In San Francisco

Unfortunately I do not have the original letters from the earlier dialogues we had. They were lost when I had to reboot my system and failed to save them. This response letter happened to be on a disc saved from earlier documents. You should be able to tell from the discussion in the response as to what the topic is that is being addressed.

I appreciate the lengthy reply, because of the length and the things I wish to address I have numbered the paragraphs and would ask you to refer to your copy to follow the reply. Each place you had a double space, I considered it a new paragraph. I will simply put a number indicating the paragraph in which I am addressing and go from there. With that said, I will proceed.

#1. You state that "I am not a scholar but only a Catholic Priest interested in apologetics. However, I am able to distinguish between scholarly research based on fact and one that isn’t."

I am sure that is aimed at the things that I have been sending you, and as I stated earlier, I am not a scholar and I am sure that if it were a matter of education and scholarly capacity, you would win hands down. I only claim to love Jesus and His word. I have strong enough convictions to lay my life down for them.

#2 - 7. I listed the following six paragraphs together because they basically all concern one point; the canon of the scripture. I will however address certain things in some of these paragraphs. You ask many questions in these paragraphs, but I think the main ones are, in paragraph 3, "who compiled the books to form the Bible?" " how do you know that Matthew wrote Matthew ect.." Let me address these before I go on. In 2 Peter 1: 19-21, explains that the Holy Spirit moved on these men that penned the scriptures to give them the words and to bring back to their remembrance the things that God wanted in print as John 14: 26 & 15: 26-27 attest to. The Holy Spirit was the author of the Bible and only used men to actually put into writing the thoughts and events. Let me put something else into perspective for you concerning the scriptures and how these men could have written these things and how God could have preserved it the way that He wanted. If you believe that God created the Universe, Man, and everything we know to exist, which in itself is something we will never be able to comprehend ( of course your intelligence excluded ) then why is it so hard for us to believe that this same God that says that the "wisdom of man is foolishness to Him" (again of course excluding you from this statement ) could not protect the writings of a single book to say exactly what HE wanted and include the books that HE wanted? To doubt that God could do this is a contradiction to His power and sovereignty over the affairs of HIS creation. I wonder after listening to you and how much you need proof of the authenticity of the scriptures and not being able to operate on faith, if you would believe even if Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all of the other writers came back personally and vouched for their writings. Now since you prefer to have historical facts instead of faith, I will give you some historical facts to prove what you want (although I’m sure you will not find it good enough, especially since I am not a scholar). You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the apocryphal books even though they primarily retained their place through the urging of the ecclesiastical authority, without which they would not meet the criteria as canonical literature. There is NO evidence that Jesus ever quoted or for that matter endorsed any of the apocryphal writings or writers. The Jewish community that produced them even repudiated them, and all of the events in Acts which encompass the first church, completely ignore anything in the period they cover. There is nothing of theological value that cannot be duplicated in the canon of scripture without them. The reason for the importance to the Catholic Church no doubt is to solidify the teaching of Purgatory, which can only be backed up by stretching a section in 2 Maccabees. Further proof lies in the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran in 1947 by a young Arab shepherd boy. These scrolls proved the accuracy of the copies of the scriptures with a find of the 24ft. long scroll of Isaiah which was fully intact. This scroll proved to be completely accurate with the version in the King James Bible. Not only did they find this and many other Old Testament Books, and yes even apocryphal books, but they found later in another cave in the same area over 1,000 pieces and scrolls of the New Testament writings, which they have been able to use to prove the accuracy of the New Testament we have. As far as History itself, Matthew and Mark ( which was actually John Mark ) was ascribed as the writers by Papias a.d. 140, who wrote of these two authors in his writings. Luke’s authorship is supported by the early Christian writings of the Muratorian Canon, a.d. 170, and in the works of Irenaeus in a.d. 180. John has even much more support in the writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, a.d. 150, Tertullian, a.d. 155, and Origen, a.d. 185. Besides the work of the Essenes and these writings there is still the most important proof, God said that He would through the Holy Spirit preserve these writings. You know as well as I do that any of these early writings as well as historical proof are only proof as far as we believe it. The only actual proof that we really have that what these men say is true, is the fact that they say they are. How are they anymore reliable than the men who canonized the scriptures? Shakespeare was historical, but I will not apply any spiritual teaching from him nor his writings. Historical evidences are only good for collaborating what already exists, but not to adhere to as doctrine. In paragraph #7 you state that "the Catholic Church "infallibly" compiled the canon of scripture and that "she" alone can be the guardian and interpreter of God’s Word." It is interesting that you refer to the Catholic Church as "her" and I also know that it is referred to as the "Mother Church", Never did Jesus refer to the church as "Mother", but I do believe a very good definition of the Catholic Church is in Revelation chapter 17, read it and compare it to the happenings in the Reformation and see if the actions do not line up with the scripture. I challenge you to read the Foxxe’s Book of Martyrs (which is a historical book) and tell me where the information is incorrect.

#8 - 12, These paragraphs concern two categories, Scripture plus tradition, and Scripture alone. You ask the question in paragraph 8, about how I interpret 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 and 1Corinthians 11:2, I will start with the verse in 2Thess. This verse is not implying that there were other "traditions" in addition to the Gospel, in fact there are other scriptures to prove that which I will get to. What Paul is saying is that they are to hold fast to the Gospel that he preached to them and even confirms it in his other writings. The verse says " Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." Nowhere in this verse does Paul direct them to obey or institute any thing contrary to the Gospel they had been taught, either by his preaching or by the epistles he wrote to them. In fact as I mentioned, he further teaches and instructs in his other epistles that to involve any other teaching other than the Gospel is heresy. Look at Galatians 1: 6-10, Paul makes it very clear where traditions that run contrary to the Gospel of Jesus belong. As far as the verse in 1Corinthians 11:2, you must not separate the verse from the context of what Paul is talking about, and at that he nowhere, again, suggests any tradition contrary to the scriptures. I will give you what I believe Paul is saying in this section of scripture; Paul is writing to the Corinthian Christians who customarily consented to Greek traditions ( e.g., men had their heads uncovered and the women covered theirs, which was contrary to the Jewish tradition. Even to this day, Jewish men cover their heads at worship, which I can verify for a fact because I just returned from Israel last month and this practice does indeed continue, while the women do not). The question which faced the Corinthians was what to do with the existing custom of their day. Paul’s advice is to examine the symbolism of the custom and determine whether or not it is contrary to God’s Word or His order in creation. Paul indicated that there is nothing wrong with this, for in creation God created man, and from man came the woman. In spite of the fact that he prays without a covering, man still is accountable to Christ (vs.3). It is clear from verse eleven that man and woman are equal in the Lord (Gal. 3:28 and 1Pet. 3:7). Although there is equality in Christ, the husband is still the head of the family. It was God who caused there to be differences in males and females. Since this custom of head coverings revealed what was evident in the creative order of things, the Greek custom was not to be looked down on by those upholding Jewish traditions. In the event of having to choose between the two, the decision was left entirely up to the believer (vs.13). The goal was to give the believers an opportunity to evaluate the customs and determine whether or not they are in accordance with God’s Word. As I mentioned earlier, Paul made it clear in Galatians 1: 6-10 that there were certain guidelines that had to be adhered to for a tradition or doctrine to be accepted, and it was that it had to be compatible with the Gospel. I believe that the traditions of the Catholic Church are not in accordance with the scriptural guidelines, for example 1Timothy 4:1-3 (esp. vs.3) is a good description of some of the traditions that the Catholic Church impose. You mention in paragraph 8 also a section in Deut. 17:8-12 to try to say that the priest were to interpret and teach the law, I agree that, that was the case, but even with that it is also evident that even the priests were "fallible" and many times God had to send Prophets to reprimand them harshly for the hypocrisies they were committing. If you like I can send you a list of these occurrences. You also state in para. 8 that "the church, remember, came before the Bible, not vice versa." I am not sure what or when you consider the church to have begun but the scriptures were here long before the church that Christ established appeared. I encourage you to read John 16:1-3, and compare it with the happenings of the reformation, and then tell me if the so-called, self-proclaimed correct church was right in their actions compared with the teachings of Jesus. Show me where Jesus ever advocated violence and especially the right to kill, if someone did not follow "traditions" that were contrary to scriptures. Show me where Jesus ever said it was allowed to kill for any reason. I refer to the Reformation frequently because there was a tremendous travesty that took place, where devout men gave up their lives rather than compromise their stance that the Catholic Church was in tremendous error with the traditions that they were imposing that were contrary to the Scriptures. Men such as Hugh Latimer, Lord Cobham, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, and a great host of others who put their lives on the line to expose the heresy of the Catholic Church. Let me ask you another question? Why is it that the Catholic Church burned Joan of Ark at the stake and then hundreds of years later made her a "Saint".?

In this paragraph you are more concerned with the teaching of the Bible being the sole authority. Well I will tell you what Jesus said because after all HE was the Word, of course you probably have a problem with that also. Jesus says: John 1:1-2, 14, Luke 4:4, John 5: 24,38,39,46,47, 6:68, 8:31-32, 43-47, 12:47-50, 14:23-26, 15: 26-27, 16:13, 17: 6-8, and many others such as 1Timothy 1: 3-4, 3:16-17, Romans 1:16, 2:13, Galatians 1:6-24, 2Timothy 2:15-19, Philippians 1:7, Colossians 1:5-10, and others that you would probably not accept. I will however tell you to look at what Jesus said about traditions that are contrary to scriptures, remember, you have to either accept or deny what Jesus says not me, look at Matthew 15: 7-9 and read all of Matthew 23, which I believe is a very accurate description of the Catholic hierarchy.

#13. You address the "father" issue but fail to see that this is exactly what I am talking about as one of those traditions that are contrary to scripture which the Catholic Church seems to turn their head and explain away. The fact is this, this section of scripture is without a doubt talking about spiritual titles, and Jesus specifically says NOT to call any man on earth "father". Your logic of calling a local physician doctor is about as ridiculous as I would expect out of the uneducated, but not a true scholar as yourself. Then you end the paragraph by saying that it is a custom and not a doctrine; so is that to say even if a custom is contrary to scripture it is acceptable? I don’t care how you want to try to talk your way out of Matthew 23:9, it is very clear and intended to be that way so no mistake was made. Apparently it was too simple to be accepted by the well educated Catholic hierarchy, isn’t it interesting that Jesus was speaking to the Religious leaders of that day, the educated ones? I do not think it is a coincidence that Jesus was addressing the spiritual leaders on this issue, and they couldn’t see it then and apparently they still can’t see the simple truth of what He said. I do not wish to address this any further, I believe that you really know that I am right on this, you and the Catholic system do not want to accept it.

#14. I thought it was quite amusing that you made the statement you did in this paragraph, " You know , all groups maintain that they are "more correct" than others, that’s why they are separate and distinct". If that is not the pot calling the kettle black, I guess you do not include the Catholic Church in that statement? As for what I am; I am simply a believer in Jesus Christ, and the fact that a person MUST be born again to enter into heaven, the Bible is infallible, inspired, the SOLE authority, and inseparable from the Christian walk. I do not belong to any denomination, do not believe in them. I am simply a believer and as they were called in the first church, a "Christ-ian".

#15. You state that Jesus violated this concept by talking to Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration. That is completely wrong and not what transpired in the scripture account. In fact look at what happened, in Matthew 17:4-5, Peter thought it was a good idea to build a shrine for each of them, but God spoke out of the heavens and said NO, in fact look at what was said, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, HEAR YE HIM." God did not direct them to Moses or Elijah and did not authorize any shrine to be built, even to Jesus, but said to "Hear ye Him", Listen to Jesus. What was the purpose of Moses and Elijah, to show that Moses (representing the law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) were both fulfilled in Jesus, whom when they raised their heads vs.8, they saw no one except Jesus. In fact Jesus said Himself that this was His purpose in Matthew 5:17. You still failed to prove in Scripture anywhere that it is authorized to pray to saints, Mary, or anyone other than Jesus. Show me where in this story in Matthew 17 of the transfiguration, or anywhere else where it is condoned! This is a classic example of how a tradition has been implemented without ANY Scriptural backing. Prove me wrong.

#16. Although the next few paragraphs discuss the same topic, Purgatory, I want to address each one separately. In this paragraph you state that "Our brothers in heaven can intercede for us on earth." Again I say Show Me ONE Scripture that authorizes this practice! You cannot and you know it, it is another tradition that the Catholic Church has implemented without Scriptural backing. The place in 2Macc. 12:12-46 is the only place that can be used and it is not scripture, and even using as historical fact still does not make it a doctrine. I can take many historical documents and make some very interesting beliefs, the bottom line is this; Where other than Maccabees do the Scriptures teach this doctrine? NOWHERE!

#17. You ask "How do you interpret 1Peter 3:19 and 4:6? I will start with 3:19, but as before you will probably not accept this interpretation because it does not agree with what you want it to say but here it is anyway. One common interpretation of this passage is that subsequent to Christ’s death, possibly before His resurrection, His disembodied spirit went to the unseen world and there preached to the disobedient dead. This interpretation is based on the reference to the dead during the days of Noah. However, there is no justification at all that such a small number of people who lived during that time of about 120years should be singled out from the great multitudes of mankind for so singular and great of a blessing such as this. Those who hold such a theory of interpretation extend it to include the theory of the doctrine of probation after death, meaning that the impenitent dead have a second chance. Nowhere in Scripture is there any indication that those who die unrepentant have a second chance. In this verse in question, it only states that Christ preached, It does not describe what message He might have preached. Every time the word "kerusso" (2784) in the Greek, which means "preach", it does not necessarily mean "to preach the Gospel." Even the word "euaggelizo" (2097) in the Greek, which means to "proclaim the good news", does not always refer to preaching salvation. The same verb is used in Ephesians 2:17, but the object of the verb is peace, "He came and preached (eueggelisato) peace to you." The result of Christ being put to death, "the just for the unjust," was not merely the attainment of a resurrection body; because Peter goes on to say, "by which also he went and preached unto spirits in prison." Whatever the nature of this preaching may have been, it had to take place between His death and resurrection. There is no reason to put an arbitrary interpretation on the words "spirits in prison", as referring simply to those who had passed to the unseen world, because the ungodly are constantly spoken of in Scripture as being in a state of imprisonment, bondage or captivity. If this passage does not refer to certain individuals but to Christ’s victory over death and hell, then the meaning of the phrase "preached unto spirits in prison", is explained. The meaning is not completely clear and there are various theories, such as another thinking on this passage that suggests that Christ, between His death and resurrection He announced salvation during the whole Old Testament era. In Matthew 27:52-53, it states that "many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of their graves after his resurrection." There is also the view that this passage is referring to Christ’s spirit speaking through Noah as he preached to those imprisoned by sin (but now in hell). There is also the view that holds that Christ went to Hades and proclaimed his victory and final condemnation to the fallen angels imprisoned there since Noah’s day. I will be honest with you, I am not 100% sure which is correct, but I tend to believe the last scenario, only because it is backed with other scripture.

Now for 4:6, Many people in the early church had concerns about life after death. In Thessalonica, Christians worried that loved ones who died before Christ’s return might never see him (1Thess. 4:13-18). Peter was reminding his readers that the dead (both the faithful and their oppressors) will be judged. The judgment will be perfectly fair, for all heard the gospel. It was preached when Jesus was on earth, but even before that the massage was presented, Eph. 1:4, and Rom. 1:19-20, so that all are without excuse. Now I ask you, just as it is seemingly unclear just what is being said in these verses, you must be able to find other scripture to prove a point, no single verse alone can be used to institute a doctrine.

#18. You refer to this to somehow try to further endorse the erroneous thinking of praying to the dead, but this verse (Matt. 12:32) is in no way talking about this issue. Jesus is talking about the Jewish leaders who were ascribing His miracles to the work of the devil or Beelzebub. Jesus is letting not only them but all in the future that anyone that blasphemes the Holy Spirit and His work, is in danger of committing a sin that will not and cannot be forgiven. The emphasis is that even if it were possible to be forgiven in the future (which is nowhere in scripture taught), this sin would not be. As mentioned earlier, if you read Hebrews chapters 7-9, you will not only see a lot of teaching that shows the errors in the Catholic teaching, but you will see that Christ’s work is a finished work, and nothing need be added. Jesus paid the price "once for all", and there is nothing we can add to it or take away from it. That is one of the major problems with the Catholic Church, they want to take away from dependence on Jesus alone and His word, and place it on the Catholic hierarchy and their traditions. There is idol worship and praying to saints, and Mary, and the Catechisms, which hold as much force as scripture. The problem is that there is NOT ONE SCRIPTURE to support praying to Mary, saints, the idols, and Catechism, especially when these things are contrary to scriptures.

#19. The section of scripture in 1Cor. 3:15, also in no way corroborates the doctrine of praying to the dead. Paul is discussing the judgment of "works", and not salvation, he does not talk of salvation until vs.16. All saved (born-again) Christians will be judged for their works, but not their sins, Jesus already paid the price for their sins, we just have to confess them to Him 1John 1:9. What Paul is saying is that unfortunately, many Christians do not put their faith into action as they should, therefore they will not have anything to show for their Christian life, what a sad position to be in. In vs.16 he then addresses the state of salvation. In any case, show me where in this section or any that you have listed so far direct Christians in any way to pray to saints, Mary, or anyone else! IT IS NOT THERE, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST, THE SCRIPTURE NOWHERE DIRECTS US TO PRAY TO THESE AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES.

#20. I must quote what you say in this verse, "And why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed. Anyone who has not completely expiated his sins, that is, not just had them forgiven, but "made up" for them……. He needs to be cleansed completely." I find it amazing that someone of the intellect of yourself can not see the complete contradiction of this statement with the scriptures. Look at the following verses and then you tell me how you can justify your statement. 2Corinthians 5:17, John 3:18-21,36, 5:29, Hebrews 9:11-12, 23-28, 10:12,18; after looking at these, you tell me where is purgatory? Where is the need for further cleansing? You may also want to look at Ephesians 2:8-9, Rom. 3:24, Colossians 1:14, 1Peter 1:18-25, Titus 3:5, 2Timothy 1:9. Jesus died on the cross to be the sacrifice that needed not be repeated, and His blood cleanses "completely" for those who are born-again. You show me ONE place in the scriptures I listed that back up the theory of needing further cleansing.

#21. I have already addressed this with many scriptures, and you have the burden to prove your side with Scripture, not with historical documents, or tradition. The Reformers were not the introducers of these heresies that they made public, they were just the first to have the courage to publicly denounce and take a stand against the State Church at that time. I have already showed that there were these same types of heresies in the first church, eg.. Gal. 1: 6-11, 3:1-3, 2Thess. 2:1-3, 2Timothy 2: 17-18, and others if you like, such as the seven churches addressed in Rev. ch. 2-3. If you choose to obey traditions over the Word of God, then that is your decision, but as Joshua said in Josh. 24:15, "as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord", and that means following Jesus’ teaching and not a tradition run hierarchy that wants to lead their followers to believe that they are infallible.

#22. "infallibility", you state " this doctrine though not explicit, is implied in scripture; Luke 22:32, Jn. 21:15-17, Mt. 16:18. If you don’t see it, then explain these verses." I will gladly explain these verses and say that it is almost amusing if it weren’t for the sad fact that so many thousands believe and are blinded by the teachings of the Catholic Church, and blindly accept this reasoning. First, Luke 22:32; Jesus is simply saying that once Peter makes his mistake of denying Jesus, that would happen in the near future, that he would recover. With Jesus interceding for him, he would be strengthened and learn from his mistake and as the vocal leader of the group of disciples, he would be able to help encourage the rest after the crucifixion. You tell me, where in this verse does Jesus ever even mention "infallibility"? You are the one that said that the following verses endorse this teaching, so tell me where does Jesus even mention this in this verse? Certainly if Jesus were referring to this topic, He would have at least mentioned it. Now for John 21:15-17; This was solely for the purpose of Peter and him alone, and was in reference to his denial of the Lord. That is the reason that Jesus makes Peter repeat himself three times, to remind him of the three denials. It was to reinforce Peter’s determination and focus, NOWHERE is the subject of infallibility even mentioned, is it? It is clearly for the purpose of Jesus to show Peter that he was forgiven for the denial and to put it behind him and go about the more important business at hand, "feeding the sheep." Matt. 16:18; Jesus is making the statement that HIS church will be built on the belief that "He is the Messiah, the Son of God," and that the "Gates of Hell will not prevail"; the gates of hell, satan and all of his attempts will never be able to quell the message of the Gospel, or the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Church will not be conquered in this belief. It a matter of the "belief" and the declaration of that belief that the Church is built on, not a man. The Church is a "Spiritual Body", and no man can be the foundation of it, only Jesus.

#23. You state "All it does is prevent the pope from OFFICIALLY teaching error." Such as the latest Catechism endorsed by John Paul, stating that Evolution is now acceptable as a means of Creation. The bottom line is that this is not true, and there is definitely NO Scripture to back this claim. Again this is just another clear case of "tradition" above the Scripture.

#25. Your last statement "For men to be saved, they must know what is to believe." I have to say that this is the first thing that you said that I agree with, but we part company at this point, because I believe that everything we need to know regarding salvation, and any other Spiritual matter is encompassed in the Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead you into ALL truth, not the Catholic Church, and it’s "fallible" leadership. Allegiance should be to Jesus and the Gospel, not to a tradition ridden organization.

#27. You state that "Christ left us a Church to guide us." Not true, the Spirit and the Word guide us, not the church. I will not even go through the trouble to list the scriptures to prove this, but if you need them I will. Next you state, "Reformers of the 16^th century started Protestantism, or the many different Christian denominations we have today." My first question is this; have you read anything about the Reformation other than the Catholic endorsed books on it? Secondly, this is totally incorrect, the Reformers never intended for any denomination to be started from their efforts. Their first and foremost goal was to expose the heretic teachings and traditions of the Catholic Church, men after the deaths of the Reformers started these denominations and not at the instruction of these men in any way. You really need to research the facts of the Reformation and not just what the Catholic Church tells you about it. True, denominations resulted as a result of man acting out of order and instituting them. You will not find any of the Reformers to have endorsed any of these actions. Then you ask, "where do your beliefs fit in this maze? This is like cafeteria style or pick and choose Christianity." First let me say that, I fit in with all of the other believers who hold the Bible to be the, yes, "sole" authority under the direction of the Holy Spirit. If it cannot be backed up with Scripture (and more than one verse) I will not adhere to it. As far as the last statement about the "pick and choose, and cafeteria style Christianity" I assume you are referring to the Catholic Church, because I have made my position very clear, and I see no pick and choose or cafeteria style in that. The only "pick and choose" that I will admit to is "pick and choose which verses I back up my belief with", and there are plenty of them. I still put the challenge to you, you show me Scripture that supports the things I addressed earlier.

In conclusion I would like to say that I do not wish to continue to volley scriptures with you and argue over doctrine, because it is obvious that you have no intentions of seeking the truth, only trying to prove traditions without scripture. I am sorry that you cannot, or do not wish to see the truth, but I cannot be consuming this much time with someone that is not sincere. If you wish to know the truth, then search the scriptures yourself and make the deductions. You are obviously educated, and that could be the problem, if you notice Jesus preferred to work with ignorant fishermen. Your knowledge is blinding you to the truth, just like the Jewish leaders of their day. The only difference is that the Catholic Church has from the start had the intentions of blinding it’s followers to the truth. If you do not want to believe this, then ask yourself this, why did the Catholic Church until recently keep it’s people from studying themselves? Why do they want the people to get all of their answers from the Church leaders? Why do they think that the mass of people are incapable of making decisions for themselves? Did Jesus exhibit the same type of thinking when He sent out the seventy? You are free to follow the Catholic Church if you like, and it appears that you are content in this choice. I leave you with the following; It is my opinion that the following verses are a very accurate description of the Catholic Church and it’s followers. 2Timothy 3:5&7, Matthew 7:21-23, chapter 23 (of the leaders only) and of the Catholic Church itself, Revelation 17. Please, research for yourself, Please, READ FOXXES BOOK OF MARTYRS. I pray that the Spirit of Jesus will open your eyes to the truth. Adam