Dr. Mr. Leo,
"I said the Bible was a Reference Material. When did that become such a bad thing? I’m for keeping the Bible."
Yet you also say
"The Bible is a nice dusty reference material, but we don't really need it!"
"shortcomings of the Bible"
"the text of the Scriptures should be changed."
"the Old Testament is a mix of you don’t know what. You can guess how many times the Scribes touched that thing up for political convenience"
"You can’t believe every word you read in the Old Testament"
Although you are for keeping the bible, you have discredited many things in the bible. Even though you call it a cannonized Catholic bible, you say that there are mistranslations and Satanic writings. If that were the case, why do you still keep it as the Catholic bible? Why cannonize the writings of Satan? Does that not sound contradictary to you? It wouldn't be a very good reference material if it has shortcomings, mistranslations, Satanic deception, and scribe modifications now would it?
"Everyone apologizes for Paul. “No, he doesn’t really mean a word he says”
Everybody? I've never heard a single person apologize about Paul at all. I've never apologized for Paul, and I've never heard any Protestant apologize for Paul. Where did this statement come from? It seems a little general and prejudice if you are claiming that every single Christian you encounter is saying that Paul doesn't mean what he says.
Sometimes you cannot take a sentence alone and take it for face value. You have to look at its context to see why it is saying what it says. For example. If I said "You suck." You would believe that I was trying to put you down. But if I gave you the paragraph from which it came:
"Straws are rather simple devices and are quite easy to use. First, you place one end of the straw into the liquid you wish to consume. Then, place your lips over the other end and seal off any escaping air. So what do you do next? You suck."
Okay. That's a pretty silly example, but it gives you an idea of what I'm talking about.
"I came not to send peace but a sword" Matt 10:34
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" Luke 22:36
"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" Matt. 10:35-36
"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" Luke 14:26
Taken literally, and out of context, these scriptures can be misinterpreted to mean something they did not intend. But when read with it's passage and its context, what sounds like a call to arms for everybody turns into a conversation with disciples:
Luke 22:35-36 "And He [Jesus] said to them [his disciples], 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?' So they said, 'Nothing' Then He said to them, 'But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
So I would like for you to provide a sample of Pauls' writings that you say are lies and clearly against the bible. Allow me the opportunity to look at them myself and compare them with the gospels. Please don't just say, "You fool. You should know." or "Just read and you'll see." I would like specific passages out of the bible that directly correlate what you are speaking of and why you view them as false. Then maybe I can better understand why it is false or why it sounds false. It was you who said that because of our 'slowness', that you sometimes have to repeat yourself. Then please do so here so that we may better understand.
"Martin Luther was reading exactly what was set in front of him." Are you saying Martin Luther's 95 theses did not come from him? That he read it from someone else? Or are you saying that Martin Luther just misinterpreted what he read in the bible and that's what he was getting it from? Please clarify this and please place references to where we may also read this. Otherwise, how will we understand what you are talking about?
"You say that God doesn’t believe in Kings!"
This is a misinterpretation of my words. I was not trying to say that God doesn't believe in Kings. I was trying to say that God was not favoring a human king to replace the Heavenly one. As a matter of fact, my exact words were:
"From this passage, we might infer that God was upset as the Israelite's decision to have a king in charge, and that a human king could not possible be as good as a Godly one." So if I was saying that God doesn't believe in kings, then why would I say that God wanted to be king? God was just hurt that man wanted a human king instead of a Godly king, and my point was that if God was hurt with that, wouldn't he also be hurt if the people of God chose a Saint to be queen instead of having a Godly king? (if you raise the argument that you can have a king and queen, then that might sound like you are equating Mary and God as equal rulers of heaven.) I said nothing about God not believing in Kings and instead of asking me to read the Parables, I would like to ask you to more slowly read my wording. That way, there is less miscommunication between us. Also pay attention to when I say words like "might sound like" and "it would seem that" and "we might infer" As I am not making a direct statement but showing you how certain words can be translated certain ways. And I am bringing this up so that you can see why certain logic sounds the way it does so that you can understand and provide a different if not more correct translations of such concepts..
As for my question of indulgences, you say:
"And indulgences – indulgences were a tax on the rich. Poor people could still go to Confession , and the Rich People even with indulgences had to have them sealed in Confession . What an indulgence accomplished was that if you had too much extra money, then something was WRONG, and by giving some of that money to the Church, it would help to make it right."
I have gone to look online and have discovered this meaning:
The word indulgence (Lat. indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Is., lxi, 1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Although it is a remission of a tax or debt, I saw nothing about an indulgence being a tax or a tax on the rich for that matter. According to this catholic definition, an indulgence is a remission of temporal punishment. Perhaps you are saying that you used indulgences to tax the rich. Is that what you mean?
"Did you question my assertion that there has been Divine Revelation for the last two thousand years? Your logic seems to be, I never studied or did any research on it"
I said nothing about you not knowing anything about the revelation of the last 2000 years. As a matter of fact, you seem to be very knowledgable in the revelations of the last 2000 years. My 'logic' was as follows:
1. There is divine revelation of the saints within the last 2000 years.
2. There is no recorded instance of saintly revelation in the old testament or a reference of a revelation by an old testament man of God in this modern age. (which seems to imply that there was no saintly revelation, or ascending to sainthood occuring before Christ)
3. There exists the possibility that saintly revelation was not a part of God's desgin in the old testament.
4. There exists the possibility of saintly revelation of today.
Conclusion: if the above 4 statements are correct, then we can infer that God changed his heavenly policies (or God's way) during the time of Jesus. I was simply asking you if this seemed to be an adequate possibility. I was in no way trying to discredit your knowledge.
"will soon find that there is only one Satanic Religion. Paul."
If Paul is the only Satanic religion, then where did muslim, mormonism, masonism, buddism, etc come from? What about the claims of David Koresh being Christ, or the peole who believed that a comet would bring them to heaven. What about the people who actually have a Satanic bible and perform Satanic rituals. If it is true that you are saying that Paul is the only Satanic religion, then under what category do you place all these other, non catholic religions? (I ask because I want to know.)
Just asking questions so that I may better understand where you're coming from.
