What Catholic Doctrine or Beliefs are in error, and whats the origin?

[jasd]

>>The word for "vision" in the Greek simply means something unusual or fantastic that that one has seen.<<

That statement does not consider even the various inflections upon the root word. It is an understatement.

>>It doesn't necessarily signify that what was seen was not real.<<

I don’t know how you intend your qualifier “It doesn’t necessarily signify...” to be received; however, the following Lexicon considers the matter differently:

-horama:: an event in which something appears vividly and credibly to the mind, although not actually present, but implying that influence of some divine or supernatural power or agency – ‘vision.’

Refer: Acts 9:12; 2 Cor 12:1; Rev 9:17 —Louw & Nida

>>The context and language used in the chapter shows that the transfiguration was a real event and not something that occurred only in the heads of the disciples.<<

Louw/Nida addressed Matthew 17:9 specifically in the italicized lexical proffer above. And,

you're right, it may not have been a simple occurance in the heads of the disciples, but may have been an entirely ecstatic experience.

>>The "Jehovah's Witnesses" also use that reasoning to avoid any notion that either Enoch or Moses went to heaven,<<

Good on top them – they’ve read the passage correctly – otherwise, we propose a veritable traffic of men 'ascending and descending the ladder to heaven' – in complete disregard to the statement of fact re the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:13. That, one might recall, would have been before their

redemption had been purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ upon the cross – the blood of bulls, calves, goats, lambs, doves, etc – proving insufficient. The posit that the transfiguration was, in fact, a slice of reality - turns the entirety of Writ topsy-turvy.

>>...because they believe that no one but spirit beings can go to heaven.<<

Obviously, Jesus Christ proves that dogma incorrect – as far as it goes. Jesus Christ said that flesh and blood cannot enter into..., so, one suspects that may have been reason why He specifically referred to His resurrected body as flesh and bone; that is, for the edification of Xtians.

Hey! have you run into any of my nation – that is – anarchists, yet? Of course, should you have, they would have been not of my ilk – as I’m of the sort where superlatives prove inadequate to describe. Anyway, hope you’re really havin’ a hootin’ and hollerin’ good time in Denver, USA

[Fausto]

I don't think I am "splitting hairs" over these matters any longer, maybe at a later stage.

I have seen it to be true and to me the bible confers it!

[John317]

>>The word for "vision" in the Greek simply means something unusual or fantastic that that one has seen.<<

That statement does not consider even the various inflections upon the root word. It is an understatement.

>>It doesn't necessarily signify that what was seen was not real.<<

I don&#146;t know how you intend your qualifier &#147;It doesn&#146;t necessarily signify...&#148; to be received; however, the following Lexicon considers the matter differently:

-horama:: an event in which something appears vividly and credibly to the mind, although not actually present, but implying that influence of some divine or supernatural power or agency &#150; &#145;vision.&#146;

Refer: Acts 9:12; 2 Cor 12:1; Rev 9:17 &#151;Louw & Nida

So far, so good.

Tell the rest of what the Lexicon says regarding the occurance of the word at Matt. 17: 9. The verses you've mentioned have to do with pure visions which show things that are not actually present. But this is not the way that word is always used.

Scott, Liddel Lexicon has: "horama 1 that which is seen, a sight, spectacle, Xen."

horasis 1 [from horaô]

I. seeing, the act of sight, Lat. visus, Arist.

II. a vision, NTest.

It doesn't necessarily signify something which did not actually happen.

The New International and many others, including the Amplified Bible, translate it:

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

I submit that the narrative gives every indication that it is describing things that actually happened and were not mere figments of the disciples' imagination:

1.Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves.

2.And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.

3.And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.

4.Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here ; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."

5.While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased ; listen to Him!"

6.When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.

7.And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and do not be afraid."

8.And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

[Fausto]

Tell the rest of what the Lexicon says regarding the occurance of the word at Matt. 17: 9

Exactly what i said in post #182190, besides all the others Luke and Mark do not say vision at all so...I refute it else if it was it would have been mentioned more than once, also other translations as you say have "what you have seen" instead!

This becomes a useless exercise while others are out there whom we need to tell the gospel to!

[John317]

>>Hey! have you run into any of my nation &#150; that is &#150; anarchists, yet? Of course, should you have, they would have been not of my ilk &#150; as I&#146;m of the sort where superlatives prove inadequate to describe. Anyway, hope you&#146;re really havin&#146; a hootin&#146; and hollerin&#146; good time in Denver, USA

Yes, many anarchists are here in Denver, but these are all on the far Left. 300 or so were arrested for a short time Tuesday morning.

When I get home on the 29th, I'll post some of the photographs I've taken.

Only about 1,200 people showed up to take part in the demonstrations. I met and photogaphed Ron Corvic, the Vietnam veteran who left 3/4 of his body in 'Nam, and about whom the film, "Born on the Fourth of July," was made.

Most of the protesters and the organizers are self-proclaimed Marxists, socialists, and communists. Abortion rights, freeing prisoners, legalizing marijauna, no borders, no one an illegal alien, stopping the war, the evil done to Native Americans, no imperialism, arrest Bush-- these are the primary causes here. Naturally, many of the tables exhibit Marxist-Leninist literature. Their signs also use the language and take up the causes of Marxist-Leninism. It advocates the attaining of socialist objectives by means of violent revolution.

Thanks for the nice wishes that I will be having a nice time here. Actually I am, really. I took some time off tonight from one of the demontrations to rest a while in a cafe a block from the capital. My feet were rather tired,(having run for about 2 miles in front of a demonstration), so I just sat and read the Bible and a book by Jack Sequeira. In about 6 hours I'll be back on the streets again.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Tell the rest of what the Lexicon says regarding the occurance of the word at Matt. 17: 9

Exactly what i said in post #182190, besides all the others Luke and Mark do not say vision at all so...I refute it else if it was it would have been mentioned more than once, also other translations as you say have "what you have seen" instead!

I think you've made some really helpful points, Fausto. As you've pointed out, we can learn a lot by studying and comparing parallel passages of scripture.

[jasd]

>>The letter was written by the prophet before he was "taken up." The fact of the letter itself is no evidence that Elijah was not taken to heaven.<<

That is an unsustainable proposition. How can one respond to that? It is me, John317 – asserting that Earth was previously called Rahab

>>...that Elijah was not taken to heaven but rather to a different location on earth. They believe the same thing about Enoch.<<

So, Enoch was righteous..., and Noah? Job? Others? So, Enoch prefigured the efficacy of the cross? If so, then both Enoch and Elijah were ARCHETYPES, as was Moses.

What then was Jesus Christ? I’m almost put to mind, chopped liver. [/not serious :-o]

This sort of .Org internalization, sometimes, relegates Writ to just so much turgid language.

>>The reason they teach this is that otherwise they would have to reject the teaching they hold which says that only spirit-beings can be in heaven. For that reason, they also teach that Jesus Himself was raised as an invisible spirit-being and that the Lord only appeared to be resurrected with a body. Thus, on this view, Jesus was not being totally honest when he told the disciples that he had a body. He said these things, and ate something in front of them, only in order to help to believe in the "resurrection."<<

So, given that sort of exegesis, they can even arrive at the dogma that Jesus Christ is really Michael, angel, arch, or other...

>>These false teachings are the consequences of misunderstanding the translation of Enoch, Moses, and Elijah, as well as a few other important verses on the subject.<<

That’s quite the pejorative and lends to the possibility that the .Org, itself, may suffer likewise; that is, plagued with misunderstandings.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:Fausto

>>There is not one verse though saying that Mary is in heaven, not one, so now I ask you, where is your proof text that she is?<<

Quote:jasd

So, what is it!? the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in John 11:26 “And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die....”

>>The words of Jesus refer to the second death-- eternal death--<<

With the exact words of Jesus Christ staring one in the face in the immediate above - I take that as originating subjectively. The only question within the statement obtaining would be – how is the Xtian to understand ‘death’ – in light of the expressed truth by Jesus Christ?

To find a “second death” within the text is to resort-to and to rely upon constructs, which seems an unnecessary exercise – as we have the exact words of Jesus Christ with us in Writ.

>>Everyone dies the first death, but it is viewed as an unconcious sleep in the grave, because people will be awakened from this sleep.<<

1 Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

The text employs the present tense/active voice; that is, you possess eternal life [now]. It does not state, as so many .orgs posit – that ‘eternal life’ is an effervescing pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye expectation.

One can only take away from the words of the Beloved Apostle, the recurring idea of the animate vitality/constituent man – that is, the spirit/soul, as continuing; somewhat, perhaps, as St Paul expanded upon it.

>>That people who believe in Christ die is well proven from many scriptures which speak of believers dying. To give two examples: in Acts 8, Stephen dies, and in Acts 12, James dies.

Again, Xtians haven’t a workable understanding of ‘death’ per se.

[jasd]

>>The context of John 3:13 is shown here. Jesus is clearly talking about his authority to tell about the things of heaven, authority that comes from His having come down from heaven.<<

Not so, John317. Nicodemus approached Jesus Christ believing Him to be no more than Rabbi/teacher. Jesus Christ said it aptly; “how shall ye believe, if I tell you [of] heavenly things? And (furthermore) no man hath ascended up to heaven, but (except) he that came down from heaven, [even] the Son of Man.”

The above lacks a ‘linking’ bridge between it and verse 12. Moreover, the “authority” being spoken of – that should disabuse Nicodemus’ perception of Jesus Christ as Rabbi/teacher – is also lacking in the passage. Verse 13 is

an independent statement.

>>It is saying the same thing as found in John 1:18.<<

Two things: where/how is it saying “the same thing as found I John 1:18”? and, John 1:18 is a narrative of St John’s provided post facto.

>>Jesus was with the Father and can therefore explain Him. John 3: 13 concerns the fact that Jesus alone can tell about the things of heaven because no one has gone up to heaven and returned to tell about it.<<

That relies upon assorted commentaries. The fact is that the entirety OT literature is largely comprised of the recitation of “heavenly things” – put to page centuries before the epiphany of Jesus Christ.

>>Therefore it is twisting the verse to conclude that Jesus is here denying what the Bible teaches concerning Enoch and Elijah<< [ed.jasd]

This is laterally expository. The appeal to context should be made re the entirety of Writ.

>>13 No one has gone up to heaven except the Son of Man, who came down from there.<<

Exactly, no other allusion is either inhering or indicated in/by text. That is Writ. That said, Gd does as He wills; but that is a matter of faith.

Respectfully, we’ll remain apart upon this point.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:jasd

That statement does not consider even the various inflections upon the root word. It is an understatement.

Quote:John317

>>It doesn't necessarily signify that what was seen was not real.<<

Quote:jasd

I don’t know how you intend your qualifier “It doesn’t necessarily signify...” to be received; however, the following Lexicon considers the matter differently:

-horama:: an event in which something appears vividly and credibly to the mind, although not actually present, but implying that influence of some divine or supernatural power or agency – ‘vision.’

Refer: Acts 9:12; 2 Cor 12:1; Rev 9:17 —Louw & Nida

>>So far, so good.

Tell the rest of what the Lexicon says regarding the occurance of the word at Matt. 17: 9.<<

I quoted Louw & Nida in the above italicized. It addressed, specifically, ”vision” as it occurs in Matthew 17:9 and in that instance of its use – only.

>>The verses you've mentioned have to do with pure visions which show things that are not actually present. But this is not the way that word is always used.<<

True. I agree. Jn 6:36 and 14:9, among others, reinforces that. However, the term ”vision” under discussion is as it occurs in Matthew 17:9. Where (h)orama is used in such texts as John 6:36 and 14:9 as being that of sight – it follows that it is used in harmony with Writ-at large. However, if, as suggested, “vision” - as it occurs in Matthew 17:9 is interpreted in like manner, that is, as sight – it then does violence to the epistemology of Writ (as it delineates the redemption of man).

Enoch, Elijah, and Moses cannot have found their way into the abode of Gd prior to Jesus Christ having shed His blood to redeem mankind. Therefore, where Matthew utilizes ”vision”, I propose that it was by inspiration of the HS, and “pure visions which show things that are not actually present” is a valid observation.

>>The New International and many others, including the Amplified Bible, translate it:

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."<<

And the number of translations, which translate the text employing ”vision”, far outweigh the few that attempt a more liberal translation.

>>I submit that the narrative gives every indication that it is describing things that actually happened and were not mere figments of the disciples' imagination:<<

And, it goes without saying that I agree with the findings of Louw & Nida; otherwise, Writ is dissonant.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-->>Everyone dies the first death, but it is viewed as an unconcious sleep in the grave, because people will be awakened from this sleep.<<

The Seventh-day Adventist church believes and teaches that the "everlasing life" referred to in 1 John 5: 13 commences with the new birth. It is a quality of life that begins in the present and eventually results in the gift of immortality. Since humans do not now possess an immortal soul or spirit, when they die the first death, they go into the grave and sleep unconsciously until the Second Coming. at which time they will be resurrected and made immortal.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17--

>>I submit that the narrative gives every indication that it is describing things that actually happened and were not mere figments of the disciples' imagination:<<

[quotte] JASD-- And, it goes without sayig that I agree with the findings of Louw & Nida; otherwise, Writ is dissonant.

I'm not able to access my own personal lexicons, etc., but what I have shown below proves that all the authorities, inlcuding Louw and Nida, agree that basic meaning of horama is "something seen," etc. Context will indicate whether the sight is real or a dream. Could you please give all the information that "Louw and Nida" provide on the word horama?

Give their definitions in all 12 occurances in the NT.

It would be good to quote the several standard Lexicons. I believe that you will find that they are all in fundamental agreement.

Look, for instance, at the following information:

horama in the New Testament

Definitions

Thayer1) that which is seen, spectacle2) a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision

Part of Speech: noun neuter

Citing in TDNT: 5:371, 706

StrongG3705

From G3708; something gazed at, that is, a spectacle (especially supernatural): - sight, vision.

Louw-NidaGloss Section

a something seen 24.2

b vision 33.488

MORE:

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3705 Browse Lexicon

Original Word Word Origin

orama from (3708)

Transliterated Word TDNT Entry

Horama 5:371,706

Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech

hor'-am-ah Noun Neuter

Definition

that which is seen, spectacle a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision

NAS Word Usage - Total: 12

sight 1, vision 11

NAS Verse Count

Matthew 1

Acts 11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 12

[John317]

They were taken to heaven on the basis of what Christ would accomplish in the future. Remember that the plan of salvation was so certain-- because God was determined to do it-- that it was as good as done before it had occurred within history.

In the same way, the Bible speaks of our salvation as finished. We are pictured in the Bible as already being seated with God in the heavenlies.

If Christ had failed to go through with the sacrifice, however, all of humanity-- all the descendents of Adam-- would have been lost; and therefore Enoch, Moses and Elijah would also have died eternally.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17-->>The New International and many others, including the Amplified Bible, translate it:

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."<<

There is nothing wrong with literal translations. I actually prefer them. But when when it is translated literally as "vision," it can give the impression that the scene did not actually happen. The word "vision" does not mean the same thing to modern. English-speaking people as the word "horama" meant to first century Greeks, who were aware of the different shades of meaning. Therefore many modern language translations do correctly (as I believe) translate it as "what you have seen," which also agrees with Mark's and Luke's account.

I understand your viewpoint, though. There are many who share your view, and these inlude people I consider my good friends.

[Fausto]

jasd

It is obvious that you do not agree with the type-antetype way of analysing the bible whereby we can see for example the earthly sanctuary representing exactly the one in heaven and therefore also the investigative judgement by Christ!

The bible is full of these, for instance within the sanctuary the service and many of the furnishings pointed to Christ (the lamp, the bread, the sacrificed lamb, the priest).

There are many other examples where Christ is portrayed in other people too, examples here are Joseph, Joshua, Isaac (at the altar at the time Abraham was ready to slay him, then God arranged a substitute) and a few others.

Makes a lot of sense! In my opinion!

[melvin mccarty]

Fausto re your post number 182227 which goes back to your post number 182191 in which you were ostensibly replying to my post number 182163.

Please read my post number 182163 again and respond to what I wrote not to what you imagined I wrote.

[Fausto]

Consider the group of people who came to life at the earthquake at Jesus' death. What do you think happened to them? Where are they now? If Jesus is the kind of person that I believe He is He would have his mother with him in heaven. I have no proof she is there and you have no proof that she is not there This is entirely apart from what her role might be. (re catholic doctrine)

[melvin mccarty]

I did not imply that Mary was in that group...you assumed that. My point was that there are many folk "in heaven" who are unknown to us. Therefore it is possible there could be others of course. You seem to be stating that it is impossible for Mary to be in heaven when you have no way of knowing that it is impossible. I am not an advocate for Catholic doctrine but we should not use false reasoning to try to prove our points should we? Since Jesus is well able to take his mother to heaven to be with him and since He is under no obligation to tell us about it if He did why should we pretend we know for sure that Mary is not there. The issue is worship and not whether she is there. mel

[John317]

I did not imply that Mary was in that group...you assumed that. My point was that there are many folk "in heaven" who are unknown to us. Therefore it is possible there could be others of course. You seem to be stating that it is impossible for Mary to be in heaven when you have no way of knowing that it is impossible. I am not an advocate for Catholic doctrine but we should not use false reasoning to try to prove our points should we? Since Jesus is well able to take his mother to heaven to be with him and since He is under no obligation to tell us about it if He did why should we pretend we know for sure that Mary is not there. The issue is worship and not whether she is there. mel

Yes, the issue is worship and prayer.

Who does the Bible say believers are to worship and pray to? Revelation 14: 7 proclaims to the whole world, "Worship Him, who made heaven and earth and the sea." Rev. 19: 10 repeats this message. Exodus 20: 4,5 prohibits the worship of idols and of anyone or anything besides the Creator. 1 John 5: 21 commands us to "guard yourselves from idols."

Yet hundreds of millions of Catholics are encouraged to pray to Mary, despite the fact that there is no evidence that she is there. They have been led to believe a lie, that Mary is performing miracles for them, just as they've been led to believe that various popes and other dead "saints" are responsible for miracles.

They have no reason to believe that she is in heaven, except for the Catholic tradition and doctrine which states that she is indeed there.

They're not taught to pray directly to God or to Jesus but they are led to believe that the "saints" mediate for them to Christ and the Father, something which contradicts the Bible.

The Three Angels Messages is a call to all the world to true worship. By contrast spiritual babylon encourages people to false worship, the worship of the creature. Mary and the saints, of course, are creatures.

[Fausto]

Quote:

MELVIN M-- I did not imply that Mary was in that group...you assumed that. My point was that there are many folk "in heaven" who are unknown to us.

I see why the indignation, fair enough those "first fruits" will indeed be in heaven.

My question is why the persistence about Mary? We all love our mothers and want them to be in heaven, if at all possible, but is that what the Lord came here to show us?

Or that we should hope to accomplish heaven by following Him? That includes our mothers andpossibly His too, but I am not God to make those decisions, He alone knows who those people are with exception of Enoch, Moses and Elijah of whom we can read in teh scriptures.

Yet hundreds of millions of Catholics are encouraged to pray to Mary, despite the fact that there is no evidence that she is there.

They have been led to believe a lie, that Mary is performing miracles for them, just as they've been led to believe that various popes and other dead "saints" are responsible for miracles.

They have no reason to believe that she is in heaven, except for the Catholic tradition and doctrine which states that she is indeed there.

They're not taught to pray directly to God or to Jesus but they are led to believe that the "saints" mediate for them to Christ and the Father, something which contradicts the Bible.

John is correct on teh above statement and thus the reason I was emphtically stating that Mary should not have been part of that group.

However I do agree, I do not have proof that she is not there. Simply I believe she is not as it serves no purpose to enhance the kingdon of Heaven and Jesus did nothing either than to emphasize and glorify the Kingdom of Heaven.

All people that are in Heaven of whom we know, are part of the grand plan of salvation and glorify Hi splans for us!

[John317]

Quote:

My point was that there are many folk "in heaven" who are unknown to us. Therefore it is possible there could be others of course. You seem to be stating that it is impossible for Mary to be in heaven when you have no way of knowing that it is impossible. I am not an advocate for Catholic doctrine but we should not use false reasoning to try to prove our points should we? Since Jesus is well able to take his mother to heaven to be with him and since He is under no obligation to tell us about it if He did why should we pretend we know for sure that Mary is not there.

By the same reasoning, a person could be led to pray to anyone who has ever lived, since the Bible does not say they are not in heaven. Can you name anyone about whom the Bible says definitely he or she is not in heaven? (Judas may be one of the exceptions.) Therefore, the standard is not whether we know for sure they are not there but rather whether the Bible teaches that they are there.

In regard to Jesus' mother being in heaven, consider the fact that the Gospel of John was written between 70 and 90 AD. probably closer to 90 AD. John 19: 27 says that from the moment of Christ's death, Mary was a member of the disciple's household. It's apparent that the disciple referred to was John himself. There's no indication at all in the Gospel that Mary was taken to heaven, an omission impossible to explain if John was aware that she had been resurrected and ascended bodily to heaven.

[melvin mccarty]

You make some rather sweeping statements yourself but it's ok fellows you can untie those knots in your shirts now and I will leave you alone.

I like to think of Jesus and Mary hanging out together and enjoying each other's company. That is the kind of a son I think He is. Wouldn't be surprised if Joseph is there as well.

[John317]

I like to think of Jesus and Mary hanging out together and enjoying each other's company. That is the kind of a son I think He is. Wouldn't be surprised if Joseph is there as well.

Is our belief based on what we like to think or is it based on a sure, clear "thus says the Lord"?

You may like to think these things, but the Bible gives us no reason to believe them.

However, let's suppose for the sake of the discussion that Mary and Joseph are in heaven. Even so, that would give no cause for anyone to believe God wants people on earth to pray to them or worship them or appeal to them for help. This is the central issue: who should we worship and pray to? Who does the Bible say is our only mediator?

The Bible is clear that we should pray to and worship God alone.

Therefore, whether or not Mary and Joseph are now in heaven is immaterial to those who choose to base their beliefs and practices on the word of God.

[John317]

Do you believe that the events recorded in Exodus 3, of God's appearing to Moses at the burning bush, were real or merely a vision in Moses' head?

I don't think there can be any doubt that those events were actual. Yet, in referring to them, Acts 7:31 uses the word horama, the very same word as used in Matt. 17: 9. It is usually translated as "sight" in Acts 7: 31 and obviously does not mean a "vision." There is excellent reason to believe this is also its meaning in Matt. 17: 9, and that is how virtually all Bible commentators and translators understand it.

[Fausto]

I like to think of Jesus and Mary hanging out together and enjoying each other's company. That is the kind of a son I think He is. Wouldn't be surprised if Joseph is there as well.

Man...you're entitled to think what you like, that however does not turn your thought into truth and if I can remember correctly SDA's believe in "sola scriptura", besides that if we know doctrine well, we are supposed to teach it and make it clear to others , such patterns of tought are opposed to our doctrine and we thus try to correct it.

However I have not seen anyone here seriously treating you unkindly for writing out your thoughts, we merely try to teach you what we deem as correct doctrine, and we show you with passages from the bible so as to remove all doubt!