Prayers that Repeat, For the Dead and Matthew 28 - with PM

Status

Skipping

some to get down to this following subthread:

PM

HGL

What translation is that?

PM

KJV

HGL

Burn it.

Here is Douay Rheims:

[7] And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard.

PM

HGL yeah, I've heard about that rheims version. The KJV is much better

HGL

In this verse, it is mistranslating.

Multiloquium and battologein don't mean repetition or repeat.

PM

HGL

HGL

In the Bible, battologein is a hapax.

This means that the meaning given (in Strong?) is more or less his guess, and that guess might be influenced by his KJV or Protestant bias.

PM

HGL you would be wise to trust the KJV

[Psalm 12:6, 7 - text of his Bible references, see below.]

HGL

There is nothing in that word which points to KJV over Catholic Church.

PM

HGL unfortunately the Catholic Church listens to fallible priests who constantly change their minds rather than Gods eternal word.

HGL

The Catholic Church precisely refused to do so with a fallible priest called Martin Luther.

PM

HGL Martin Luther regarded Gods word the way one should. He didn't buy into man made doctrines like purgatory.

HGL

II Maccabees 12 says there are people who need some kind of redemption from sins after death.

Assume this is not inspired, nevertheless it was at least an opinion in Second Temple Judaism (it is also prevalent in Rabbinic Judaism).

Therefore, if it had been wrong, Christ would have warned against it.

So, you cannot argue from your opinion on purgatory that Luther was right and therefore neither from Luther being right to KJV being right rather than the Catholic Church.

PM

HGL and that's a great reason Macabees isn't scripture. No one can ever pay a ransom to redeem a persons soul. Neither does such a place exist

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]

HGL

Supposing you were right on interpreting this psalm, the Maccabee era priests would have done a mistake, and since no one else were correcting them (except Sadducees going to far by denying resurrection altogether), Jesus should have done so.

This is equally true if Maccabees is not scripture.

Unless you are willing to pretend it is also fake history.

As I look up the psalm with Challoner comments, the ransom here alluded to would be:

• a ransom to not have to die (good reason against Rob Skiba's idea Nimrod and Mark of the Beast mean physical immortality)
• or a ransom for the damned

As Catholics agree there is no ransom for this, it seems the psalm in question is not a good proof text against purgatory, and definitely not as good as II Maccabees (even if non-Scripture) is for it.

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

PM

HGL unfortunately many twist this passage by calling it an allegory and denying it. The sad fact is that there is no holding place for anyone who dies. It's either the presence of Christ or the flames

[Luke 16:22 - 24]

HGL

I am sorry, but purgatory is in the chasm, on the side of Lazarus and Abraham, but not visible to either Abraham and Lazarus or to the Rich.

I have really and truly no need of denying Heaven and Hell, during OT validity Abraham's Bosom in Sheol and Hell, to affirm there is a Purgatory between them. Like Abraham's bosom it was inaccessible to the rich man. Unlike Hell, it was accessible to Abraham and Lazarus.

Perhaps even just before the conversation, Lazarus had just given a cup of water to a soul in Purgatory.

So, change "not visible to either" to "not necessarily visible, or perhaps ignored by both that moment".

PM

HGL absolutely not. There is nothing anywhere in scripture that ever even mentions purgatory. Nowhere. That's made up by the Catholic Church.

HGL

If you mean the technical term "purgatory" agreed, true for "Holy Trinity" too, as you may have discovered in debates with JW.

If you mean the thing, I think I have as much a reason to out line a Luke 16 case for purgatory as you have to make a very bad Luke 16 case against it.

Purgatory does NOT mean "escape clause from Hell". It does not mean "damned can get saved after death".

It means some saved have a waiting room before Abraham's bosom in OT times or Heaven now, which may also be termed Abraham's bosom but is no longer in the Limbus.

Lazarus was not one of them since he had had his purgatory on earth.

Proof texts, well, we take Maccabees and Tobit as Scripture AND 1 Corinthians 3:15, and Matthew 12:31-32.

[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

It doesn't mean someone who died in mortal sin and got damned can be saved by such forgiveness, so it must mean forgiveness of remaining temporal punishment.

Also, your negative criterium goes against condemning purgatory, since it was a current Jewish thought even if (as you shouldn't) you dismiss II Maccabees and Tobit from canon.

PM

HGL the bosom of Abraham is no longer in use. It was a place in Sheol that the righteous stayed. When Christ arose he emptied it. Now believers go straight to him. Anything else is unbiblical.

[II Cor 5:8]

HGL

I agree the bosom of Abraham in Sheol is emptied.

I do not agree there was no purgatory for anyone then, I do not agree there is not now.

"anything else is unbiblical" - not proven by II Cor 5, since Paul could be talking about his and similar saints who were already having their purgatory on earth - and because purgatory is also not anything like total absence from the Lord.

It's a waiting room to when one is fit to appear before His full glory.

You also still have not adressed your Matthew 28 problem, it is not going away.

___________

The testimony of the early liturgies is in harmony with that of the monuments. Without touching the subject of the various liturgies we possess, without even enumerating and citing them singly, it is enough to say here that all without exception -- Nestorian and Monophysite as well as Catholic, those in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic as well as those in Greek and Latin -- contain the commemoration of the faithful departed in the Mass, with a prayer for peace, light, refreshment and the like, and in many cases expressly for the remission of sins and the effacement of sinful stains. The following, from the Syriac Liturgy of S.t James, may be quoted as a typical example: "we commemorate all the faithful dead who have died in the true faith...We ask, we entreat, we pray Christ our God, who took their souls and spirits to Himself, that by His many compassions He will make them worthy of the pardon of their faults and the remission of their sins" (Syr. Lit. S. Jacobi, ed. Hammond, p. 75).

_____________

Cited from:

Catholicity : Prayers for the Dead
https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/d/dead,prayers_for.html

You'd need a Church visibly surviving from Apostles to our day (we cannot check beyond our days to end of the world) which doesn't - and you don't have one.

PM

HGL there is no problem in any of Gods word. Including Matthew 28

HGL

I did not say there is a problem for Christians in Matthew 28, I am saying there is one for Protestants (of all stripes, Lutheran, Baptist or Mormon or any similar).

PM

HGL show me

HGL

You forgot this one? Quoting self from earlier (click see more, if needed):

Also, you have a Matthew 28-problem.

Roman Catholics pray for the dead (not for the damned collectively or openly for someone who has very reasonable credentials for individually being so, like dying an apostate or even non-Catholic), Greek and Russian etc Orthodox do so (divided on whether prayers are for "airy toll houses" - a one size fits all purgatory - or for judgement after soul sleep or for graces God would have given before he died on prayers said after he died), Copts, Armenians and Nestorians also do so.

Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists and derivatives have no claim at all to go back to Apostolic age, not even a wrong one, and Baptist continuity theory is not a historically reasonable claim.

PM

HGL I'm still waiting for you to show me which verse in Matthew 28 is the problem

HGL

Last one. He cannot have said "I am with you LUTHERANS every day (from now on) to the end of time".

And so on for other sects which have risen centuries or more than a millennium after His words.

The "from now on" is implied in present tense rather than future.

[Of His "I am" in the Greek text: Greek and Latin don't say "I have been since" but "I am since" and don't say "I will be from now on to" but "I am on to".]

If you claim Baptist continuity, less theological difficulty directly, but a total disaster in history.

HGL He has to be saying He is with the Church He founded, with one of the churches claiming (with some reason) continuity from that day on to now.

This means, if all of them agree on prayers for the dead, prayers for the dead are a Christian thing.

PM

HGL no offense, but that's one of the poorest points I ever heard. Christ is with each one of his children constantly through the Holy Spirit. No problem there at all.

HGL

"constantly" - even while there were only Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, Armenians and Nestorians (or undivided ancestral to each of these) and no one around to dispute prayers for the dead?

Because if yes, you just admitted that prayers for the dead doesn't make you anything other than a Christian.

If no, you have on the other hand admitted some centuries worth of exception to that "constantly" and that is a problem with the verse.

PM

HGL there was never " a time that there was only Catholics" because the apostles themselves never held to catholic doctrine. None of this proves anything

HGL

I know very well that you deny Apostles held Catholic doctrine, that they held Catholic practises (like praying psalms every 150 week, or perhaps as Copts every day even).

So, you simply conclude, so to speak, theologically, a Church like yours must have existed all the time.

Nice, but less easy to document it.

Where was YOUR Church when England was converted by one Augustine who was sent by Pope Gregory, both honoured as Saints?

You see, the Church also cannot exist invisibly all over the world for centuries, especially not while a fake Church is usurping its place in the lives of ignorant Christians.

PM

HGL wrong. The apostles never taught that church leaders should abstain from marriage as the catholic priests do. It's a man made doctrine

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]

HGL

You have not answered the question.

It was not "do you believe the Apostles were Catholics", I obviously know you don't believe that, but IF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH WAS YOURS WHERE WAS IT IN THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY AND ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY?

I am sorry I only have caps, I have no means to make it big, so do try to get a good pair of goggles before next time you answer.

I think opticians are open on Saturday unless you happen to live in Holy Land outside Palestinian Authority?

[I can do better on blogger than on FB:]

IF THE ORIGINAL CHURCH WAS YOURS WHERE WAS IT IN THE TIME OF ST. GREGORY AND ST. AUGUSTINE OF CANTERBURY?

PM

HGL unfortunately that's where you're mistaken. The first church was never the organized churches you see now. The original churches began in people's houses

[I Cor 16:19]

HGL

I am very sorry that you seem to be unable to stay on a subject.

No Catholic is denying these house churches.

They were a necessity in times of persecution, since a Cathedral would have been an easy target.

They are also no proof that there was no wider organisation.

They ARE proof that priests can celebrate mass in other areas than cathedrals or parish churches, and that chaplains are a licit thing.

And, this whole question is NOT an answer to where YOUR type of Church was in 597 when St Augustine of Canterbury, ordered by Pope St Gregory the Great, arrived at Thanet.

Or were there no days back then? Or are you a Mormon claiming the true Church survived in Americas, because Jesus had preached there too? Oh, wait ... no, you just tried to twist I Cor 16:19 to a denial of wider organisation.

So, can you identify any man in 597 who would have refused to go to Mass with Pope Gregory or with bishop Augustine but who would have prayed to Christ in his home, without praying for the dead and a few more of the things you object to?

Reminder, the text doesn't say "every one of those days when you guys are around", it says "every day" meaning Christ cannot be absent any single of the 365 days of 597.

PM

HGL very interesting. But unfortunately all this vain chatter doesn't really amount to much. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church never was the first church. Nor does it adhere to Gods Holy word. Rather, it follows made up traditions of fallible men.

HGL

Well, I'll give my bottom line. You prove 500 discrepancies between first Church and Catholicism, if you cannot show a non-Catholic Church the day when St Augustine of Canterbury arrived in Thanet, that disproves Christianity.

Not prove Protestantism of any form.

[Unless you count rejection of Christianity as a form of it. Which it is, of course. But I meant what he meant when he used the word. Unfortunately for his clarity of thought, he does not call Atheists of the modern type Protestants.]

PM

HGL too many discrepancies in the Catholic Church to name. Such as praying to Mary.

[Acts 4:12]

HGL

Supposing you were right - where were the Christians not praying to Mary in 597, when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet?

Nestorians and Monophysites (perhaps already divided into Copts and Armenians, who are two different confessions), and Chalcedonians, not yet divided into Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox, but both of these claim St Gregory and St Augustine of Canterbury as their saints - all of these obviously WERE praying to Mary, not seeing any conflict between that and Acts 4:12.

Oh, note : your "Christians not praying to Mary" would need to be Christians on other accounts too on your view. Manichaeans rejecting all of Old Testament do not count.

I already said, even if you could prove 500 discrepancies, as long as you can't prove a Church without these for 597 AD, well, you have proven Matthew 28 wrong rather than Protestantism right.

There is no pure hasard in the fact that Hume and a few more like that were from very overwhelmingly Protestant British Isles (outside Irish, Yorkshire, Highlander and Hebride Catholics).

It's not a real pure chance if the man who minted the list of ancient authors not mentioning Jesus (a fairly dishonest one, I have looked at it) came from equally overwhelmingly Protestant US. It is more or less a plagiarism on "where do you find that in the Bible".

Nor is it totally surprising that Atheism and other forms of Antichristianity started in Freemasonry, which, once again, started in Protestantism.

Dealing with each of the 500 supposed discrepancies singly does very much NOT deal with this overwhelmingly obvious argument.

And by "praying to Mary" I mean saluting Her, praising Her as blessed and as blessed among women, and asking Her intercession - NOT adoring as if She were a goddess.

Bible References from KJV

except that first mistranslated one which got a screenshot instead.

[Psalm 12:6, 7]

6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Psalm 49:7 - 9]

7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:)

9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.

[Luke 16:22 - 24]

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

[II Cor 5:8]

8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[I Tim 4:1 - 3]

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

[I Cor 16:19]

19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

[Acts 4:12]

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Below, too

Since he (PM) continues to believe quoting Bible is more important than understanding what it says:

[Matthew 16:18]

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

[Hebrews 4:12]

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

II Thess 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

II Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[Acts 17:11]

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

[Acts 2:41-42]

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

In these,

unlike Matthew 6:7, the problem is not any false translation, like translating battologein with "vain repetitions", but simply how these verses are put in the wrong place of context to argue against sth which they do not argue against. Also, see below, unlike Matthew 28:20, where pasas tas hemeras is mistranslated always.

After this I add a notification:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nearly forgot to notify - if you prefer full name, I will comply: [link to this post]

Update

or updates, with more debate:

PM

HGL wrong. There's never even a need to address Mary in any kind of a prayer. That's reserved for God only. Just another example of made up traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries

HGL

"traditions that have been unbiblical for centuries"

My challenge to you was precisely : find me in those centuries Christians whose traditions were yours. Not ours.

Three options:

• Catholicism (large sense, could be Copts even) is Christianity
• a clearly non-Catholic Christianity survived to AD 597 (not shown despite my challenging several times)
• or Christianity as originally conceived ENDED before Doomsday, contrary to Matthew 28 (and it doesn't matter if it began again or not, its not being there one single day equates Christianity is wrong, Christ not God or God a Liar).

PM

HGL I already showed you how inaccurate catholic doctrine is. Priests not allowed to marry and teaching people to abstain from meats on Friday for example. It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word

[I Tim 4:2,3]

HGL

Any priest was allowed to marry before he became priest and in some disciplines to become priest while still married.

Any man abstaining from meat on a Friday is allowed to eat it on Sunday.

These examples cannot be what St Paul alludes to, therefore.

A radical vegan religion, like Albigensians and Manichaeans could be (a very good reason not to point to Manichaeans when pointing to "real Christians" if Sts Gregory and Augustine were fake ones in 597 AD).

A radically antimarriage religion (also these two, but also modern feminism and a few more) would also be so.

Eugenicism is so, it has told certain people to get a cut in genital regions - which is forbidding them the first good of marriage which is offspring.

After Hitler told half breed Jews they cannot marry, after a little earlier than 1933 even some states in US and Canada got people sterilised by force for being black and a culprit, for being Amerindians, for being Esquimeau, in one state even for being French Canadian, it is ludicrous to consider that verses as applying to clerical celibacy.

BUT YOU HAVE STILL NOT ANSWERED WHO WERE CHRISTIANS IN AD 597!

Not even a tiny attempt.

I am reminded of that Polish King whom Charles XII replaced for August of Saxony, whom he had defeated : on a history test I said "his name was never famous" and my history teacher wrote in red "can't you remember it, Hans?"

No, I could not remember Stanislas Leszczynski, but at least he existed. He was also grandfather to Louis XVI of France or sth.

Your Christians in 597 who were not Catholic, who were not Copts or Armenians, who were not Nestorians and who had no celibate clergy or no fasting ... well, considering the chances you've had so far, they seem not even to have existed.

If in 597 no Christians existed, either God is a liar or Christ is not God, as per Matthew 28. If God is truthful, Christ is God and Matthew 28 is Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost, Christians DID exist every day of 597.

Can you name any? Unlike me on history tests, you have had occasion to look them up, if there were any ...

"It doesn't matter how long the churches have practiced anything. What matters is whether they adhere to Gods word"

As per Matthew 28, a Church adhering to God's word is precisely required every day between Ascension day and the present, as well as obviously beyond to Doomsday.

Therefore, a practise which definitely has no antiquity cannot be an obligatory practise of the Church and a practise which has undisputed antiquity all over the field, Chalcedonians, Monophysites, Monothelites (if they existed as a separate sect then), Nestorians all of them agreeing on it in 597, it is certainly at least licit and highly probably obligatory.

Why? Christ had not only stated he was being with the 11 Apostles all days to the end of time, but also just before that told them to teach men to do ALL He had commanded.

He gave them a task, He gave them the means, by being with them all days, and you try to tell me they can have failed for whole centuries? Gimme a break!

Note on Louis

Marie Leszczynska was his paternal grandmother, so Stanislas Leszczynski his paternal-maternal great-grandfather. See 5 and 10 on his genealogy.

PM

HGL sorry pal but all those long sentences don't amount to anything. The Catholic Church chooses the instructions of priests that contradict each other rather than Gods word

HGL

So, which exact Church did NOT in 597?

He said "all days" and I believe all days means all days.

PM

HGL sorry pal, but this is no reference to any denomination, but all who have the Holy Spirit dwelling within.

[Matthew 16:18]

HGL

Well, name one.

For 597 AD. As you just claimed Sts Gregory and Augustine couldn't have the Holy Spirit indwelling, due to anti-Biblical practises, name one WITH the Holy Spirit indwelling for 597 AD who was NOT into for instance praying for the dead.

Also, an isolated individual is no good, unless you can make a case he belonged to a Church teaching that.

As to "no reference to any denomination" - false, since contradicting visibility of the Church.

How is the Church, Biblically, visible?

Matthew 28 says it teaches nations. A parable says a city built on a mountain cannot remain hidden, and another that God has not lit a lamp to put it under a bushel, AND in Timothy (same chapter and verse but other epistle as "all Scripture is useful") the Church (not the Bible, not the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in an individual) is claimed as pillar and ground of truth.

Also the Church can impose penances and penalties, as is evident from one of the epistles to Corinthians.

So, show a Church in action of doing these things, extant in 597 AD and not identic with Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Church, nor sharing the practises you object to (as Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites were doing), BUT also not deviating from what you call Christian in other respects, for instance, you cannot point to Manichaeans, a sect clearly forbidden meat and to marry and unlike Our Lord rejecting Old Testament.

PM

HGL a bit incoherent. The cold hard truth is that it's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

HGL

I'm sorry, the incoherence is on your side, even if I got much noise around me the evening when I tried to speak. [Sleep, yes, I am tired.]

You try to make it about me being "it's about the [Roman] Catholic Church". It's in fact about God's word in Matthew 28:20 being precise about a Church with the characteristic of indefectibility. I already know you refuse to identify Catholic Church with this, and you have STILL not shown up any other Church for 597 AD.

The evening = last night (yes, I am tired, but my argument is not incoherent for that).

PM

HGL wrong. It's all about Gods word. Not the Catholic Church

[Hebrews 4:12]

HGL

You know, the "word of God" is not limited to Bible, but includes Bible and Tradition - which is even in the Bible.

One of the main users of the Bible in its above capacities was also a bishop of the Church - Timothy.

So, your idea of "Matthew 28:20 doesn't matter, it would place one thing nearly on par with the Bible" is no good, something, according to the Bible itself actually IS more or less on par with it.

II Thess 2:15, II Tim 3:15-17.

PM

HGL I'm extremely confused how this proves that the Catholic Church has validity over the Bible.

HGL

Who said "has validity OVER the Bible"?

Who said "the Catholic Church" and absolutely none other?

I speak of validity within the Bible, and my observation is negative : if a Church did NOT exist and teach correctly in 597 AD, it cannot have validity according to that verse.

For 597 your *options* include Catholic / Orthodox, Monothelite (but since then all of them became Catholics, they are known as Maronites), Monophysite, Nestorian.

Unfortunately for you, they all use prayers that repeat, they all pray for the dead, they all honour Mary and believe she is soul and body in Heaven ... and I am still waiting for you to show one Christian body in 597 AD which did NOT do these things.

Your options are not "Church OVER Bible" nor "Bible OVER universal tradition". They are either "Church's universal tradition WITH Bible" or "NEITHER Church NOR New Testament".

Oh, I saw you have a wrong translation of that verse.

It doesn't say "always" it says "all days" in a real Bible.

I did not learn Greek to total fluency, and lost much of what I learned, but I know that "pasas tas hemeras" is "all days".

As for "always", it is "aei" and you do find that in St Paul.



Nestle-Aland, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft : ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ 28
http://www.nestle-aland.com/en/read-na28-online/text/bibeltext/lesen/stelle/50/280001/289999/

Sorry for a mistake in above. It seems Monothelites did not yet exist separately from Catholics in 597, as they also do no longer now.

PM

HGL sorry pal, but the KJV is far more accurate and Matthew 28:20 is no fuel for your argument at all. It all boils down to not following the Catholic Church or any denomination, but searching the scriptures for yourself. It's that simple.

[Acts 17:11]

HGL

You know what the Bereans did after that?

Joined the Apostolic Church, which back in that day clearly existed.

The Bereans did NOT search the Scriptures as you say "for themselves" without reference to a Church, Sts Paul and Silas, from the Church, were there talking to them.

So, Acts 17 does not contradict Matthew 28:20 like your non-take on AD 597 does.

And my point is still not, in this debate, at this stage, with this prooftext "Catholic Church" it is ANY Church which claims with some realism Apostolic succession.

You are saying that KJV is more accurate than the Greek text?

PM

HGL well first, my initial statement was simply a Bible quote of Christ saying not to pray with vain repetitions. Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with.

Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine. Not the traditions of the Catholic Church.

[Acts 2:41-42]

HGL

"Of which, I'm not sure what part of that you disagreed with."

Translating "battologein" as repetitions.

"Secondly, it's true that the Bereans did join the body of Christ. They also abided in the apostles doctrine."

A doctrine visibly present in a visible Church.

In other words, they did not check the OT "for themselves" to see what they could get out of it, they checked a specific, ecclesiastic body of doctrine against those Scriptures.

"Not the traditions of the Catholic Church."

You claim so.

Where was the ecclesiastic body the Bereans joined a few centuries later in 597 AD?

According to Matthew 28:20, it still had to be around, as it still has to be around today and will be around to Doomsday.

Because, you see, the Greek text of Matthew 28:20 says "pasas tas hemeras" not just always, but more specifically "all days".

Btw, in Acts 2 you are a few chapters and years before the Bereans, and the Church in Jerusalem was fairly clearly not just house Churches.

Added by HGL

Let us break this down even better, so you don't miss it yet another time.

Let's skip the remaining days in 33 and the previous days this year and stick to full years (I'll be a few days off, but not more than the skipped parts include).

2017
0033
1984

365.2425 * 1984

365242.5 1000
365242.5
730485.00 2000
036524.25
693960.75 1900

No, even better ...

01 0365.2425
02 0730.485
04 1460.97
08 2921.94
16 5843.98

730485.00 2000
005843.98 - 16
724642.02 1984

724,642 days and the Church Christ founded around on Earth each of them.

One day when St Augustine of Canterbury landed on Thanet in 597 AD is among these.

Matthew 28:20 says Christ was preserving His Church all of these days.

YOU claim St Augustine of Canterbury and his Pope St Gregory the Great were NOT of that Church.

SO, a simple follow up question, if you really believe Matthew 28:20:

WHERE WAS THE REAL CHURCH THAT DAY?

Is this simple enough?

PM

HGL unfortunately none of all that means anything. But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true. Basically, you need to prove Catholic doctrine legitimate before your claims can be true. Please show me, the perpetual virginity of Mary, purgatory, abstaining from meat on Friday, celibacy of church leaders in Gods word. Prove it.

HGL

I am sorry, but you seem to have decided not to let words mean what they mean.

"unfortunately none of all that means anything."

How many hypno sessions did you take for that?

"But to answer your question, Matthew 28 in no way proves Catholic doctrine true."

You are NOT answering my question, I did not state in the immediate that Matthew 28 proves Catholic doctrine on named matters true, as a proof text does.

My question still is, where is the Church whose doctrine YOU believe in back in 597 AD?

And it's soon two weeks you have been shirking that one.

What Matthew 28:20 does prove is that there needs to be one, if your take is right and Christianity is true.

What I have therefore said is : Matthew 28:20 proves Protestantism false. All stripes. Your Church cannot be documented from for instance 597 AD.