Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

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. 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.

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.'[b] 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;
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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magprob

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wangdoodle

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

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:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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?

---

Sure... Let's see here


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...pe_worship.jpg

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

http://propheticverses.com/images/im...dolworship.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. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

Sure... Let's see here


http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...pe_worship.jpg

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

http://propheticverses.com/images/im...dolworship.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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickJ

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/g...aturno-hat.jpg

http://www.killcastro.com/blog/uploa...uro-787254.jpg

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will144

the bible which most of us use

---

Hello, Will,

Which Bible do you recommend and why?


M:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morganite

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?