Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[Grailhunter]

You completely missed the point.
I debunked your idiotic contention that if something isn't explicitly stated in Scripture - it's "error".

Never said that.
I said if it is not in the scriptures it is a red flag.
Which means that you need to take a close look at it. It is usually something that someone wants you to believe that is not in the scriptures.

The problem with these false theological clichés are that they skew the meaning of the scriptures that are actually in the Bible. The truth is congruent with other scriptures these lies do as lies do....you tell one you have to come up with other lies to cover for the first. Before long the true meaning of the scriptures are lost. And usually the false theological clichés have a direct or indirect negative meaning.

The fascination with the Virginity of Miriam and the cliché Virgin Mary is a good example. The implication that the purity of Miriam was base on her not having sex had a malicious intent against all women. Mothers are not pure because they had sex to get pregnant. So Miriam had to be born without Original Sin (another lie) and conceive without having sex and so then the female genitals are so dirty, nasty, and sinful Christ could not pass through the birth canal. So they had to beam Him in and beam Him out. You tell lies and the explanations for them go out in left field, when the truth would make much more sense.

This was all because of a belief that sex was dirty, nasty, and sinful, and was created by Satan to tempt us good men. So because good men wanted sex, women were then the temptresses in league with the Devil to lure men into doing something that was dirty, nasty, and sinful with women that were in league with the Devil....which is how the Catholic Church justified stripping women....mothers and torturing them and then killing them and the reason that the Catholic clergy are required to be celibate. Back to purity is based on celibacy or virginity. Which is all a lie.

Purity is based on the character of a person not the status of their crotch Which is why I say the Catholic Church needs to get out of the practice of crotch sniffing. If a mother is of good character she is pure and the same thing goes for fathers. Remember Peter was married.

Then you get into what the Hebrew and Greek words for virgin mean. When Moses ordered his men to kill the thousands of women that were not virgins....they were not fingering them....they were chest stripping them to look for signs of suckling. Back then the definition of virgin was a young lady that had not delivered a baby. There is no Hebrew or Greek word for a woman that had no orifice penetrated by a man.

The bottom line is that purity is not based on crotch sniffing.

 

[BreadOfLife]

So by using the same methodology as the author that claims there are 33k denominations would you then agree there are 242 Roman Catholic Denominations? And if so, then which is the real one that exercises the power of the keys? Are there too many fractures in the church? Absolutely. Yet, I suppose it is better to knowledge the fact that we are not in communion with others than to simply say we are. Such is the case with the Roman church. There are entire regions of the Roman church that are in open rebellion against that church's teaching on marriage for example. Has there been an discipline or rebuke from Pope Francis? Not a peep. What about RC politicians that openly defy the Roman church's teaching on abortion, artificial contraception and the (new) teaching on capital punishment? And yet the mom and pop churches you speak of are probably far closer in their doctrine than entire regions within the Roman church.

As to what Paul wrote in 1 Tim 3:15 is referring to the local body of believers not a centralized authoritarian church that won't exist for another 700+ years.

Actually - that's a logical fallacy.
You can't use the same methodology because there is only ONE Catholic Church.

All of the dissident groups that use the name "Catholic" are Protestants - and, therefore, are added to the number of Protestant denominations.

A Protestant denominations, however, CAN splinter and become another sect. Protestantism by it's very nature was born from splintering - and it continues to perpetuate.

 

[Athanasius377]

That’s NOT accurate.

The Catholic Church officially declared the Canon of Scripture (Table of contests, as it were) in 383 at the Synod of Rome. In the years that followed – it was reiterated several times.

- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).

- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.

- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.

- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

The problem with all if this is that local councils and letters from a Pope do not make church doctrine according to the Roman church. An ecumenical council would make it doctrine such as Trent. If the matter was settled why would the council have felt a need to dogmatically define the canon? And Help me find where the council of Trent "Closed" the canon as you say.

The sacred and holy, œcumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth, and discipline of morals; and perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves,o the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; [the synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,—seeing that one God is the author of both, as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church. And it has thought it meet that a catalogue of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest doubt arise in any one’s mind as to which are the books that are received by this synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josuah, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomena, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, [containing] a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, [one] to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, [one] to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, [one] to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, this said synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and defences it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

Buckley, T. A. (1851). The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (pp. 17–19). George Routledge and Co.

 

[Grailhunter]

Either you’re a malicious liar – or you really are that stupid.

The Church never taught that unbaptized babies go to Hell. This was the entire reason for the hypothesis of “Limbo”. It was a way of reasoning what happened to them because Scripture and Tradition were silent on the matter.

The Church leaves the fate of the souls of unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
So, go and vomit your lies somewhere else . . .

Bottom line babies are not born with sin on their souls.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Never said that.
I said if it is not in the scriptures it is a red flag.
Which means that you need to take a close look at it. It is usually something that someone wants you to believe that is not in the scriptures.

The problem with these false theological clichés are that they skew the meaning of the scriptures that are actually in scriptures. The truth is congruent with other scriptures these lies do as lies do....you tell one you have to come up with other lies to cover for the first. Before long the true meaning of the scriptures are lost. And usually the false theological clichés have a direct or indirect negative meaning.

The fascination with the Virginity of Miriam and the cliché Virgin Mary is a good example. The implication that the purity of Miriam was base on her not having sex had a malicious intent against all women. Mothers are not pure because they had sex to get pregnant. So Miriam had to be born without Original Sin (another lie) and conceive without having sex and so then the female genitals are so dirty, nasty, and sinful Christ could not pass through the birth canal. So they had to beam Him in and beam Him out. You tell lies and the explanations for them go out in left field, when the truth would make much more sense.

This was all because of a belief that sex was dirty, nasty, and sinful, and was created by Satan to tempt us good men. So because good men wanted sex, women were then the temptresses in league with the Devil to lure men into doing something that was dirty, nasty, and sinful with women that were in league with the Devil....which is how the Catholic Church justified stripping women....mothers and torturing them and then killing them and the reason that the Catholic clergy are required to be celibate. Back to purity is based on celibacy or virginity. Which is all a lie.

Purity is based on the character of a person not the status of their crotch Which is why I say the Catholic Church needs to get out of the practice of crotch sniffing. If a mother is of good character she is pure and the same thing goes for fathers. Remember Peter was married.

Then you get into what the Hebrew and Greek words for virgin mean. When Moses ordered his men to kill the thousands of women that were not virgins....they were not fingering them....they were chest stripping them to look for signs of suckling. Back then the definition of virgin was a young lady that had not delivered a baby. There is no Hebrew or Greek word for a woman that had no orifice penetrated by a man.

The bottom line is that purity is not based on crotch sniffing.

You are perversely obsessed with Mary’s genitalia and sexuality.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that sex is “dirty” or improper. It has to do with the fact that she Ark of God.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament. And, whereas the Old Testament Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

Here is the Biblical evidence . . .

OT - The Tabernacle that housed the Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory of the Lord (Shekinah glory) filled the Tabernacle (2 Chron. 5:13-14).
NT - Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

I don't expect an intelligent response from you - but goive it a TRY, anyway . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

The Catholic Church did NOT exist before the 4th century??
Gee – NONE of these guys got the memo . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 150]).

Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago – in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled (On the Prescription Against Heretics 22,30 [A.D.200])

Cyprian
? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation (On the Unity of the Catholic Church 6 [A.D. 251]).

We have been over this several times.. It is easy to see the mistranslation of what you have presented. There are no bishops back then. And all of Christianity was called the universal church....translated catholic in English. I have no problems with the Church taking on that popular phrase, it makes sense....but these guys were not talking about Bishops, Popes, and or the Vatican.

As in.... The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective, katholikos, meaning "universal," and from the adverbial phrase, kath' holou, meaning "on the whole."

 

[Grailhunter]

You are perversely obsessed with Mary’s genitalia and sexuality.

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that sex is “dirty” or improper. It has to do with the fact that she Ark of God.

Whereas the symbols of God’s word were contained in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, Mary actually carried God himself - the Word - in her womb in the New Testament. And, whereas the Old Testament Ark had to be made of pure materials and blessed and undefiled, how much more pure and undefiled would the vessel that actually carried God have to be?

Here is the Biblical evidence . . .

OT - The Tabernacle that housed the Ark was overshadowed by the cloud of glory of the Lord (Shekinah glory) filled the Tabernacle (2 Chron. 5:13-14).
NT - Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) who carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the Word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

I don't expect an intelligent response from you - but goive it a TRY, anyway . . .

Thank you I am not going to respond to it because it is too ridiculous.

 

[Athanasius377]

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

You mean the adding superstitious and spurious books?

Actually - that's a logical fallacy.
You can't use the same methodology because there is only ONE Catholic Church.

All of the dissident groups that use the name "Catholic" are Protestants - and, therefore, are added to the number of Protestant denominations.

A Protestant denominations, however, CAN splinter and become another sect. Protestantism by it's very nature was born from splintering - and it continues to perpetuate.

Actually, the modern Roman church is not catholic. It does not hold to catholic doctrine. The term Roman Catholic is a contradiction. You can't be Roman and be universal (catholic).

 

[BreadOfLife]

The problem with all if this is that local councils and letters from a Pope do not make church doctrine according to the Roman church. An ecumenical council would make it doctrine such as Trent. If the matter was settled why would the council have felt a need to dogmatically define the canon? And Help me find where the council of Trent "Closed" the canon as you say.

The sacred and holy, œcumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,—keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which [Gospel], before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His apostles to every creature, as the fountain both of every saving truth, and discipline of morals; and perceiving that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves,o the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; [the synod] following the examples of the orthodox fathers, receives and venerates with equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,—seeing that one God is the author of both, as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ’s own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved by a continuous succession in the Catholic Church. And it has thought it meet that a catalogue of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest doubt arise in any one’s mind as to which are the books that are received by this synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josuah, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomena, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, [containing] a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osea, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggæus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, [one] to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, [one] to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, [one] to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle. But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, this said synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and defences it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

Buckley, T. A. (1851). The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (pp. 17–19). George Routledge and Co.

The Pope CAN declare a teaching to be binding when he speaks ex cathedra.

As for the Trent – this was a response to the so-called “Reformation”.

Your Protestant Fathers had removed 7 Books and portions of Daniel and Esther from the Old Testament. Some, like Luther and Calvin were even considering removing some New Testament Books like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Had it not been for the pleading of contemporaries like Philip Melanchton – YOUR Protestant Bible would be a LOT thinner.

Trent closed the Canon - it's didn't "decide" it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Thank you I am not going to respond to it because it is too ridiculous.

You can't refute it.
That's what I thought . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

You mean the adding superstitious and spurious books?

Can you give me a list of "spurious books" that the church "added"?

Actually, the modern Roman church is not catholic. It does not hold to catholic doctrine. The term Roman Catholic is a contradiction. You can't be Roman and be universal (catholic).

There is NO such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church".
It is just the "Catholic Church."

"Roman" (Latin) refers to ONE of about TWENTY Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.
There are Melkite Catholics, Maronites, Byzantines, Coptics and several others - and we are ALL in full communion.

It is the very SAME Catholic Church that first century Bishop and lifelong student of the Apostle John, Ignatius of Antioch wrote about right before his martyrdom in 107AD.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

 

[Grailhunter]

You can't refute it.
That's what I thought . . .

Refute what?
It is a lot of work to justify the hatred of women in the Catholic Church.....What the Catholic Church has done has proven it attitude with women.

Hey, when do you think female priests will be common in the Catholic Church?

 

[Augustin56]

So, the simple question here is:

I am not going to give an account, At Judgement, for my personal study Of His Word, but
I am going to give an account for not "heeding what 'the church'" told me?

Christ identifies as one with His Church. Recall Acts 9:4, where Jesus knocked Saul (Paul's Hebrew name) off his horse as he was going about persecuting Christians.

He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?

Note that Jesus didn't say, "..why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but, "...why are you persecuting Me?" Persecute Christ's Church, and you persecute Christ!

Further, look at Luke 10:16, that says,

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Jesus was speaking to the Apostles, the first hierarchy of His Church. If you listen to His Church, you listen to Christ.

The Catholic Church is not a mere man-made institution like the other Christian groups. It is a Divine, living entity, with Christ as its head and the Holy Spirit as its soul. It was founded by God (Jesus), Who promised that it would never teach doctrinal error, and would still be here at the end.

All that aside, with regard to Judgement Day, take a look at Matt. 25:31-46 to see what Christ's criteria will be for those going to heaven or hell.

Here's a snippet:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

The focus isn't how much you know, but how much you followed God's will, in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. And if you go off on a tangent, making up your own rules, and trying to better Christ's message that He gave mankind through His Church, then you're inevitably going to miss the mark.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Refute what?
It is a lot of work to justify the hatred of women in the Catholic Church.....What the Catholic Church has done has proven it attitude with women.

That's funny . . .

Usually - ignorant anti-Catholics accuse us of putting Mary on a pedestal.
YOU, on the other hand argue the exact opposite . . .

Hey, when do you think female priests will be common in the Catholic Church?

Never.
You should ask Jesus why He never had female Apostles . . .

 

[Grailhunter]

Usually - ignorant anti-Catholics accuse us of putting Mary on a pedestal.
YOU, on the other hand argue the exact opposite . . .

No I am saying that the crotch is not a qualifing factor for purity.
And I think Miriam is awesome. But the status of her crotch was not what made her favored of God.
Nor does the status of her crotch have anything to do with her miracles now.

 

[Grailhunter]

Never.
You should ask Jesus why He never had female Apostles . . .

I am not sure he didn't.
Messiah means anointed one....how many men anointed Christ?
Who financed His ministry?
While the Apostles were hiding, who was with Him at the cross?
While the Apostles were still hiding who announced that He had resurrected?

So explain why you do not think there should be female priests in the Catholic Church.

 

[St. SteVen]

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration of God, and Is Profitable for doctrine, forreproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Godmay be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

What did that mean at the time it was written?
The NT wasn't canonized until the 4th century AD.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No I am saying that the crotch is not qualifing factor for purity.
And I think Miriam is awesome. But the status of her crotch was not what made her favored of God.
Nor does the status of crotch have anything to do with her miracles now.

And again - you have an unhealthy and perverted obsession with genitalia.
You don't have the capacity to think on a Spipritual leverl.

 

[Grailhunter]

And again - you have an unhealthy and perverted obsession with genitalia.
You don't have the capacity to think on a Spipritual leverl.

I can't have an obsession with genitalia because I do not think it matters.
It is the Catholic Church that is obsessed with virginity and crotch qualifications.
Spiritual Level? Is spiritualism based on crotch sniffing?

Again why do think that females should not be priests?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am not sure he didn't.
Messiah means anointed one....how many men anointed Christ?
Who financed His ministry?
While the Apostles were hiding, who was with Him at the cross?
While the Apostles were still hiding who announced that He had resurrected?

So explain why you do not think there should be female priests in the Catholic Church.

Because Jesus didn't choose any women to lead in His Church.
It's that simple.

Paul learned the gospel directly from Jesus.
This is why he wrote, under the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT:

1 Tim. 2:11-13
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

ONE more time, Einstein - if you have a problem with God's Word - take it up with GOD . . .