The Blessing of Holy Water!

[Archbishop Michael-John]

THE BLESSING OF HOLY WATER

Traditionally the most powerful Holy Water is that which has been blessed on Holy Saturday and comprises both exorcised Salt (representing the Body of Christ) mixed with exorcised Water (representing the Blood of Christ).

When holy water is blessed, the presbyter reads several prayers, which included an exorcism of the salt and the water. An exorcism is the banishing of evil spirits. The Fathers of the Church teach us that when Satan caused the fall of our first parents he also obtained an influence over inanimate things intended for the use of man; and therefore, when any material object is to be devoted to the service of God, the Church often prescribes for it a form of exorcism, to free it from the power of the Evil One.

The prayers used in this ceremony are very beautiful, and express well the reasons for the use of holy water. Those said over the salt invoke the power of "the living God, the true God, the holy God," that whosoever uses it may have health of soul and body; that the devil may depart from any place in which it is sprinkled; that whoever is touched by it shall be sanctified, and freed from all uncleanness and all attacks of the powers of darkness. The prayers said over the water are addressed to the Father, with the Son through the Holy Spirit, that through God's power the spirits of evil may be utterly expelled from this world and lose all influence over mankind. When God is besought to bless the water, that it may be effective in driving out devils and in curing diseases; that wherever it is sprinkled there may be freedom from pestilence and from the snares of Satan.

Then the presbyter puts the salt into the water in the form of a Chi-Rho cross, saying: "May this mingling of salt and water be made in the name of the Father with the Son through the Holy Spirit" -- after which another prayer is recited, in which God is asked to sanctify this salt and water, that wherever it shall be sprinkled all evil spirits shall be driven away and the Holy Spirit shall be present.

The Blessing

V. Our help is in the name of the Lord.

R. Who made heaven and Earth.

Exorcism of Salt
O salt, creature of God, I exorcise you by the living God, by the true God, by the holy God, by the God who ordered you to be poured into the water by Eliseus the Prophet so that its life-giving powers might be restored. I exorcise you so that you may become a means of salvation for believers, that you may bring health of soul and body to all who make use of you, and that you may put to flight and drive away from the places where you are sprinkled every apparition, villainy, and turn of devilish deceit, and every unclean spirit, adjured by Him Who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

Let us pray.
Almighty and everlasting God, we humbly implore Thee, in Thy immeasurable kindness and love, to bless + and sanctify + this salt which Thou did create and give over to the use of mankind, so that it may become a source of health for the minds and bodies of all who make use of it, and may rid whatever it touches or sprinkles of all uncleanness and protect it from every assault of evil spirits. Lord God, our Father almighty, in Thy Glory, with Thy Son, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.
R. Amen.

Exorcism of Water
O water, creature of God, I exorcise you in the name of our Lord God the Father almighty, and in the name of Jesus Christ His Son, and in the power of the Holy Spirit. I exorcise you so that you may put to flight all the power of the Enemy, and be able to root out and supplant that Enemy with his apostate angels: through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

Let us pray.
O God, Who for the salvation of mankind has built Thy greatest mysteries on this substance, water, in Thy kindness hear our prayers and pour down the power of Thy blessing + into this element, made ready for many kinds of purifications. May this, Thy creature, become an agent of divine grace in the service of Thy mysteries, to drive away evil spirits and dispel sickness, so that every – thing in the homes and other buildings of the faithful that is sprinkled with this water may be rid of all uncleanness and freed from every harm. Let no breath of infection, no disease-bearing air, remain in these places. May the wiles of the lurking Enemy prove of no avail. Let whatever might menace the safety and peace of those who live here be put to flight by the sprinkling of this water, so that the healthfulness, obtained by calling upon Thy holy name, may be made secure against all attack. Lord God, our Father almighty, in Thy Glory, with Thy Son, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.
R. Amen.

The priest mixes a little salt into the water.

May a mixture of salt and water now be made in the name of the Fa + ther, with the + Son, through the Holy + Spirit.

R. Amen.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with your spirit.

Let Us Pray.
O God, Creator unconquerable, invincible King, Victor ever-glorious, Who did hold in check the forces bent on dominating us, Who did overcome the cruelty of the raging enemy, Who did in Thy power beat down the wicked foe:
Humbly and fearfully do we pray to Thee, O Lord, and we ask Thee to look with favor on this salt and water which Thou hast created. Shine on it with the light of Thy kindness. Sanctify it by the dew of Thy love, so that, through the invocation of Thy holy name, wherever this water and salt is sprinkled it may turn aside every attack of the unclean spirit and dispel the terror of the poisonous serpent. And wherever we may be, make the Holy Spirit present to us who now implore Thy mercy.

Lord God, our Father almighty, in Thy Glory, with Thy Son, Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.

R. Amen.

[Asyncritus]

Holy water???? Scripture support, please.

[The Kurgan]

Jesus was both Baptised with and Baptised others with water, Jesus also performed Exorcisms and gave us the sacrament of the Eucharist. Upon his death on the cross when he was killed with the lance, blood and water flowed from his body. Holy Water represents the body (salt) and the blood (water) of Christ.
The Baptism with holy water is a representation of rebirth, a purification, while at the same time Jesus Baptises with the Holy Spirit and fire. Baptism therefore is a form of Exorcism for the forgiveness of and washing away of sins.
The tradition is backed up in various manners by the St Gregory of Pontus' "Homily on Christ's Baptism", Apostolic Constitutions V:13, inferences in the Gospels particularly Matthew and also in Jewish tradition. The modern tradition of holy water dates as far back as the Epiphany in the early Church.

See also: Numbers 5:17, which actually uses the phrase "holy water", Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 8:6; Exodus 30:17; Numbers 5:17; Numbers 8:5-7; 1 Kings 7:38-39; John 9:6-7; John 13:4-10; John 19:34. In John 9:6-7 we see Jesus using clay, spit, and the water of the "pool of Siloam" to heal a man. In John 13:4-10 Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles and seems to imply that the water cleanses. This event occurs right before the Last Supper, where Jesus established the Eucharist, thus John may be alluding to the rites described in the Old Testament (such as in Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 29:4, and Numbers 5:17).

[Asyncritus]

Jesus was both Baptised with and Baptised others with water, Jesus also performed Exorcisms and gave us the sacrament of the Eucharist. Upon his death on the cross when he was killed with the lance, blood and water flowed from his body. Holy Water represents the body (salt) and the blood (water) of Christ.
The Baptism with holy water is a representation of rebirth, a purification, while at the same time Jesus Baptises with the Holy Spirit and fire. Baptism therefore is a form of Exorcism for the forgiveness of and washing away of sins.
The tradition is backed up in various manners by the St Gregory of Pontus' "Homily on Christ's Baptism", Apostolic Constitutions V:13, inferences in the Gospels particularly Matthew and also in Jewish tradition. The modern tradition of holy water dates as far back as the Epiphany in the early Church.

See also: Numbers 5:17, which actually uses the phrase "holy water", Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 8:6; Exodus 30:17; Numbers 5:17; Numbers 8:5-7; 1 Kings 7:38-39; John 9:6-7; John 13:4-10; John 19:34. In John 9:6-7 we see Jesus using clay, spit, and the water of the "pool of Siloam" to heal a man. In John 13:4-10 Jesus washes the feet of the Apostles and seems to imply that the water cleanses. This event occurs right before the Last Supper, where Jesus established the Eucharist, thus John may be alluding to the rites described in the Old Testament (such as in Exodus 29:4, Leviticus 29:4, and Numbers 5:17).

Num 5.17 is a test for adultery. It's composition has nothing to with the recipe above. And it was never used in OT or NT.

Ex 29.4, "4 And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water."


Ex 30: 18 Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.
19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:

Lev 8:6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

Num 8.6 Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them.
7 And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

The other references you quote are in very similar vein i.e to do with the cleansing, cleaning, and purification of the priests and Levites when they had got blood and guts from the sacrifices on their hands and feet and presumably clothing.

There's nothing here to remotely suggest theat the water was holy. In fact the NET bible gives this note:

"The genitive in this expression [water of purification] indicates the purpose of the water—it is for their purification. The expression is literally “the waters of sin.” The word “purification” is the same as for the “sin/purification offering”—hatta’at (taF*j^). This water seems to have been taken from the main laver and is contrasted with the complete washing of the priests in Lev 8:6."

Paul is most vehement against the innumerable 'washings'

Heb.9.8,9 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

In other words, they are now useless.

There is really no scriptural justificatlon for this practice. Jesus, for example, was baptised in the Jordan River. Was the Jordan full of 'holy water' then? The very idea is absurd. Similarly with John the Baptist, baptising adult believers. The Jordan is no more 'holy' than the Thames or Colorado rivers.

There is no question that water cleanses: the physicians only learned this fairly recently. But 'holy' water? A completely unscriptural concept, St Whoever notwithstanding. Sola scriptura, my friend, sola scriptura. Nothing else matters.

[Danage]

Sola scriptura, my friend, sola scriptura. Nothing else matters.

Sola Scriptura was a Protestant invention, and was indeed noble, however, most of us agree that the writings of Paul of Tarsus are not canonical, so most of us cannot follow the concept that the Bible as you know it is infallible and canonical. We see everything but the writings of Paul of Tarsus as canonical and reasonably correct.

[Asyncritus]

Who sees the writings of Paul as being non-canonical? I see them as nothing less.

But the other passages quoted by the gentleman are helpless in proving that there can be such a thing as 'holy water'.

[Danage]

Who sees the writings of Paul as being non-canonical? I see them as nothing less.

We do not see the writings of Paul of Tarsus as canonical becuase they contradict other passages, including the sayings of Christ, that confirm the Law is still binding. That is why we do not see the Bible, as you know it, as infalliable and without error.

[Asyncritus]

We do not see the writings of Paul of Tarsus as canonical becuase they contradict other passages, including the sayings of Christ, that confirm the Law is still binding. That is why we do not see the Bible, as you know it, as infalliable and without error.

This is really very convenient.

Since the bulk of the post-Acts New Testament is made up of Paul's writings (apart from the Revelation of course), then all that he wrote can be trashed. Which allows for the introduction of anything anybody considers good. Such as 'holy water', priesthood, and any other of the numerous doctrines invented by men.

But God does not work like that. He is consistent from beginning to end, and you would be hard put to prove any inconsistency between Paul and Christ, as the major example you've mentioned above.

Here is Paul, Jesus' specially appointed apostle, given a special vision(s) of Him on the Damascus road, the establisher of any number of churches, claiming to be inspired by God and the Lord - and you say his writings are not canonical. I'm a little taken aback by this, Danage - because you seem to be very enthusiastic about scripture, and are willing to talk extensively about it, both admirable traits. But this is a shocking blow to my impression of you.

Because, whatever conclusions we come to about, say the sabbath day and the pre-existence of Christ, are not necessarily valid, and are of no consequence.

Paul preaches the resurrection of Christ, most notably in 1 Cor 15. Do you, first, believe in the resurrection of Christ? And second, how do you avoid the fact that 1 Cor 15 is one of the linch-pin chapters of the NT, quoted at many a graveside?

If you are going to be selective about what you believe is inspired by God or not, then you are no better than these wretched and pernicious higher so-called critics who have ruined the faith of so many thousands of people, and who have trampled the scriptures under foot, and brought them to an open shame. You might as well proclaim the koran or the bhagavadgita - but then, you'd probably start disemboweling them too!

It is a perfectly true comment by the inspired writer: If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? I exhort you to make your mind up. With the scriptures as they stand, it is difficult enough to arrive at sensible conclusions about some matters. With the input of Saint Whosoever, pope XYZ, and theologian Confuseus, it becomes impossible - and everyody is left to the mercy of the wolves. It's a sad sight, and much woe is pronounced upon those devourers of the little ones.

So I repeat my exhortation. This is far too important a matter for God to have left it to the whims and fancies of men.

[Jesus John]

Dear Asyncritus,

I am with Dan and the others who don't accept Paul's writings as canon. Jesus (Pbuh) is not God and has got no features like God that he can inspire to whom he will, Jesus is dead and cant communicate with us, only God is immortal nobody else. This feature belong to God alone and he inspire to whom he will. Paul's sayings that he saw and was inspired from Jesus is a big lie! I certainly believe that Jesus will deny him on the Judgment day. Paul corrupted the message of our lord Jesus, destroyed the law which was still binding, made lots of things lawful from Jesus what he didnt say or do.

Who decide for us that some witings are canon or apocrypha? Does this choice depends on the desires? Can God's words be decided as canon or apocrypha from humans instead of God Himself?

Dear Asyncritus I am with you with your comments about "Holy water" I do think that in the ancient times been baptized was a metaphor for the repent of sins. But the real baptizing is in the hearts. Our heart and our acts must be parallel in our life because God looks to our heart and our acts.

[Danage]

But God does not work like that. He is consistent from beginning to end, and you would be hard put to prove any inconsistency between Paul and Christ, as the major example you've mentioned above.

Paul says the Law is cancelled, while Christ says the Law is binding.

Here is Paul, Jesus' specially appointed apostle, given a special vision(s) of Him on the Damascus road, the establisher of any number of churches, claiming to be inspired by God and the Lord - and you say his writings are not canonical.

Who was sent by G-d, who was an archangel who came down from Heaven? Who? Paul of Tarsus or Jesus of Nazareth? Jesus of Nazareth was sent, not Paul of Tarsus. The best way to destroy something is from the inside, not from the outside like he previously was (as Saul of Tarsus).

I'm a little taken aback by this, Danage - because you seem to be very enthusiastic about scripture, and are willing to talk extensively about it, both admirable traits.

Thank you, but my views on Paul of Tarsus are not unique to me.

But this is a shocking blow to my impression of you.

Because, whatever conclusions we come to about, say the sabbath day and the pre-existence of Christ, are not necessarily valid, and are of no consequence.

That is your opinion. That is not mine. MY belief in the pre-existence of Christ and the Sabbath are absolute.

Paul preaches the resurrection of Christ, most notably in 1 Cor 15. Do you, first, believe in the resurrection of Christ? And second, how do you avoid the fact that 1 Cor 15 is one of the linch-pin chapters of the NT, quoted at many a graveside?

It won't be quoted at my grave. Of course I believe in the resurrection of Christ, this was clearly established by the Gospels.

If you are going to be selective about what you believe is inspired by God or not, then you are no better than these wretched and pernicious higher so-called critics who have ruined the faith of so many thousands of people, and who have trampled the scriptures under foot, and brought them to an open shame. You might as well proclaim the koran or the bhagavadgita - but then, you'd probably start disemboweling them too!

As I said my view on Paul of Tarsus is not unique to me. Who ratified the Bible as you know it? The Ecumenical Councils established the Bible that you know, so in this respect you follow the Councils of man.

It is a perfectly true comment by the inspired writer: If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

Who established the foundations known as the Bible? Man, not G-d.

I exhort you to make your mind up.

I have.

With the scriptures as they stand, it is difficult enough to arrive at sensible conclusions about some matters. With the input of Saint Whosoever, pope XYZ, and theologian Confuseus, it becomes impossible - and everyody is left to the mercy of the wolves. It's a sad sight, and much woe is pronounced upon those devourers of the little ones.

None of us believe in the validity of the Popes, and I do not believe in praying to the saints because they are not in Heaven. They are sleeping the sleep of death. We agree on this. Even if the saints, be they true or false, were in Heaven, I would still not pray for their intercession. I would direct all my prayers at G-d the Father and G-d the Father alone.

So I repeat my exhortation. This is far too important a matter for God to have left it to the whims and fancies of men.

I agree, so we should not keep to the doctrine of the Bible, which was enforced by man.

[Asyncritus]

Paul says the Law is cancelled, while Christ says the Law is binding.

This is a curious comment. Jesus says that He came to fulfil the Law.
He also said that the Law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist).

How do you understand those 2 passages?


Who was sent by G-d, who was an archangel who came down from Heaven? Who? Paul of Tarsus or Jesus of Nazareth? Jesus of Nazareth was sent, not Paul of Tarsus. The best way to destroy something is from the inside, not from the outside like he previously was (as Saul of Tarsus).Jesus was not an archangel sent down from heaven. A post or two ago, I pointed out that a surrogate mother cannot be described as having conceived a child. Gabriel stated that Mary would conceive in her womb and bring forth a son. How do you square these facts with your archangel hypothesis?

Thank you, but my views on Paul of Tarsus are not unique to me.That means little. It could mean that you have some support for your views or alternatively, you are in the company of many erroneous people! Why are you not examining the view for yourself?

That is your opinion. That is not mine. MY belief in the pre-existence of Christ and the Sabbath are absolute.Then why are you discussing the matters? And as I said, how do you square those views with the surrogate mother problem?

It won't be quoted at my grave. Of course I believe in the resurrection of Christ, this was clearly established by the Gospels.This is really too bad Danage. Do you believe that you, personally, will be raised from the dead? And if you do, then on what grounds do you reject 1 Cor. 15? Of course, if you don't, then that's another matter.

As I said my view on Paul of Tarsus is not unique to me. Who ratified the Bible as you know it? The Ecumenical Councils established the Bible that you know, so in this respect you follow the Councils of man.I'm not a church historian. My views have developed from my acquaintance with what the epistles actually say, and their total concord with the rest of scripture.

What amazes me, is your wilingness to accept the opinions of men on this 'holy water' business, and doubtless other such dubious items: when you have the very plain indication before you that the epistles were written by an inspired apostle. In this you are not altogether different from the Muslims, you know. Even the apostle Peter recommended Paul's writings, and I think, put them on a par with his own.

Who established the foundations known as the Bible? Man, not G-d.You are in terrible trouble with your inconsistency, Danage. In the next paragraph, you say that they are sleeping the sleep of death. That is an entirely, scripturally correct statement. But it is a 'scripturally' correct statement. That means you accept the testimony of 'scripture' on the point. But you have just said that 'man' established the foundations, not 'God'. So how do you know that what you believe is correct?

None of us believe in the validity of the Popes, and I do not believe in praying to the saints because they are not in Heaven. They are sleeping the sleep of death. We agree on this. Even if the saints, be they true or false, were in Heaven, I would still not pray for their intercession. I would direct all my prayers at G-d the Father and G-d the Father alone.Even if they existed, their intercession would be meaningless. Paul (remember him?) said that there is ONE mediator between God and man, himself MAN (not archangel):

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

and

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Now you seem to accept the truth of those statements. But they are made by Paul, not Jesus. So how do you square this circle? Don't you think your view needs a bit of modification?


I agree, so we should not keep to the doctrine of the Bible, which was enforced by man.Now if we don't keep the doctrine of the Bible, whose doctrine DO we keep? The traditions of the catholic and other churches? Do you remember the scribes and pharisees who taught the traditions of men? And were roundly condemned by Jesus for doing so?

Mr 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
Mr 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Mr 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
Mr 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mr 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Has the wheel not turned full circle? And we're here with Saint Whoever, Theologian Confuseus, and pope Schwarzenegger?

[Danage]

This is a curious comment. Jesus says that He came to fulfil the Law.
He also said that the Law and the prophets were until John (the Baptist).

How do you understand those 2 passages?

Quote please.

Jesus was not an archangel sent down from heaven. A post or two ago, I pointed out that a surrogate mother cannot be described as having conceived a child. Gabriel stated that Mary would conceive in her womb and bring forth a son. How do you square these facts with your archangel hypothesis?

Concieved does not mean he did not pre-exist.

That means little. It could mean that you have some support for your views or alternatively, you are in the company of many erroneous people! Why are you not examining the view for yourself?

I examined the view, and agree that Paul of Tarsus, with his anti-Torah agenda, was a traitor.

This is really too bad Danage. Do you believe that you, personally, will be raised from the dead? And if you do, then on what grounds do you reject 1 Cor. 15? Of course, if you don't, then that's another matter.

Of course I believe we are raised from the dead. I just don't believe that Paul of Tarsus and his writings are infalliable. We shall be raised from the dead, but other Scripture backs this up.

I'm not a church historian. My views have developed from my acquaintance with what the epistles actually say, and their total concord with the rest of scripture.

Well, that's your opinion, not mine.

the epistles were written by an inspired apostle.

That is your opinion.

In this you are not altogether different from the Muslims, you know. Even the apostle Peter recommended Paul's writings, and I think, put them on a par with his own.

I suppose in some ways I am not much different from Muslims, for Muslims reject Paul of Tarsus as well.

You are in terrible trouble with your inconsistency, Danage. In the next paragraph, you say that they are sleeping the sleep of death. That is an entirely, scripturally correct statement. But it is a 'scripturally' correct statement. That means you accept the testimony of 'scripture' on the point. But you have just said that 'man' established the foundations, not 'God'. So how do you know that what you believe is correct?

Man established what was in the Roman Catholic Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible is a foundation.

Even if they existed, their intercession would be meaningless.

I agree.

Paul (remember him?) said that there is ONE mediator between God and man, himself MAN (not archangel):

1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

and

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

I agree that Jesus Christ is our mediator, but I still will not accept the writings of Paul as canon.

Now you seem to accept the truth of those statements. But they are made by Paul, not Jesus. So how do you square this circle? Don't you think your view needs a bit of modification?

The logic that only Jesus is mediator is established by other Scripture, i.e. he went to Heaven, and we pray to G-d the Father in Jesus's name, so Jesus is mediator.

Now if we don't keep the doctrine of the Bible, whose doctrine DO we keep? The traditions of the catholic and other churches?

The Biblical canon is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you remember the scribes and pharisees who taught the traditions of men? And were roundly condemned by Jesus for doing so?

Of course, and Paul of Tarsus was a self-procliamed apostle, and an ordinary man, an enemy of Christianity who established Paulian though called Christendom into the world.

Has the wheel not turned full circle? And we're here with Saint Whoever, Theologian Confuseus, and pope Schwarzenegger?

Confucius? I don't agree with the adoration and worship of the Popes, saints and false prophets, as you to neither.

[The Kurgan]

...Paul is most vehement against the innumerable 'washings'...

... Sola scriptura, my friend, sola scriptura. Nothing else matters.

The evidence is there before your face and you still don't accept it!

Look again! Water was repeatedly refered to for purification and cleansing, including through ritual. This was confirmed by the Early Church fathers.

And you are a hypocrite when you speak of "Sola Scriptura"! Over 300 Gospels were burned by the Romans and they decided what was canon. Then they added more redactions to the texts! They dismissed the texts they didn't like and made it illegal to posses a forbidden text.

You quote texts from this and that translation without justification but you are unconcerned that there are hundreds of different translations of the bible and most of them are different! If only scripture matters, then which scripture? There are plenty contradictions between the Pauline writings and the Gospels, and the Bible is full of errors and redactions.

Sometimes we need to explore beyond the bible to get a fuller grasp of Hebrew culture, we need to forensically examine texts that cross reference each other and show that canonical texts are consistent and without alteration. Valuable informatition can be gained from texts of the Septuagint that were not considered canon by the Christo-Pagan Romans. Even the book of Enoch was referred to within Canonical scripture.

[Asyncritus]

The evidence is there before your face and you still don't accept it!

Look again! Water was repeatedly refered to for purification and cleansing, including through ritual. This was confirmed by the Early Church fathers.Water is used for purification everywhere. from domestic uses to chemical glassware. My point is: what is the use of, and what justification is there for the alleged uses brought forth earlier on this thread? You can quote a thousand 'saints' blathering away about the power and efficacy of 'holy water' but not one iota of proof can you point to in the OT or the NT, as I have already shown.

If your appeal is to the church's 'authority' then I cannot argue with you. But scripture is the acid test, and to that only will I listen - and so would you if you were wise enough to recognise that great principle.

And you are a hypocrite when you speak of "Sola Scriptura"! Over 300 Gospels were burned by the Romans and they decided what was canon. Then they added more redactions to the texts! They dismissed the texts they didn't like and made it illegal to posses a forbidden text.
Ah, we're at the ad hominem stage already! I didn't think we'd got that far as yet, but clearly I was mistaken. The simple fact is that there is infinitely more textual evidence for the NT than for any other ancient book. I am not overly interested in these matters. I study the existing texts carefully and go from there. But a simple glance at Souter's Greek NT and the critical apparatus included therein shows the sheer volume of available texts which are the basis for our current NT. The textual certainty is in excess of 99.5%.

You may also know (or not) that the OT Hebrew texts were substantially confirmed as being minutely accurate by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, I read FF Bruce as saying that they were able to correct the Dead Sea Isaiah using the Masoretic text. How they do these things I wouldn't know - but I'm sure Bruce knew what he was talking about.

So for you to go on about the undependability of the biblical texts demonstrates a certain ignorance of the facts, and you would do well to recognise your deficiencies in the matter and temper your remarks accordingly,

You quote texts from this and that translation without justification but you are unconcerned that there are hundreds of different translations of the bible and most of them are different! If only scripture matters, then which scripture? There are plenty contradictions between the Pauline writings and the Gospels, and the Bible is full of errors and redactions.Now, now. There's no need for such silly, sweeping statements. Let's have some proof, instead of the blatherings of the tripe mongers you have obviously stuffed your head with. (If you're getting the impression that I cordially detest the 'higher critics' you may, just may, be correct).

Sometimes we need to explore beyond the bible to get a fuller grasp of Hebrew culture, we need to forensically examine texts that cross reference each other and show that canonical texts are consistent and without alteration. Valuable informatition can be gained from texts of the Septuagint that were not considered canon by the Christo-Pagan Romans. Even the book of Enoch was referred to within Canonical scripture.
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Of course additional information from say, the archaeologists, sheds light on biblical matters. But for you to put as much faith in their work is just a little shortsighted, if I may say so. 'Sometimes' is a good word to use there.

Do you remember when the critics were bleating loudly about Moses being unable to write, and Abraham being a fantasy figure? I'm sure you do. So where have all those idiocies gone? Or should that be 'idiots'? They've folded their tents and slithered disgraced into the darkness. Do not follow them!

But you mention translations, of which there are many. Which? Well, I use the online bible, and it's got about 8 translations in there. If I can't get the correct meaning of a certain passage from one, I look at 7 others. Very convenient, what?

[The Kurgan]

Who sees the writings of Paul as being non-canonical? I see them as nothing less.

But the other passages quoted by the gentleman are helpless in proving that there can be such a thing as 'holy water'.

This is wishful thinking on your part! So far you have clutched at straws and failed to disprove that Holy Water is scriptural along with the Holy significance of Water throughout Scripture!

Instead you bring your snide remarks to try to strengthen your argument! You are showing your true colours! The Holy Spirit is not with you, your doctrines of hatred are flawed, and that makes you resentful! I will pray for you!

[David Kone]

Most liturgical practices even today are not entirely written down but are passed on by observation and practice. The elaborate temple rituals and vestments of the ancients are only hinted at in the works of the Bible. The compounding of Holy Water is not mentioned in scripture but then most of the wonderful history and culture of the religious practices of the Jewish Christians have also been lost to us as we have not been good stewards.

"And every sacrifice of your meal offerings salt with salt and do not banish salt, the Covenant of your G-d from on your meal offerings. Place salt on every one of your offerings..." Leviticus 2:13

This is the covenant of salt which is incorpoated into the Holy Water that is applied in the cleansing of the altar and the people.

I submit that it is a custom that may very well go back to Jesus and before. In the Passover feast today a vegetable, usually parsley, is dipped in salt water and eaten. The vegetable represents the humble origins of the Jewish people and the salt represents the tears shed in slavery. When the vegetable is shaken the salt water falls off like tears. Did perhaps Jesus do something similar at Passover to his disciples using salt water and possibly hyssop.

“Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.” Psalm 51:7

A clean person shall take hyssop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it on the tent and on all the furnishings and on the persons who were there, and on the one who touched the bone or the one slain or the one dying naturally or the grave. Numbers 19:18

[The Kurgan]

Water is used for purification everywhere. from domestic uses to chemical glassware. My point is: what is the use of, and what justification is there for the alleged uses brought forth earlier on this thread? You can quote a thousand 'saints' blathering away about the power and efficacy of 'holy water' but not one iota of proof can you point to in the OT or the NT, as I have already shown.

The use of water amongst God's people is ancient and approved by God.
Note that water is a created substance, created by God and was part of the creation which was announced as being "good". From the very instant of creation the bible tells us that God deemed fit, through the Holy Spirit, to use and bless water for use to bring life and new life, for example:
In the creation story we read that "The Holy Spirit hovered over the waters and brought forth life from the seas." The Bible also says even "bird life" was brought forth from the waters as well as fish and all that swims in the sea.

Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." So from the very beginning, through the Holy Spirit, God chose water as the means to bring forth life on the earth.
Water was commonly used in the rites of the Jewish people for washings and cleansings, these were rituals that were required to prepare to meet with God. There are many references to water and washing, and whilst they refer to bodily cleansing, there are also many hints to an inner cleansing, especially through baptism which was foreshadowed in these washings.

Water is and can be made holy because God, through the Holy Spirit, sanctified it. Jesus Christ, blessed it and was baptised into it, and the Father demanded sanctification of His people throughout time to approach His holiness.

Refer also to Ezekiel's "rivers of water" that came over him in a prophecy of baptism, of Noah's flood and how St Peter said that eight souls were baptised "into Moses" and were saved by water, and of the eternal new heaven and earth where "living rivers" come from the east out of the temple and water the whole people of God forever.

There are many more references to the significance of Holy Water throughout scripture, some of which I have already indicated. I include more references here: Exodus 14:15-22, Exodus 17:6-7, Exodus 29:4-5, Exodus 30:18-20, Joshua 3:14-17, Ruth 3:2-4, 2 Kings 5:9-11, Psalm 26:5-7, Psalm 51:1-3, Jeremiah 2:12-14, Ezekiel 47: 1-12, Matthew 3:13-17, John 5:1-9, John 19:34, John 3:5, John 4:10.

There is one particular verse which specifically uses the words "Holy Water." Numbers 5:17-18, which you so casually dismiss as not relevant, is actually relevant in deed; it says:

"17 the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel, and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse."

The bitter water that brings a curse was a test. The addition of dust from the floor of the tabernacle to a vessel of holy water and the scrapings from the bill of indictment were signs of a spiritual reality. Holy water and dust from the holy place symbolized that God was the One who determined the innocence or guilt of the woman who had come before the priest.

Holy water is Living water, water the Holy Spirit has infused, blessed and is given for our healing, sanctification, forgiveness of sins, regeneration into new life, which is why the Christian Church has always used and retained holy water.

[Asyncritus]

Quote please.

Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
Lu 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Concieved does not mean he did not pre-exist.

I'm afraid it does.

To remove the double negative in your statement: Conceived does mean he did pre-exist! It doesn't mean that anywhere.

con·ceive <script>w2("C0543100")</script><object style="margin: 3px 3px 5px;" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" height="13" width="10">

<embed style="margin-bottom: 4px;" src="http://img.tfd.com/play.swf" flashvars="soundpath=http://img.tfd.com/hm/mp3/C0543100" menu="false" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" height="13" width="10"></object>con·ceived, con·ceiv·ing, con·ceives
v.tr.1. To become pregnant with (offspring).

And, of course, becoming pregnant means an ovum being fertilised. There is no indication anywhere that conceive means anything else:


Lu 1:24 And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

So Luke used the same word in both cases. Means the same thing.

I examined the view, and agree that Paul of Tarsus, with his anti-Torah agenda, was a traitor.

Paul was not an anti-Torah traitor. He quotes it everywhere in his epistles. Just look through Romans and Hebrews as examples: quotes everywhere. He was the one who said: "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures (letters) which are able to make thee wise unto salvation." And they are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work" 2 Tim. 3.15,16.

The man is a tremendous believer in the |Torah and the OT as a whole.

Of course I believe we are raised from the dead. I just don't believe that Paul of Tarsus and his writings are infalliable. We shall be raised from the dead, but other Scripture backs this up.

Your other indicates that you think of Paul's writings as scripture.

I'm happy to hear that you believe in the resurrection. Paul didn't - until he met Jesus on the Damascus road. Do you believe that he did? And if he did, why do you question his inspiration. BTW, do you question Peter's, in his 2 epistles?

I suppose in some ways I am not much different from Muslims, for Muslims reject Paul of Tarsus as well.

Yes, because they don't believe Jesus rose from the dead - and Paul is proof that He did. Otherwise, how come his great conversion?

Man established what was in the Roman Catholic Bible, the Roman Catholic Bible is a foundation.

How can you say this? The RC church was established in AD485 by Constantine. The Bible was going for centuries before that. That's not consistent. And the RCs shut down Bible reading pretty thoroughly, if I've got that right, till Tyndale and others got the ball rolling in the UK.

I agree that Jesus Christ is our mediator, but I still will not accept the writings of Paul as canon.

The concept of Jesus as mediator comes from Paul. I don't see it anywhere else in the NT, but perhaps you can enlighten me about that. So if Paul is no use, then you have a problem, wouldn't you agree?

The logic that only Jesus is mediator is established by other Scripture, i.e. he went to Heaven, and we pray to G-d the Father in Jesus's name, so Jesus is mediator.


But the angels are also in heaven, and they aren't mediators. So why Jesus, if you reject Paul's statements? BTW, why do you write G-d instead of God? Just curious.

The Biblical canon is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.


Do enlighten me here. How does the Arian Catholic differ from the Roman Catholic?


Of course, and Paul of Tarsus was a self-procliamed apostle, and an ordinary man, an enemy of Christianity who established Paulian though called Christendom into the world.


What nonsense! Haven't you read the Acts?

9.11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

How can you say that a man who suffered like this for Christianity:

23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;
27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
28 Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.
29 Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not?
30 If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities.
31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.

is an enemy of Christianity? Of course, he might be lying - but that means that Luke is also lying in writing the Acts, because he confirms a lot of this in his account. And do bear in mind that Luke was a historian of the first rank, as Sir Wm Ramsay was forced to acknowledge. So if you reject Paul, you also reject Luke, and that means you reject the Gospel that bears his name. In fact, there's no end to it. Which is one reason I so utterly detest higher critics and higher criticism. So I warn you, beware of those dogs. They have torn and destroyed the faith of too many. Do not be numbered with them.


Confucius? I don't agree with the adoration and worship of the Popes, saints and false prophets, as you to neither.

You missed my little joke. Theologian Confuse-us is what I meant, with a word play on Confucius.

[Danage]

BTW, why do you write G-d instead of God? Just curious.

I'll just answer the more niggling concerns for now. I write G-d out of habit more than anything.

Do enlighten me here. How does the Arian Catholic differ from the Roman Catholic?

Arian Catholics believe:
The Father is G-d and G-d alone
The Son was a pre-existent Archangel called Immanuel
The Holy Spirit is the power of G-d
The Seven Levitical Feasts and the Saturday Sabbaths are still binding
The writings of Paul of Tarsus are not generally considered canonical, depending on who you ask, however the official stance of the ACC is that his writings are not canon.

Well, that's a basic run down, although there are many more differences I have failed to mention. The Archbishop will be able to give you a more complete list.

You missed my little joke. Theologian Confuse-us is what I meant, with a word play on Confucius.

I see.

[The Kurgan]

The evidence is there before your face and you still don't accept it!

Look again! Water was repeatedly referred to for purification and cleansing, including through ritual. This was confirmed by the Early Church fathers.
…If your appeal is to the church's 'authority' then I cannot argue with you. But scripture is the acid test, and to that only will I listen - and so would you if you were wise enough to recognise that great principle.
Ah, we're at the ad hominem stage already! I didn't think we'd got that far as yet, but clearly I was mistaken.

Your argument is week so you are resorting to insults to try to mask your inability to handle the question!

The Church’s authority is not the issue here, the concept of scriptural origin is recognised, although our canon and deuterocanons are broader than yours and we recognise the problem of the fallibility of scripture redacted, translated and transcribed to the Nth degree; it makes no difference anyway in respect to Holy Water as the evidence is still there within the Roman canon.

The simple fact is that there is infinitely more textual evidence for the NT than for any other ancient book. I am not overly interested in these matters. I study the existing texts carefully and go from there. But a simple glance at Souter's Greek NT and the critical apparatus included therein shows the sheer volume of available texts which are the basis for our current NT. The textual certainty is in excess of 99.5%.
You may also know (or not) that the OT Hebrew texts were substantially confirmed as being minutely accurate by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. In fact, I read FF Bruce as saying that they were able to correct the Dead Sea Isaiah using the Masoretic text. How they do these things I wouldn't know - but I'm sure Bruce knew what he was talking about.
So for you to go on about the undependability of the biblical texts demonstrates a certain ignorance of the facts, and you would do well to recognise your deficiencies in the matter and temper your remarks accordingly,

You are very naïve if you think that simply carefully reading "existing" texts is adequate enough to justify your claims for “sola scriptura”. Don't tell me you are one of those crackpots who thinks that the bible fell out of the sky!

In fact the Hebrew bible is the only text that can boast such high degrees of accuracy. Yes the Dead Sea scrolls surprised scholars with its accuracy. The same cannot be said for the NT.

You are lying and deceiving when you quote 99.5% certainty for the NT (such claims have only every been "relative"), and only about 2/3rds of the Greek New Testament is in agreement in the seven critical editions, there is no way the New Testament could have been restored to a magnificent value of 99.5% or thereabouts. Archaeologists have discovered only 5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. It’s been said that of these, 5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV. As an example only six manuscripts of the Byzantine texts have survived from before the 9th century, the rest are more recent transcripts, some dating as recently as the 12th century. For example, there is no surviving Byzantine witness earlier than the eighth century, that includes the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11), it is now accepted that this section was part of a later redaction and does not belong to the autograph.

Look who’s talking about tempering remarks. You are the one deficient, you come to our forum purely to launch an attack on our faith and doctrine and you are clearly ill-equipped with either the theological background or the social skills to handle an amicable, objective and logical debate.

Now, now. There's no need for such silly, sweeping statements. Let's have some proof, instead of the blatherings of the tripe mongers you have obviously stuffed your head with. (If you're getting the impression that I cordially detest the 'higher critics' you may, just may, be correct)...
I'm not sure where you're going with this. Of course additional information from say, the archaeologists, sheds light on biblical matters. But for you to put as much faith in their work is just a little shortsighted, if I may say so. 'Sometimes' is a good word to use there.

Perhaps YOU should use "sometimes" more often! What is your problem anyway? Are you incapable of engaging in a mature discussion? Or must you repeatedly make puerile, impertinent and insulting remarks to try to intimidate other forum users? Why are you trying to bully people on this forum? What are you afraid of? So far you have proven yourself to be the tripe monger, lets see you produce some carefully researched doctrine and see how you like being on the receiving end for a change!

Do you remember when the critics were bleating loudly about Moses being unable to write, and Abraham being a fantasy figure? I'm sure you do. So where have all those idiocies gone? Or should that be 'idiots'? They've folded their tents and slithered disgraced into the darkness. Do not follow them!

What on earth are you twittering on about here! We have no intensions of following crackpots like them or you! The teachings of Abraham and Moses are as important to us as they were to Jesus the Messiah.

But you mention translations, of which there are many. Which? Well, I use the online bible, and it's got about 8 translations in there. If I can't get the correct meaning of a certain passage from one, I look at 7 others. Very convenient, what?

You clearly have no idea of what you are reading, you are blindly sifting through myriads of translations until you find one that says what you want it to say; a bit like the NWT, what! The bibles you are reading include a spread that differ by their translator’s opinions not necessarily by their source texts, so how can you be sure you are covering translations of all the scriptural source texts? You obviously haven't even given thought to that have you?

[Asyncritus]

Your argument is week so you are resorting to insults to try to mask your inability to handle the question!

The Church’s authority is not the issue here, the concept of scriptural origin is recognised, although our canon and deuterocanons are broader than yours and we recognise the problem of the fallibility of scripture redacted, translated and transcribed to the Nth degree; it makes no difference anyway in respect to Holy Water as the evidence is still there within the Roman canon.

My argument is a very simple one, Kurgan. If you can stick all kinds of additional 'scriptures' into the Bible, and pass them off as authoritative, then where does all this end? I can tell you: it ends in the Middle Ages, where the RC claimed supreme authority and papal infallibility. The Vicar of Christ, of all things.

There is no stopping point - because what I say may be claimed to be authoritative, and so might what you say, and anybody else for that matter. Where do you draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn, and if not, why not? Just where do you draw the line, if you draw one at all?

The question was a very valid one: If the foundations be removed or destroyed, what can the righteous do? If there is no foundation, then everyone is totally exposed to every sleight of doctrine anybody can dream up.

I have to say I am a little confused regarding your position on this matter about what is scripture and what is not. Danage sounded as if he believed in the accepted Bible, but suddenly I find that he admits he doesn't. You are talking about canons and deuterocanons. Where does it all end?

It ends in the arms of the higher critics, who savage the Bible, shouting editors, redactors, compilers and I don't know or care what else. It sounds as if you are either there, or heading there at a rate of knots. But I need you to tell me what you consider to be the core of divinely inspired scripture. Until then, I am flailing in the dark.

You are very naïve if you think that simply carefully reading "existing" texts is adequate enough to justify your claims for “sola scriptura”. Don't tell me you are one of those crackpots who thinks that the bible fell out of the sky!

Now let's leave the ad homs out, shall we? In the interests of "amicable, objective and logical debate" as you said a little while ago. I don't think I'm a crackpot, and I would hesitate to apply that description to you however justified I may think I would be to do so. Decent, amicable are the keywords here. 'Polite' would be a useful additional term too.

I certainly don't think the Bible fell out of the sky. I do believe, however, along with the apostle Paul, and the Lord Christ, that all scripture is given by the inspiration of God. That God oversaw the canon and took great pains to ensure that what He wanted in it, is in it.

In fact the Hebrew bible is the only text that can boast such high degrees of accuracy. Yes the Dead Sea scrolls surprised scholars with its accuracy. The same cannot be said for the NT.

You are lying and deceiving when you quote 99.5% certainty for the NT (such claims have only every been "relative"), and only about 2/3rds of the Greek New Testament is in agreement in the seven critical editions, there is no way the New Testament could have been restored to a magnificent value of 99.5% or thereabouts. Archaeologists have discovered only 5,255 pieces of manuscript evidence. It’s been said that of these, 5,210 of them support the Traditional text behind that of the KJV. As an example only six manuscripts of the Byzantine texts have survived from before the 9th century, the rest are more recent transcripts, some dating as recently as the 12th century. For example, there is no surviving Byzantine witness earlier than the eighth century, that includes the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11), it is now accepted that this section was part of a later redaction and does not belong to the autograph.
Somebody is lying and misguided, that's for sure. Here:
http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_bible5.php
"Second, the New Testament writings are survived by ~25,000 manuscripts, fragments, uncials, and minuscules, etc. (Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Vol. 1, 1991, p. 40). The amount is overwhelming and unparalleled by any other ancient document or set of documents in history."

"
Even within the period that runs from c. A.D. 100-300 it is possible for paleographers to be more specific on the relative date of the papyrus manuscripts of the New Testament. For about sixty years now a tiny papyrus fragment of the Gospel of John has been the oldest "manuscript" of the New Testament. This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125. This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D., as had always been upheld by conservative scholars." http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

Given all that - and there's plenty more where that came from Kurgan (just try google) - tell me, when did all this fanciful editing and redacting and compiling take place? As that previous quote showed, the Gospel of John has the earliest evidence for its existence. But as Danage claimed, Mark was the earliest (I personally doubt that, but...), and therefore must have been written at the time of Christ Himself or very, very near to it. So I ask you again, when did all this fanciful editing and redacting and compiling take place? And again, do you think the disciples were a pack of idiots who wouldn't write down what happened as it happened, or very shortly thereafter? Imagine writing the first account of the 2nd world war in 1985, 40 years after it ended. Just how stupid would that be? I'll tell you. Just as stupid as these 'critics' who say they didn't write things down till AD100 or later.

Perhaps YOU should use "sometimes" more often! What is your problem anyway? Are you incapable of engaging in a mature discussion? Or must you repeatedly make puerile, impertinent and insulting remarks to try to intimidate other forum users? Why are you trying to bully people on this forum? What are you afraid of? So far you have proven yourself to be the tripe monger, lets see you produce some carefully researched doctrine and see how you like being on the receiving end for a change!I'll take you up on that shortly, with my exposition of John 1 in relation to the pre-existence of Christ.

But I make no bones about despising the work of the higher critics. They have successfully destroyed the faith of so many, it's unbelievable. They very nearly destroyed my own. My remarks are insulting to their theories, not to the people who read them. So please do not take them personally. If you have done so already, I apologise to you, but my opinion of them remains unchanged.

What on earth are you twittering on about here! We have no intensions of following crackpots like them or you! The teachings of Abraham and Moses are as important to us as they were to Jesus the Messiah.Well I'm pleased to hear you say so. You seem to be unaware of the Graf-Wellhausen school of thought which has so permeated the universities. Go look them up, then you can talk to me.

You clearly have no idea of what you are reading, you are blindly sifting through myriads of translations until you find one that says what you want it to say; a bit like the NWT, what! The bibles you are reading include a spread that differ by their translator’s opinions not necessarily by their source texts, so how can you be sure you are covering translations of all the scriptural source texts? You obviously haven't even given thought to that have you?The textual critics, as opposed to the 'higher' critics, have done, and are doing their work well, and the fact that eight or so translations are in virtual agreement on almost everything, with minor linguistic and idiosyncratic variations, is proof positive that we have exactly what God intended us to have.

If you intend to spend your life as a textual critic, then good luck to you. I don't intend to do so, and prefer to study what has been soundly established by many very careful scholars whose work has been and has to be peer reviewed, and for whose work I have a great deal of admiration.

You might like to do some serious Bible study on major biblical doctrines before leaping on me for being highly skeptical of anything which is biblically unfounded.

For example, you quoted the waters of jealousy as some sort of proof that there is something like 'holy water'. You completely failed to see that the dust of the tabernacle floor was an essential ingredient of it, and that in no way resembles any of that formula given by the archbishop, wherever he may have gotten that from. The fact that it was never used in OT or NT has eluded your grasp, and so has the fact that Jesus Himself was baptised in the Jordan. Whether or not the Jordan consists of holy water I really wouldn't know, but I somehow doubt it.

[Danage]

I have to say I am a little confused regarding your position on this matter about what is scripture and what is not. Danage sounded as if he believed in the accepted Bible, but suddenly I find that he admits he doesn't. You are talking about canons and deuterocanons. Where does it all end?

A forum post by the Archbishop (the Arian Catholic Archbishop of York), explaining what we consider canonical is here (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/showthread.php?p=2521#post2521).

Notice the writings of Paul of Tarsus (Paul's Epistles) are not in our Bible canon.

We consider the New Testament's composition as you know it and nearly all Christians know it, to be man's composition, not G-d's, hence we view other Scripture as canon, and some scripture (note the lower-case 's') as non-canonical. I hope this helps clear up all the confusion as to the Bible canon we accept.

[Asyncritus]

A forum post by the Archbishop (the Arian Catholic Archbishop of York), explaining what we consider canonical is here (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/showthread.php?p=2521#post2521).

Notice the writings of Paul of Tarsus (Paul's Epistles) are not in our Bible canon.

We consider the New Testament's composition as you know it and nearly all Christians know it, to be man's composition, not G-d's, hence we view other Scripture as canon, and some scripture (note the lower-case 's') as non-canonical. I hope this helps clear up all the confusion as to the Bible canon we accept.

I was looking at the list, and such books which the jews rejected (the apocrypha) are quite prominent. Why are Paul's letter rejected and those books, with quantities of silliness in them, being considered?

In fact, what theological axe is being ground here to hew a tree which has been settled, under divine direction I'm certain, for the longest time?

And you can be certain that it will not find general acceptance, and probably end like the JWs NWT.

[Asyncritus]

I was looking at the list, and such books which the jews rejected (the apocrypha) are quite prominent. Why are Paul's letter rejected and those books, with quantities of silliness in them, being considered?

In fact, what theological axe is being ground here to hew a tree which has been settled, under divine direction I'm certain, for the longest time?

And you can be certain that it will not find general acceptance, and probably end like the JWs NWT.

I note that the Shepherd of Hermas is proposed for inclusion, despite many serious criticisms of its content, such as:

"Further difficulties can be discerned in the contents of The Shepherd on account of the fact that the book appears to contradict itself in some instances. One very obvious inconsistency that this present writer has observed in the book is that on numerous occasions the Shepherd specifically condemns the sin of anger, calling it "foolish, fickle, and senseless."26 Those who fall into the sin of anger (as discussed earlier) risk the Holy Spirit leaving them and they in turn become a dwelling place for evil spirits.27 An "angry temperamental outburst or bitterness..." is a sign that an evil spirit is at work in a person.28 Furthermore, an angry temper is among one of the sins that grieve the Holy Spirit.29 However, despite the Shepherd's warnings against the sin of anger, when Hermas expresses some doubt as to his ability to keep the commandments that have been revealed to him the Shepherd himself rebukes Hermas in what clearly appears to be an outburst of extreme anger. Hermas gives his own account of this: "He [the Shepherd] said these things to me very angrily, which confused me and I feared him greatly, for his appearance was changed so that a man could not endure his anger."30 It is only after the Shepherd sees how distressed Hermas is by his anger that he becomes more composed and his anger subsides.31"

And this is only one.

[Jesus John]

I do know a prayer which I want to share with you;

"O our Almighty Lord! Clean us from our sins with the water of rain, snow and hail (how they clean the land)" (Amen) Muhammad (Pbuh)