The Great Whore is Religious Rome

[DHK]

How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Baptist on this board to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! That in itself speaks volumes!
Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry. __________________

You need to check your facts and your sources.
Here is what we do know about the OT Scriptures and the Apocrypha.
First, the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was completed by 450 B.C.
The Hebrews would not consider anything canonical after the date of 400 B.C.
That rules out all of the apocryphal books right there. They are not inspired scripture only interesting reading material. The Jews never accepted them as part of their canon—never!
It is a well known fact that the Apocrypha was written in what is commonly known as the “Intertestamental Period,” or the period between the “Testaments. Obviously then, they could not have been part of the first or Old Testament. Any good commentary will verify this. Even then not all of them were written then, some of them were written after Christ, in the NT era making them entirely bogus.
Your claim of the Apocrypha being written in 200 B.C. is bogus, just imaginary machinations of the RCC.
Here are the facts:
11 Esdras—30 B.C.
Esther—165 B.C.
Ecclesiasticus—180 B.C.
Bel and the Dragon—during the time of the Ptolemies
Baruch—after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
I and 11 Macabees between 135 and 161 B.C.
Tobit and Judith—not known

Here is what we know about Baruch

It is important to distinguish between the date of the completion of the entire book in its present form and the dates of the several parts which in some or all cases may be much older than that of the whole as such.

1. The Historical Introduction:
Baruch 1:1-14 was written after the completion of the book expressly to form a prologue or historical explanation of the circumstances under which the rest of the book came to be written. To superficial readers it could easily appear that the whole book was written by one man, but a careful examination shows that the book is a compilation. One may conclude that the introduction was the last part of the book to be composed and that therefore its date is that of the completion of the book. Reasons will be given (see below) for believing that 4:5-5:9 belongs to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 AD. This is still more true of this introduction intended as a foreword to the whole book.

2. Confession and Prayer:
The following points bear on the date of the section Baruch 1:15-3:8, assuming it to have one date:

(1) The generation of Israelites to which the writer belonged were suffering for the sins of their ancestors; see especially Baruch 3:1-8.

(2) The second temple was in existence in the writer's day. Baruch 2:26 must (with the best scholars) be translated as follows: "And thou hast made the house over which thy name is called as it is this day," i.e. the temple-still in being-is shorn of its former glory. Moreover though Da 9:7-14 is largely quoted in Baruch 1:15-2:12, the prayer for the sanctuary and for Jerusalem in Da 9:16 is omitted, because the temple is not now in ruins.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=IT0001187

It is a slam dunk case. This book was written later than all of the epistles of Paul, all of the gospels, and the book of Acts. And you want to put it in the OT canon?? Amazing! And this is not the only book in the Apocrypha that was written in the NT era!!

I defy you to find any Hebrew OT that has the Apocrypha!!

 

[DHK]

DHK, you like to accuse Catholics of "adding" Books to the Bible, and if I remember right, you accuse Catholics of adding them at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. Why does the Book of Daniel have more to it in the Catholic bible than in the Protestant bible? When was part of Daniel deleted and why? Are you really going to try to say that only part of the book of Daniel it actually inspired? Or are you going to say that the Catholics made up an alternative ending? What evil purpose did they have for that? What doctrine of devils do you find the Catholic Church needing to support by this so called, added ending? Nope, Protestants deleted part of the book of Daniel. Maybe you Protestants are the ones that the book of Revelation was talking about. Seriously, I think that passage in Revelation is referring to Revelation and not the entire bible. But, hey, I think if anyone has been guilty of 'taking away' from the bible it is easy to prove you Protestants are the ones that have been guilty of just that.

|
How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? I defy any Baptist on this board to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! That in itself speaks volumes!

Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren't around to hear the Council of Jamnia's decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those "extra" 7 books in their canon. Do some research on the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry.

Here is a good summary for you. It comes from Easton's Bible Dictionary:

Apocrypha:
hidden, spurious, the name given to certain ancient books which found a place in the LXX. and Latin Vulgate versions of the Old Testament, and were appended to all the great translations made from them in the sixteenth century, but which have no claim to be regarded as in any sense parts of the inspired Word.


(1.) They are not once quoted by the New Testament writers, who frequently quote from the LXX. Our Lord and his apostles confirmed by their authority the ordinary Jewish canon, which was the same in all respects as we now have it.


(2.) These books were written not in Hebrew but in Greek, and during the "period of silence," from the time of Malachi, after which oracles and direct revelations from God ceased till the Christian era.


(3.) The contents of the books themselves show that they were no part of Scripture. The Old Testament Apocrypha consists of fourteen books, the chief of which are the Books of the Maccabees (q.v.), the Books of Esdras, the Book of Wisdom, the Book of Baruch, the Book of Esther, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, etc.


The New Testament Apocrypha consists of a very extensive literature, which bears distinct evidences of its non-apostolic origin, and is utterly unworthy of regard.

I like his last statement which summarizes it quite nicely--It "is utterly unworthy of regard."

 

[DHK]

To say The Immaculate Conception was never accepted is not true. It WAS accepted and believed but had not been made official. You are correct that the assumption of Mary was not official dogma until 1950 but it was already believed from ancient times. To say that the doctrines of the Church Christ founded is ever-changing is a lie. You don't know the difference between dogma and Church disciplines. One cannot change, the other can and does. No doctrines have changed in 2,000 years, nor will they.

You realize that this logic that you and other Catholics have so long used does not make sense.
Speaking through the power of demons has been done from the earliest of times. Saul brought up Samuel by means of the witch of Endor.
Using such Scripture, now the RCC can endorse witchcraft. "It was always done and practiced before," just not officially accepted.

The same holds true for many of the RCC doctrines. They were heresies for centuries, and then finally accepted. They weren't accepted officially before then because there was too much opposition. IOW, they are heretical doctrines. They always were. The RCC acceptance of heresy not only shows their changing doctrine, but their acceptance of heresy as well.

 

[The Biblicist]

Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

Paul quotes pagan authors more than once but that does not mean they should be accepted as inspired. Most of your references below can be found either directly or indirectly from the Old Testament.

Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.

Le 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

2Ch 18:16 Then he said, I did see all Israel scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master; let them return therefore every man to his house in peace.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.

Jos 3:11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.

Da 5:23 But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven;

Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Christ is not referring to any canonical book here. Wisdom is being used as an adjective to describe Solomon and He is making a PERSONAL contrast between the PERSON of Solomon and Himself. Furthermore, the Queen of Sheba came to "HEAR" the wisdom of Solomon not to READ his writings.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

Isa 38:10 I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the grave [Heb. sheol; Gr. hades]: I am deprived of the residue of my years.

Job 38:17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

Ps 9:13 Have mercy upon me, O LORD; consider my trouble which I suffer of them that hate me, thou that liftest me up from the gates of death:

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

No, the gospel writers do not refer to Tobit 3:8 but the heretics (Sadducees) refer to it as they do today (Catholics).

Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

This is a direct reference to Daniel not to Maccabees. Daniel precedes Maccabees and thus any resemblance is derived from Daniel.

Mt. 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand

Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

#1Sa 13:6 22:1 2Sa 23:13 Jos 10:16. Common practice seen in the Old Testament scritpures.

Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Ps 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Jer 4:3 ¶ For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns.

Ho 10:12 Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.

Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

In regard to previous translations of the scriptures without these non-canonical books - The Old Latin, Jermomes Latin Bible, The old Syriac; The Waldenses.

 

[Walter]

I defy you to find any Hebrew OT that has the Apocrypha!![/QUOTE]

I knew you would claim this is 'Roman Catholic propaganda'. That is why I used a non-Roman Catholic source. The Samaritans only have 5 OT books. The Sadducee's (in days gone by) also only had 5. the Ethiopian Jews have as many OT books as the Catholic Church. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain deuterocanonicals books. The Septuagint used by the Alexandrian Jews contained the deuterocanonical books. The early Church accepted the Bible as Catholics accept it today (twenty-seven New Testament books and forty-six Old Testament books; C120) There was a little dissent until the sixteenth century, when Martin Luther and other Protestants rejected the Alexandrian (Christian) list in favor of the Palestinian (Jewish) list. These same Jews rejected Jesus as well. In 1546 the Council of Trent defined the Alexandrian as the official list of Old Testament books for Catholics and reaffirmed the traditional list of New Testament books.

Now, if you can produce a copy of this bible that you say the 'true believers' had without those 'spurious books' as you call them, please produce it! Maybe the 'Catholic to the core' Waldensians had the 'genuine' bible. You know such a bible doesn't exist so your claim those books were added is bogus. All Christians accepted those books until Martin Luther took them out along with other books of the New Testament. Luther also questioned the inspiration of four New Testament books: Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations; however, his followers maintained the traditional list, and it soon prevailed.

 

[Walter]

If Protestants are right that (a) Jesus Christ intended us to use the 66-Book Protestant Bible, (b) that the Protestant Old Testament was the well-established canon by the time of Christ, and/or (c) that the Protestant canon of Scripture can be easily deduced by Christians, it should be easy to find records of the early faithful using the Protestant Bible. If not a single early Christian can be found using the Protestant canon, it would certainly appear that (a), (b), and (c) are false.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-greek-old-testament-include.html
From 'Shameless Popery':

 

[DHK]

If Protestants are right that (a) Jesus Christ intended us to use the 66-Book Protestant Bible, (b) that the Protestant Old Testament was the well-established canon by the time of Christ, and/or (c) that the Protestant canon of Scripture can be easily deduced by Christians, it should be easy to find records of the early faithful using the Protestant Bible. If not a single early Christian can be found using the Protestant canon, it would certainly appear that (a), (b), and (c) are false.
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/03/did-greek-old-testament-include.html
From 'Shameless Popery':

Jerome included it under duress. He was against it. It was not inspired according to him, but reading material only.
Concerning Augustine, he did not consider it inspired.
It is not found in the Hebrew Bible. The canon was complete in 400 A.D., before the Septuagint was written, before the Apocrypha existed. This is a no-brainer.
It was not accepted by the early believers.
It was not accepted by the apostles.
It was not accepted by the Protestants.
The only ones that have accepted it are the Catholics.

It has been included in different Bibles, but as reading material only. That is why in most Bibles it is found as one collection either in the middle or at the end.

 

[DHK]

Here is a good summary of an excellent article. I suggest you read the entire article:

Summary The rise of the Old Testament Apocrypha to the status of Scripture among some Christians was a process. It did not start out that way. All the evidence leads us to believe that the Jesus, the apostles, and Judaism all accepted the same Old Testament. As Christianity made its break with Judaism the understanding of Jewish beliefs and customs became less and less. This includes the understanding of the extent of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Some early church fathers began to cite passages from the Old Testament Apocrypha. In time, these books took on a certain degree of authority.
Eventually miraculous stories were circulating about the origin of the Septuagint. This added to the perception that it was an authoritative work.
The fact that the Jews rejected the Old Testament Apocrypha caused some Christians to think that they purposely did so because it spoke of Jesus as the Christ. However this was not the case.
Finally, there is also the matter of what should be contained in the canon. To some, the canon consisted of all works that the church found edifying - not necessarily Holy Scripture.
These factors brought about a certain degree of acceptance of the books of the Apocrypha among some Christians. However the reasons for the acceptance of the Apocrypha are completely inadequate.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1205.cfm

 

[Walter]

Here is a good summary of an excellent article. I suggest you read the entire article:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1205.cfm

And an answer to each and every objection you have mentioned is addressed in the following article: 5 Myths About Seven Books
I suggest you read the entire article:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

 

[DHK]

And an answer to each and every objection you have mentioned is addressed in the following article: 5 Myths About Seven Books
I suggest you read the entire article:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

The author is very misinformed and is simply spreading misinformation: very unfortunate.
First, most who know their Bible and Bible history realize that both sects, Pharisees and Sadducees were sects unknown before 400 B.C., just as the Synagogue was unknown before that time. They were all "intertestamental" developments which developed AFTER the canonization of the Jewish OT.

When Jesus went into the synagogue and picked up a scroll it was written in Hebrew. There is no proof that he ever read the Septuagint.
To prove that Paul was a Jew and silence them Paul spoke to the Jews in their sacred language, Hebrew, which silenced them:
Acts 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

The Protestant OT has five divisions: Pentateuch, Historical Books, Poetical Books, Prophets, and Minor Prophets.
The Hebrew OT is arranged differently and has only three divisions. Those three divisions are mentioned by Christ:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Those are the three divisions of the HEBREW Bible: Pentateuch, Prophets, and Poetical Books (which Psalms includes).
It is evident that Christ referred to the Hebrew Bible which he used.
It was the only Bible that was used in the synagogues.

Furthermore the translation of the LXX began in 250 B.C. and was an ongoing translation. It did not originally contain the apocrypha. That is a myth. Later editions included it, but not the original. They were inserted later on. Obviously, Baruch was written later than 70 A.D. How could it be in the original LXX?

There is not quote from the Apocrypha, not one. This "myth" is simply a lie. It is wrong to perpetrate lies, don't you think?
In Titus Paul quotes from a Cretian philosopher. Does that make all philosophers from Crete inspired? Really? According to RCC logic it does.
In Acts he quotes from a Greek poet. Does that make all Greek poetry inspired? Really? According to RCC logic it does?
Furthermore the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses are not in the present books we call the "Apocrypha", so your argument holds no water. They don't quote from the Apocrypha at all. It is a fabricated lie. What is said is inspired by God, not the entire book. The lies in the article are from the devil.

If the author doesn't want to admit the geographical and historical errors of the books and continue to be blind to the truth, then deliberate blindness to the truth propagated on such a public site will be on his hands. He will give account for it. Lies are from the devil. The devil is the father of all liars.

Not once do these books claim inspiration. Your article is wrong.
It is one big fabricated lie.

 

[Protestant]

like the way Fr. Patrick McCafferty 'refutes' the first ten of this nonsense................

In regard to the Chalice having, "of necessity" to be golden on the interior if not on the exterior, this simply untrue."

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication."

“According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside.” (Authoritative Source: 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia Online: Chalice)

Gild: verb (used with object), gild•ed or gilt, gild•ing.
“to coat with gold, gold leaf, or a gold-colored substance.”
(Dictionary.com)

P.S. Please inform 'Father' McCafferty he is in direct violation of Christ's clear command: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

 

[Protestant]

What NOT to do if......

A Word to the Wise:

If you are the head of a very religious organization which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in awards to victims of sexually abusive priests, the very last thing you want to do is purposely place yourself in a compromising position with young men.

The above photo of Pope Francis adoring, stroking and kissing is a prime example of what not to do.

I'm sure if Walter were his Consigliere this photo op would never have been permitted.

 

[Protestant]

But, hey, I think if anyone has been guilty of 'taking away' from the bible it is easy to prove you Protestants are the ones that have been guilty of just that.

How about 'taking away' the entire Bible so that it could not be read or owned by the general public?

There is only one so-called 'Church' on Earth who dared legislate against giving the public access to the Word of God: The Roman/Latin Catholic Church.

I quote from The Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14:

"We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament....but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books." (Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, p. 195)

 

[Walter]

"And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication."

“According to the existing law of the Church the chalice, or at least the cup of it, must be made either of gold or of silver, and in the latter case the bowl must be gilt on the inside.” (Authoritative Source: 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia Online: Chalice)

Gild: verb (used with object), gild•ed or gilt, gild•ing.
“to coat with gold, gold leaf, or a gold-colored substance.”
(Dictionary.com)

P.S. Please inform 'Father' McCafferty he is in direct violation of Christ's clear command: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

"Father Abraham had many sons

Had many sons had Father Abraham

I am one of them

And so are you

So let's just praise the Lord

[Yell "right arm" and move right arm, as if marching.]



Father Abraham had many sons

Had many sons had Father Abraham

I am one of them

And so are you

So let's just praise the Lord

[Yell "right arm, left arm" and move both, as if marching.]



Father Abraham had many sons

Had many sons had Father Abraham

I am one of them

And so are you

So let's just praise the Lord

[Yell "right arm, left arm, right leg" and move all, as if marching.]



Father Abraham had many sons

Had many sons had Father Abraham

I am one of them

And so are you

So let's just praise the Lord

[Yell "right arm, left arm, right leg, left leg" and move all, as if marching.]"


Sang this over and over in my Baptist church growing up. Call no man father is hyperbole. Do you know what that is Rand? Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually.


BTW, you are quoting from an 1911 canon that no longer exists, Rand. Read up before you post nonsense. And you might update your hate filled website as well. There is no requirement that the chalice/paten be gold, even on the inside. They only have to be made of "non porous materials" and the Church does not define these.
Even if it was, having a gold plated interior of a chalice hardly qualifies as the 'Cup O Gold' you are trying to make it. BTW, why is there nothing on your website about John F. Kennedy being assassinated by the Catholic Church because he refused to follow its orders about the war in Vietnam, and vaccination being a Catholic plot? Surely you know these facts, Rand.

 

[DHK]

Sang this over and over in my Baptist church growing up. Call no man father is hyperbole. Do you know what that is Rand? Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually.

You are wrong here.
There is no hyperbole at all. Hyperbole is exaggeration in case you didn't know what it is. Jesus wasn't exaggerating anything at all. He was giving a simple and direct command, and for a good reason.

Look at this in the WEB translation:

Matthew 23:9 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
10 Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ.

The only spiritual Father we have is our Heavenly Father who is in heaven. We are not to address any other person spiritually as "father." Christ made that clear. He was not speaking in a carnal or physical way. He himself makes that clear.

The same is true for the word "master." Master, teacher, instructor.
Spiritually there is only one, and that is Christ.

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
--Our spiritual teacher is Christ; the Holy Spirit. It is not a man. God chooses to use men in his wisdom. But it is the Holy Spirit who is our actual teacher.
I am a teacher. Many call me their teacher. But I am not their spiritual teacher; that is the duty of the Holy Spirit. I am only a vessel to be used of Him, according to His will.

 

[Bro. James]

When all is said and done; when all the orthodox and the heretics have come and gone: What then?

"The Lord knows them that are His"

"For by grace are we saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph. 2:8-10.

How many good works does it take to earn heaven? How many bad works to make hell?

Where will we be in 100 years?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Melanie]

A Word to the Wise:

If you are the head of a very religious organization which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in awards to victims of sexually abusive priests, the very last thing you want to do is purposely place yourself in a compromising position with young men.

The above photo of Pope Francis adoring, stroking and kissing is a prime example of what not to do.

I'm sure if Walter were his Consigliere this photo op would never have been permitted.

Oh for heavens sake, the pope is washing the feet as part of the Tenebrae week, would you be so evil minded.

 

[kyredneck]

Really.

Romaphobic dispies.

 

[Walter]

Oh for heavens sake, the pope is washing the feet as part of the Tenebrae week, would you be so evil minded.

If you guys want to see a website that is truly disgusting and misrepresents the Catholic faith (well, actually, it's damning darn near everyone) check this out. It literally nauseated me reading some of the hate filled diatribe and lies.
Rand takes anti-Catholic bigotry to a new level.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/index.htm

I found it hilarious that Rand had a strange notion at one time that he had discovered precisely what the "Sign of the Beast" was. It was the sign of the cross, i.e., crossing oneself. He shopped this silliness around a couple of RC boards, where people took him up on his challenge that no one could refute him, and left him holding his entrails in his arms.

 

[DHK]

If you guys want to see a website that is truly disgusting and misrepresents the Catholic faith (well, actually, it's damning darn near everyone) check this out. It literally nauseated me reading some of the hate filled diatribe and lies.
Rand takes anti-Catholic bigotry to a new level.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/index.htm

What in specific do you have a problem with?
I don't agree with everything he says, but he has a right to his opinions, and many of them are well founded.
The links that you have posted are full of lies, untruths, and cannot be backed up with any credible source at all. So who has the greater credibility here?