Monday, October 13, 2008
Truth of Sola Scriptura
This is the idea that scripture is all you need for the truth of God's Word.
There is a lot of dispute in the world of religion and theology about this practice. Some for it but most against it. Some of the religions that are against it is, Calvanism, Jehovahs Witnesses, Roman and Orthodox Catholic, and many more. They all share the common belief that you need the divine guidence of God to understand and interpret the bible or the guidence of the churches orginization. And added to that, there is the belief that the leaders are infallible and the church in itself is infallible. While this may sound good in theory, it is incorrect in practice. Let us look at some of the reasons why.
Lets start with the fact that Jesus Christ Himself, made over 100 references to scripture. He also asked consistently what the peoples reading of the law was and how they understood it(Luke 10:26-27). Now what is the importance of this quote? The importance is the fact that Christ asked a common man what his interpretation of the law was. This would also suggest that Christ was going by and using teachings that were already in scripture. If this were not true, why did He reference it?
There is also support of this in Matthew 11 where Christ is being tempted by Satan during His fasting. Christ told Satan numerous times, "For it is written". This is an important fact to notice, to see that Christ is using scripture as His source. If it was the way of Christ, is it not good enough for us to do?
There is a few quotes from a website that I would like to use,
# Strongly believe God was smart enough that He could write the Bible in such a way, so as to be understood when read.
# We believe that, who God created man, wrote the Bible in such a way, so that man would be able to understand the Bible unaided. It is ridiculous to for Catholic traditionalists, to write a book to prove we cannot understand the divinely authored Bible ourselves, while expecting us to understand their humanly authored book itself.
# We believe it is insulting to God to think that Catholic and Orthodox defenders can write a book and be understood by the common man unaided, but God cannot write the Bible and be understood unaided.
# We believe it is insulting to God to think that "personal illumination" defenders can write a book and be understood by the common man unaided by the Holy Spirit, but God cannot write the Bible and be understood unaided.
# We utterly reject the idea that only the church organization (which is nothing more than a few fallible men at the top) can understand the Bible.
There is a lot of truth in these statements. Where is the logic in the fact that an orginization of sinners can understand the bible (and claim authority over the bible) but no one else can? Wouldn't God have wanted all to read and understand His word?
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 "20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good."
So are we to test all thing and hold what is good if we cannot understand what the scriptures teach? The answer is, we cannot. There is numerous scriptures that tell us to read the scriptures, not let a group of fallible sinners tell you what is true and what the bible is saying.
1. "that by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit" Ephesians 3:3-5
2. "For we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end" 2 Corinthians 1:13
3. "from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 2 Timothy 3:15
Here are only a few of the references that Christ made to scripture:
# "Have you not read" Matthew 12:3
# "have you not read in the Law" Matthew 12:5
# "Did you never read in the Scriptures" Matthew 21:42
# "What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?" (Luke 10:26)
# Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God? (Mark 12:24)
# But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
# "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him" There were any oral traditions as to who the messiah was. All were wrong! Some thought he was merely a king, some merely a prophet, some merely a priest! (Matthew 26:24)
# "What then is this that is written: 'The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone'? (Luke 20:17)
# "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me (John 5:39)
# "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?" (Matthew 26:54)
Here are some examples of Scripture alone is all-sufficient for complete hope, joy and assurance of salvation without any oral tradition:
# For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)
# These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.1 John 1:4
# These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. 1 John 5:13
At this time, I will close with a few more questions.
Since when is oral traditon over scripture or written tradition? If there is an oral tradition that is not founded in scripture, or even the idea of it, one example is infant baptism, then it is not biblcal and exceeds scripture and is a tradition of men, We are told not to follow the traditions of men.
Mark 7:7-9 " 7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men[b]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition."
Is there any reason why someone would purposely go against the Word of God and the teachings of Christ?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Mary and Pagan Sun Gods
Throughout my search into the Catholic faith, its origins, and its history, there is something that I would like to share with you and it is yet again more proof that Catholicism is pagan.
The title "queen of heaven" in Catholicism was from the Council of Ephesus. It has been used almost as long as the catholic church has been around. The Catholic church uses Revelation 12 to justify their use of this term.
Rev 12: 1-5: A great and wondrous sign
appeared in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.
1. The Woman in this Passage represents the Church. The twelve stars are the twelve Apostles.
2. The Woman represents Israel. The stars are the twelve tribes.
What is odd about this is the origin of the term "queen of heaven" is actually in reference to Ishtar, pagan Babylonian Goddess. In images of her, there is most always a circle disk behind her head. If you pay attention to the art of Mary throughout the age of Catholicism, you will see that most often, there is a disk behind her head. You have to ask yourself if this is intentional. Ishtar image in paintings and statues often show her with an infant with a disk behind the baby's head as well. I urge you to look at the history and the art behind this. It is very easy to see the connection.
With Ishtar being the goddess of fertility(it is said that she was also a sun goddess and a sea goddess as well) it shows the motherhood of her. The same is with Mary.
The Catholic Church denies this and it is understandable why. They do not want to admit the paganism within the church. They make the claim that there are terms used in scripture that were originated from paganism. While this is true, you have to look at how closely these two are to each other.
Ishtar was thought to be ever virginal and that she is the overseer of all things. Just like the Catholic Church declares Mary is.
I will be adding more to this at a later time.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Prayers to and for the dead
It is said in Ecclesiates 9:5- 6" 5The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten6Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun"
So what this is saying that the dead have no awareness of what is happening on earth, "under the sun". What is under the sun? The earth. To say that the dead know nothing, should be all the support that someone needs to know that praying to the dead (i.e. Mary and saints and family members) is pointless, as they cannot hear since they know nothing.
It is a common thought that Mary, the physical mother of Jesus Christ, can hear prayers. The scripture goes against this belief.
This practice is also used when someone dies and goes to"purgatory". First, the idea of a place such as this, is not within scripture. Second, the practice is to pay the church to hold a mass and to have people in to pray for the one that has passed away.
Matthew 23:14
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses and for a pretense make long prayers.Therefore, you will receive grater condemnation".
This describes a purgatory mass perfectly. The belief is that anyone who dies who is not pure will go to purgatory. No one is pure! So this would have to mean that everyone would have to go to purgatory to pay for sins and become pure for God. This is ridiculous.
Christ was the sacrifice for our sins. To claim that we have to work off our sins is not only saying that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not enough, it is also a demonstration of salvation by works.
You cannot pray someone into heaven or to be saved. That is something that is to be done in our hearts. No matter how hard you try and pray, no matter how many do this, it will not change what is in that persons' heart.
Now, we are told that hell is a waiting place for the fallen until judgment and are cast into the Lake of Fire. This is not becoming "pure". Hell is a place of torment.
Just like the bible speaks of Abraham's Bosom. This is a resting place for the saved until judgment.
No one knows for sure since once you've passed you cannot come back to earth, and tell the world what happens. So, this is coming from the bible itself. The best source of truth that we have.
2nd Timothy 1:16-18
16"May God show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains.17 One the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me.18 May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day".
This is the main verse that the Catholic Church uses to justify praying for the dead.
The first thing to notice with this, is that verse 16 says "mercy on the household". Was the whole household dead?
The second, is in verse 18, "that he will find mercy". This is just saying that he hopes that the person he is talking about finds mercy with God. This is not a prayer.
I hope that I have made this issue clear from a biblical standpoint. May God be with you all.
In Him Alone....
Friday, September 26, 2008
The ever-virginal delusion of Mary
MARY WAS NOT A VIRGIN THROUGH HER ENTIRE LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This must be made very clear as it has caused a lot of confusion(not on my part) and tension(again, not on my part).
I will be citing a lot of scripture here but I will try to keep it brief.
Scripture plainly states that Joseph did not "know" (sexually) Mary until AFTER the birth of Jesus Christ.
Luke 2) 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn
This says "firstborn". Not only child.
Matthew 1) 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.[a] And he called His name JESUS.
This says "til after". Not that it never happened. Also this says again "first born"
Also, wifes were instructed to sleep with their husbands as this was pleasing to the Lord. He made marriage. We are also told not to abstain or deny each other except for times to pray and worship.
1 Corinthians 7:2-5
2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.It states in scripture not to deprive each other. Why would Mary go against God's wishes?
And there is quite a bit of scripture that tells us that Mary did in fact have children, other than Jesus, with her husband, Joseph.
Matthew 13:54-56
54 When He had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, “Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses,[a] Simon, and Judas? 56 And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”
Matthew 27:55-57
55 And many women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to Him, were there looking on from afar, 56 among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses,[a] and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
Here are just a few. The word "brother" in scripture does not always speak of a biological brother. However, "son of Mary", means just that. A son of Mary. That can only be taken literally.
I have spent a lot of time and in depth study and there is no biblical basis for this dogma. A dogma, although, is defined as" a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds". So of course, I cannot get support for this claim as it has no support. Why would someone who claims to believe in God, say or imply that the scripture is lying? God's word is not a lie, it is truth. Some only see what they want to see instead of what is there. It makes their belief system easier when they don't have to prove it. Again,it is always smart to know your scripture so that when things like this arise, you can easily refute challenges and stand up for the true Word of God.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The lie of the immaculate conception of Mary
I have been receiving so much hate mail for my disproving this so I had to go further into the topic to really show this is just not true.
Even within the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the church itself, declares that this is a dogma. It is not fact, it is just a belief. But you have to ask yourself, where does this belief come from and is it supported by scripture? I use the word scripture,since of course, the word "bible" does not appear in scripture.
When you have a religious belief, it is important that you can provide support for that, when challenged. The reason being, how can you spread the truth and word of God, if you don't why you believe what you do.
I have asked this of those of the catholic faith and I am almost always answered the same way. That she (Mary) bore Christ who was sinless so she must have been sinless too. This is very simply wrong. It is not supported anywhere within the scripture and actually, is taught otherwise. That no one differs from another and we have all sinned. I have to quote this scripture quite often and I will do so again now.
Romans 3:22-24
22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
So this is clearly saying that we all sin. How can someone say that it does not apply to everyone? It does apply to everyone.
1 Corinthians 4:7
7 For who makes you differ from another?
So why do these believes insist that Mary was sinless when scripture says otherwise? We are told not to go beyond what is written, so how can someone justify going beyond what is written?
1 Corinthians 4:6
"Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other." 1 Corinthians 4:6
So they are either purposely going against the scripture, or they have not read it for themselves and are merely relying on someone to tell them what it says.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
The 15 so called "promises" from Mary on those who recite the Rosary
| ||
|