Priest faces trial in nun’s stabbing death
Body of 71-year-old victim was found under altar cloth 26 years ago

Reuters
Updated: 10:35 a.m. ET April 15, 2006


TOLEDO, Ohio - A 68-year-old Catholic priest goes on trial Monday in the stabbing death of a nun whose body was found covered by an altar cloth in a chapel 26 years ago.

The Rev. Gerald Robinson, charged with murder and facing a possible sentence of life in jail if convicted, has been on leave from his priestly duties since his arrest in 2004. He has pleaded not guilty.

The crime occurred in a hospital chapel in downtown Toledo on Saturday of Easter week in 1980. Investigators said the nun, Margaret Ann Pahl, 71, was strangled and then stabbed up to 32 times.

The investigation initially centered on Robinson, the hospital’s chaplain and a priest of the Toledo Catholic Diocese. He was not charged at the time and presided over Pahl’s funeral Mass.

Police reopened the case in 2003 and arrested Robinson in April 2004. The cold case squad said it suspected that blood spatters left at the crime scene matched a letter opener in Robinson’s possession.

After his arrest investigators said they believed a “ceremony” had taken place inside the chapel in conjunction with the slaying but did not elaborate. Robinson is the only one who has been charged.

Several events led to the case being reopened. In June 2003, an unidentified woman went to the Toledo Diocese seeking reimbursement for her therapy. She presented officials there with a letter claiming she was a childhood victim of clerical sexual abuse by Robinson, according to the Toledo Blade, which obtained a copy of the letter.

The woman claimed to be the victim of Satanic ritualistic sexual abuse perpetrated by a number of priests who were involved in a cult, the newspaper said.

Prosecutors said they were unaware of the letter until after the woman who wrote it gave a copy to Claudia Vercellotti, a Toledo leader of the Survivors Network for those Abused by Priests.

Vercellotti forwarded it to the Ohio attorney general’s office in September 2003, saying she thought church officials were not moving on it. The state office in turn sent the letter to Lucas County prosecutors, causing them to reopen the case in December of that year.

Police have said they asked the diocese to voluntarily surrender all documents in Robinson’s file but only got three pages.

In September 2004, the diocese was served with a warrant and surrendered over 100 documents. The diocese has consistently refused to discuss the case, citing a court gag order.

Robinson has not faced any criminal charges of sexual abuse.

Prosecutors expect the murder trial in Lucas County Circuit Court to last from three to four weeks.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

© 2006 MSNBC.com
__________________________________________________ _______________

Not to offend you Catholics out there but, the church has a long and colorful history of this sort of thing and many others. I belong to no organised religion simply because I get really bad "vibes" from all of them. The thing is I believe that the Catholic Church is really a cover for evil and that Satan has his throne somewhere in the Vatican. If you look at Mexico, where people are starving, they are told to have more children since it is a blessing from GOD. Now 99 percent of Mexicans there are starving and coming to America. Why does the Catholic church turn it's back on them and not help them? At least the Mormans will give you something to eat! Carl Marx predicted that America would be a Spanish speaking country in the future... much to the delight of the Catholic church! The Catholic church is trying to populate the world with Catholics just as the Mormon church is trying to populate the world with Mormons! You may hate my opinion and even hate me personally for my opinion but I know for a fact that the leaders of these organisations are doing more harm to the world and the people of it than they are doing good. The longer they can keep us brainwashed the longer they will sit on high suppressing anything they do not want us to know and telling us anything that keeps us docile. There is only ONE TRUTH in the entire universe and that truth is inside every one of us. Until we find that and come together as a complete community on our own and for the good of all, these tyrants will keep this world just as it is today... one big mess!:mad:

Reading the hate sites again I can see. Let me see Catholic Charities does more work, gives more food, more housing and more money than any other single group in the world. They were there at the hurricane helping but guess what, no one wanted to show them there doing more than most of the other groups.


And Mexico is the way it is because of its government, not its religion.

If you did not really beleve this bull I would have to laught because I guess the bigger the lie and the louder you yell it someone can fall for it.

The catholic church while it had its share of problems and political isssues though the years, without it, there would be no bible, since they protected and made hand copies for 100's of years. It was the councils of the early church (catholic and orthodox, east and west) that made up the creeds used by all christians and even were the ones to develop the bible and decide what books went and which did not.

Without the catholic church in history there would not be christianity today.

The Pope, esp the last one was most likley the most devout and earnest Christian the world has seen this century.

If it said "A 68-year-old School Teacher goes on trial Monday..." should we then ask

Could School Teachers be Evil?

There's always going to be bad people in every religion or organized group of any kind. And unfortunately bad news seems to get the best press. We rarely hear about the good. I know that the Catholic Church (and in Canada at least, the Anglican Church as well), is responsible for abuse of children in the Indian Residential Schools, orphanages, etc... no one denies that. But there's lots of good people too. I grew up in foster care and went to a Catholic boarding school run by nuns, and it saved my life. Those nuns never abused me. They did a lot of good for me and the other girls at the school. They definitely weren't evil, and I think more people in the Church are like my nuns, rather than those people that make the news.

Yes, locally in TN in the last year, we had several teacher issues, a preacher of a non catholic church, a karate teacher but none of them made even the state news, barely second page on the local news.

But a 20 year old case for a priest seems to get national coverage. But of course there are anti catholic groups that make sure it does.

Sweet Mary Mother of GOD! I am so sorry to offend. I am going down to the nearest Catholic church right now and get obsolved of my sins so I can start over with a clean slate. Like the Mafia hit man said, "It's nice being Catholic, you go to confessional on Sunday and start out clean on Monday."

Rickj: "We can all agree that some things are not written to be taken as fact. I would point to many of the Proverbs to begin with..."
I am not refurring to one "bad person" rickj, over and over there are terrible things coming from the Catholic church. How many children have been molested by priests? There is something horrible going on in that church and if you want to question my intelligence because I have the cahones to point it out then knock yourself out. The fact remains that it goes on every minute and these Catholics that puff up over my words seem to be getting puffed up about about the wrong things. I am a retired Federal prison guard and I also worked the state prison system. The worst scum I ever delt with were the baby rapers. When I hear about another priest that has violated a child I go balistic. I also know that we are not hearing about every case. So, what do the Catholic people think about the priests that are doing this and what are you doing to stop it?

Fr Chuck, no, I'm not reading hate sites again... just the newspaper.:(

Hi, Magprob,
No, I don't believe any Church is evil. Some do get more Media and Newspaper coverage than others!
You say you get "bad vibes" from all Churches, and mention Satan. Could it be Satan has you in his grips? I do not mean that to be offensive, just simply that Satan has a way of instilling thoughts which are, as you know, opposite the Will of God.
I do believe that all Churches, not just Catholic or any particular denomination, or belief, has those who do not follow the Will of God in their everyday life. A good example is a few of the TV and Radio Ministers; rich beyond most people, who own race horses, country homes, planes, etc...

MagProb,

You have some real issues. It is not with the church but yourself. All I have seen from you is judging groups of people because of some bad apples. Just because there are some bad apples does not make the whole bunch bad. I have been brought up as a Roman Catholic and have had no problems whatsoever. I do not agree with the abuse that has happened. It does not mean that it happens everywhere as that it is the way it is coming off from you.

There are teachers who sleep with their students, that is abuse. Does that mean all of the teachers are abusers?

Many people I have heard bring this up. On the news, the white man is usually involved in rape crimes. Black man are usually involved in Murder and shooting crimes. Okay does that make White Men mostly rapists and does that make black men mostly murderers? The answer is of course no. What you are doing is lumping everybody together in a body of church and for some reason you have Labelled the whole organizing evil. Do you think it is right for judgement like that on your part? No. What do I think about the abuse, the abuse is wrong and anybody that is found completely guilty without a doubt should be punished for their wrong doing, but then again there are others who are falsly accused as well, but people like you automatically feel that all is guilty which is a warped way of thinking of it.

P.S. My Wife and I had a very bad experience with a young punk cop threatening us and punching the car. He was very bad, did not do anything wrong. He was a crooked cop. Does that make all Cops bad. The answer again is NO.

Joe

Perfect! After this story about the priest that murdered the nun ran, the pope made a statement that we (everyone else) are all evil due to the television and the media we watch. Sex is everywhere and we are all a bunch of fiends. In other words, shifting the blame away from the church and on to the accusers. Kind of like you are doing to me now. But that's OK... that is the answer I was anticipating when I posted this article. You Catholics have not let me down! You have been taught by the best! I am now through with this thread as it will only turn into a crusade from here on out. Goodbye.:D

The following applies to all religious organizations. An organization can be considered evil if it officially approves of evil behavior. By evil behavior is meant behavior which is today universally considered a crime against humanity and which is universally condemned by the society of nations. If some of the organization's members, or even the majority, choose to go against an organization's rightious policies, then the members themselves are evil and not the organization which disapproves of their behavior.

For example, if a religious organization should officially condone evil, or else wink at it or ignore it, then it certainly cannot be considered a good organization. But this in no way reflects upon its members who might see the official policy as contrary to God's will or else follow an organization's guidance due to ignorance. In short, come Judgment Day, the organization itself might come under God's wrath while many of its members might be blessed.

Daniel 7:10
A stream of fire issuedand came out from before him;a thousand thousands served him,and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him;the court sat in judgment,and the books were opened.


Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.

It is so easy to read the bad news but so hard to find the good news. Unfortunately it is so easy to paint people and places with a broad brush and lump everything in a convenient little niche to explain why something is so bad. This is not truth but just another form of ignorance and an example of taking the easy way out and not having to find the truth. Why is it that people look at the bad things that happen in life and refuse to acknowledge all the hard work and effort that goes into good works by people who never make the evening news or the front pages. Hopefully we will not only know that bad things happen but also a lot of good goes on if we open our eyes and see the whole picture:cool: :)

over and over there are terrible things coming from the Catholic church.
Name one, then. You have only named one from an evil member of the Church.


How many children have been molested by priests?
Good question. How many, magprob? And what is the percentage of children molested by Catholic Priests to all children who have been molested??

I say that parents and family are the biggest percentage. So following your logic, Parenthood Is Evil!


There is something horrible going on in that church and if you want to question my intelligence because I have the cahones to point it out then knock yourself out.
I do not question your intellegence, just your logic.



So, what do the Catholic people think about the priests that are doing this and what are you doing to stop it?
I think it is horrible, and think that any person who mollests a child should be punished with the maximum sentence.

One of three shepherd children who turned the town of Fatima into a pilgrimage site after telling of her visions of the Lady of Fatima in 1917 (the year of the Russian revolution), Sister Lucy dos Santos died in February 2005, just before Pope John Paul II did. The three prophecies she received became known as "The Three Secrets of Fatima", and the last of those secrets is, according to recently emerging reports, that Satan himself would soon take over the Vatican.

Vatican insider Malachi Martin also insisted that Satan was taking over the Vatican. From 1958 until 1964, Father Martin served in Rome where he was a close associate of Cardinal Augustin Bea and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. Martin believed that the Vatican had finally been, after centuries-long efforts, infiltrated at the highest levels by Satanists.


"Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican
in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had
and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome"
- Father Malachi Martin, in The Fatima Crusader
In his books, Martin described a ceremony called "The Enthronement of the Fallen Archangel Lucifer" held in the Vatican on June 29, 1963. Martin never recanted his claim that this Satanic ritual occurred in the Vatican, repeatedly insisting that the ceremony did occur and that a general Satanic conspiracy exists within the Vatican. Martin continued to speak out about these things until his death in 1999, doing numerous newspaper and radio interviews (such as "The New American", the "Steel on Steel" radio show, and "The Art Bell Show").

Martin quoted Pope Paul VI as bemoaning that "the smoke of Satan has entered the Sanctuary". Martin correctly predicted, long before the American priest scandal erupted, that reports of pedophilia rites and practices would dramatically increase among Catholic clergy because, in his words, "The cultic acts of satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen rites." (Keys of This Blood, Fr. Malachi Martin, p. 632). Since Martin's prescient warnings, tens of thousands of children have reported being raped at Catholic altars and inside Catholic confessionals, forcing the Church to pay out billions of dollars to settle court cases involving child sexual abuse by priests. In the Boston Archdiocese alone 65 parishes had to close in order to raise the money necessary to pay these court settlements. One case alone involved more than 500 child victims and a mandated court settlement of over $85 million dollars. Martin foresaw all this occurring long before it appeared in our newspapers, but his central message, that these acts are warning sign that Satanists are commandeering the church, has been ignored. His 1976 book on exorcism, Hostage to the Devil, leaves no doubt that Martin believed that the devil existed and was gaining strength in the world.
Peter Novak

Going back to the original idea of the thread, it appears the case has some problems, news today, the DNA found at the scene does not match the priest, the "blood " on the letter opener could not be matched to the crime.

There appears to be basically no real evidence against the priest that the news could report on. In fact the evidence produced so far basically shows the priest should never have been charged. But of course hatred toward catholic priests could hurt him with the jury.

Sadly everyone had this priest convicted prior to any evidence

Reality Check:

In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination." [Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, 25 June 1997, Prot. N. 04300/65].

Martin was a disgruntled Catholic.

Or were the Catholics disgruntled with Martin?

Certainly both... but you know how things like that go. If a person with authority in any group starts disparaging the group publicly, then the group gets ticked off.

Bottom line, though. All talk and no evidence.

Certainly both...but you know how things like that go. If a person with authority in any group starts disparaging the group publicly, then the group gets ticked off.

Bottom line, though. All talk and no evidence.
And doesn't that go both ways? Even if it is as obvious as the nose on your face. Denial is the path of least resistance.

Carl Marx predicted that America would be a Spanish speaking country in the future...much to the delight of the Catholic church! The Catholic church is trying to populate the world with Catholics just as the Mormon church is trying to populate the world with Mormons!

Just my opinion... what exactly is wrong with trying to populate the world with <insert religion here>? Corporations try to populate the world with their product, i.e. they hope as many as possible people in the world will use their product so they can make lots of money. Are corporations in agreements with Satan? What is wrong with too many Spanish-speakers? What is wrong with too many Catholics? Too many "Tide" users?:eek: It's all relative.

And don't even start on a group of evil people being representative of a whole group (see: religious terrorists/suicide bombers)--it's just bad logic!

And does'nt that go both ways? Even if it is as obvious as the nose on your face. Denial is the path of least resistance.

Not sure what you mean by go both ways. When a member of an organization makes accusations, it's up to that person to show the evidence, not the other way around.

2nd, it's still about the error of calling a group evil because of an evil member or evil members.

No one with a brain can deny that the Catholic Church has some evil members, as does every organization, religious or not.

The holiness of a church doesn't depend upon the holiness of its members. Look at the teachings of the church, which condemns these terrible acts.

Have any of you ever read Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy? He was a contemporary of President Lincoln. It makes interesting reading, and I think you can get it on line. Not sure about that though.

But how shall I relate my surprise when I discovered that, in order to accept the principles of the theologians which my Church gave me for guides I had to put away all principles of truth, of justice, of honour and holiness! What long and painful efforts it cost me to extinguish, one by one, the lights of truth and of reason kindled by the hand of my merciful God in my intelligence. For to study theology in the Church of Rome signifies to learn to speak falsely, to deceive, to commit robbery, to perjure one's self! It means how to commit sins without shame, it means to plunge the soul into every kind of iniquity and turpitude without remorse!

I know that Roman Catholics will bravely and squarely deny what I now say. I am aware also that a great many Protestants, too easily deceived by the fine whitewashing of the exterior walls of Rome, will refuse to believe me. Nevertheless they may rest assured it is true, and my proof will be irrefutable. The truth may be denied by many, but my witnesses cannot be contradicted by any one. My witnesses are even infallible. They are none other than the Roman Catholic theologians themselves, approved by infallible Popes! These very men who corrupted my heart, perverted my intelligence and poisoned my soul, as they have done with every priest of their Church, will be my witnesses, my only witnesses. I will just now forcibly bring them before the world to testify against themselves!

Fifty Years in the Church of Rome
By CHARLES CHINIQUY

I don't think dear Charles was buying it!

Don't go by the judgment of people but by God's Judgement. You ask a very wise questions. Let's start with this one. What is the worship day? Many say Sunday, but why? The say by instinct but they don't even know.

Gen 2:1 "
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested [a] from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

SO we understand that God did all these things, but does God really need any of this? He made this day for us right? He even emphasized it in the 10 commandments

Ex 20:8

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the lord your God"

By this time most people will say it's a Jewish Feast. But what day of the week is the 7th day in reality? After all we need to understand we are promised blessings only on the 7th day by God and not the 1st or 2nd but the 7th Day.

Dictionary: Sunday = 1st day of the week Saturday = 7th day of the week
Also look at a Calendar and notice the first day of the week is Sunday no Monday, and the 7th Saturday, not Sunday.

But let's see according to the bible what day of the week is the 7th day.

We understand a major Christian Holiday is Easter Sunday. But why Easter Sunday?

EASTER SUNDAY = Resurrection SUNDAY

Mark 16:9 " 9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.

He rose early on the 1st day of the week. But Easter falls on Sunday which commemorates the Resurrection. So if Sunday is the 1st day of the week, then what's Saturday? The 7th Day of the Week. The day blessed by God Most High:) NOT Sunday.

Mark 16:1 "When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise... "

So right after the Sabbath what came? The First day (Resurrection Day = Sunday) Clear or not?

Why does the Catholic Church keep Sunday worship?

John 8:47 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.
What did God say 7th Day Saturday Sabbath or 1st Day Sunday? By keeping Sunday worship we are not receiving the blessings promised by our creator,
then people wonder why so many disasters happen around the world, etc, etc. Because nobody follows a simple commandment.


They know clearly that Saturday is the worshiping day promised by God. Even Jesus kept the Sabbath day.

Luke 4:16 "He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read."

What about is apostles, did they keep the Sabbath day? Let's see...
Acts 17:2
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures....

NOT the first day but the Sabbath day. If the Catholic Church truly followed Jesus teachings, they would keep the Sabbath day holy:)


Mat 7:21

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'


What is God's will? 7th day Sabbath worship or 1st Day Sunday? Catholic Church has no salvation, nor does any church that keeps Sunday Worship. Jesus established the Church of God. That's the church I attend to. The only church IN THE WORLD that follows the true commandments of Christ.

I will simply point out:

Mark 16:9
9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
(KJV)
Jesus appeared to His disciples on the first day of the week (the day of His resurrection, morning and evening).


John 20:26
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
(KJV)

This was one week later when Jesus again met with His assembled disciples on the first day of the week.


1 Cor 16:2
2 Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.
(KJV)

If those churches were not meeting on the first day of the week, why did Paul specify that the offering be received on that day?

Of course, Paul went to the synagogue to preach Jesus on the Sabbath. No one would have been there on any other day!

I don't think the Catholic Church is evil at all, its some who abuse the power and influence they have in the name of the church, that's evil. And the endless cover-ups, and lies and deceit that's evil.

I don't think the Catholic Church is evil at all, its some who abuse the power and influence they have in the name of the church, thats evil. And the endless cover-ups, and lies and deceit thats evil.


Raping little kids, priests driving nice cars, religious leaders with golden cups and luxurious treats,
Is that God's will? Did Jesus not humble himself? Did Jesus established any other church other than
The Church of God? These churches do evil in God's eye, and it's no my judgment, but God's judgment.

God's will, 7th Day Sabbath. Not 1st day Sunday. If Jesus kept the Sabbath Day holy, everyone should, specially those who claim to follow Christ. After all, we are not Jewish, but yet we believe in Jesus? What shall we say then? Make up our on worship day (ex: 1st day worship) NO WAY! If it wasn't important to keep the Sabbath day holy, Jesus himself would not have done it.

According to Mt 7:21 only those who does the will of God will enter the Kingdom of heaven (7th Day Sabbath worship) not the evildoers (anything other than what God commanded us)

You may be able to point out a few verses when they met up on the first day, but you will not find any worshipping on the 1st day except for the Feasts of God and that's if they by coincidence fall on a Sunday. Other than that, God did not blessed the 1st day or made it holy. He Blessed the 7TH DAY SABBATH. You can go to church on Sundays as much as you can but you are not meeting with God to be blessed by him because that's why he appointed the 7th day Sabbath as a lasting ordinance. It's even in the 10 commandments (Ex 20:8).

If we don't keep Sabbath, we have no sign with God

Ezekiel 20:20
"Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God."

God didn't say "keep my 1st days holy"

If it said "A 68-year-old School Teacher goes on trial Monday..." should we then ask

Could School Teachers be Evil?

I agree

This is just ONE article, and it could be any other group of people. I also agree with Father Chuck that The Catholic Church had its fair share in the past but so has anything else. Father CHuck made further important points, and although I can understand why people say the C. Church is "evil" I think a lot of other people simply believe it because they are fascinated with that kind of scenario.

I don't think the Catholic Church is evil at all, its some who abuse the power and influence they have in the name of the church, thats evil. And the endless cover-ups, and lies and deceit thats evil.

Yeah, the Church and CHristian rulers and people are supposed to be good, but there are a few people with lose screws that tarnish the reputation.

Raping little kids, priests driving nice cars, religious leaders with golden cups and luxurious treats,
is that God's will? Did Jesus not humble himself? Did Jesus established any other church other than
The Church of God? These churches do evil in God's eye, and it's no my judgment, but God's judgment.

God's will, 7th Day Sabbath. Not 1st day Sunday. If Jesus kept the Sabbath Day holy, everyone should, specially those who claim to follow Christ. After all, we are not Jewish, but yet we beleive in Jesus? What shall we say then? Make up our on worship day (ex: 1st day worship) NO WAY! If it wasn't important to keep the Sabbath day holy, Jesus himself would not have done it.

According to Mt 7:21 only those who does the will of God will enter the Kingdom of heaven (7th Day Sabbath worship) not the evildoers (anything other than what God commanded us)

You may be able to point out a few verses when they met up on the first day, but you will not find any worshipping on the 1st day except for the Feasts of God and that's if they by coincidence fall on a Sunday. Other than that, God did not blessed the 1st day or made it holy. He Blessed the 7TH DAY SABBATH. You can go to church on Sundays as much as you can but you are not meeting with God to be blessed by him because that's why he appointed the 7th day Sabbath as a lasting ordinance. it's even in the 10 commandments (Ex 20:8).

If we don't keep Sabbath, we have no sign with God

Ezekiel 20:20
"Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God."

God didn't say "keep my 1st days holy"


That's a first. I've been trained Anti-Catholic? Wow And the Catholics have been trained Anti-Christ. Violating all the commandments beginning fro the first one. What do you call people who does not practice what the bible says? Lawlessness. I hope ELOHIM opens your eyes and allow you to realize that no church can give you eternal life but only the blood of Christ through the Passover.

that's a first. I've been trained Anti-Catholic? wow And the Catholics have been trained Anti-Christ. Violating all the commandments beginning fro the first one. What do you call people who does not practice what the bible says? Lawlessness. I hope ELOHIM opens your eyes and allow you to realize that no church can give you eternal life but only the blood of Christ thru the Passover.

More unfounded rhetoric. I don't blame you, though. Clearly you've been taught to say that without any effort to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and does.

Any chance you can point to an official Catholic teaching that supports what you're saying?

And I'm curious: Which of the 30,000 non Catholic sects, each of which claims to be right, do you belong?

More unfounded rhetoric. I don't blame you, though. Clearly you've been taught to say that without any effort to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and does.

Any chance you can point to an official Catholic teaching that supports what you're saying?

And I'm curious: Which of the 30,000 non Catholic sects, each of which claims to be right, do you belong?

You are right. I've been taught by God. Do you wish to question God's judgment?


I do not belong to any 'sect'. We simply follow the teachings of Christ. For example, Passover, not communion, Remember the Sabbath day by Keeping holy, not Sun God worship (Sunday), Can any of you point out when Jesus celebrated the communion through the bible? Or when Jesus went to the synagogue on the 1st day of the week(Sunday)?

According to Rev 22:18, this is the last warning the Lord gave us:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

In other words, no need to change the bible or come up with your own bibles. Whoever believes in Christ should only used the bible left by Jesus Christ and nothing else. Let's see what the Catholic Church did.


Please go to this link Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Ten Commandments (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm)

They changed the 1st commandment and made the original 1st and 2nd commandment into 1 commandment alone. 3rd commandment about the graven images and idols and replaced it with "no strange Gods before me" which is part of the first commandment. In other words, as long as your god doesn't have 7 legs and it's purple, it's ok:). The 4th commandment is the Sabbath, they changed it to the third and took out the word Sabbath out of it and called the "Lord's day", which to them is the "Sun-God's Day", in other words, Sunday. And last but not least, they split the 10th commandment by making it into two. They figured, hmm, we took one away, we need to add one. What did God say? Do not add, do not take away

God chose the foolish, because the wise think they are just that "wise". Jesus Christ came to seek the sinners, not the righteous. Get rid of your worldly knowledge and follow the humble way of Christ so that he may enlighten your path. For it is written that whoever tries to find his life (living happy in this world) will lose it, and whoever loses his life will find it (the kingdom of heaven). Remember the story of Lazarus and the Rich man. He was rich in arrogance and didn't accept God's word because he probably thought he was too knowledgeable and wise just like the pharisees whom never got to enter the kingdom of heaven.



I only use God's judgement, not men's judgment. God's word is clear, then why change it? Why do we need a "Traditional Cathetical Formula" when God gave us the "10 commandments"?? I am not here to argue friends, but to proclaim the truth. Flee to Zion and get out of Babylon. These are not my teachings for men has no wisdom, these are God's teaching, they came straight from the bible, God's word.

[email protected]

VERY interesting!

1. Christians have worshiped on Sunday for nearly 2000 years now.
2. "This book": The Apostle John, of course, was referring to HIS "book": The "book" we call Revelation, or The Revelation of John. The "book" that we call the Bible was non-existent at the time.
3. CHRIST DID NOT LEAVE US A BIBLE. A plain fact of history. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find His command to Write. The command was to Teach. See here (http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).
4. The "Catholic Church" changed nothing. The order of the 10 Commandments is how it was in the Septuagint, which is what the Apostles, in the books of the New Testament, quoted 75% of the time.

Did I miss anything? Facts and History speak louder than zeal every time.

No "tone" is intended here at all. I do not intend to disparage in any way. I am very eager to discuss and debate issues such as these. I am always happy to "agree to disagree" when the disagreement is based on different interpretations of the facts... but when one makes claims that have no basis in fact, then that's where my weakness at tact and diplomacy sometimes falls short.

In my 5000+ posts here on this site I have not referred to my own site on more than 2-3 occasions, so I'll take this liberty. Check this out and learn a bit about what Catholic Christians are really taught before presuming that what you are told we are taught is correct: Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apolgetics (http://www.catholictruths.com)

PS/Olive Branch :) : I take back my "sect" comment.

I am sure that you are aware that there are over 30,000 groups that claim to follow the teachings of Christ. With which one are you a member of?

VERY interesting!

1. Christians have worshiped on Sunday for nearly 2000 years now.
2. "This book": The Apostle John, of course, was referring to HIS "book": The "book" we call Revelation, or The Revelation of John. The "book" that we call the Bible was non-existent at the time.
3. CHRIST DID NOT LEAVE US A BIBLE. A plain fact of history. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find His command to Write. The command was to Teach. See here (http://www.catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).
4. The "Catholic Church" changed nothing. The order of the 10 Commandments is how it was in the Septuagint, which is what the Apostles, in the books of the New Testament, quoted 75% of the time.

Did I miss anything? Facts and History speak louder than zeal every time.

No "tone" is intended here at all. I do not intend to disparage in any way. I am very eager to discuss and debate issues such as these. I am always happy to "agree to disagree" when the disagreement is based on different interpretations of the facts...but when one makes claims that have no basis in fact, then that's where my weakness at tact and diplomacy sometimes falls short.

In my 5000+ posts here on this site I have not referred to my own site on more than 2-3 occasions, so I'll take this liberty. Check this out and learn a bit about what Catholic Christians are really taught before presuming that what you are told we are taught is correct: Catholic Truths: Ecumenical Apolgetics (http://www.catholictruths.com)



That's exacly what I mean. I do not need to read what your interpretation is (no offense), I only follow where the Lamb leads. Did you expect someone to be walking around writing down what Jesus did and his disciples and what they did not do? Does the creator not have the power to control what was going to be written in the bible which most of us use? Not the Catholic bible.

According to Dan's prophecy
Dan 7:25 "He will change the set times and laws"
Which is exacly what Constantine did in AD325 in the council on Nicea by abolishing Sabbath worship and Passover and replacing it with communion and christmas.

And that's a historic fact as well isn't it? Wasn't Constantine the founder of the Roman Catholic Church? Wasn't he the Pontifex Maximus which is the title of the Pope? Wasn't he (Constantine) a High priest for the Pagan God the "Unconquered Sun" ? It was prophesied friend. Did he not establish the Roman Catholic Church?


Set Time & Law: Sabbath Day (Saturdays) & Passover

Mat 5:17

""Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets(Old Testament); I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

If you want to continue follow your own thoughts rather than Christ's. No scholar or Theology can give you salvation by what they think. Only God by what it is. God Bless You!

Ok, then... since you will not answer my questions, let me try this angle:

Someone approaches you on the street and says that he thinks Christ's teachings are the ones he ought to follow - and asks you for advice on which of the tens of thousands of groups who "follow Christ" he should seek for more information.

What do you tell him?

Or:

He tells you that he believes the Bible to be the inspired Word of God without error but he has problems interpreting some of it's passages - and wants some guidance on who, or what Church, teaches correct interpretation of it.

What do you tell him?

Please don't tell me that you'd tell him that the Spirit will guide him to truth. Surely we both agree that's not the answer, right?

Ok, then...since you will not answer my questions, let me try this angle:

Someone approaches you on the street and says that he thinks Christ's teachings are the ones he ought to follow - and asks you for advice on which of the tens of thousands of groups who "follow Christ" he should seek for more information.

What do you tell him?

Or:

He tells you that he believes the Bible to be the inspired Word of God without error but he has problems interpreting some of it's passages - and wants some guidance on who, or what Church, teaches correct interpretation of it.

What do you tell him?

Please don't tell me that you'd tell him that the Spirit will guide him to truth. Surely we both agree that's not the answer, right?


No, I'd not tell him that the Spirit will guide him because we all know God will send him help somehow. I wouldn't tell him what I think. If he has questions about certain verses or prophecies, first I'd pray so that God can give me the wisdom to preach to that person correctly so that they may understand and show him the mate for the prophecies he's lacking in understanding. In other words, every verse has it's mate. All the answers are found in the bible but not in chronological order as we would want it. But, we also agree that we should only follow Christ and not a certain church right? Because I obviously belong to a church, but it is not because of the church itself that I attend, but because of the truth. They have never answered me without using the bible. They have even shown me why the water evaporates, through the bible.

When people leave it to what they think the Spirit is guiding them, then they just potentially add to the thousands of various interpretations. Again, see here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).

So all answers are found in the Bible? Please show us where the Bible says that "all answers are in the Bible". It is, in fact, an impossibility since "the Bible" was did not even exist when the writers of what we call The New Testament were writing.

The Bible, in fact, teaches otherwise: See here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html). That is a fact that anyone can read for himself in the Bible.

I both agree and disagre on your last statement. Yes, we agree that the fullness of God's special revelation to mankind is in Christ, but anyone who reads the Bible cover to cover must also agree: The Bible is not (and cannot be because even it says so) the sole rule of faith for a follower of Christ. See here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).

In case you have not or will not read the "see here" links, let me clarify from "your" Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as "the Bible alone".

When people leave it to what they think the Spirit is guiding them, then they just potentially add to the thousands of various interpretations. Again, see here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).

So all answers are found in the Bible? Please show us where the Bible says that "all answers are in the Bible". It is, in fact, an impossibility since "the Bible" was did not even exist when the writers of what we call The New Testament were writing.

The Bible, in fact, teaches otherwise: See here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html). That is a fact that anyone can read for himself in the Bible.

I both agree and disagre on your last statement. Yes, we agree that the fullness of God's special revelation to mankind is in Christ, but anyone who reads the Bible cover to cover must also agree: The Bible is not (and cannot be because even it says so) the sole rule of faith for a follower of Christ. See here (http://catholictruths.com/articles/solascriptura.html).

In case you have not or will not read the "see here" links, let me clarify from "your" Bible:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

The Bible is indeed the Word of God and without error, but neither Christ nor the Bible teach such an idea as "the Bible alone".



Well, the bible prophesying about the changes of the set times and laws and the Catholic church fulfilling the prophesy doesn't seem to interest you at all huh? You just want to sort of change people's taught with what you think is right rather than what God think is right. How can you say that the bible alone is not enough? The bible alone is the way of salvation. Not what others have to say. Because the reliable man qualified to teach others is the one whom teaches straight from the bible.

Mat 15:3
3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[a] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[c]' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8" 'These people honor me with their lips,
But their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
[B] their teachings are but rules taught by men.


The teachings passed down were the teachings of Christ which came from the bible and himself. Not teachings taugh by men. Did the apostles ever refer to any other books other than the bible? What did they teach? Passover or communion? Sabbath or Sunday worship? It is not me with whom you disagree with for I am only using God's judgment. Follow God and brake your own concepts please. Take care, and I hope the Spirit and the bride open your spiritual eyes to understand the bible from a spiritual point of view rather than physical. Have a nice one! God Bless You!

Not to offend you Catholics out there but, the church has a long and colorful history of this sort of thing and many others. I belong to no organised religion simply because I get really bad "vibes" from all of them. The thing is I beleive that the Catholic Church is really a cover for evil and that Satan has his throne somewhere in the Vatican. If you look at Mexico, where people are starving, they are told to have more children since it is a blessing from GOD. Now 99 percent of Mexicans there are starving and coming to America. Why does the Catholic church turn it's back on them and not help them? At least the Mormans will give you something to eat! Carl Marx predicted that America would be a Spanish speaking country in the future...much to the delight of the Catholic church! The Catholic church is trying to populate the world with Catholics just as the Mormon church is trying to populate the world with Mormons! You may hate my opinion and even hate me personally for my opinion but I know for a fact that the leaders of these organisations are doing more harm to the world and the people of it than they are doing good. The longer they can keep us brainwashed the longer they will sit on high suppressing anything they do not want us to know and telling us anything that keeps us docile. There is only ONE TRUTH in the entire universe and that truth is inside each and every one of us. Untill we find that and come together as a complete community on our own and for the good of all, these tyrants will keep this world just as it is today...one big mess!:mad:

Indeed, you are correct according to the bible. Just think about it. God specifically tells us not to worship idols because it shows him hate and makes him jealous?

Ex 20:4

"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments."

But isn't that what they are famous for? Their virgin Mary's and saint this and saint that. According to God saints are those whom obey his commandments, not brake them:)

Where are you located?

So no cross in your church, will?

Much of what you say goes against even most Protestant groups. What group are you with? Let me guess: none. Your own interpretation of it all?

So no cross in your church, will?

Much of what you say goes against even most Protestant groups. What group are you with? Let me guess: none. Your own interpretation of it all?


Have I added my interpretation or have I quoted the bible every time? I do not belong to a protestant group for they also keep Sunday worship, which they got from the mother church.
I am not a 7th day adventist either for they keep 6th & 7th Day instead of just the 7th day holy.

No cross at my church, no idols whatsoever. Some churches have a cross and claim "it's not an idol, we don't worship it"
Let's see what God has to say:

Jer 10
Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.

2 This is what the LORD says:


"Do not learn the ways of the nations
Or be terrified by signs in the sky,
Though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
They cut a tree out of the forest,
And a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. (Idols)

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
They fasten it with hammer and nails
So it will not totter. (Idols)

5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, (Jesus on cross idol)
Their idols cannot speak;
They must be carried
Because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
They can do no harm
Nor can they do any good."


Think about it. God said "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch" Isn't the scarecrow figure the same as when Jesus was on the cross? No Difference!
The saints in the vatican, aren't they full of gold and silver to make them valuable? Aren't they made out out of wood as well, and also carried?

Why you guys insist that it's my interpretation when it's clearly the word of God? Why can't you just believe what God says? I am not here to argue.
It's up to you to believe Christ, NOT ME! like many others in this website trying to add their own teaching. Can man save another man? No way! Only
God can give eternal life.

Maybe we should throw out the parts of Scripture, then, that talk of the value of apostolic tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

...and insert the parts you wish were in there, like how Christ told the apostles to write a Bible - and that the Bible is the sole authority.

Maybe we should throw out the parts of Scripture, then, that talk of the value of apostolic tradition:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
" So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

1 Corinthians 11:2
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings, just as I passed them on to you."

2 Timothy 1:13-14
"What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus.Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us."

2 Timothy 2:1-2
"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others."

...and insert the parts you wish were in there, like how Christ told the apostles to write a Bible - and that the Bible is the sole authority.


It's ironic you completely ignore the entire idolatry issue among other things that through the scriptures I have mentioned like Sabbath and Passover. You want to keep jumping from one thing to another because you want to show people what you think, not what God thinks. So sad.

Jude

"In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" 10Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them."

for example... what day of the week is the 7th day? everyone will say right away "Sunday", but actually when you look in a dictionary, it's Saturday:) Even through history we can understand that Constantine the founder of the Catholic Church was the one that made of these changes in AD325 Nice Council. Want proof? I think since you are such faithful Catholic are aware of these facts. When I ask, "Did Jesus celebrate communion" right away "Yes" but yet, you will not even find the word communion in the bible, how come? Because Jesus celebrated the Passover and went to church on Saturdays (Sabbath Day). They know by instinct not by the word of God which is the only truth. With that I conclude all I had to say.

I am not Catholic, but on the point of Sabbath keeping, Will, I suggest you re-read Paul's letter to the Galatians. The whole point of that letter was that the Galatians, having begun in faith had started to try to be perfect by keeping the law. Paul flatly states that if you keep one point of the Law, you must keep ALL points of the Law. If you think keeping the Sabbath, or Passover will save you, then know that no one was justified by keeping the Law. Read Galatians again, keeping in mind that Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Excellent points galveston.

Will, I am no expert on Bible Prophecy... and in a group of people who claim to be there will be so many differences in what it means.

All who read the same Bible (and I am happy to use whatever version you use) will come up with different meanings...

So lets look at where we agree:
1. The New Testament is the group of books that we agree were written by Christians who were inspired by God - and those writings are without error right?

... then I ask you Who Says these books are Scripture? Nowhere in these writings are these writings identified as Scripture, so we must accept someone's judgment. Who's judgment are you trusting that they are Scripture?

I find it interesting that you accept this Canon that was agreed upon by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago.

2. Who were good Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. centuries?

Can you point me to a Christian teacher of the 2nd century onward who I might read to learn more about this version of Christianity that you espouse?

Great points again Rick!

Will144-

I greatly respect your zeal and love for God. I just think the premise for witch you interpret the Bible is flawed.

You say we can only go by God's word, witch is in the Bible, not by what man says. However, every book in the Bible does not say it is the word of God. Therefore would it be unbiblical to say the Bible is the word of God? For me that just doesn't reason. I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Church said it was at the council of Carthage.

I would also add that the information you are receiving concerning history is greatly incorrect. “Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church.” What? That's like saying Benjamin Franklin was the first President of the USA. I think it would be a good idea to cross check your info with more than one source.

Great points again Rick!

Will144-

I greatly respect your zeal and love for God. I just think the premise for witch you interpret the Bible is flawed.

You say we can only go by God's word, witch is in the Bible, not by what man says. However, each and every book in the Bible does not say it is the word of God. Therefore would it be unbiblical to say the Bible is the word of God? For me that just doesn't reason. I believe the Bible is the word of God because the Church said it was at the council of Carthage.

I would also add that the information you are receiving concerning history is greatly incorrect. “Constantine was the founder of the Catholic Church.” What? That's like saying Benjamin Franklin was the first President of the USA. I think it would be a good idea to cross check your info with more than one source.


If you have a secretary and you tell her to type a letter. Who signs it? You or the secretary? Who's word is it? The secretary's or yours? Who approves it, the secretary or you? Who's the boss? The secretary or you? And if she does not follow what you told her to do, won't you fire her? In the same way, the bible was written by people approved by God. The creator has control over the creatures, don't you think? What these men wrote in the bible is approved by God most High! It is God's word because the Spirit told them what to write, it's not their own interpretation or prophesies. So if the church says to you "Commit suicide and you will go to heaven" you will do so as well I suppose? That is the problem with people, they follow what churches and different religions say rather than the very word of God. It is so sad with this generations. No wonder God chose the foolish of the world to embarrass the wise, and the weak to destroy the strong, because people believe they have salvation by following their own ideas and churches rather than the bible itself which is the very word of God!

Who was the first pope? Wasn't it your father Constantine who gave himself the title of Pontifex Maximus for the papacy and was a High Priest for the Sun God rather than God's? And changed all the laws of God by coming up with his own which is something that now people follow (Sunday worship, christmas, the list goes on) instead of Sabbath and Passover? Even the churches that call themselves christian churches, did they not brake off from the Catholic Church and kept the same teachings? Like one of your cardinals wrote in a book "it's like a boy running away from home but still keeping a picture of his mother" You claim that by grace you'll be saved, then how do you explain Mat 7:21-22? Clearly, there is a God's will that we need to follow which is Sabbath and Passover rather than man-made traditions. Even the apostles kept the Sabbath. Of course they had God's grace, that is because they followed the commandments of God. How can you dare saying the only reason you believe the word of God is the bible is because a church said so? I will pray to God to enlightens your path and enable you to understand the humble way of Jesus Christ. You have heard the truth, it is up to you whether to believe it or not. God Bless all of you. I did not come on this forum to argue but to make things more clear through the word of God, but obviously you think it is my own teachings rather than Christ's. It is not my teachings that you reject but God's, for I cannot teach anything and I have no wisdom; but God can surely show me how to do these things.

One last thing, I find it ironic the Catholic Church calls priests "Father" when Jesus clearly said:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

But yet you call your priests father? Obviously you have a physical father and even to them you say "dad" rather than father. How can you call someone else a father who isn't God?

God Bless.

Who was the first pope? Wasn't it your father Constantine who gave himself the title of Pontifex Maximus for the papacy and was a High Priest for the Sun God rather than God's?

I can clearly see that we differ on so many doctrines. I do not want to argue over that either. This debate could go on for ever. I would still point out; however, Constantine was not the first pope. I know you won’t accept that Peter was the first pope, but Constantine was absolutely not the first pope. If you like you can read about him at this site.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm

May the love of Christ be with you:)

Excellent points galveston.

Will, I am no expert on Bible Prophecy...and in a group of people who claim to be there will be so many differences in what it means.

All who read the same Bible (and I am happy to use whatever version you use) will come up with different meanings...

So lets look at where we agree:
1. The New Testament is the group of books that we agree were written by Christians who were inspired by God - and those writings are without error right?

...then I ask you Who Says these books are Scripture? Nowhere in these writings are these writings identified as Scripture, so we must accept someone's judgment. Who's judgment are you trusting that they are Scripture?

I find it interesting that you accept this Canon that was agreed upon by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago.

2. Who were good Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. centuries?

Can you point me to a Christian teacher of the 2nd century onward who I might read to learn more about this version of Christianity that you espouse?

Not in disagreement with you, but just to point out:
2 Pet 3:15-16
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
(KJV)

In this passage, Peter calls Paul's writings scripture, so we have at least one occurrence of something in the N.T. being called "scripture".

Have I added my interpretation or have I quoted the bible every time? I do not belong to a protestant group for they also keep Sunday worship, which they got from the mother church.
I am not a 7th day adventist either for they keep 6th & 7th Day instead of just the 7th day holy.

no cross at my church, no idols whatsoever. Some churches have a cross and claim "it's not an idol, we don't worship it"
Let's see what God has to say:

Jer 10
Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel.

2 This is what the LORD says:


"Do not learn the ways of the nations
or be terrified by signs in the sky,
though the nations are terrified by them.

3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. (Idols)

4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter. (Idols)

5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, (Jesus on cross idol)
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good."


Think about it. God said "Like a scarecrow in a melon patch" Isn't the scarecrow figure the same as when Jesus was on the cross? No Difference!
The saints in the vatican, aren't they full of gold and silver to make them valuable? Aren't they made out out of wood as well, and also carried?

Why you guys insist that it's my interpretation when it's clearly the word of God? Why can't you just beleive what God says? I am not here to argue.
It's up to you to believe Christ, NOT ME!, like many others in this website trying to add their own teaching. Can man save another man? No way! Only
God can give eternal life.

Superb Will! The truth! Most are so brainwashed that they cannot see it and then the rest just go with the popular consensus so they can fit in. When one thinks for himself, he begins to see the lies that have been propagated since the year 0034! Thank you.

It's clear that we each see a little bit different of an angle on what various passages mean in the big picture.

The 2Peter reference is obscure at best. Surely we agree that it comes nowhere close to naming what they considered the body of Scripture at the time.

History shows us clearly that the canon of the NT was not solidified until about 300 years after Christ.

And by "solidified" the plain truth is that it was the Catholic Church that affirmed it.

I am happy that most Christians at least agree with this.

Even Martin Luther had to give credit where credit is due:


"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics, that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; furthermore, we would know nothing at all about the Bible if it were not for the Catholics" (Luther: Commentary on John)

And recognizing the damage that he had begun in seeing "denominations" popping up all over the place:


"Who called you to do things such as no man ever before?...Are you infallible?...Are you alone wise and are all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries are wrong?...Go back, go back; submit, submit. (Grisar Hartman, Luther, Herder Book Co., 1914)

So where do we go besides the prayer closet when we don't understand?

Again I ask what I ask often but rarely get an answer...

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?

I can only guess the reason that this question is not often answered is because Christ's Church was for the most part unified during that period. Anyone named during that period will be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox - and teach against the new doctrines that sprang up as a result of so many grabbing onto Sola Scriptura.

The Catholic Church COULD be evil. All kinds of things could be all kinds of things, but what is the point of COULDING?

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?


A body has to be hard nosed and/or ignorant not to give credit where it is due. Millions of Catholics in your time frame made significant and durable contributions to the well being of humanity. How can anyone engaging in Christian conversation not know that?

Just to mention a few...

Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), the Master theologian of the Catholic Church. Thomas saw salvation as a cooperative effort between God and sinners.

Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109), whose work on the atonement laid the foundation for the Reformation.

The Venerable Bede (672-735)

St. Augustine of Canterbury (597-604)

Bernard of Clairvaux (1090?-1153)

Thomas à Kempis (1380-1471)

Yes, they can... and they do every day. Just look at all of the garbage in this thread.

There are just too many Anti's out there that are more interested in bashing someone for what they THINK they believe then digging into history and reality to see that the differences are far less than they realized.

Let's all try some Ecumenical Apologetics instead of judging others.

It's clear that we each see a little bit different of an angle on what various passages mean in the big picture.

The 2Peter reference is obscure at best. Surely we agree that it comes nowhere close to naming what they considered the body of Scripture at the time.

History shows us clearly that the canon of the NT was not solidified until about 300 years after Christ.

And by "solidified" the plain truth is that it was the Catholic Church that affirmed it.

I am happy that most Christians at least agree with this.

Even Martin Luther had to give credit where credit is due:
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics, that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; furthermore, we would know nothing at all about the Bible if it were not for the Catholics" (Luther: Commentary on John)and recognizing the damage that he had begun in seeing "denominations" popping up all over the place:

"Who called you to do things such as no man ever before?...Are you infallible?...Are you alone wise and are all others mistaken? Is it likely that so many centuries are wrong?...Go back, go back; submit, submit. (Grisar Hartman, Luther, Herder Book Co., 1914)So where do we go besides the prayer closet when we don't understand?

Again I ask what I ask often but rarely get an answer...

Can any non-Catholic name some good Christians of between the 2nd and 14th centuries or so?

I can only guess the reason that this question is not often answered is because Christ's Church was for the most part unified during that period. Anyone named during that period will be either Catholic or Eastern Orthodox - and teach against the new doctrines that sprang up as a result of so many grabbing onto Sola Scriptura.

The Old Testament was canonized by the Jews. The thirty-nine books which it contains today were not all canonized at one time, but they became canonical (or holy scripture) gradually as the people accepted each of them as authoritative. By the time that Christ came into the world, most of them were completely canonized and all of them were regarded with high respect, alhtough they were not then collected into one book.

However, it was not until the end of the first century A. D. and beginning of the second that Jewish councils met and officially sanctioned the canonization of these books. In the words of Dr. George L. Robinson:

According to certain traditions preserved in the Mishna, two councils of Jewish rabbis were held in 90 and 118 A. D., respectively, at Jabne, or Jamnia, not far south of Joppa, near the Mediterranean coast, at which the books of the Old Testament, notably Ecclesiastes and Canticles, were discussed and their canonicity ratified… . In these councils the canon was formally and officially restricted to our thirty-nine books. It is, therefore, possible that at Jamnia the limits of the Hebrew canon were officially and finally determined by Jewish authority; not, however, that official sanction created public opinion, but rather only confirmed it.

Catholics accept a "larger canon of scripture" than most Protestants, namely, the apocryphal books in addition to the thirty-nine in our Old Testament. These seven books deal with Jewish history and doctrine written between the Old and New Testaments. In this "larger canon" there are seven complete books and portions of two others in addition to the "smaller canon."

These books are:

Tobit,
Judith,
Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus,
Baruch,
First and Second Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther and to Daniel.

When Jerome translated the Hebrew scriptures into Latin about 400 A. D. he translated these extra books. They were not accepted immediately by the Catholic Church, however, as holy scripture but as time passed they gradually won universal approval. The final and absolute seal of the Catholic Church was placed upon the apocryphal books at two councils, one held in the fifteenth century and the other in the sixteenth.

At the Council of Florence (1442), however, a new step was taken in the direction of their [apocryphal books] canonization, when "Eugenius IV, with the approval of the Fathers of that august assembly, declared all the books found in the Latin Bibles then in use to be inspired by the same Holy Spirit, without distinguishing them into classes or categories." Though this bull of Pope Eugenius IV did not deal with the canonicity of the apocryphal books, it did proclaim their inspiration; so that men ever afterwards were able to claim that all of the books of the Old Testament, the apocryphal as well as the canonical were equally inspired. Nevertheless, down to the Council of Trent (1546), the apocryphal books possessed only inferior canonical authority; and when men spoke of canonical scripture in the strict sense, these were not included… .

Accordingly, the Council of Trent … decreed at their fourth sitting, April 8, 1546, that the apocryphal books were equal in authority and canonical value to the other books of sacred Scripture.

The Apocrypha was included in the early editions of the King James Version of the Bible, but later editions omitted it. Finally, after the Protestant Reformation had been consummated, the Protestant churches rejected the Apocrypha as scripture and accepted the size of the Old Testament canon as thirty-nine books, the exact books that the Jews had canonized back near the time of the days of the Lord.

Even at this late date, although the canon has been officially closed since Jamnia, fresh moves to have recent discoveriers accorded the same respect and inspiration as the older books, and the restoring to canonisation of some that were rejected by earlier decisions, are pressing for the canon to be opened to admit other writings and Logias. Who would object that that?

M:)

Excellent material, Morganite... but I will add:

There is much debate over this.

Many do not know that 85% of the quotes of Scripture in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contained the "deuterocanonical" books. These "extra" books were there long before Jerome.

The apostles were quoting from Scripture that did contain them.

Many agree that at Jamnia the deuterocanonicals were thrown out to further separate themselves from the Jews who followed Christ.

Entire volumes have been written on this issue, so I cannot do justice to it here, and at the same time I realize that it is not a key point for justification of including the deuterocanonicals as Scripture, but I think it worth pointing out.

PS. Missing from the above is what the Church in general accepted long before Florence.

Tobit, Judith, et al were accepted by Christians by about 300AD.

Yes, they can...and they do every day. Just look at all of the garbage in this thread.

There are just too many Anti's out there that are more interested in bashing someone for what they THINK they believe then digging into history and reality to see that the differences are far less than they realized.

Let's all try some Ecumenical Apologetics instead of judging others.


And what do you call your church keeping idols? Is that God's will? I love the fact that you don't even mention it. Is there any reason to worship idols when according to God we shouldn't? God said "You should have no gods before me" gods with lower g, there is one God, but you guys have gods! In other words, not the real God, creator God, but gods that can't speak or do anything because according to the Creator they are "worthless". Isn't that more like God's thinking rather than our own thinking? According to the bible, isn't it clear that people who worship, bow down to, and praising idols show hate to God?(Ex 20:4) and you have the guts to say "there are just too many anti's?" when the church you belong to practice these things that are detestable and hated by Creator God? Isn't idolatry an ANTI-CHRIST act as well, and yet your church is known for that?

Open your eyes, see things from Christ's point of view rather than from the church's point of view.

Catholics do not worship idols.

Again, you're just spouting anti-Catholic rhetoric that you've been taught.

Bash bash bash but don't answer questions or back claims. That's the only way Anti's can work since they're not arguing from fact or truth. You're not interested in learning what Christians have done for the past 2000 years... you're just interested in bashing Catholics.

In the event you want to read some truth, read this:
Do Catholics Worship Statues? (http://www.catholic.com/library/do_catholics_worship_statues.asp)

Catholics do not worship idols.

Again, you're just spouting anti-Catholic rhetoric that you've been taught.

Bash bash bash but don't answer questions or back claims. That's the only way Anti's can work since they're not arguing from fact or truth. You're not interested in learning what Christians have done for the past 2000 years...you're just interested in bashing Catholics.

In the event you want to read some truth, read this:
Do Catholics Worship Statues? (http://www.catholic.com/library/do_catholics_worship_statues.asp)

Sure... Let's see here


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_worship.jpg

http://www.ciai-s.net/madonnafatima.gif

http://propheticverses.com/images/img01/img0101/img0101d/idolworship.jpg

http://www.biblelight.net/idol1cp.jpg

Ex 20:4

Don't bow down to them nor worship them nor serve them. But yet the pope does it?
You can deny it as much as you want, but your father, the pope does it. Isn't he the head of the church?
What do you call that? Isn't that the pope and your very people bowing down to and worshiping idols?


By the way, you are in error. You think it was the bronze snake that cured the Israelites from the snake bite? No way, it was not the snake
But the very WORD OF GOD! When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree, you think it was the fruit itself that was poisonous
NO! It's God's word, because God Said so. Why is it so hard for you to understand that is what God said not the objects that God used. God said "Do not add
do not take away" You guys can come up with as many "worldly" excuses as you want, but God already knew from the beginning this was going to happen and
Warned us ahead of time. But some choose to still do it. I have not been taught "anti-catholic" as you call it, I've been taught through the bible, something that when I went
To Catholich church I never used because the priests usually hands out little booklets. Specially with your pagan holidays, like Christmas which is really more like Christ's - Mass, and
Easter, Thanksgiving among other pagan holidays you have welcomed into your church other than God's feasts.

I can not attest to what Catholics may do, only what the church teaches. The catechism is clear and explains what the church teaches about not worshiping idols. Paragraphs 2149-2132 of the catechism explains this well.

Will, you bash and condemn what you do not understand.

Worse yet, you keep quoting bible verses that we believe too. We use the same Bible you do, Will.

It really comes down to authority. Who do you rely on for what it all means? Don't say the Spirit, because it's impossible that only you are hearing Him right.

What the Catholic faith teaches is available for all in the Catechism, which is here (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm). None of it contradicts the Bible.

You have tactfully hidden the group that you belong to. What is it and where is it that we can learn what you believe?

Seems you have the same problem as in other forums, those that come to get people hyped up and love to see there own stuff in print and the reactions of others.

Magprob started this with bang, and we have heard a lot from Catholics, as may be expected. I don't think any group should be condemned for the actions of a minority of that group. Words like intolerant, and persecuted have shown up in these and similar threads, and I would like to say something about that before I come to my main point. Personally, I do not think I have been persecuted just because you disagree with me, however warmly you do it. Only if you have attempted to deprive me of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness have you persecuted me.
Now, I want to talk about the Pope from the Pentecostal's perspective. Catholics view him as the vicar of Christ. I believe this is arrogant. How can you believe that Christ can be represented by a single human being?
1 Cor 12:27
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(KJV)
Unless you disregard this verse, you have to concede that the Church is the representative of Christ, not any individual. How can this be?
Luke 4:17-18
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(KJV)
Notice that Jesus claims the anointing of the Holy Spirit for the work He will do. Now turn to Acts, ch. 2 and read what happened to the obedient believers on that day. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Watch this closely, when Jesus was on Earth, He could only be one place at a time. After He sent the Holy Ghost back to His disciples, He could be any place that one of them was, because the same Spirit He operated in was now in His disciples. Any church without the living presence of the Holy Ghost has no credentials to offer to an unbelieving world. Hence, I reject the idea that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. Further, the idea that he is infallible (ex cathedra) was not even formalized until 1870.

I am convinced that magprob started this half sarcastically. I hope I am not wrong, but I do not believe that he thinks a group is evil just because of the evil deeds of one of it's members. I'm convinced that he knows well that members of his own faith have committed evil acts.

Have any of you ever read Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy? He was a contemporary of President Lincoln. It makes interesting reading, and I think you can get it on line. Not sure about that though.

Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest, wrote a book (1885) titled Fifty Years in the Church of Rome in which he made many scandalous allegations against the Catholic Church, including the accusation that the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 had been the result of a conspiracy by the Catholic Church, and that the assassin John Wilkes Booth was a Catholic who had been corrupted and led by the Vatican to commit the murder. Chiniquy, who had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 1858, claimed that "emissaries of the Pope" had promised Booth "a crown of glory in heaven" for the killing of Lincoln. According to Chiniquy, the assassination was perpetrated by the Church in revenge for Lincoln's defense of Chiniquy in a 1856 lawsuit. Chiniquy's writings are still widely distributed and promoted, in books and on webpages, and eagerly devoured and believed by the gullible.


M:)RGANITE - a sucker for the truth

It's too bad that there are so many gullable suckers out there that this sort of thing is still read and taken as truth.

Sure... Let's see here


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/pope_worship.jpg

http://www.ciai-s.net/madonnafatima.gif

http://propheticverses.com/images/img01/img0101/img0101d/idolworship.jpg

http://www.biblelight.net/idol1cp.jpg

Ex 20:4

don't bow down to them nor worship them nor serve them. But yet the pope does it?
you can deny it as much as you want, but your father, the pope does it. Isn't he the head of the church?
what do you call that? Isn't that the pope and your very people bowing down to and worshiping idols?


By the way, you are in error. You think it was the bronze snake that cured the Israelites from the snake bite? No way, it was not the snake
but the very WORD OF GOD! When God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree, you think it was the fruit itself that was poisonous
NO! It's God's word, because God Said so. Why is it so hard for you to understand that is what God said not the objects that God used. God said "Do not add
do not take away" You guys can come up with as many "worldly" excuses as you want, but God already knew from the beginning this was going to happen and
warned us ahead of time. But some choose to still do it. I have not been taught "anti-catholic" as you call it, I've been taught through the bible, something that when I went
to Catholich church I never used because the priests usually hands out little booklets. Specially with your pagan holidays, like Christmas which is really more like Christ's - Mass, and
Easter, Thanksgiving among other pagan holidays you have welcomed into your church other than God's feasts.


I am surprised and disappointed at this acrimonious attack on the Catholic faith, and find it incredible that any intelligent person accepts that either the Holy Father or other Catholics worship idols. They use statuary as devotional aids, but no Catholic ever prayed to the statue or idol believing it to occupy the place of the deity it represents. That is both a distortion and a misrepresentation. I know that you did not find this vitriol in the Word of God that instructs us to regard all others as we regard ourselves, even though they atr enot of our denomination.

As for Christmass, Easter, and other Holy Days being pagan in origin, that is a claim that is made only by the intellectually lazy and ignorant. I regret having to say this Will but you have the tone of a bigot in this matter, and repeat the words of other bigots. If you will familiarise yourself with ecclesiastical history you will discover that although some Christian festuivals coincide with some old pagan days, that synchronicity is either coincidental, or else it was done to replace the pagan feast with a Christian one. What would you have done? Instituted a Millennial dawn on a pagan day?

It is unchristian to deal thus with other Christians. Whatever will you say next to prove that you have the Truth, and no one else has it? Will you say that Christendom is wrong altogether, and will you blame it on Constantine? Will you also say that the number of those who will be saved is twelve thousand times twelve?

In the matter of the bronze serpent, it was not God's Word that saved the people but the obedience of those who obeyed God's Word. God's Word also says that we are not to bear false witness. Spreading false information is bearing false witness and is also disobedient to God's Word.


M:)RGANITE

How can you believe that Christ can be represented by a single human being?
.
Consider this:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.


Jesus clearly believed that he could appoint others to represent him, individually, rather than corporately (a canmel is a horse designed by a comittee). The Bishop of Rome is the leader of the RCC, and one of several metropolitan bishops, but recognised as primus inter pares.

You might believe that Jesus said something wrong, but for those who believe that jesus was not mistaken it is quite normal to have Jesus represented by his ministers. Jesus underlines his transmission of authority in another passage:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


I anot a Catholic, Roman or otherwise, but it does itk me to see them castigated for something they do not do, and to be charged with sins they do not have. No Christian would speak lies of another faith or person without becoming absolutely certain of their facts, and that does not happen if the only source of information one obtains about one's enemies is from the lips and hands of other enemies.


Who shall ascend unto the hill (Temple) of Jehovah,
And who shall stand in the Holy Place?
He that has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul unto vanity
Nor sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive the blessing from the LORD,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.


So it is written - so mote it be.


M:mad:ORGANITE

And what do you call your church keeping idols? Is that God's will? I love the fact that you don't even mention it. Is there any reason to worship idols when according to God we shouldn't? God said "You should have no gods before me" gods with lower g, there is one God, but you guys have gods! In other words, not the real God, creator God, but gods that can't speak or do anything because according to the Creator they are "worthless". Isn't that more like God's thinking rather than our own thinking? according to the bible, isn't it clear that people who worship, bow down to, and praising idols show hate to God?(Ex 20:4) and you have the guts to say "there are just too many anti's?" when the church you belong to practice these things that are detestable and hated by Creator God? Isn't idolatry an ANTI-CHRIST act as well, and yet your church is known for that?

Open your eyes, see things from Christ's point of view rather than from the church's point of view.
Are you one of the Watchtower's Warriors? I have asked you to name your denomination because you, promote it as the only truth of all religions, but you seem too ashamed to menation it? Is your sola veritas such a frightful and frightening thing that it requires its adherents to heap insult on the heads and hearts of others as they make them guess at what devilment could prioduce it? Devil worship?

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

In other words, no need to change the bible or come up with your own bibles.

Will, stop it! You make of yourself a hostage to ill fortune and falsehood. Let us consider the quote from John that you claim seals the canon of the Holy Bible once and for all. Although your quotation is taken from the Jehovah's Witnesses own version of the Bible (which is certainlty not the one Jesus left behind, because Jesus didn't leave behind a Bible), yet it is sufficiently faithful to the original for the purpose of you being brought to an understanding of what it really means.

As a starting point, such a statement would only be applicable to the Bible if the Bible was extant when John penned those lines. Because the Bible was not yet set in order and agreed upon at the date of its writing (circa AD 96), it cannot be taken to mean that it was aimed at the Bible.

What is does refer to is the book of John's writing and prophecy, commonly called in English, "The Book of the Revelation of St John."

The caution against adding or subtracting material is an ancient formulaic devioce that was commonly applied to an individual's writings when they thought their work suffieicntly important to be saved for future use.

If your definition is to be believed, than everything in the Bible after the Deuteronomy would have to be discarded because the same formula is found there.

Besides which, the translatiors of the Watchtower Bible had distorted the scripture and added into the verses you quote something that does not exist in the original MSS.

The Greek has "if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book."

It says BOOK OF LIFE (biblos ton zoe), and the only possile translation of biblos are: a written book, a roll, or a scroll. There is no tree, so your scriptures have added something that is not there, is not justified, and will, if the scripture be true, attract the condemnation and plagues of God. That is what happens when those with no facility at biblical languaghes undertake to revise the English text along lines suggested by Paton, Russell, and Rutherford.

That you find fault with the pope is stunning because JWs have one of the most autocratic and authoritative leadership structures in all of Christendom. It is odd that you pretend to stand in the tradition of Chjrist, but you condier Christ a created being, and have even changed John 1.1-3 to reflect your peculiar christology rather than the original text. Not one ancient MS conforms to your theological emendation of this passage.

For someone who does not believ in the divinity of Jesus to comlaiun that someone claims to be his representative is quite extraordinary. You say that Jesus was an archangel before ehe was born as a ordinary mortal, and make yourselves equal with Jesus as joint sacrificers, mediators, and reconcilers, so he is no big deal.

Russel said:

The ransom for all given by the man Christ Jesus does not give or gurantee everlasting life or bloessing to any man; but it does guarantee to every man anothe ropportunity or trial for life everlasting.

To the JWs, Jesu is now just naothe rbusinessm,an: "The Chief Executive Officer of Jehovah."

You have here exhibited the loveless condemnation of other Christians as devil-controlled. A group that claims to be Christian that is yet so vicious in its attitude to others who follow Christ is guilty of an inner contradiction, for its spirit denies it profession of faith.

Your 'new revelation' fails on four main counts. Your doctrines are based on arbitrary interpretations of a few prooftexts. Those interpetations are usually out of harmony with what is written and are extremely naïve.

Your doctrine is largely based on obscurities with Daniel and Revelation, implying that the revelations of ZGod are a tangled skein of inaccessible notions huidden from commonm view that can be unravelled only by the subtle minds of your cult.

You use the Bible as others use Old Moore's (or Poor Richard's) Almanac of predictions, which is to misnderstand the fundamental purpose of the Bible, and to claim to know more than jesus himself who confessed that hem did not know the time when the Son of Man would return in the clouds. The JWs made the very public mistake of saying it would take place in 1914. When it didn't, it was back to the drawing board and issue some specious and highly suspicious explanation saying that he hasd come 'spiritually.' Doubtless dressed as the Kaiser's armies.

FInally, your cuilt offers salvation at too cheap a price, affirmiong thatpaytment for it can be made at a later time. This repudiates the urgent either-or of the Bihle, and sentimentalises the concept of a holy God. It also suggests that salvation is merited solely by good works. This is born out by a strange fact. Only the worthy are amditted to the once a year celebration of the Lord's Supper. In 1951, 623,760 Russellites attended this private ritual, but of them only 21,619 were adjudged worgthy to receive the bread and fruit juice.

Now, Will, I amnot given to pointing out errors in the programs of other sects, cults, or denominations, preferring to t-reat each little bit of theorlogy or history as a single entity regardless of whether I agree with its doctrinal content or intent, and so forth. But since tyou have uindertaken this campaign of hatred towards the Roman Catholic Church and iots leaders and peo;ple, I felt it was about time that someone gave you a good hard look at the oddities that betray the man-madeness of your own cult, and its irreconcilable differences from Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, and God Almighty, even Jehovah.

As the song says,

"You had it comin' to yah,
But you don't like it do yah?"

Now, settle down like a good Christian and show us all what a true Christian looks and sounds like.



M:)RGANITE

I've been taught through the bible
Perhaps you have, but which version of the bible? NWT? If so, then you have been mistaught by your Bible. Can you be sure that the 'translators' of your special Bible knew what they were doing? Consider the following:

Watchtower founder, Charles Taze Russell once sued a Baptist pastor, Rev. J.J. Ross for libel after the minister published a tract entitled, Some facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Russell. According to a New York newspaper, The Brooklyn Eagle, (11 January 1913, p. 7) Rev. Ross, the pastor of the James Street Baptist Church of Hamilton, Ontario, accused Russell among other charges of teaching, "the destructive doctrines of one man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian". Russell's attorney was none other that Joseph F. Rutherford who was to become the Society's next president after Russell's death in 1916, (when he took upon himself the title 'Judge' although he was never a judge).

Russell lost this case and was unable to prove libel in Rev. Ross's accusations that Russell, "...never attended the higher schools of learning; knows comparatively nothing of philosophy, systematic or historical theology and is totally ignorant of the dead languages,".

A portion from the legal transcript reveals a small amount of the overwhelming evidence that helped Rev. Ross win in court. The following is taken from the transcript as Rev. Ross's attorney, Mr. Staunton cross-examining C.T. Russell in the case Russell v. Ross.

Question: (Attorney Staunton) "Do you know the Greek Alphabet?"
Answer: (Russell) "Oh yes."
Question: (Staunton) "Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?"
Answer: (Russell) "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Question: (Staunton) "Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?"
Answer: (Russell) "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
Question: (Staunton) "You can't tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?"
Answer: (Russell) "My way ..." [he was interrupted at this point and not allowed to explain]
Question: (Staunton) "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Answer: (Russell) "No."

Russell first claimed to know the Greek alphabet, then when challenged said he knew, "some of them" but may make mistakes on other letters. Finally when presented with the Greek letters themselves, he was forced to admit the he did not know Greek - one of the main points of Ross's "libellous" pamphlet.

In another court case in 1954 in Scotland, Fredrick Franz [at the time a Governing Body member and later the Society's President] was placed on the witness stand to give testimony for the defense in a case questioning whether a Jehovah's Witness could be drafted into the military in Scotland. The following is from the typed Pursers Proof, of the case, Douglas Walsh v. James Latham Clyde, representing the Minister of Labour and National Service, Court of Sessions, Scotland. Fredrick Franz is being cross-examined.

"Tuesday, 23rd November, 1954

"Q. Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?
"A. Yes
"Q. Do you also know and speak Spanish, Portuguese and French?
"A. Spanish, Portuguese and German; but I have a reading knowledge of French.
"Q. So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
"A. Yes, for use in by biblical work.
"Q. I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Spanish, Portuguese, German and French?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And was it your duty on behalf of the Society to check the translation into English from the original Hebrew of that first volume of the Old Testament Scriptures [New World Translation]?
"A. Yes"

However, the very next day, government attorneys decided to check Franz's linguistic abilities with a simple test. He was placed back on the stand and asked:

"Q. You, yourself, read and speak Hebrew, do you?
"A. I do not speak Hebrew.
"Q. You do not?
"A. No.
"Q. Can you, yourself, translate that into Hebrew?
"A. Which?
"Q. That fourth verse of the Second Chapter of Genesis?
"A. You mean here?
"Q. Yes?
"A. No. I won't attempt to do that."

Apparently, Franz lost much of his "substantial linguistic apparatus" since the day before and was unable to attempt to translate a very basic passage. This not only calls into question the honesty of statements made by Watchtower leaders but also makes one wonder about the scholarly ability of the New World Translation Committee. The man who on the witness stand said he was responsible to check the accuracy of the Old Testament Translation was unable to translate into English a simple passage in Genesis chapter two.

How sure are you that the NWT is reliable and that the whole of the Watchtower organisation is not just another part of Satan's worldwide evil empire that you call Christendom?

Aplogise to the RCC for your bad attitude towards them and I'll call off my dogs!


M:)RGANITE

I am convinced that magprob started this half sarcastically. I hope I am not wrong, but I do not believe that he thinks a group is evil just because of the evil deeds of one of it's members. I'm convinced that he knows well that members of his own faith have committed evil acts.

Well of course I do "Ricky." And I must say, it has been fun and nice to drag you out into the light of day! Don't get so huffy, You have taught me a lot in this post, so much that I'm thinking of leaving the Mormon church and becoming a Catholic. Would you consider me a cad if I got my very own Pope hat? I just love them! Actually, I just love that little Polish Pope, the last one. I think he was honest and a true sweetheart of a man and even though I am not Catholic, I loved him very much.

Haha Magprob - There is some hope for you as I know you are reading Chesterton :)

If you send me your Confirmation certificate I will send you a Mitre. Even stuffy old Catholics can have a good sense of humor :D

http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/gems/pope-benedict-saturno-hat.jpg

http://www.killcastro.com/blog/uploaded_images/Papacamauro-787254.jpg

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2006/09/Bono%20and%20Pope.JPG

I love the one with Bono! Made me tingle all over!! LOL!

the bible which most of us use



Hello, Will,

Which Bible do you recommend and why?


M:)

Consider this:

He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.


Jesus clearly believed that he could appoint others to represent him, individually, rather than corporately (a canmel is a horse designed by a comittee). The Bishop of Rome is the leader of the RCC, and one of several metropolitan bishops, but recognised as primus inter pares.

You might believe that Jesus said something wrong, but for those who believe that jesus was not mistaken it is quite normal to have Jesus represented by his ministers. Jesus underlines his transmission of authority in another passage:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.


I anot a Catholic, Roman or otherwise, but it does itk me to see them castigated for something they do not do, and to be charged with sins they do not have. No Christian would speak lies of another faith or person without becoming absolutely certain of their facts, and that does not happen if the only source of information one obtains about one's enemies is from the lips and hands of other enemies.


Who shall ascend unto the hill (Temple) of Jehovah,
And who shall stand in the Holy Place?
He that has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul unto vanity
Nor sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive the blessing from the LORD,
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.


So it is written - so mote it be.


M:mad:ORGANITE
Again, perhaps I have inadequately expressed myself. What I mean is how can so many people believe that Jesus has ONLY ONE representative on Earth? And something else, Maybe the Douay Bible says something about it, but mine makes no mention of Peter ever even being in Rome. Paul spent a lengthy time in Rome before his execution, and mentions names, but NEVER mentions Peter. Doesn't that strike you as strange if Peter was the first bishop of Rome? If he got there after Paul's execution, wouldn't that have been rather late?

that's a first. I've been trained Anti-Catholic? wow And the Catholics have been trained Anti-Christ. Violating all the commandments beginning fro the first one. What do you call people who does not practice what the bible says? Lawlessness. I hope ELOHIM opens your eyes and allow you to realize that no church can give you eternal life but only the blood of Christ thru the Passover.


Do Christians need to be circumcised?

Do Christians need to be circumcised?


No, that was in the old testament. Our hearts are what needs to be circumcised but obviously nowadays people are too arrogant with their own thoughts and though they see they do not understand. God shows the truth and you guys reject it and follow your own ways.

God shows the truth and you guys reject it and follow your own ways.
Is there anyone besides you who knows the truth, and if so where do I find these enlightened people?

No, that was in the old testament. Our hearts are what needs to be circumcised but obviously nowadays people are too arrogant with their own thoughts and though they see they do not understand. God shows the truth and you guys reject it and follow your own ways.

Who are 'you guys'? Do you mean those not of your mind, or do you have a specific name for your group, or is that a secret?

It seems a little churlish, you will agree, to keep telling people they enter the wrong doors when they go to worship, but to not tell them which door they chould go through so they can do it right, according to your understanding of the Bible and its teachings.

When you joined your group were you sworn to absolute secrecy, Or are you free to share with 'us guys' which one it is that you belong to?

If you are supposed to be a missionary for 'your guys' and encourage other people to come into the little circle of light that alone has the correct understanding of Christianity, then by keeping your group a dread secret you are not fulfilling the terms of your ministry and its expectations.

Can you give it a name other than hinting that it is "The Church of The Big Secret"? I am sure that I am not the only one whose curiosity you have tickled. Is it time to stop the game and get serious?


M:)RGANITE

No, that was in the old testament. Our hearts are what needs to be circumcised but obviously nowadays people are too arrogant with their own thoughts and though they see they do not understand. God shows the truth and you guys reject it and follow your own ways.

If what you say is true, and I am not yet convinced that it is, then the only people who know The Truthare God and You.

Instead of playing cat and mouse with our bafffled minds, why not get down to busioess, set out your table, your theology, your Bible support, and let us judge if what you have squares with the Bible and, whether it is better than what we have got? How does one set about joining God and you? Is there an application form, a catechism, an initiatory rite, an oath, a sacrifice, something done at sunrise towards the East, an incantation, brew, libation, potion, or a meeting under the hill by the grey wood at full moon? Master, show us the way.

What truths do you believe I have been shown by you but have rejected?


M:)

No, that was in the old testament. Our hearts are what needs to be circumcised but obviously nowadays people are too arrogant with their own thoughts and though they see they do not understand. God shows the truth and you guys reject it and follow your own ways.

Are you saying that everything required of the congregation of Israel in the Old Testament is now redundant and not applicable to any aspect of Christian discipleship?

Is there anyone besides you who knows the truth, and if so where do I find these enlightened people??



I myust be blind. His handle is Will 144. I therefore conclude that he is of the number who believe that only 144,000 souls will be saved in heaven. This is, of course, a misreading of what the scripture says.

4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

Revelation 7:5
5 Of the tribe of Juda [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad [were] sealed twelve thousand.

Revelation 7:6
6 Of the tribe of Aser [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses [were] sealed twelve thousand.

Revelation 7:7
7 Of the tribe of Simeon [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar [were] sealed twelve thousand.

Revelation 7:8
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph [were] sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin [were] sealed twelve thousand.

Revelation 7:9
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Revelation 7:10
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Revelation 7:11
11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and [about] the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

Revelation 7:12
12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 7:13
13 ¶ And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? And whence came they?

Revelation 7:14
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Revelation 7:15
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Revelation 7:16
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

Revelation 7:17
17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

This passage can in no wise be taken as limiting those who will be before the Lamb in heaven to 144,000 because they are, the Word says, numberless, and they are in heaven, and they are before the throne of Jesus Christ, who is on the throne of His Father. It is a simple error to believe otherwise, but it is not one that can be sustained once light is shed on the verse and its meaning.


Chapter 14
Revelation 14:1
1 ¶ AND I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty [and] four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Revelation 14:2
2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

Revelation 14:3
3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

Revelation 14:4
4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, [being] the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Revelation 14:5
5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.


Note that verse 4 calls the 144K '[B]firstfruits' indicating that others will follow, so that the number from the tribes of Israel, except the tribe of Dan, will be swelled by other faithful souls.

The 'virgins' is a bit of a worry, because most JWs are married, and are not, therefore, virginal. Why is Dan's tribe selected to be unselected?

If what you say is true, and I am not yet convinced that it is, then the only people who know The Truthare God and You.

Instead of playing cat and mouse with our bafffled minds, why not get down to busioess, set out your table, your theology, your Bible support, and let us judge if what you have squares with the Bible and, whether or not it is better than what we have got? How does one set about joining God and you? Is there an application form, a catechism, an initiatory rite, an oath, a sacrifice, something done at sunrise towards the East, an incantation, brew, libation, potion, or a meeting under the hill by the grey wood at full moon? Master, show us the way.

What truths do you believe I have been shown by you but have rejected?


M:)

Yes will, I would like to know as well. The Catholic church's teachings (that you are condemning) are out there for all to read. Can I go to a Christian book store or library and find a book on your teachings instead of these anti websites.

Raping little kids, priests driving nice cars, religious leaders with golden cups and luxurious treats,
is that God's will? Did Jesus not humble himself? Did Jesus established any other church other than
The Church of God? These churches do evil in God's eye, and it's no my judgment, but God's judgment.

God's will, 7th Day Sabbath. Not 1st day Sunday. If Jesus kept the Sabbath Day holy, everyone should, specially those who claim to follow Christ. After all, we are not Jewish, but yet we beleive in Jesus? What shall we say then? Make up our on worship day (ex: 1st day worship) NO WAY! If it wasn't important to keep the Sabbath day holy, Jesus himself would not have done it.

According to Mt 7:21 only those who does the will of God will enter the Kingdom of heaven (7th Day Sabbath worship) not the evildoers (anything other than what God commanded us)

You may be able to point out a few verses when they met up on the first day, but you will not find any worshipping on the 1st day except for the Feasts of God and that's if they by coincidence fall on a Sunday. Other than that, God did not blessed the 1st day or made it holy. He Blessed the 7TH DAY SABBATH. You can go to church on Sundays as much as you can but you are not meeting with God to be blessed by him because that's why he appointed the 7th day Sabbath as a lasting ordinance. it's even in the 10 commandments (Ex 20:8).

If we don't keep Sabbath, we have no sign with God

Ezekiel 20:20
"Keep my Sabbaths holy, that they may be a sign between us. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God."

God didn't say "keep my 1st days holy"

Why not take a look at my reply to 'ordinaryguy' on the Sabbath.Saturday/Sunday question at:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/return-jesus-christ-63296.html#post345680

You will find it instructive and correctional.


M:)

Maybe Will is a splinter off the JW's. I think they had to change their views after their membership passed the 144,000 mark. Ha!

If you have a secretary and you tell her to type a letter. Who signs it? you or the secretary? Who's word is it? The secretary's or yours? Who approves it, the secretary or you? Who's the boss? the secretary or you? And if she does not follow what you told her to do, won't you fire her? In the same way, the bible was written by people approved by God. The creator has control over the creatures, don't you think? What these men wrote in the bible is approved by God most High! It is God's word because the Spirit told them what to write, it's not their own interpretation or prophesies. So if the church says to you "Commit suicide and you will go to heaven" you will do so as well I suppose? that is the problem with people, they follow what churches and different religions say rather than the very word of God. It is so sad with this generations. No wonder God chose the foolish of the world to embarrass the wise, and the weak to destroy the strong, because people believe they have salvation by following their own ideas and churches rather than the bible itself which is the very word of God!

Who was the first pope? Wasn't it your father Constantine who gave himself the title of Pontifex Maximus for the papacy and was a High Priest for the Sun God rather than God's? And changed all the laws of God by coming up with his own which is something that now people follow (Sunday worship, christmas, the list goes on) instead of Sabbath and Passover? Even the churches that call themselves christian churches, did they not brake off from the Catholic Church and kept the same teachings? like one of your cardinals wrote in a book "it's like a boy running away from home but still keeping a picture of his mother" You claim that by grace you'll be saved, then how do you explain Mat 7:21-22? Clearly, there is a God's will that we need to follow which is Sabbath and Passover rather than man-made traditions. Even the apostles kept the Sabbath. Of course they had God's grace, that is because they followed the commandments of God. How can you dare saying the only reason you beleive the word of God is the bible is because a church said so? I will pray to God to enlightens your path and enable you to understand the humble way of Jesus Christ. You have heard the truth, it is up to you whether to believe it or not. God Bless all of you. I did not come on this forum to argue but to make things more clear through the word of God, but obviously you think it is my own teachings rather than Christ's. It is not my teachings that you reject but God's, for I cannot teach anything and I have no wisdom; but God can surely show me how to do these things.

One last thing, I find it ironic the Catholic Church calls priests "Father" when Jesus clearly said:

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father', for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

But yet you call your priests father? Obviously you have a physical father and even to them you say "dad" rather than father. How can you call someone else a father who isn't God?

God Bless.
What did/do you call your daddy? There is no difference between calling your male parent father, pops, pappy, dad, or any other name that established the relationship as father and son. Jesus was not telling disciples not to recognise their fathers, but he was telling them, something quite profound that you appear to have overlooked.

It is not a matter of name, but of parentage. Think about it.

M:)

Maybe Will is a splinter off the JW's. I think they had to change their views after their membership passed the 144,000 mark. Ha!

He has many JW beliefs, except the seventh day sabbath. Perhaps he has started his own cult and hasn't thought of a name for it yet.

I know that some splinters of WI churches have similar beliefs, although they depend for support on bad translations and worse interpretations of an English Bible text.

So why fall in with that stuff? If it is something to believe in why not look within in? You do not have to refer to the belief of ancient man for that!

Excellent points galveston.

Will, I am no expert on Bible Prophecy...and in a group of people who claim to be there will be so many differences in what it means.

All who read the same Bible (and I am happy to use whatever version you use) will come up with different meanings...

So lets look at where we agree:
1. The New Testament is the group of books that we agree were written by Christians who were inspired by God - and those writings are without error right?

...then I ask you Who Says these books are Scripture? Nowhere in these writings are these writings identified as Scripture, so we must accept someone's judgment. Who's judgment are you trusting that they are Scripture?

I find it interesting that you accept this Canon that was agreed upon by the Catholic Church 1700 years ago.

2. Who were good Christians of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. centuries?

Can you point me to a Christian teacher of the 2nd century onward who I might read to learn more about this version of Christianity that you espouse?


'Scripture' originally meant 'writings,' and the term was no specifically and exclusivley applied to holy writings until a much later date.

:)

The reality of the matter is; People are human. The Church is made up of humans. From the sinner to the saint, all are human, and all make mistakes. The Catholic Church is so vast that its would be suspicious if it did have only shining examples of exemplary behavior. But, it is full of corruption from the highest levels.

Don't get me wrong, the message is clear but the visuals are not. I am a Lutheran. Many in my family are Catholic. I came to the resolution that a church that devotes itself to a man who lived in "poverty" and was completely pacific, could ever have created a church that is so ornately endowed all over the world. I am attracted to the Lutheran Church because of the fact that Luther took it upon himself to disavow all the indulgences and other no-no's that the Church took part in at the time. It seems, to me at least, not much has changed.

I respect those who proclaim Christ as their Savior. I just wish people would practice what they preach. Is the Catholic Church inately evil? Absolutely not. If you are seeking a church, I suggest one of the Lutheran variety. While not perfect (Only one person ever was), it is a community of believers who do not show vanity in their beliefs, something the Catholics have made a point of doing in their long (sometimes proud, sometimes sickening) past

The question has been misunderstood as referring to people within the church when it is actually referring to the church as a shepherding organization via its official policies, and its past and present leadership of those it considers its flock.

I love this type of bigotry in disguise, call it by any other name, it still says the same thing. Study the history of the Bible itself. Who did you think put together the books of the Bible as we come to know them? How was the Bible preserved through the endless centuries? How did the Christian church exist for nearly 15 centuries before any of the churches of the Protestant sects develop out of the Reformation? The questions, and the facts to support them, are endless. But to a closed mind and to a religious bigot, that is always besides the point.

God, under any name, loves all people, and for the record, all nations too, not just Protestants in the United States.

P.S. I love that famous quote from Gandhi, I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians, because they are so unlike their Christ. Something to think about.

I think people have become so consumed in their religion and other peoples religion we've all forgotten the real reason why God put us here on this Earth! Not so that we could build walls of religion, but so that we could come together to win all the more! I'm so tired of hearing about this religion and that religion. Who cares about yours or anyone else's religion! There are hurting, dying people out there who need us "christians" to come together for them, but Satan has blinded us with all this religion stuff, so we've forgotten about the world we're supposed to be reaching! Comeon people! The return of Christ is obvioulsy soon!

MagProb,

You have some real issues. It is not with the church but yourself. All I have seen from you is judging groups of people because of some bad apples. Just because there are some bad apples does not make the whole bunch bad. I have been brought up as a Roman Catholic and have had no problems whatsoever. I do not agree with the abuse that has happened. It does not mean that it happens everywhere as that it is the way it is coming off from you.

There are teachers who sleep with their students, that is abuse. Does that mean all of the teachers are abusers?

Many people I have heard bring this up. On the news, the white man is usually involved in rape crimes. Black man are usually involved in Murder and shooting crimes. Okay does that make White Men mostly rapists and does that make black men mostly murderers? The answer is of course no. What you are doing is lumping everybody together in a body of church and for some reason you have Labelled the whole organizing evil. Do you think it is right for judgement like that on your part? No. What do I think about the abuse, the abuse is wrong and anybody that is found completely guilty without a doubt should be punished for their wrong doing, but then again there are others who are falsly accused as well, but people like you automatically feel that all is guilty which is a warped way of thinking of it.

P.S. My Wife and I had a very bad experiance with a young punk cop threatning us and punching the car. He was very bad, did not do anything wrong. He was a crooked cop. Does that make all Cops bad. The answer again is NO.

Joe

It's very sad that groups are so negatively, not to mention falsely, stereotyped based on a few people's actions.

Don't go by the judgment of people but by God's Judgement. You ask a very wise questions. Let's start off with this one. What is the worship day? Many say Sunday, but why? The say by instinct but they don't even know.
[snip]
What is God's will? 7th day Sabbath worship or 1st Day Sunday? Catholic Church has no salvation, nor does any church that keeps Sunday Worship. Jesus established the Church of God. That's the church I attend to. The only church IN THE WORLD that follows the true commandments of Christ.

Your approach to the Jewish Sabbath versus the Christian Lord's Day (Sunday) is polemical and hortatory suffers from a lack of objectivity and critical evaluation. By any objective standard you fail to establish the proposition that Christians have nothing more than tradition introduced by Constantine as a basis for keeping Sunday as their Sabbath day of rest and worship.

You seem familiar with Samuel Walter Gamble's anti-sabbatarian arguments that shows fertile imagination coupled with an ignorance of history, the Jewish calendar, and Greek usage. His arguments have been discredited and rejected by responsible scholarship, and it is surprising to see them raise in a serious forum.

You involve yourself in an equally specious argument. Such as are proffered by Seventh-day Adventists and Messianic (Judaising) Christians, arguing that early Christian, Gentile, and Jew, alike, worshipped on the Jewish Saturday Sabbath until that day was deliberately and wickedly changed to Sunday in Constantine's time because of the pagan sun worship of the Romans.

That absurdity is commonly reproduced by Saturday sabbatarians who as one man report that the use of Sunday by Christians as a day of worship has been customary only "since the fifth or fourth century."

It is disingenuous to equate "the Lord's Day" with the Jewish Sabbath wherever it occurs in early Christian documents. Such convenient rewriting of history and historical usage is totally inexcusable at a time when scholarship has made available contemporary documents from the earliest Christian period, as a few representative citations will indicate:

"The Master commanded us [to celebrate] service at fixed times and hours."

"On the Lord's Day of the Lord [we] come together, break bread and hold Eucharist."

"We. . . celebrate with gladness the eighth day in which Jesus also rose from the dead."

"No longer living for the Sabbath, but for the Lord's Day, on which also our life sprang up through him and his death. . . . It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practice Judaism."

"Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly. . . and Jesus Christ our Savior on the same day rose from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to his apostles and disciples, He taught them these things."
(See I Clement XL:1-2; Didache XIV:1, 3; Barnabas XV:4-9; Ignatius to the Magnesians: VIII-X; Justin Martyr's First Apology, LSVII.)

Documentary sources from the first Christian century and from men who know the Apostles themselves make crystal clear the actual beliefs and practices of early Gentile Christians concerning Sunday, the Lord's Day, and their practice of sacramental worship upon that day in commemoration of the Lord's resurrection. There is no need for special interpretation to understand what John meant when he wrote to such people about being in the spirit on "the Lord's Day" (Revelation 1:10); nor to understand Paul's charge to his Gentile converts who were being troubled by the heretical Judaisers of their time:

[Christ blotted] out the handwriting of ordinances that were against us. . . and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. . . Let no man therefore judge you in mean, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.
(Colossians 2:14, 16; cf. 2 Corinthians 3:6-11.)

With respect to the early Christian practice of Sunday observance, it is easily, sidely, and clearly shown that the practice was widely followed in the first and second centuries (notwithstanding the Constantine theory)

Earliy Christian leaders clearly understood the distinction between the seventh day Sabbath of the Jews and the first day Sabbath of the Christians, and also understood the Judaising Sabbatarians' arguments that Christians should be keeping the Jewish Sabbath, which they rejected as a heretical false teaching not in keeping with the New Covenant.

Those who present his position are guilty either of incredible na&#239;vet&#233; or else of deliberate misrepresentation. Built on this tottering foundation, their argument takes strength to itself by the process of repetition, until they arrive at the unsubstantiated conclusion that "Sunday observance in the Christian Church lies in tradition alone. "

Sabbath observance is an eternal principle, and the day itself is so ordained and arranged that it bears record of Christ by pointing particular attention to great works he has performed. From the day of Adam to the Exodus from Egypt, the Sabbath commemorated the fact that Christ rested from his creative labors on the 7th day. (Ex. 20:8-11.)

From the Exodus to the day of his resurrection, the Sabbath commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. (Deut. 5:12-15.) As Samuel Walter Gamble has pointed out in his Sunday, the True Sabbath of God this necessarily means that the Sabbath was kept on a different day each year.

From the days of the early apostles to the present, the Sabbath has been the first day of the week, the Lord's Day, in commemoration of the fact that Christ came forth from the grave on Sunday. (Acts 20:7.) Christians keep the first day of the week as their Sabbath

Sabbath observance was a sign between ancient Israel and their God whereby the chosen people might be known (See: Neh. 13:15-22; Isa. 56:1-8; Jer. 17:19-27; Ezek. 46:1:7); death was the decreed penalty for violation of it. (Ex. 31:12-17.) And the matter of Sabbath observance remains to this day as one of the great tests which divides the righteous from the worldly and wicked.

Judaising Christian observers of Saturday as the Sabbath—tell us that some pope is responsible for the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, and almost in the same breath they declare that Constantine the Great is the author of it. Roman Catholics, of course, accept, for the head of their church, the responsibility, but the change was made long before there was an ecclesiastical "head" in Rome.

It might, further, be observed that the Sabbath law does not, primarily, set apart either Saturday or Sunday as the Sabbath, but A SEVENTH PART OF THE WEEK. "Six days shalt thou labor, but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." It is immaterial where you begin counting, as long as the rule of working six days and resting on the seventh is observed. The rule is the same as that which governs tithe-paying. One dollar out of ten belongs to the Lord. Which one? Any of them. Which day of the seven belongs to the Lord? Any of them, but as the Sabbath is for the entire community, one day must be agreed upon for the good of all.

Which day of the week was observed before the exodus of Israel from Egypt, is not known, but, whichever it was, at the time of the exodus some change must have occurred, for a new reckoning began with that event (Ex. 12:2). The month of the exodus became the first month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year and the Sabbaths were, accordingly, rearranged. The beginning of the year was counted from the new moon of the Passover, which festival was celebrated between and including the 14th and 21st of the month. The 10th, 14th, and 16th were work days, and could never be Sabbaths (Sec. Ex. 12:3, 5, 6, 24).

From the fact that the Hebrew festivals seem to have been observed on fixed dates, as our Christmas, and were not movable holidays, like Easter, it has been thought that the weekly Sabbaths also were celebrated on fixed dates. If that is correct, the Hebrew Sabbath must have fallen on every day in the week in rotation, as does our New Year's day.

Aside from this argument, it would be impossible to observe as Sabbath any one and the same day all over the Earth, simultaneously. What would be the beginning of the Seventh-day Sabbath—Friday evening at sundown—at a given point in Asia Minor, would be Friday noon in Greenland, Friday morning in Alaska, midnight between Thursday and Friday in Australia, and Thursday evening at a given longitude east of the point of beginning. So, while the Sabbath day cannot be observed all over the Earth on the same day, a seventh part of the week can be dedicated to the service of the Lord everywhere.

Before. The Mosaic dispensation, the Sabbath was observed in memory of the creation; Israel celebrated it in memory of the exodus, and the followers of our Savior hold the day sacred to the memory of His Resurrection.

M:)RGANITE

.

Thess news are just one more evidence that the catholic church has something pretty ed up inside, and of course mexico is ed up by the religion, even the government is catholic, the way catholic church ats on the politics, isn't directly done by them, is through some one else like the government, that, they act, you don't know they like to lie, and they like to cover their by blaming others, that's how the catholic church has always been. I talk because I was in a catholic school for 12 years, my parents are catholic, and I grew up in latin america, were the corruption is huge, and it's said proudly that 98% of us are catholic. I just want to say that, the catholic church have ed up the world, in so many ways, and yet people stupidly think on believeing in that, I think almost no body in it's senses, can measure the evil, that is hidden behind those love words and things they say, they are ed up.

magprob's
No the Catholic Church in not evil.
But a few in it have been.
There are over 1 billion Catholics and in that a few thousand have done evil things.
That is a very small percentage of the Catholics.
All groups of people have those who do evil things.
BUT...
Catholic haters and opponents like to single that Church out to spread bad news.
Should I consider you a Catholic hater or opponent?
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Old thread, closed