which she isn’t.)
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 12:03 PM
With all respect due you, Olaf, there was no ’sola scriptura’ before there was a body of scripture. That would mean the concept of sola scriptura as it is today is a new doctrine. This doctrine is like the idea of geocentricism; requiring a bunch of epicycles and exceptions to explain inconsistencies.
A side note, I’ve probably just completely pissed off thousands of people. Apologies, folks.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 12:08 PM
So in other words, you cannot be saved unless you “intend” to be baptized and partake of the sacraments. So really you’re trusting in Christ, baptism, and sacraments to save you. How is this not works salvation again?
So how do babies “intend” to be baptized? How can they be obedient Christians when they don’t even understand right from wrong yet?
What if a person repents and trusts Christ, and then afterwards reads the Bible and becomes convinced that he shouldn’t partake in the sacraments? Since he originally intended to do them, is he still saved, or does he lose it?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM
:D
Seriously, thanks for your comments. See ya around the threads. :) Off to earn my pay.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:17 PM
One other question – if a Baptist who has repented and trusted Christ, with no knowledge of or desire to partake in a Catholic baptism or sacraments, is baptized after his conversion in a Baptist church but doesn’t do the Catholic rituals, does he go to heaven according to what the Catholic Church teaches?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:21 PM
So in other words, you cannot be saved unless you “intend” to be baptized and partake of the sacraments. So really you’re trusting in Christ, baptism, and sacraments to save you. How is this not works salvation again?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Again, false dichotomy, and begging the question. It’s not Christ PLUS baptism and other sacraments.
It’s Christ.
(Catholic Christians believe) He intended the sacraments, He uses them to distribute the grace won on Calvary, His Holy Spirit inspired Scripture and the Church He said He intended to “build,” etc.
Child and infant baptism has been practiced since early recorded Church history and is hinted at in the bible (”whole households”). The Bible is full of examples of God giving grace to children based on the faith of their parents; it’s of course assumed that they will grow up to believe in Christ themselves (this is in fact implied in Mark 16:15-16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe [implied: even if he is baptized] will be condemned.”)
Answer to your last question: still saved.
I really do have to go now (late to work already and will have to work late) but I expect we’ll meet on another thread. God bless you and see you then.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Guess that was your penultimate question.
Answer to your last question: still the same (see same link above).
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Just so there’s no misunderstanding: That link doesn’t mean Catholics think Baptists don’t believe in Christ or the gospel. I was referring to “Christ and His Church [i.e. sacraments as the grace of Christ, given through His Church].
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I understand then, by your own statements, that I do not need to be baptized or partake in the sacraments in order to go to heaven.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Not if, through no fault of your own (that implies invincible ignorance and not willful ignorance) or disobedience to what you know Christ has clearly said He wants (he’s said clearly He expects us to be baptized), you don’t understand the truth that this is what Christ intends you to do. Correct.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Thank you for praying for me inviolet, but clearly you should re-read the scripture you quoted for me. What you are accusing me of doing by quoting this scripture is exactly what you are doing…specifically verse 16.
Now if you re-read my posts you will clearly see that I have never doubted your salvation.
In fact, if you claim to be a born again Christian…then you have just proved me correct.
Inviolet, do you claim to be a born again believer?
If so, be honest before God….did the catholic church lead you to becoming born again?
SaintOlaf on April 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM
So refusing to partake of the sacraments is sin? Are you saying that as soon as a Baptist finds out that the Catholic church teaches that he’s supposed to be doing the sacraments, he’s now in a sinful state and locked out of heaven until he obeys?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Jeez, we need an edit key…
So in my personal situation, since I don’t believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and I don’t believe in doing the sacraments, the Catholic church teaches that I am not saved because I am being willfully disobedient, is that correct?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 12:47 PM
Man I’m gonna have to work late tonight to make up for this. :)
Yes, I am a born again believer and yes, the Catholic Church and the people in it (my parents and many others) led me to this belief in Jesus and my obedience, by His free grace, to His commands. (In fact my username refers to the fact that I have given myself totally over to the service of Christ (see 1 Corinthians 7) and will never marry and will remain a virgin for the rest of my life, so as to serve Him better and more completely.)
I’m always honest before God. :) The wording of your question implies that no one could honestly say that, which, may I say, says a lot about things you don’t know about the Catholic Church and how much its teachings are devoted to spreading Jesus to the whole world. (Other Christians of course do this too, of course; just including the Catholic Church in that.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Not at all. Please follow the link. Catholic teaching specifically says if ignorance of what Christ wants is not your fault, then you can be saved despite not doing everything that Christ wants you to do, because, quite obviously, it isn’t “willful disobedience” then.
Only you and God know whether (or not) you are being willfully disobedient, or intellectually honest or dishonest.
Also, another false dilemma here. Just because you don’t believe baptism is necessary for salvation, doesn’t mean you don’t believe Christ wants you to do it. He did say so after all. Just because (from the Catholic POV) you don’t understand why the command was given doesn’t negate your need to obey it, since you say Jesus is your Lord, and the command is clear. To disobey, if you believe that He intends you to be baptized, would be sin, yes.
If you didn’t believe He even wanted you to be baptized, for whatever reason (symbol or salvation) then that would be another story.
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I really can’t work too late tonight so gotta go, for real this time. See y’all. :)
inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM
It’s ‘Born from above’ anyway.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 1:01 PM
How much does Nancy Pelosi know about the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America?
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 1:46 PM
“Providence,” said he, “has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Red Pill:
The Russians did just that until the Bolshevik rev. The Tsar at the time (who I think is considered a saint) was a great man but a poor emperor.
We are far more fortunate in some ways, the common law tradition, if upheld as it generally is to some fair extent, is a great innoculator against tyranny. There’s nothing wrong with a wise and strong Christian King, but inevitably standard kingship (which the Russian empire had for ages) gives way to a weak but good king (who stood no chance against the venom and dark hatred of the communists) or a bad king who is nominally Christian.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Also, cool tidbit: Anastasia (the princess at the time) – her name comes from the Greek word ‘Anastasis’ meaning Resurrection. She was probably named after St. Anastasia.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM
This is a clear admission that infant baptism does not save a person.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Infant Baptism is not done on the grounds that it assures salvation.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 2:20 PM
JOHN 3:5 — “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
The following is from the Plains Baptist Challenger, October 1982 —
All sorts of controversy have been waged over the meaning of this passage. The first thing to do is to carefully read John 3:1-12. Note some of the wrong interpretations and theories:
I. THE WRONG THEORY THAT WATER BAPTISM IS MEANT
One entire denomination interprets this passage to mean that one must be immersed to be saved. “Born of water” to them means being immersed. This passage is pressed into teaching baptismal regeneration.
Why This Isn’t True:
1. Because baptism isn’t under consideration at all in the conversation that is taking place. Nothing else in the chapter indicates that baptism was being discussed.
2. Because if baptism were meant, then in less than a minute Jesus contradicted himself by putting salvation upon the basis of faith. (See verses 16,18, 36.) This is of course ridiculous to assume.
3. Because to assume that baptism is referred to is to wreck the teaching that salvation is “by grace through faith … not of works” (Eph 2:8)
4. Because to assume that baptism is referred to, is to make the New Testament teach two ways of salvation, for certainly the thief saved on the cross was not immersed. Certainly Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. These cases prove that salvation precedes baptism. The person who teaches baptismal salvation is bound to teach that Christ and his work must be plussed with water and works. But salvation is not by “water works.”
II. THE THEORY THAT “WATER” HERE MEANS “THE WORD”
The idea is that water is a symbol of the Word of God. This would make the passage to mean, “except one be born of the Spirit and the Word …” Many good and reverent students of the Bible hold this view. While we have no quarrel with those who hold such a view, we do not believe that this theory is the correct one. Why?
1. Because we believe that if Jesus had meant “word” he would have said so plainly.
2. Because they were not talking about the Word.
3. Because such an interpretation requires that one go outside this Scripture for the key to the meaning whereas we believe that the key to the passage is right in the passage itself.
WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THE CORRECT MEANING
We believe that this passage means this: that a person must be born of the flesh [or naturally] and likewise of the Spirit [super-naturally] in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Why we believe this:
1. Because it is certainly true that one must be born twice to enter the Kingdom.
2. Because in the very next breath, Jesus makes plain that He is speaking of two births—flesh and spirit. He says, “That which is born of the flesh of the flesh, and that which born of the Spirit is Spirit.” It seems to us that he clearly gives his own explanation of his meaning.
3. Because the point of confusion in the mind of Nicodemus was the matter of the contrasting births. His words in verse 4 make clear his point of misunderstanding. Jesus had to say to him in substance, “I am not talking about the physical birth … one must be born in that way, and yet also in another way to get into the kingdom of God.”
4. Because according to Bible scholars, the writings of the Jewish rabbis often refer to the natural birth as a “water birth” for reasons which any physician can make clear.
5. Because we believe that the obvious and simple meaning is in this case, as generally, the true meaning.
_____________________________________
ACTS 2:38 — “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
Many attempt to use this passage to prove baptismal regeneration or the necessity of baptism for salvation, but it proves no such thing. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that it is faith in Christ that saves, and baptism is the symbol and evidence of one’s faith. Acts 2:38, standing alone, could mean either that baptism RESULTS IN the remission of sins, or it could just as easily mean that baptism is BECAUSE OF the remission of sins already obtained through faith. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that the true meaning is the latter. Those who repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life and the Holy Spirit, and baptism signifies this spiritual reality.
The Apostle Peter made his doctrine of baptism plain in his first epistle. He stated that baptism is a simply a “figure” of salvation (1 Pet. 3:21). This leaves no question whatsoever about the meaning of his statement in Acts 2:38.
Ephesians 1:13 plainly states that the Holy Spirit is received by trusting the Lord Jesus Christ. “In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.”
The Lord Jesus Christ also taught that the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in Him. “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)” (John 7:38,39).
When the Philippian jailer asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Paul did not reply that he needed to believe and be baptized. He replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Ac. 16:30-31). After the jailer believed on Christ, he was baptized that same night, but it was only the product of his salvation. Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized (Ac. 10:43-48), and the Holy Spirit is the mark and seal of sonship and salvation (Ga. 4:6; Ep. 1:11-12). If baptism were a part of salvation, the Apostle Paul would not have said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Co. 1:17). Baptism is not part of the Gospel that Paul preached. Further, consider 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. In this passage, Paul declared the Gospel “in a nutshell,” and there is no mention of baptism. Paul’s Gospel message was also summarized in Acts 20:21—”repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again, there is no word about baptism. Baptism is important, but it follows salvation and is not a part of the Gospel. When Paul explained how to be saved in Romans chapter 10, he again said nothing about baptism:
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:9-13).
We believe the passage in Acts 2:38 is a powerful testimony to the importance of baptism and to the fact that it is one of the key evidences of salvation. A person who says he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ but who does not want to submit to baptism is probably deceiving himself.
_____________________________________
ACTS 22:16 — “And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Many attempt to use this passage to prove baptismal regeneration or the necessity of baptism for salvation, but it proves no such thing. By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that it is faith that saves, and baptism is the symbol and evidence of one’s faith. Acts 22:16, standing alone, could mean either that baptism washes away sins, or it could mean that calling on the name of the Lord washes away sins. Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that the true meaning is the latter. In Acts 9:17 we see that Paul was a “brother” in Christ before he was baptized. One must be saved and adopted into God’s family to be a brother in Christ. Romans 10:13 says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is absolutely no mention of baptism in Romans 10. Those who repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and baptism signifies this spiritual reality.
We believe the passage in Acts 22:16 is a powerful testimony to the importance of baptism and to the fact that it is one of the key evidences of salvation. Baptism is not an option; it is a command of the Lord. A person who says he believes in the Lord Jesus Christ but who does not want to submit to baptism is probably deceiving himself.
_____________________________________
1 PETER 3:21 — “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Even so, unless you speak the truth of Christ Jesus himself all tomes of words become idleness. Grace saves. If it is said that faith or baptism saves, then it also may be said that the Theotokos (mother of God) or the Bible or the Temple or the Godly Elder or the Eucharist saves. For faith saves us through grace, just as through grace we may be saved by a whispered prayer of a righteous man. “For the prayer of the Righteous Avails much.”
This misunderstanding arises not from the lack of clarity in scripture or surface contradictions but from people devising their own way of interpretation in opposition to someone else. Instead, why do we not ask those who knew him?
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Strike that, should be, “Grace saves us through faith, just as by grace we may be saved by a whispered prayer of a righteous man.”
Forgive the error, please.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Do you believe that Mary was a sinner and needed Christ’s salvation as well?
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 3:35 PM
People think all these NEW Bible versions are innocent and in an effort to make the Bible easier to understand, but over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn and a lot of these authors do not believe God perfectly preserved His Words. These modern versions “take out” and “add” thousands of words. It’s all done very subtly. This is a very important topic. Nany Pelosi is a perfect example of what happens when people try paraphrasing God’s Word — they ultimately end up changing it (a big no no, see Revelation 22:18-19).
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 4:22 PM
fossten: The Church does not believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. So the answer is, yes. To get more on that you should probably read more about this since Mary is not one of my areas of expertise. This page summarizes the view which I find fair and reasonable.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Also, since that one is a bit murky on what Mary’s sinlessness means (as opposed to Christ’s) try this instead.
RiverCocytus on April 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Since the 1880’s roughly 200 translations have appeared! On average, we get about two new Bible versions every year. What alot of people don’t know is that these new Bible versions need to get a copyright (to make a profit) and in order to get a copyright, copyright laws state that at least 200 changes must be made to the text. So in essense, they change the Word of God. Now, I’m all for making a profit, but not if it means changing God’s Word. That’s herecy.
In contrast, the King James Bible is the only Bible that does not require a copyright. It can be copied by anyone, anywhere and anytime, without consulting anyone but God.
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Try this book – Forever Settled
Gives you good information to back up the fact that you’re correct.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 5:11 PM
I read your link in its entirety.
After reading it, here are my conclusions:
1. Praying to Mary is idolatry, no matter how the church tries to spin it. Read the First Commandment. Read Revelation where John tried to worship the angel and was rebuked. God does not tolerate prayer to anyone but Him.
2. Church tradition wrongly thinks Mary remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth. They base their thinking – that the Scripture reference to Jesus’ brethren was figurative – on their own say-so and nothing else. Circular reasoning at its worst. Furthermore, they refer to the sacred, holy, God-given relationship between husband and wife as “demonic” and the “world of the flesh?” As though it’s a sin for a husband and wife to have sex? How twisted and perverted can a thinking mind become?
How presumptuous of the church to assume, with no evidence whatsoever except pure conjecture, that Joseph was forced to be celibate right along with Mary for the rest of their lives, while living as husband and wife. Absurd.
3. Nowhere in the Bible is Mary referred to as “The Mother of God” or the “Queen of Heaven.” This is more idolatry. Elizabeth said “Blessed art thou among women” but she’s still among women.
4. Jesus as a child rebuked Mary when she complained that she was worried because they thought they had lost Him. This is the only dialogue recorded between the two in the Bible, and the hierarchy is unmistakeable.
5. Take a tour of the Vatican and see what the tour guide tells you about how Catholicism originated. You will be appropriately surprised.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Mary was not always a virgin.
Yes Jesus was a virgin birth. But that does not mean to imply that she was always a virgin after having birthed Jesus. She was Joseph’s wife and was thus obligated to have sex with him.
I don’t know why some feel the need to twist Scripture to keep her a virgin perpetually.
She was simply the woman God chose to give birth to Jesus…she should never be prayed to….ever.
If you are a Christian you should only pray to the Father, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ.
You should never pray to angels nor to saints either…besides the Bible says very clearly that all true Christians are saints.
SaintOlaf on April 25, 2008 at 5:36 PM
I should say, even though I don’t like them (ie, we should round them all up and toss them in the garbage) I’m not completely against all translations. I say this because all someone has to do is read John 3:16 in many of them and they can get saved. There is still enough of God’s Word left in them that people can be led to Christ. In fact, I read the New Living Translation for several years before I found out about all the problems with it, so I’m not going to judge others who do the same. I would much rather a person read one of them than playboy. That said, I have slowly over the years come to the position of the King James. I don’t fight Christians who use other versions, use whatever you want, but , I do think if you’re really going to be a Bible student you’re gonna have to get a King James. Besides, if you’re going to spend your valuable time reading the Bible anyways, why not have God’s actual Words in your hand as opposed to some authors (who may not even believe Jesus is God) interpretation of it. All the new translations end up comparing themselves to the King James anyways. You rarely see them comparing themselves to one another. They all line up against the King James. Would you take a magic marker to your Bible and cross out words from it? Some people have. This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html
Does it matter which Bible you read? “Only if you believe anything out of it.” — Sam Gipp, in “The Answer Book.”
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM
Cheers. I’ll take a look. I still have 3 books waiting though to be read about the King James and Textus Receptus. I may not get to it for awhile… lol .. ah, but thanks for the tip. You can never learn to much.
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 6:10 PM
LOL talk about information overload…you sound like a person who likes to study. Good for you.
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I just wish I had a better memory… If I could remember everything I’ve read on Bible versions I’d be a genius on the subject, but I forget 75% of what I read! Ugh! Hmm. Maybe I should read some how to improve my memory books instead… he he..
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 6:34 PM
This Pelosi deal, with her quoting her own made up verse of the Bible. That’s a perfect example what the NEW Bible versions do. With these modern perversions you can get some pretty wild and innacurate meaning of scripture. Like Pelosi, very often the authors change thousands of words, and ruin valuable verses. For instance, if a global warming alarmist as an example authored a new version of the Bible there’s a strong possibility they would translate scripture in a way that supported their own personal philosophy. They would be tempted to change the Bible to fit their theories. But, that’s not what was done with the King James Bible, it keeps the exact words and phrases of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It is a literal translation. It is faithful to the original text. The NEW versions though, they are Dynamic and Paraphrase translations which is a controversial practice. Many Christians (myself included) believe that this is allowing a scholar’s (who often don’t believe Jesus Christ is God) opinion to get between them and the sacred text. Here’s a snippet of what I’m talking about — how the authors change Scripture. Let’s use the New International Version (NIV). It calls Lucifer (ie, Satan) the morning star, when the Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ is the Morning Star!
Revelation 22:16 in the King James clearly states the “Morning Star” is Jesus Christ.
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and MORNING STAR.” Revelation 22:16 (King James)
Yet, look in the NIV. Lucifer is identified as the “morning star!”
“How you (Lucifer) have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the
nations!” Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
The same verse above in the King James:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Isaiah 14:12
Notice the difference?
Isaiah 14:12:
NIV – How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR …
KJV – How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
As you see, in the NIV, “Lucifer” has been changed to “Morning Star”. That’s very scary seeing how the Bible tells us the Morning Star is Jesus Christ. Just imagine you read the NIV and you’re asked to sing in church; “Jesus, you shine like the bright morning star.” I wouldn’t want to do it. LOL. Why you ask? Well, because the NIV Bible identifies Lucifer (Satan) as the morning star!
apacalyps on April 25, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Awesome.
Pelosi probably thinks “Hebrews” means God runs a Starbucks.
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 8:13 PM
But John Jay was talking about preferring Christian Presidents, not kings.
Anyone who believes in “separation of church and state” needs to learn a few things:
1) The words “separation of church and state” are not in our constitution. You won’t even find any of the three individual words “separation”, “church”, or “state”.
2) The first amendment is to protect the church from the state, not the other way around
3) Our founders believed that it is “the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
Take that, ACLU. (Are you sure that “C” doesn’t stand for “Communist”?)
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Bravo! Standing ovation!
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM
You’re an Apologetix fan, aren’t you?
For those of you unfamiliar with the band, their song “Mediterranean Wholebook News”, which is a Parody of “Subterranean Homesick Blues” by Bob Dylan, includes the line:
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 9:56 PM
ihasurnominashun, I owe you an apology. At one point in time I thought you were a Democrat troll. But with the comment above, it is obvious that you are not. A Demoncrat could never leave a comment like that (implying correctly that the left wants to rewrite both the constitution and the Bible). I apologize for thinking you might be one.
Red Pill on April 25, 2008 at 10:13 PM
Sadly, I believe you’re not kidding. But you’re dead wrong. In fact, saying you’re dead wrong is understating it. The Apocrypha has never been accepted as scripture by any Protestant group. Only the Roman Catholic church.
The Apocrypha have been translated, and some have considered them worthy of study. But they’ve never been considered scripture.
Besides that, the Old Testament is essentially the same as the Jewish scripture, and was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Apocrypha have never been accepted as scripture by the Jews, and was written in Greek.
When you consider that the Apocrypha adds 3 chapters to the book of Daniel, but those 3 chapters are not in the Jewish book of Daniel, it ought to settle the question.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 25, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Deep point. What about “fair trial”?
freevillage on April 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Now who’s slandering? The Apocrypha has never been recognized as scripture, except by the Roman Catholic church. Even the Catholic church didn’t officially regard them as scripture until the Council of Trent. It may be true that two groups of Jews disagreed about it, but that proves nothing. Judaism has always had sects, little splinter groups with out-of-the-mainstream ideas. Paul even warns once about not giving heed to Jewish fables.
The Apocryphal books were written between the Old Testament and the New Testament, but you can’t find a single quote from the Apocrypha in the New Testament. This wouldn’t be so significant, except for the sheer volume of quotes in the New Testament that come from the Old. But none from the Apocrypha.
The passage cited says quite clearly that the fire will try our works. If our works are burned, we will suffer loss, but we ourselves will be saved, yet so as by fire. Obviously, the fire is not applied to us, but to our works. So just as obviously, “saved by fire” is a figure of speech, not meant literally.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 25, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Protestant is a historical term applied to those groups which “protested” the Catholic church and formed new denominations. I don’t consider the term to be insulting at all, but it is incorrect when applied to those who have never been part of the Catholic church, such as Baptists.
Unfortunately, it’s easy to lump all Christians who are not Catholics together as “Protestants.” Which is why I’m doomed to explaining this over and over again.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 25, 2008 at 11:33 PM
Deep point. What about “right to an abortion?”
fossten on April 25, 2008 at 11:39 PM
No one believe otherwise until Menno Simon?
Remember that even though the Anabaptists as a proper term refers to a group of people who were prominent in the 15th century, the term “anabaptist” (small-a) was applied to any person or group who “re-baptized” throughout that is, who rejected infant baptism as invalid and said you must be baptized properly. It should be obvious that no one called themselves, “anabaptists”, since they believed their baptism was the true baptism, and the first didn’t count.
Unfortunately, the history of all these anabaptist groups was written by the Catholic church, which primarily wanted to establish the point that they were heretics, and to justify their actions against them.
Of course, some of these heretics were in fact heretical. And some of them were probably very much like the Baptists of today.
But the claim that no one rejected infant baptism until Menno Simons is just not true.
The only real authority on baptism in the scripture is on the baptism of John the Baptist, who quite clearly immersed adults in water. We also read that Jesus’ disciples practiced baptism
And scripture is fairly clear about baptism following repentance, which is a bit much to expect from an infant.
Finally, “baptize” is simply a Greek word meaning, “immerse.”
theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 12:06 AM
That mystery would be cleared right up by reading that same passage in context. Note the very first thing Jesus says in this discourse: they are coming to him because he fed them. This refers to the miracle of the feeding of the 5000.
Jesus tells them they should be focusing on the meat that never perishes. In other words, on eternal things.
As for why they murmured and left him, it’s quite clear from the above passage that they were offended when he said that he was the bread from heaven. “From heaven” was not just an expression to the Jews, but a way of saying “from God” That’s why Jesus kept saying the kingdom of heaven was at hand.
It’s all a metaphor. Like Jesus being the door, the light, the good shepherd, the bread of life. Or when Jesus spoke to the woman at the well
Does anyone really understand that to mean that Jesus was offering her literal water? Or that the water would be a literal well in her?
BTW, if Jesus really meant that literally, that you had to eat his flesh and drink his blood, and if the mass literally turns the wafer into the actual flesh of Jesus Christ and the wine into the actual blood, then why is the wine not given to all at the mass, but only to the priests? Are you denying people the blood they must drink to have eternal life, while giving them only the flesh?
I can’t be the only person who’s ever wondered that…
theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 2:41 AM
This is pretty cool. I really like the way you explain this. The way you make the Baptist distinction as well. I can appreciate it due to my being an Independant, Fundamental, Baptist. I should say though I’m not really a fan of all these denominations, because to me denomination means divide. It does appear though that they are needed in order to identify sound biblical doctrine. Boy, we’ve really made a mess of things since Christ died on the Cross.
apacalyps on April 26, 2008 at 3:20 AM
Oops, I posted the wrong link before. This table compares various verses in the KJV, NIV, NASB, and NWT. Scroll down page. It shows some difference between these NEW Bible versions compared with the King James, that good ol’ pillar of doctrinal truth. The authors of the NEW versions literally took a magic marker to your Bible and crossed out words from it. For example:
Matthew 25:13 (Jesus talks about His return)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
Ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.
New International
You do not know the day or the hour.
New American Standard
You do not know the day nor the hour.
New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible)
You know neither the day nor the hour,
Matthew 18:11
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New International
OMITTED.
New American Standard
footnote casts doubt
New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible)
OMITTED
Acts 8:37
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
New International
OMITTED.
New American Standard
footnote casts doubt (some editions just omit it)
New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible)
OMITTED
Romans 13:9
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
King James
Thou shalt not bear false witness. (ie, don’t lie)
New International
OMITTED.
New American Standard
OMITTED
New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witness Bible)
OMITTED
It goes on and on. This is only a small sampling. As the website I posted above notes. Interestingly, the NIV and NASB often agree more with the Jehovah’s Witness Bible than they do with the King James! Now that’s REally saying something!
apacalyps on April 26, 2008 at 4:03 AM
The Blood of Christ IS given to all at Mass. (If there is a reason to believe that the Blood will be spilled then a church is allowed not to distribute the Cup but otherwise churches are specifically instructed by the Church to distribute both the Body and the Blood.)
I’m not a priest yet I receive the Blood of Christ at least every Sunday and sometimes as often as every day. (I’ve attended lots of Catholic churches and, except for at one, the Blood was distributed at every Mass.) Hope that helps.
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:03 AM
P. S. THe Church teaches that because Jesus is fully present in either species (”body, blood, soul, divinity”) (He isn’t “split up” IOW, because He’s fully alive forever) that it’s a “fuller sign” to receive both species and so preferable, but those receiving only one species still receive all of Jesus (scroll down to paragraphs 8-10).
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:12 AM
My point about Jesus’ words in John 6 vs. John 4 (or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter) is that no one left Him in droves, even those who had been following Him for a while, and He didn’t have to say even to His own disciples, “are you going to leave me too?” Tellingly, Peter answers, “where else are we going to go? You have the words of everlasting life?” (IOW “we don’t get it either, but we know you are the Christ.”) Not “Sure, we knew you only meant a symbol and we’ll explain it to everybody. Hey, all you guys, come baaacck!”
His disciples, in other words, never left at His other “metaphors” (which really were metaphors). This wasn’t, and they knew it, hence the difference.
Here’s a good explanation of how Catholics understand that passage (read especially why Catholics understand John 6:63)
Christ in the Eucharist
One taste:
and
(read at the link for a more complete explanation of the Catholic understanding of John 6:63)
The text at the link describes your views pretty accurately I think, from what you’ve said, and responds to them, as well as to the fundamentalist/evangelical interpretation of John 6:63.
Not expecting you to immediately agree with me (it’d be nice; I think it’s true and I think Jesus wants you to have this gift too :) ) but at least you can see for now where Catholics are coming from, and aren’t pulling our understanding of this gift Jesus gives us out of thin air.
P.S. here’s what some prominent very early Christians thought about this:
The Real Presence – Church Fathers
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM
No, not at all. :) I could just as easily say that the end of your post
is a “clear admission that “baptism saves us.” But that isn’t what you meant, and I understand that, since I read the very end of your post in context.
Similarly, let’s look at the Mark verse once again:
“He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe will be condemned.”
I can’t reproduce all my posts above but Jesus clearly said here that both belief and baptism are required. Just because Paul didn’t baptize people himself doesn’t mean he didn’t think Jesus wanted it done, nor that he didn’t think it necessary. (Quoting Romans 10:13 at me out of the context of the rest of Scripture, including the universal Christian practice in Acts of baptizing everyone, and Jesus’ clear link of baptism – more than once- with salvation (John 3 also) and Peter’s same link, is like someone saying, “Twice in the gospels Jesus is directly asked “what must I do to gain eternal life?” And both times His first response is merely (close paraphrase) ‘Keep the commandments.’ Why then, no acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior is needed, right?” Ridiculous, you and I both say. So, we both want to understand the Bible in context.)
So. Back to our verse. In the case of adults, here’s how Catholics understand Mark 16:15-16: Belief and baptism are required. If an adult believes and is baptized but then apostasizes, he cannot expect to gain Heaven even if baptized, right? I think we agree.
In the case of very young children or infants (remember the several “whole households” in Acts?) God gives grace, as He always has, to children based on the faith of their parents. (I know you and I don’t agree here, but all through the OT and NT, including the application of the Jewish covenant itself, God does saving things for children based on the faith of the parents, since the children are too young to have faith of their own yet. If those baptized children grow up and reject Jesus, despite having been baptized as children, they cannot expect to go to Heaven. That’s all I meant.
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 AM
You are conveniently ignoring the rest of the verse. Clearly the exclusionary part of the verse is the most important. Yes, he who believes will be baptized, and he will be saved. But he who believes not shall be condemned. Ah, so the ONLY thing that condemns you is believing not! It DOES NOT SAY “he who believes not and is not baptized shall be condemned.” You’re fond of using context, yet you ignore the context INSIDE THE SAME VERSE!
I think you’d be wrong that we agree on this. There is no loss of salvation. However, it could be argued that the person never converted in the first place. Remember, at the Judgment, Jesus says in Matthew 7:23, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. .”
Never means never.
This represents very muddled thinking. First children are saved because of their parents? Please show any verse that specifically states this. Moreover, there is no indication that the households mentioned in those verses had infant children. This is ASSUMED by the Catholic clergy, which is awfully convenient because it supports their beliefs that are otherwise refuted by Scripture. This is the same fallacious thinking that states that the reference to Jesus’ brethren was figurative but the eating of the body and blood of Christ was literal. Nice to pick and choose our figurativeness to fit our beliefs, yes?
Furthermore, you are saying that children are saved UNTIL they have an opportunity to reject Jesus, which would be at the age of accountability or the ability to know right from wrong; i.e. realize that they need to repent of their sins. In other words, they are saved for a few years and then they become unsaved again. This is ludicrous and is contrary to Scripture. Again, read the above quote by Jesus.
fossten on April 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Jesus uses baptism to wash away our original sin (Adam’s sin), something necessary for our salvation, not from our body (the KJV says “flesh”) but from our spirits. Jesus applies this to children based on the faith of their parents. You don’t believe it: I get it.
Yet “baptism saves you now” doesn’t mean “baptism saves you now.” :) OK.
Obviously this doesn’t mean: “pour water on your head with no belief in Christ and you’ll go to Heaven.” Coupled with faith in Christ, this gift from Jesus (note: not “this work” – read your James, “works” means “good works” not “sacraments”) He uses to save us.
Nice talking to you, fossten. Sorry you don’t know I’m a Christian, but I know you are. This is off the main page so time to go now. Just for fun I’ll leave you w/ 1 Peter, (you know, the whiny, immature one :) ):
NIV
Talk to you soon.
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 11:58 AM
The basis for “fair trial” is the correct application of Article 3 Section 2 and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.
The basis for “separation of church and state” is a misreading and misapplication of 1st Amendment.
The text of the 1st Amendment is
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the Congress and the Congress only.
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect the Church from the Congress, not protect the Congress from the Church.
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect the freedom OF religion, not create a governmental freedom FROM religion.
The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to ensure religious freedoms – to ensure the rights of religious people to practice their religion freely:
1) Religious Freedom from a Congressionally-created state religion (as they had in England with the Church of England).
2) Religious Freedom of Speech
3) Religious Freedom of Press
4) Religious Freedom of Peaceable Assembly
5) Religious Freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
The recent misapplication of the 1st Amendment as a “Separation of Church and State” is completely wrong and exactly opposite of the intent of the framers. This recent application has been used to ban religious speech from any activity associated with public funds. The first Amendment is intended to protect religious free speech, not restrict it.
Red Pill on April 26, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Sorry, but that is REALLY unconvincing. If you’ve actually read the Gospels, you should have picked up on the fact that the Jews of the day were really looking more for a political Messiah. Jesus offered them nothing along those lines. After feeding the 5000, they wanted Jesus to be a king that would lead them to power and provide for them. He shot it down. He told them to forget about the “meat that perishes” and labor for the eternal meat. The, he said the Moses didn’t give them the bread from heaven (manna), but that He was the bread from heaven.
Have you picked up yet that Jesus a) refused to be a king or political leader b) implied he was greater than Moses, and c) told them He came direct from heaven, meaning from God.
So it’s hardly surprising He started losing disciples.
The idea that they left because they knew it wasn’t a metaphor is pure speculation. First, you give them way too much credit for being able to pick up immediately on when Jesus was speaking metaphorically or not. Jesus’ own disciples missed it a lot of times. So did the more educated Pharisees and Sadducees, who thought Jesus was not speaking metaphorically when He said you could destroy the temple, and He could raise it again in three days.
But somehow this time it wasn’t a metaphor, and somehow everyone who was listening got it?
A peculiarly Catholic way of understanding the passage, that is to say, not shared by anyone else. Only Luther considered this to be anything more than a metaphor, and even he rejected the idea of the bread and wine being turned literally into the body and blood of Jesus.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 8:51 PM
VERY interesting discussion on catholicism!
First, inviolet–thank you especially for all your patience in responding…it’s horribly sad to see christians “bashing” eachother over doctrinal differences…that said, you do sound like a much more ‘christian’ catholic than I’m used to. It’s been wonderful seeing you respond with kindness and gentleness.
Mojave Mark brought up the thief on the cross…I would like to ask a couple more questions about catholic doctrine, if you don’t mind (and if you’re still checking back here!)
Why are priests called “father” when Jesus specifically said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” -Matthew 23:9
I know you said that Mary isn’t prayed to…but you also said, “We ask her for her prayers” –but in order to ask her–you MUST pray to her…and that goes against Jesus’ teaching, since He prayed-and taught His disciples to pray to the Father.
Jesus went out of His way to correct reverence of His mother and place it squarely upon His Father in Luke 8:21 and Luke 11:28, when He specifically said that contrary to his mothers womb and breasts being blessed, those who hear and practice His words are blessed; and those who hear and obey are His mother, His brothers and sisters-see also Mark 3:34, and Matthew 12:50
Am I understanding you correctly to say that catholic doctrine teaches that John 19:27 is a universal command…but then what did verse 26 mean, when He told His mother to behold her son-referring to John???
These are just a few questions I’ve had concerning the differences in doctrine…I once asked a catholic friend…but he didn’t know, and later joined a Baptist church. Thank you again for your patience!
Auralae on April 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM
As I said, I didn’t expect you to agree with me right away. However, may I point out that since I’m sure you’ve read John 6 many times, you know that the reason given for people leaving is specifically stated: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and right after that ,”This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” There is no mention whatsoever in John 6 of any other reason. Yes, you are correct that some Jews wanted a political Messiah. This is not the stated reason given in John 6 for His own disciples leaving Him.
Comparing John 4 and John 6 is very useful here, since Also, in John 4 (the passage to which you referred earlier) Jesus talks only of eternal matters yet a lot of people came to believe in Him there (IOW He didn’t lose any followers over not being a political figure, just two chapters earlier; quite the contrary).
from John 4
That’s not political language; “he told me everything I’ve ever done” isn’t a reference to political activity so “savior of the world” can’t be taken as meaning they thought He was a political revolutionary.
Yes, some people did expect Him to be a political figure. But that isn’t the stated reason for the Samaritans coming to Him in John 4, and the Jews leaving Him in John 6. They both did so because of His teaching.
So His not being a political figure as the reason in this particular passage is, may I say, not in keeping with what the text plainly says. They left because they didn’t believe His teaching. Comparing people’s reactions in John 4 and John 6 actually underlines this fact IMO.
Actually, Luther himself believed in consubstantiation, based on the Bible alone, meaning that he thought Jesus was truly present along with the bread and wine in Communion (Catholics believe the bread and wine disappear and only Jesus remains under their appearance). This is what Lutherans believe (virtually all of them AFAIK) even today.
So: Lutherans, the Orthodox, Catholics, others I’m sure I’m not thinking of right now. Not peculiarly Catholic.
*smiles*
Given the way I’ve been quoting Scripture right and left I wouldn’t think there would be any doubt. :) But in case there is: Yes, I have. Hundreds of times.
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 7:22 AM
Thanks for your very kind comments; they made my day.
As you see I’ve been writing quite a bit on this thread and have several commitments today but was eager to see your questions answered, as they’re excellent ones. I’m sorry your friend wasn’t able to answer them.
So since I need to go, here are a few links for you:
re: why do Catholics call priests “father?”
re: asking Mary and the other saints in heaven to pray for us:
The Intercession of the Saints
Praying (asking saints in heaven to pray for us to God) to the Saints
Saint Worship?
re: Mary’s motherhood, from an interesting source, Martin Luther
By the way, very interesting confirmation of Mary’s motherhood (through Jesus) of us all is in Revelation 12; Jesus is talked about here: “a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod” (so the woman is Mary) and at the end of the chapter:
So “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus are described as “the rest of her [the woman who is the mother of the child destined to rule all the nations, i.e. Mary] offspring.”
Yes, Catholics believe that Jesus, in giving Mary to “the beloved disciple” and she to him “behold your mother” that in Jesus, she is the spiritual mother of us all. This just means that she prays for us, cares for us, wants what’s best for us which is that we will come to her Son. She is a mere human. But God has given her special graces since He chose her to bear Him into the world.
Sorry that I need to go do other stuff but thanks for your questions. Here’s a good place to start with other questions you (or anyone else) may have:
Catholic Answers website library of topics
God bless you. Hope you have a good day.
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Thanks for your very kind comments; they made my day.
Just wrote you a sorta long post but somebody ate it (??) so here goes again:
Sorry that your friend wasn’t able to explain Catholic teaching to you. Here are quick answers to your questions:
Why do Catholics call priests “father?”
The Intercession of the saints
Asking saints in heaven to pray for us
Do Catholics worship saints?
Mary’s motherhood
Here’s what Luther said about Mary being our mother too.
Also, see REvelation 12 which confirms the Catholic interpretation of John’s account of Jesus giving Mary to John (the “beloved disciple”) and John to Mary (behold your son), and symbolically there to all of us:
The woman is described earlier as the mother of the “male child” who is “destined to rule all the nations” (that is, Jesus). So the woman is Mary and all Christians (we keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus) are “the rest of her offspring.”
John wrote Revelation, the same person to whom Jesus gave Mary as his mother. So he, inspired by the Holy Spirit since this is Scripture, evidently understood Mary to be all Christians’ mother, the same way Catholics do. Her motherhood is not the main point of this Revelation passage of course, but this aside shows what Scripture tells us about it.
Did Mary do this? No; she’s a mere human. But by the grace of Jesus she received special gifts because God chose her to bear Him into the world and she becomes our mother too–what does that mean? She prays for us, wants what’s best for us, that is, that we come to Jesus and are saved.
“Do whatever He tells you” is her calling card.
Sorry I have to scoot but thanks again for your kindness and if you have other questions here’s a good place to start:
Catholic Answers website library of topics
God bless you and hope you have a good day. (We’ll see if this post makes it!)
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Well, have written two long comments and apparently both are getting eaten. So will just say: thanks for your very kind comments, they made my day. And here’s a website where you can get answers to your questions (sorry, I tried to answer!)
Catholic Answers website library of topics
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 8:24 AM
this one’s not easy to find on that website:
Why do Catholics call priests “father?”
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 8:36 AM
OK, one more quick try on your Mary question before I have to go out and give up on this comment-eater thingy :) :
In REvelation 12, a woman is described as giving birth
We understand this to be Jesus, so the woman is Mary.
Then in Revelation 12:17,
That last describes all us Christians (we “keep God’ commandments and bear witness to Jesus) so we are the “rest” of the woman’s “offspring” (by God’s doing, of course, not Mary’s, since He is all powerful while she’s a mere human).
The writer of Revelation is John, the same “beloved disciple” to whom Jesus gave His mother and her him, and symbolically, all of us too. John apparently (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – since this is Scripture) understood Jesus to have meant the same thing at the Cross that Catholics understand. This doesn’t mean we think Mary’s anything more than human. Just that, like our earthly mother, she prays for us, and wants what’s best for us – to come to Jesus. “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5) is her calling card.
You can find more on that link to the Catholic Answers website. Gotta go. God bless you.
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Ah, good. Then you won’t be too disappointed.
They said it was a hard saying, You presume it was a hard saying because they understood it to be meant literally. (somewhat of a leap.) From there, you presume they were correct to take it literally. (A huge leap.) You consider no other reason why they might have taken it as a hard saying. Frankly, the reason you believe it is literal is because the Catholic church teaches that it is literal. If you lacked that pre-existing belief, I suspect you would read this as a metaphor.
Not being Catholic, I lack that pre-existing belief, and read it as metaphorical.
I almost hate to point it out, but the Samaritans were not looking for a Messiah as a political figure, as the Jews were, so your comparison is lacking here.
I thought I had made the point clearly enough, but let me try putting it another way. Luther, alone among the Protestants, believed that Jesus was somehow present in the bread and wine. But even he did not believe we were literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ.
So, NOT Luther, and Orthodox was originally the same as Roman Catholic, until the Roman empire split into east and west. So I’d have to say it was still a peculiarly Catholic interpretation.
As I said, if you’ve actually read the gospels, you should have picked up on a few things. Such as Jesus being rejected in large part because the Jews did not want a Savior from their sins, but a great King to deliver them from the Roman yoke. Which certainly had a lot to do with the fact that many who had started to be his disciples turned back. (To this day, people get offended and give up on God because they expected something and didn’t get it. As if God is obligated to do what we expect.)
If you don’t see that the Jews looked for a political Messiah, then I would question whether you had truly read the Gospels. Fortunately, I see you acknowledged as much, even though you downplayed it.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 4:03 AM
Revelation 12 is allegorical, so “the woman” does not necessarily mean just one woman. More likely, the woman refers to the Jewish people. This fits the context far better than Mary.
Verse 6 says the woman “fled into the wilderness.” The closest corollary for Mary would be the flight to Egypt. But Egypt was a great civilization, and symbolic of the world. Hardly what God would describe as a wilderness.
Verse 13 says when the dragon, Satan, was cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman that brought forth the man child. Again, it doesn’t fit Mary, but it does fit the Jews, who have been persecuted through the years. In fact, you could pretty much identify the face of evil through the ages by checking out how they treat the Jews. For example, we have the Nazis of WW2 and the Islamic radicals of today.
Verse 17 says the dragon was angry with the woman, and went to make war with “the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” This would almost certainly be a reference to the Jews which formed the original church, as Paul said,”even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” It would be the same remnant that we as Gentile Christians were grafted into.
Obviously, if this is the case, then the above passage does NOT teach that we are the children of Mary in some way.
You seem to be leaving out some of the doctrine of Mary in the Catholic church, though, such as having an Immaculate Conception, being a Perpetual Virgin, having a great role in intercession with Jesus, and being a Co-redeemer with Christ. So even if she is not understood to be divine, it seems a bit … disingenuous … to describe her as “just like our earthly mother that prays for us and wants what’s best for us.” The Catholic view of Mary is certainly much bigger than just that.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 4:26 AM
…and if we had any evidence of people calling Paul THEIR father, and him accepting this
title, then you might have a point….but the whole purpose of the verse was to avoid exactly what the Catholic Church has done in setting up a heirarchy–and a layer between followers and their Savior.
This link sets up red herrings and straw arguments. There is a huge difference between refering to someone who is either biologically, or spiritually, or emotionally one’s
“father”–which is used to denote a PERSONAL and intimate relationship: and the hierarchy within the Catholic Church. Strangers refer to priests as “father”–and they are expected to!
How many people actually have the type of intimate relationship with their priest, that they would really and truely believe them to be their spiritual fathers???
It is a formal title–exactly like Rabbi. How anyone can take one look at the Pope, or any Cardinal–picture the Vatican etc remember the “kissing of the ring” and such and NOT think of Matthew 20:25-28
I feel that I’ve already sufficiently addressed passages like the ones in both Timothy’s and Philemon-1:10 and even 1 Peter 5:13–they are all references to SPECIFIC PEOPLE with whom Paul and Peter had very special and intimate relationships–not a general relationship, as between a priest and his whole flock (or a pastor and his congregation) however, I would like to address the passages that ARE more “on topic” namely those who refer to whole
congregations as children, instead of specific people, like Timothy, Mark, or Onesimus.
The first is Ephesians 4:19-”My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you–”
THAT verse is an excellent example of support of the catholic position on “father” until you check out the rest of the chapter…since the Catholic Church does NOT argue that Jerusalem (in heaven) is our mother, nor does it suggest that priests be called brethren-but ‘father’–while Paul himself refers to both–in that same chapter! If the one, then why not the others??
“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”
(notice how within this supporting verse, John refers to himself WITH the sinners??–this doesn’t mesh at all with the conventional idea of the confessional…)
Check out the rest of this passage:
(and Jesus taught us to pray to our Father, and not to call any man here father, master, or teacher after the manner oof the Pharisees and Sadduccees of the day)
(Ok–anyone else here have a mind just screaming “Islam!”)
In the context is becomes quite clear that John is not setting a precedent for future teachers to be called father, as your link teaches–in fact, later in the chapter he says:
John didn’t consider himself their father–he considered himself ALSO to be a child of THE FATHER.
Context is everything. the last example from the link you shared was 3 John 1:4 But when read in context, again, it’s certainly no precedent for priests to be called father:
Once again, this is an example of a special relationship–John feels a bond with Gaius–and a fatherly pride that his student (and others as well) are living godly lives–but he also specifically refers to “brothers” and to this person as his dear friend what, four times? to one reference to “children” This makes clear that John himself refered to leaders within the church as friends and brothers, that’s the precedent! There is NO precedent set here for calling priests fathers–especially considering that Matthew 23:9 forbids it!
from your link:
…and that’s precisely what the Catholic Church has done. They have “set themselves up up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers”
When nuns first started wearing black dresses and wimples it was to remind themselves that they were JUST LIKE every other girl/woman–and NOT especially pure just because of their vows–so by continuing these uniform standards into today, they’re doing precisely the opposite of what their founding orders intended–as is exactly the case with calling priests “father” and having them wear special vestments and having special powers (like absolution and blessing) not to mention the hundreds of years of an exclusively latin mass, when it was NOT the native tongue of the recipients.
inviolet–you are very well versed–and that is FANTASTIC, but it is by no means the average for the Catholic believer
throughout time. For the majority of the time, the catholic Church has kept her secret mysteries to herself, or even made them more mysterious (e.g. Jesus passing through Mary’s hymen like light through glass, and her perpetual virginity, not to mention her immaculate conception)
NOW! I am very interested in this conversation…have been for years….but I don’t want to risk offending–I’m sure plenty of us have very strong opinions on this subject (obviously) we very well probably will just agree to disagree ;-) but I once again want to thank you for even engaging (let alone so well) IN this conversation. I especially appreciate that we’re not arguing salvation here. I may completely disagree with some Catholic doctrine–but Jesus addressed that in Matthew 5:19 where He says that whoever breaks even one commandment and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. To me, the important word is IN. So, if I’m completely off base and you end up waaay closer to the throne than me–I can still look forward to meeting you and worshiping the Father with you there!
Oh my! This is long already…and I haven’t even checked the next link…hope I’ll be able to answer more shortly!!
Auralae on April 28, 2008 at 4:43 AM
On prayer…we have many examples of Jesus praying to the Father…and He Himself deliberately taught His disciples to pray to the Father.
Here’s the verses quoted in support of praying to saints:
Psalm 103:20-21
Psalm 148:1-13
Only the first verse was used in that link–but you get the idea…so far, NEITHER of these passages supports the idea that we should be praying to those who’ve already passed on…instead, everyone is to be focused on G*d
The link states that Rev. 5:8 is an example of saints praying for those of us still living…let’s check that out in context:
Again, the focus is precisely on G*d and noone/nothing else.
Prayers of saints being as incense in the Heavenly Temple is something entirely different than an example of saints praying FOR the living.
I’m not seeing anything in here about praying to the dead…or the dead praying for us. Instead, everything is in present tense, and we are exhorted to pray to G*d.
No where in that link does it explain how we’re supposed to ask these righteous saints to pray for us WITHOUT PRAYING TO THEM in the first place. They’re dead, talking to the dead is expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:11 and Lev. 19:31.
The article continues:
Here, Hermas is being encouraged to pray to G*d, not anyone else. This wouldn’t be the same Hermas as the one from “The Shepherd” would it? (I hope not)
Again, there isn’t anything here suggesting that the true believer should be praying TO anyone other than G*d…no one is arguing that the saints and the angels aren’t arleady praying to Him…just that we shouldn’t be prayint TO them.
Hmmmm here’s the first actual quote where someone is saying that angels and the dead are interceeding…kinda goes against 1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
This seems more like a suggestion than an assurance that those already passed are indeed praying for us…or that we whould ask anything of them…instead, he’s still suggesting that EVERYONE should be praying to G*d. We never have received an answer to how one is supposed to ask anything of the dead, without praying to them.
YIKES! Jesus is the bread that comes down from Heaven–how is Mary “our feast” ??? The pearl of great value is the Kingdom of Heaven! (Matthew 13:45-46) and she’s supposed to be gleaming with the light of the sun and unstoppable fires, while Jesus made Himself “less than all littleness”
I ferverently hope this is somehow referring to the moments and days after His conception….but somehow doubt it considering what just preceded it. This quote epitomizes so much of what us protestants see as so far off base from scripture. Methodius is addressing Mary–he’s praying to Mary, there’s no other word for it….and his focus taken off of G*d.
Time to get the kids ready and off to school! See you later!
Auralae on April 28, 2008 at 6:21 AM
Thanks for your comments; I appreciate knowing your views.
Well, no, I think it was a hard saying because right before that, what did they say? they didn’t say, “so this man isn’t going to overthrow the government?…This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Elsewhere, as you know since you’ve read the gospels (:) ) , the gospel writers explain the motivations of the people questioning Jesus, in asides (”plotted how they might entrap him in speech” (Matthew 22:15), “because he wanted to justify himself” (Luke 10:29).
Therefore because of the juxtaposition of the two statements in Scripture, with no political explanation intervening to contradict the clear arc of this conversation (”How can this man give us his flesh to eat”, “this is a hard saying, who can listen to it”) we Catholics conclude the problem is doctrinal, not political.
Again, I understand you see it differently. As I said I didn’t expect you to agree with me but I wanted you to see that Catholics have good reason to see the Scripture that way, especially in the context of the rest of Scripture. We aren’t just inventing these things out of thin air. Luther apparently agreed, and he DID think the Body and Blood of Christ was present with the bread and the wine. Lutherans follow this today. And the Orthodox Christians (who are also not Catholic) do believe Jesus is present instead of the bread and wine. That it is not solely a Catholic view is true. That’s what I meant.
Kinda baffled about your “disingenuous” comment I guess though. Auralae asked me about the motherhood of Mary. That’s what I was addressing; that’s why my comments focused on that. None of the Catholic teachings (her perpetual virginity or immaculate conception for example) contradict the fact that she is a mere human but very blessed by God. It’s just that my post would have been several times longer if I were addressing other teachings about Mary, and plus Auralae hadn’t asked. If you’re wondering about other teachings and what is actually taught, the website linked below is a terrific place to start as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Speaking of which,
Thanks for your kind tone; it’s a pleasure discussing things with you. Auralae, just to clarify, I sent you that one link about Martin Luther+Mary strictly for his quotes at the beginning about Mary’s motherhood (I was googling for it). I didn’t read that whole article and don’t know the orthodoxy, shall we say, of the Catholicism of the people writing it.
I would, on the other hand, vouch for the authenticity of the Catholic teaching of everything from Catholic Answers, since (I understand you don’t agree with them but) they go strictly by what the Catechism says and Vatican documents, and the Church’s interpretation of Scripture passages.
Stephen, filled with “grace and power” (Acts 6:8-15) calls even Jewish spiritual authorities his fathers in Acts 7:2, and, more significantly, Paul calls himself a father in 1 Cor. 4:14–15.
I see the time on your post, Auralae. It’s good I saw it before I checked in here cause I got behind in other things this week since I am so eager (as you see :) ) to answer those who have questions about what the Catholic CHurch teaches that I neglected some of my homework in (surprise) master’s theology work. Gotta get dressed for work now, and need to focus on classwork this week to catch up this week so unfortunately won’t be able to continue this very interesting (but time consuming : ) conversation.
I would encourage you to continue asking if you have other questions I didn’t answer. Any question you or I can think of has already been thought of by the Christians who came in the centuries before us and there are answers for you. I don’t want to flunk my research paper which is due next week :) so here is just one of my good sources which is good because it’s concise, charitable and reliably accurate in presenting Catholic teaching: that website again is:
Catholic Answers
Gotta zoom for work. I’ll probably check back to see any responses the two of you may have ’cause I want to see what you both have to say, but won’t have the time to respond. Thanks to you both for the good conversation; nice talking with you. God bless you both.
inviolet on April 28, 2008 at 7:27 AM
Good morning inviolet! –Please don’t fall behind on your studies on my account! I completely understand-thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.
I’ll probably be less online myself for selfish reasons anyway, my secondborn has a HUGE project due in a couple of weeks on Corrie Ten Boom and Night (by Elie Weisel). Her class was offered a very large list of subjects they could choose from to write a term paper, and also make a project (a collage for instance) for two classes…Corrie Ten Boom was NOT on the list, and after I had taken a look at it…I suggested she ask her teacher if she might not be an appropriate subject…her teacher didn’t even recognize the name until “The Hiding Place” was mentioned.
Thank goodness that my daughter (and two classrooms through her) are getting a chance to see the counter to Night–which they are going into in amazing depth, for 5 weeks at least–for those who don’t know, used to but have forgotten, Elie Weisel is a Jewish man who survived Auschwitz as a teenager, losing his faith in G*d as a result of his experience. Corrie Ten Boom on the other hand, had her faith refined and purified by that horrid crucible.
*chuckle* and here I was just going to say “Hi!” and wish you my best…ah well! Good luck in YOUR studies!
Auralae on April 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Corrie Ten Boom – Awesome! Hope your daughter enlightens a lot of people & all goes smoothly.
inviolet on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM
It was, of course, a hard saying, exactly as the scripture says it was. That is, it was a saying they did not want to hear or deal with.
But your reasons for calling it a hard saying simply don’t add up. Even if the only reason they said it was a hard saying is because they understood it literally, you completely fail to show that Jesus meant it literally.
But by all means, let’s discuss context. The chapter starts off with the feeding of the 5000.
As I said, they wanted a political leader, a king. In Catholic terms, a Messiah with temporal power.
Again, context from later in that same chapter:
Again, they wanted a leader who would provide for them. In demonstration of which:
Jesus corrects them from looking for physical things and directs them to spiritual things.
The Jews were also offended because Jesus described himself as from God
Finally, having already offended some of them multiple times, we come to the “hard saying.”
Then, of course, the reaction you base your interpretation on:
But wait! In that last verse, Jesus says the flesh profits nothing: it is the spirit that quickens or makes alive. And that the words that Jesus speaks are spirit and life. But how can this be, if we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life?
If it’s a metaphor.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Disingenuous was not really the right word. The right word was misleading. But if I had said your answer was misleading, it would have come across as if I were accusing you of lying. Since I wasn’t, I settled for saying it was a bit disingenuous to speak as if Mary was just an ordinary woman in Catholic theology, when — among other things — Catholics believe she was born somehow without sin (Immaculate Conception), has a special intercessory influence with Jesus, is a Perpetual Virgin, and is even co-Redeemer with Christ.
Apparently, as well as being a mother to all believers.
theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Thanks for your comments, both of them; just wanted you to know I read them both in full.
As I promised I won’t respond (I truly don’t have time), except since I’m here I’ll just point out that I already linked to a Catholic addressing of the “metaphor” interpretation (it’s a bit down on the page but I linked to this page above on 4/26, as you see). Take care.
inviolet on April 29, 2008 at 6:33 AM
I just had to come back and add this “Gospel according to Bill Clinton”:
Red Pill on June 2, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3