Now, he starts out quoting intercession from 2nd Maccabees, and there is no reason to accept any book as scripture by default, but above all, you must be aware of pseudepigrapha and not oblivious to it's stark reality in ancient writings. If you are going to take the position that Protestants have omitted 7 books, you will have to deal with the fact that the Catholic church omits at least 10 more that we know of. What scriptural authority will boil down to is personal feelings.
He then brought up Moses and Elijah standing with Jesus, conveniently, you ignore the fact that they were not prayed to for intercession (or for anything), thus cannot be used to support your point.
He mentioned angels being aware of us, which is unrelated to your verses about saints. Your point is left hanging like someone who stops in mid-sentence. The dead are dead, and there is no evidence that the saints who have died are presently hearing our prayers and praying for us, outside of Catholic tradition. You cannot get that doctrine out of those verses. ESPECIALLY considering every meticulous detail that was recorded of Jewish lifestyle and practices, combined with Jesus and Pauls instructions to believers on how to live. Really take that into account. The evidence is sorely lacking, my good man, for such a core belief.
____________________________________________________________________________
Onto Revelations 8.
When I say "Prove that these are the saints of Catholicism" what I mean is, that this is literally the Catholic designation of sainthood, and not some mystic title owned by a list of people known only to God. Prove that when it says "saints" in that verse, it is literally talking about St Francis, St Nicholas, St Cecilia, St Christopher, and all the patron saints of etc etc etc. Rather than your decent run-of-the-mill Bible thumper who handed out gospel tracts and died of a heart attack last week.
You can't. You must go on (honestly) blind faith that the Catholic church knows who is a saint and who isn't, and is never wrong about this..
____________________________________________________________________________
"Prove they are not [intercessory prayers].
As far as me proving they are not intercessory prayers, that is a mistake in debating. The burden of proof is not on someone to prove a negative. The burden of proof lies solely on the one trying to prove the positive. If I said watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut them, I cannot then turn around and tell you to prove that they aren't. The burden of proof would be on me, as it is on him, to show that after death, those who have died still hear our prayers and pray on our behalf. It is understood that instructions given to us only apply to us if we are alive. Nobody believes that the Jews still had to eat kosher food after they died, so why believe that praying is an exception to the rule?
____________________________________________________________________________
About the dead and the living regarding sainthood. It's not a strawman argument. I have heard Catholics quote those verses and make those claims. So I was defusing any possibility of it spreading further by nipping it in the bud.
____________________________________________________________________________
Galileo....
I have ammended the part about Galileo being "thrown in jail" after reading up on it, so I am more than willing to admit when I have some incorrect details of history left on my site. Some sections are quite old. But the bigger problem is when he says that the Catholic church cannot get anything wrong under 4 restrictive criteria.
I'm glad he is aware of the Vatican Council of 1870, that saves me some time. Now defining Papal Infalibility in 1870 is really after the fact, don't you think?
Ponder that for a moment.
It must have been the dawning era of the modern day lawyer, as the church tried to define what "We can't be wrong." really means, to cover over a millenia of mistakes...Chiseling down that square peg to force it into a round hole.
What you have here is a game that children play, where one kid rolls the dice, and doesn't get the number he wants, so he says "THAT DIDN'T COUNT! (insert excuse here) I'm rolling again.". I now have to ask a Catholic a few things about those criteria.
1. How can you claim decisions on "faith and morals" never came into play during the Crusades, the Dark Age, Spanish Inquisition, and reign of Pope Pius XII?
2. If countless human atrocities were not Ex Cathedra, then tell me, why were they followed?
3. If these 'unofficial' decisions were not binding on the whole church, then why did the whole church act on them?
4. How can the 'Vicar of Christ' NOT intend to teach? Remembering that everything Christ did just short of salvation was teaching.
____________________________________________________________________________
He brought up Matthew 16:18, and made the typical Catholic statement that the rock Jesus was talking about was Peter, and not the fact that Jesus is Christ. You see, Peter was not the first Pope, and I would be more than glad to show anyone a dozen ways from Sunday that it doesn't coincide with historical records. No way, no how. Even more shocking, is that it doesn't coincide with Biblical records either. There is plenty of reason to believe that Peter was never even IN Rome, even after his death, by supposed crucifixion. There is a much higher chance that your first Pope was Simon Magus, if anyone. I will be adding this to my sections in days to come, it just may convert Catholics who dare read it.
____________________________________________________________________________
We have some textual discrepancies about Jeus having siblings or not. Take into account also John 2:12 which says "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days." If by "brethren" it meant "disciples" then it would have been redundant, because it says disciples right after that. If when it said "brethren" it meant cousins or kinsmen, the word in the Greek would have been suggenes, and not adelphos, which is derived from the Greek word for womb and means brother.
I noticed that he didn't even dare address Mary not being a good Jewish wife. So tell me, do you seriously believe that she did not have sex with her husband, who can be confirmed to have lived at least 12 years after Christ's birth?
Nor did he answer if he was aware of female anatomy.
Ok, so Mary was a virgin at Christ's conception, it's not possible for her to have remained one upon delivery. I didn't want to have to, but that really is the nail in the coffin of the 'virgin' Mary argument, by the definition of female virginity, universally accepted around the world through all of human history. Mary is never again referred to as a virgin either.
____________________________________________________________________________
His definition of 1st Timothy 3:2 inserts the idea that Paul was talking about widowers. The text does not say.
He then went to great lengths to prove the office of the Pope in the Bible, when it is clear the word doesn't even exist, all he had to do was admit it's not there, instead of doing a gigantic red herring worth of church history to bolster fellow Catholics. As I said above, I believe I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was not the first 'Pope'.
____________________________________________________________________________
It's not the denial of sola scriptura that gets to me, as I myself don't hold to it. It's the extreme liberties taken and grandiose claims of divine communication in Catholic history.
Doctrine boils down to nothing but personal conviction/opinion, and what a majority of men in power have decreed. Before you decide on what the rules are, you have to decide on how you will decide. So why not accept the writings of Ellen G. White, and Joseph Smith? Why regard apostolic succession? Why not scratch it tomorrow and declare me to be the next Pope? Or you? He completely avoided that question.
That the 1769 King James Bible in it's entirety was authored by the very hand of God? That every jot and tittle and line of the Biblios was put on holy paper, by consecrated ink, from a sacred pen? I really don't think so. I am aware of how it was originally compiled and essentially voted on. I do not trust the spiritual insight of the council of Nicaea anymoreso than Origen, Arius, or the Sabellians. What I DO believe is that you are treading on thin ice when you make a denomination or religion based on the Bible, with doctrines that are found nowhere in it, or even contrary to it, then you make sure nobody can read it except the elite. To put it in simpler terms...Think of the Catholic church as a giant cult that runs on 'ad hoc' passed down by traditions.
I myself find some parts of the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes to be quite ridiculous, and chuckle at entire chapters that are skipped to spare the nubile ears of small children from literary pornography. But I'm not about to accept someone telling me that the tooth fairy can be found in the book of 2nd Opinions 5:9, and that she will judge the living, the damned, and the people who didn't rewind their VHS tapes before returning them. Such is Catholicism.
____________________________________________________________________________
As for reconciling Isaiah 43:10 with Psalm 82:6, this is easily answered by checking the Hebrew. In Isaiah the word used for God is "El" which is almost an exclusive distinction of Yahweh, whereas in Psalm 82:6 "gods" is elohim, which is used very liberally in the Old Testament to mean angels, rulers, and judges as well. Moses is even called an Elohim once, but it is translated as "god". The explanation of the wording in the Catechism is really lawyers acrobatics and double talk to say "We said it, but we didn't really mean it that way, but yet we won't take it back or edit it, so we have to try to explain it elsewhere." If that is not what is meant, then change it, or remove it, in practical terms there is no need to preserve it only to have to explain it differently later. Unless to do so would be blasphemous.
I believe I have now covered everything that he addressed in his first response to me, click below for his next one.
Paul Swonger pt 2
Back
Heresies