Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

[Eliyahu]

Jehovah’s Witness cannot stand on 1 Tim 3:16 as per KJV.
If JW accept 1 Tim 3:16 of KJV, which says
” God was manifested in flesh” they cannot deny the deity of Jesus Christ and therefore they should leave JW theory.
Therefore whenever I met JW and preached them about 1 Tim 3:16, they started to deny the veracity of KJV and its underlying text.

Roman Catholic cannot claim the Infant Baptism if they accept Acts 8:37 according to KJV.

Acts 8
36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

The Babies cannot believe the Truth wholeheartedly, and therefore they cannot be baptized.
Both Eunuch and Philip went into the water and came out of the water.

Therefore this passage clearly teaches us :

Believers Baptism by Total Immersion, and reject the Infant Baptism and the Baptism by Sprinkling.

Infant Baptism is very important for Roman Catholic because they are eager to bring the billions of unbelievers into the Christendom, and that’s why they killed the millions of true Believers just because they rejected the Infant Baptism.
They make Unbelievers become Christians without faith.
Without Infant Baptism, RCC can hardly stand.
If they reject Infant Baptism, they have to deny their own history, confessing their massacre of the Baptists.

Without KJV, the verse of Acts 8:37 could be hardly preserved.

( all Bible quotes in this post are from BibleGateway.com)

 

[gb93433]

The Spirit working behind Modern Version works to defend Vatican Texts B. All the other manuscripts supporting WH-NA like Aleph, A, P75 are the bridesmaids or groomsmen for Vaticanus.

As I am sure you will read in your Bible all that was so important to Jesus that He spoke about it to everyone he met. So I can see why you do.

Now let me ask you two questions: What are you doing that will last for eternity? Is it possible that are you like Peter who cut off the man's ear in an effort to stand up for Jesus?

 

[Eliyahu]

Please tolerate my testimony shortly because it contains a relationship with the Bible versions at the end.
I preach the gospel every day, one person as an average.
Yesterday I preached it to 4 persons, 3 adults and 1 young girl,
The young girl tried to commit suicide at the age of 11!
My testimony was very impressive to her mother and therefore she asked me to tell her daughter about it. The girl was very much interested in my testimony because I understood how she felt, and I explained about the Gospel, Galatians 2:20 and the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ which paid all the price for our sins.
At the end she nodded to the Gospel message. I hope God works for the rest of her life.
This year I had many interesting experiences.
One man was 88 year old and accepted the Gospel when I preached the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ, and the Salvation by believing the Truth, then he said "I have been Roman Catholic more than 80 years, but never heard that I can go to the Heaven just by believing what Jesus has done for me. Young man, see you in the heaven! " Roman Catholic carry the Bible but they don’t preach the Truth!

I met one woman Doctor who attempted a suicide just before last Christmas, and I preached the Gospel to her couple of hours for many days. She was almost saved, but at the end she told me “ I am not that naïve to accept the serious matter in a short time." She was a brilliant family doctor but tried to commit suicide 2 times more since then, in January and in February.

One day I met a lady and noticed she has a Bible, and therefore I tried to share some Bible truth with her, and she was not sure about her own salvation, and was never baptized. I noticed the Bible was Jerusalem Bible. When I tried to explain Romans 3:23-25, the contents were not clear about the Gospel message, and I couldn’t convince her about the Gospel. At the end I return to my KJV Bible, then she wanted to have it. I usually buy any KJV from the garage sales then give them to the new believers. Gideon people were impressed with my testimony.
I encountered the same problem with the Message Bible. I couldn’t convince the people about the Redemption Truth shown in Romans 3:19-25, by reading the Message Bible because it was entirely a Bible Creation!

But when I preached the Gospel to a young man who tried to commit suicide, he was extremely delighted, saying, “This is exactly what I need!” I used KJV at that time. I find no problem in preaching the Gospel by NKJV to the new-comers.
In the beginning of this year I met an old Sikhist man, who wielded a knife called Carphon in the sheath to a nurse (if they pulled it out of the sheath, they cannot put it back until it shed the blood), and he tried to convince me that Sikhism is a religion of peace, but I succeeded in preaching the Gospel, then I passed the Gideon Bible which was NKJV. He was so much pleased to read John 3:16, John 1:1-14. In the meantime he allowed me to remove his Carphon (“L” shaped knife) from his waist.

I preach the Gospel every day and therefore I encounter some difficulty with the translations everyday. KJV has no problem with the contents for the Gospel, but the language is difficult for the new-comers, for the young children, and for the international believers. On the other hand I cannot trust many modern versions about their contents.
I don’t say that no one can be saved by reading Modern Versions, but I noticed much difficulty in convincing the people by some translations like Message Bible or Jerusalem Bible.
I know the problems with NKJV, but believe it is quite OK for the new believers.

 

[Eliyahu]

Deity of Jesus Christ in Roman Catholic and in Modern Versions.

There have been arguments that Modern Versions have weakened the Deity of Jesus Christ in their translations.
Modern Versions of Bible are the translation from the Greek Text of Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Alland, which is mainly based on Vatican Text B, which has been preserved by Roman Catholic. Some say that WH-NA is based 90% on B, 7% on Aleph, 3% on A (Alexandrianus), but in any case Vatican Text B is the key component for the Modern Versions. Other manuscripts such as P75 preserved by Vatican are the bridesmaids and groomsmen for the Vatican Text B.
The spirit working behind the Modern Versions works very hard to defend Roman Catholic, to spread Catholicism, to brainwash the people with the Catholicism, which is full of the paganism, idolatry, and goddess worship.

Now, do the Roman Catholics eliminate the deity of Jesus Christ?
Nope! The Deity of Jesus Christ is quite necessary for Roman Catholic. Why?
Without Deity of Jesus Christ, Mary cannot be called Mother of God!
Therefore they admit and emphasize the Deity of Jesus Christ.
What’s the problem with Modern Versions and Vatican Text, then?
We must understand the difference between the concept of Deity of Jesus Christ by RCC and the true meaning of Deity of Jesus Christ in the Biblical Truth.
In RCC, they worship many gods actually, though they deny that.
They deny that they worship Mary as a goddess. However, they do believe Mary is a goddess! RCC worship many gods, and in their religion, Jesus Christ is one of many of their gods! To RCC, Trinity is one of many gods!
They pray Mary for many things.
1.3 Billion Roman Catholic from millions of places pray to Mary! How can Mary listen to the people from the millions of places for 2,000 years unless she became a goddess to them? In the minds and beliefs of Roman Catholics, Mary has been an Omnipresent and Omniscient goddess!

Do they pray only to Mary? They pray to Apostle Paul, to Peter, to Thomas, to Nicolas, to Mother Teresa,. Therefore it is no wonder that they modified the Bible in John 14:14 to include “Me” so that one should read “ If you ask me anything in my name, then I will do it”. They pray to so many gods, why not to Jesus in His name? The concept about prayer is not very much defined in Roman Catholic. Therefore they added “Me” in John 14:14, resulting in “ ask Jesus in the name of Jesus”, which is like praying to himself in his name.

Then what is the problem with Deity of Jesus in Modern Versions?
They are quite OK with common expressions about the deity of Jesus, but some verses showing the deity of Jesus were too much powerful, and therefore such verses were removed or modified, and they are :
1 John 5:7, 1Tim 3:16, Ephesians 3:9 (God who created all things by Jesus Christ- they removed the “by Jesus Christ”)

In reality RCC worship thousands of gods and Trinity is one of many gods in their faith. Jesus is one of thousands of gods in their religion.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php

The Perpetual Virgin Mary is on top of Almighty God, the Mother of God. Their belief is this:
The lifetime Virgin Mary loved the world so much that She gave Her only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but has everlasting life.

The Johanine Comma in 1 John 5:7 doesn’t show any mentioning about Mary, but it shows Trinity. Trinity is an obstacle to RCC because it contradicts Mother of God. Mary is neither Mother of God the Father, nor Mother of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore the complete and true meaning of Trinity is not welcomed by RCC.

Even if RCC admit the Deity of Jesus, it is only a limited concept, because they didn’t want to offend the pagan believers, so that they might accept and accommodate all the other pagan believers so that RCC might become a kind of multi pagan religion.

Don’t RCC believe the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
Yes, but to the RCC, the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ means one of their Sacrifices ( Mass) performed every week, and that’s why they reject the eternal effect of Redemption by Jesus and performs Mass every week without mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus paid all the prices for the sins forever.
They have to repeat the Mass every week, every time, because they don’t believe the effect of the Redemption by Jesus Once For ALL.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Deity of Jesus Christ in Roman Catholic and in Modern Versions.

There have been arguments that Modern Versions have weakened the Deity of Jesus Christ in their translations.
Modern Versions of Bible are the translation from the Greek Text of Westcott-Hort/Nestle-Alland, which is mainly based on Vatican Text B, which has been preserved by Roman Catholic. Some say that WH-NA is based 90% on B, 7% on Aleph, 3% on A (Alexandrianus), but in any case Vatican Text B is the key component for the Modern Versions. Other manuscripts such as P75 preserved by Vatican are the bridesmaids and groomsmen for the Vatican Text B.
The spirit working behind the Modern Versions works very hard to defend Roman Catholic, to spread Catholicism, to brainwash the people with the Catholicism, which is full of the paganism, idolatry, and goddess worship.

Now, do the Roman Catholics eliminate the deity of Jesus Christ?
Nope! The Deity of Jesus Christ is quite necessary for Roman Catholic. Why?
Without Deity of Jesus Christ, Mary cannot be called Mother of God!
Therefore they admit and emphasize the Deity of Jesus Christ.
What’s the problem with Modern Versions and Vatican Text, then?
We must understand the difference between the concept of Deity of Jesus Christ by RCC and the true meaning of Deity of Jesus Christ in the Biblical Truth.
In RCC, they worship many gods actually, though they deny that.
They deny that they worship Mary as a goddess. However, they do believe Mary is a goddess! RCC worship many gods, and in their religion, Jesus Christ is one of many of their gods! To RCC, Trinity is one of many gods!
They pray Mary for many things.
1.3 Billion Roman Catholic from millions of places pray to Mary! How can Mary listen to the people from the millions of places for 2,000 years unless she became a goddess to them? In the minds and beliefs of Roman Catholics, Mary has been an Omnipresent and Omniscient goddess!

Do they pray only to Mary? They pray to Apostle Paul, to Peter, to Thomas, to Nicolas, to Mother Teresa,. Therefore it is no wonder that they modified the Bible in John 14:14 to include “Me” so that one should read “ If you ask me anything in my name, then I will do it”. They pray to so many gods, why not to Jesus in His name? The concept about prayer is not very much defined in Roman Catholic. Therefore they added “Me” in John 14:14, resulting in “ ask Jesus in the name of Jesus”, which is like praying to himself in his name.

Then what is the problem with Deity of Jesus in Modern Versions?
They are quite OK with common expressions about the deity of Jesus, but some verses showing the deity of Jesus were too much powerful, and therefore such verses were removed or modified, and they are :
1 John 5:7, 1Tim 3:16, Ephesians 3:9 (God who created all things by Jesus Christ- they removed the “by Jesus Christ”)

In reality RCC worship thousands of gods and Trinity is one of many gods in their faith. Jesus is one of thousands of gods in their religion.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php

The Perpetual Virgin Mary is on top of Almighty God, the Mother of God. Their belief is this:
The lifetime Virgin Mary loved the world so much that She gave Her only begotten Son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but has everlasting life.

The Johanine Comma in 1 John 5:7 doesn’t show any mentioning about Mary, but it shows Trinity. Trinity is an obstacle to RCC because it contradicts Mother of God. Mary is neither Mother of God the Father, nor Mother of God the Holy Spirit. Therefore the complete and true meaning of Trinity is not welcomed by RCC.

Even if RCC admit the Deity of Jesus, it is only a limited concept, because they didn’t want the pagan believers, so that they might accept and accommodate all the other pagan believers so that RCC might become a kind of multi pagan religion.

Don’t RCC believe the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ?
Yes, but to the RCC, the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ means one of their Sacrifices ( Mass) performed every week, and that’s why they reject the eternal effect of Redemption by Jesus and performs Mass every week without mentioning the crucifixion of Jesus paid all the prices for the sins forever.
They have to repeat the Mass every week, every time, because they don’t believe the effect of the Redemption by Jesus Once For ALL.

So you're using Jack Chickianism to support your view of textual support for the KJV of the bible? Wow weird. There was a lot of non supported evidence in all of your assertions save a web page with a listing of all the catholic "named" saints. Can't you justly defend your position with out alluding to misunderstood and irrelevant data with regard to the Catholic Church? I will say that everything you've said comes from a non understanding of the Catholic faith. It's like me making supporting some principle in Physics not really knowing alot about physics other than what was learned in High School or the little I had in College. I couldn't then speak authoritatively on quantum mechanics. Funny that you do this since a lot of the responsibility for the TR is reliant on Catholics. Erasemus and what about looking at the Byzantine text that were incomplete Then translating them back? How can you be taken seriously?

 

[Eliyahu]

So you're using Jack Chickianism to support your view of textual support for the KJV of the bible? Wow weird. There was a lot of non supported evidence in all of your assertions save a web page with a listing of all the catholic "named" saints. Can't you justly defend your position with out alluding to misunderstood and irrelevant data with regard to the Catholic Church? I will say that everything you've said comes from a non understanding of the Catholic faith. It's like me making supporting some principle in Physics not really knowing alot about physics other than what was learned in High School or the little I had in College. I couldn't then speak authoritatively on quantum mechanics. Funny that you do this since a lot of the responsibility for the TR is reliant on Catholics. Erasemus and what about looking at the Byzantine text that were incomplete Then translating them back? How can you be taken seriously?

Wait!
I thought you are not a Baptist. Are you? I am so-called Plymouth Brethren which is even more fundamental than IFB, sharing the same history with Baptists throughout the history, because Brethren was the name written on the other side of the same coin that is named Baptists on the one side, and moreover I have obtained the permission personally to participate here.
I believe and trust the history of Baptists written by Baptists such as Trail of Blood, and share many things with Fundamental Baptists. You don't believe it, do you?

I raise this question first because this forum is only for Baptists, otherwise I have to explain you about the fundamental truth first in order to answer your questions as if I had to explain to the beginners.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wait!
I thought you are not a Baptist. Are you? I am so-called Plymouth Brethren which is even more fundamental than IFB, sharing the same history with Baptists throughout the history, because Brethren was the name written on the other side of the same coin that is named Baptists on the one side, and moreover I have obtained the permission personally to participate here.
I believe and trust the history of Baptists written by Baptists such as Trail of Blood, and share many things with Fundamental Baptists. You don't believe it, do you?

I raise this question first because this forum is only for Baptists, otherwise I have to explain you about the fundamental truth first in order to answer your questions as if I had to explain to the beginners.

I'm in a Southern Baptist Church. Not IFB. Don't the Plymouth Bretheren have there origins in Darby in the UK back in the 1800's not to be confused with the offshoot from the followers of Menno Simmons? Don't they consider themselves Non-denominational in some respect? Trail of Blood is full of historical errors. I don't adhere to it. I like actual history though. And wasn't the fundalmentalist movment was started at the Niagra Conference and later culminated in a series of Books written between 1909-12 called the Fundamentals which listed these specific points:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[4]

Just making sure I got my history straight.

 

[Eliyahu]

I'm in a Southern Baptist Church. Not IFB. Don't the Plymouth Bretheren have there origins in Darby in the UK back in the 1800's not to be confused with the offshoot from the followers of Menno Simmons? Don't they consider themselves Non-denominational in some respect? Trail of Blood is full of historical errors. I don't adhere to it. I like actual history though. And wasn't the fundalmentalist movment was started at the Niagra Conference and later culminated in a series of Books written between 1909-12 called the Fundamentals which listed these specific points:

Just making sure I got my history straight.

OK, if that's the case I wonder why you try to defend RCC. Do you disagree that RCC is a religion of Goddess Worship and Idolatry?

I want to hear your answer to this question because this is very important before we go on further discussion.

Many Protestants do not recognize correctly about RCC.

Some of the examples are here:


King: There is no question in your mind that he is with God now?
Billy Graham: Oh, no. There may be a question about my own, but I don’t think Cardinal Wojtyla, or the Pope—I think he’s with the Lord, because he believed. He believed in the Cross. That was his focus throughout his ministry, the Cross, no matter if you were talking to him from personal issue or an ethical problem, he felt that there was the answer to all of our problems, the cross and the resurrection. And he was a strong believer.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/popejohnpaul.htm

Check and read some more here:

Billy Graham Denies Jesus Is The ONLY WAY To The Father
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0&feature=related

Pope John Paul on Mary
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/theotokos.htm

Billy Graham a great deceiver
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham_exposed.htm

Billy Graham Love Affair with Popes
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/billy_graham-pope.htm


Pope John Paul was nothing but the Head of Idol Worshippers and Goddess Worshippers!

http://www.aloha.net/%7Emikesch/crown.htm


Dear Friends, you have great forefathers, who declared the following “ Baptist London Confession of Faith” which I like very much:

http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html

Some excerpts are here:

4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.



Do you disagree with Baptist London Confession of Faith ( 1646 and 1689)?


I fully agree with it, and that's why I am here!

 

[Rippon]

Dear Friends, you have great forefathers, who declared the following “ Baptist London Confession of Faith” which I like very much:




Do you disagree with Baptist London Confession of Faith ( 1646 and 1689)?


I fully agree with it, and that's why I am here!

Those confessions are very Calvinistic -- are you?

 

[Eliyahu]

Those confessions are very Calvinistic -- are you?

You are right about Predestination. I think it was quite popular among Baptists in that century. I used to prefer Predestination to Foreknowledge before, but now changed to Foreknowledge. Nevertheless I don't think the Baptists agreed with Calvin on Infant Baptism, Baptismal Regeneration, Baptism by Sprinkling, condemning Donatists whom Baptists consider their forefathers.
Calvin's statement in the following couldn't be accepted by Baptists:
" But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of the regeneration if he decease without baptism!" (Insititute by Henry Beveridge, Eerdmans)

He believed Regeneration is done by Water Baptism, and then it is a gift. ( A small misconcept may be tolerated though). But he misunderstood about Being Born Again very much and thought it is done by Water Baptism throughout his book. The Holy Spirit can come in some time later after the Baptism. Actually Calvin denounced Anabaptists quite a lot. The fierce argument was about Infant Baptism which was condemned by Baptists all the time, and Calvin said this:

" If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ?" ( p533 Insititute by Henry Beveridge, Eerdmans)

This is the logic which RCC used all the time to coerce Infant Baptism, and Calvin didn't know the real meaning of the fellowship with Christ.

Calvin believed Baptism is given for the remission of sins. ( p544 ibid) We know His Blood was offered for the remission of the sins, then connecting ourselves to His Blood is the Faith. By Faith we get the forgiveness and remission of sins, and then we are baptised, which declares what we believed already.

The Baptists of 17 century must have known quite well about Calvin himself. Calvin had the Infant Baptism at RCC, but his conversion was not known, nor was the Believer's Baptism thereafter. Even his involvement in killing Servetus and many others must have been known to the Baptists very well.

There is a difference between Calvinism and Presbyterianism today. Calvin claimed that the Lord Supper must be celebrated at least once a week, which is not done by Presbyterians today.

Baptists Confession may contain the Predestination Belief but not the Calvinism, because Calvinism includes many other things than Predestination.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK, if that's the case I wonder why you try to defend RCC. Do you disagree that RCC is a religion of Goddess Worship and Idolatry?

I want to hear your answer to this question because this is very important before we go on further discussion.

Many Protestants do not recognize correctly about RCC.

It is. I'm very active in my church you can find it by going to www.ctbc.org. I don't consider myself defending so much as clarifying. Remember I was raised Catholic but more importantly I've had all these discussions Already over many years with my father who is Jesuit trained. Having an inside understanding of what that faith is about I seek to edify people who otherwise get their info from Jack Chick or the book the Two Babylons etc... I've seen real believers in the Catholic Church whom I'm certain of their eternal salvation. (BTW I've seen a vast majority that I question their salvation). Also I like history and specifically the history of Christianity and I'm perplexed at the nonsence I've seen espoused by people with little or more likely, no substantiated data. Your last statement I quoted is my point exactly. Many Protestants do not recognize correctly about RCC and the actual history of the world. Be assured there are many who do. Just like you shouldn't lump Baptist with Protestants because they believe they have no real connection to the Reformation. However, I actually see them as a conglomerate of different influence throught out the age just previous to the Reformation and well after. For instance american baptist (the general view not the specific denomination) seem to have some influence of the Puritans that Oliver Cromwell would have been familiar with. Though Baptist in England not influenced by american Baptist are a different breed somewhat. I think if you argue from a point of knowledge you get a lot further than not. And I don't think misrepresenting the RCC or the OC based on silly ideas someone many years ago who had a real beef with those churches said.

 

[Eliyahu]

It is. I'm very active in my church you can find it by going to www.ctbc.org. I don't consider myself defending so much as clarifying. Remember I was raised Catholic but more importantly I've had all these discussions Already over many years with my father who is Jesuit trained. Having an inside understanding of what that faith is about I seek to edify people who otherwise get their info from Jack Chick or the book the Two Babylons etc... I've seen real believers in the Catholic Church whom I'm certain of their eternal salvation. (BTW I've seen a vast majority that I question their salvation). Also I like history and specifically the history of Christianity and I'm perplexed at the nonsence I've seen espoused by people with little or more likely, no substantiated data. Your last statement I quoted is my point exactly. Many Protestants do not recognize correctly about RCC and the actual history of the world. Be assured there are many who do. Just like you shouldn't lump Baptist with Protestants because they believe they have no real connection to the Reformation. However, I actually see them as a conglomerate of different influence throught out the age just previous to the Reformation and well after. For instance american baptist (the general view not the specific denomination) seem to have some influence of the Puritans that Oliver Cromwell would have been familiar with. Though Baptist in England not influenced by american Baptist are a different breed somewhat. I think if you argue from a point of knowledge you get a lot further than not. And I don't think misrepresenting the RCC or the OC based on silly ideas someone many years ago who had a real beef with those churches said.

It is good that you have some actual experience with RCC and with many other discussions.

We have to look at the big picture of the Christendom, and how God works.

It is very much clear that RCC runs the Idolatry and Goddess worship.
I have met many RCC members who claim that they have been saved or born again, but they are not in my view. I discerned it such way because what they believe and behave was totally different from what Bible teaches me.
The concept of their being born again was different from the Biblical Truth.

That's why I illustrated Pope and Billy Graham.
The Easy Believe-ism by Billy Graham and Infant Baptism by RCC headed by Pope John Paul have the common point! Bringing the millions of unbelievers into the churches.

If Pope was saved the Holy Spirit in him must have convicted him of so much crucial violations like Idolatry, Infant Baptism, Goddess worship, Mass.
Every week they deny that all the sins were forgiven at the Cross by performing Mass which never mention that the sins were already forgiven Once For ALL at the Cross but instead the priest ask God to forgive the sins all the time. They are ready to kill Jesus again if He comes again! Catholic Mass is a horrendous crime against God. Do you know this?

They are not satisfied with millions of statues of Mary and many others and therefore continue to manufacture their gods.

They canonized Mother Teresa who said this:
“Lord, my God, you have thrown [me] away as unwanted - unloved,” she wrote in one missive. “I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my heart.”
She added: “I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”

She even compared her problems to hell and admitted that she had begun to doubt the existence of heaven and God.
"The smile," she wrote, "is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, 'What hypocrisy'."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/wteresa124.xml

Is this the confession by the best Roman Catholic who is canonized?


The Key point is this:

Does God owe anything to the Idol Worshippers and to Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words?

NOPE!

The True Christians do not owe anything to the Idol Worshippers for their faith.

I don't either!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is good that you have some actual experience with RCC and with many other discussions.

We have to look at the big picture of the Christendom, and how God works.

It is very much clear that RCC runs the Idolatry and Goddess worship.
I have met many RCC members who claim that they have been saved or born again, but they are not in my view. I discerned it such way because what they believe and behave was totally different from what Bible teaches me.
The concept of their being born again was different from the Biblical Truth.

That's why I illustrated Pope and Billy Graham.
The Easy Believe-ism by Billy Graham and Infant Baptism by RCC headed by Pope John Paul have the common point! Bringing the millions of unbelievers into the churches.

If Pope was saved the Holy Spirit in him must have convicted him of so much crucial violations like Idolatry, Infant Baptism, Goddess worship, Mass.
Every week they deny that all the sins were forgiven at the Cross by performing Mass which never mention that the sins were already forgiven Once For ALL at the Cross but instead the priest ask God to forgive the sins all the time. They are ready to kill Jesus again if He comes again! Catholic Mass is a horrendous crime against God. Do you know this?

They are not satisfied with millions of statues of Mary and many others and therefore continue to manufacture their gods.

They canonized Mother Teresa who said this:
“Lord, my God, you have thrown [me] away as unwanted - unloved,” she wrote in one missive. “I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? even deep down right in there is nothing. I have no faith. I dare not utter the words and thoughts that crowd in my heart.”
She added: “I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”

She even compared her problems to hell and admitted that she had begun to doubt the existence of heaven and God.
"The smile," she wrote, "is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my very heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, 'What hypocrisy'."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/24/wteresa124.xml

Is this the confession by the best Roman Catholic who is canonized?


The Key point is this:

Does God owe anything to the Idol Worshippers and to Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words?

NOPE!

The True Christians do not owe anything to the Idol Worshippers for their faith.

I don't either!

If you want continued conversation of Catholicsm and the bible I would do so on a different thread. I would be glad to engage. The ultimate point is that there is real history with regard to the Translation of the bible into english. The TR is reliant on the Catholics who are responsible for its translation. Unless you say that they were real believers and not RCC but you would have to prove your point.

 

[Eliyahu]

If you want continued conversation of Catholicsm and the bible I would do so on a different thread. I would be glad to engage. The ultimate point is that there is real history with regard to the Translation of the bible into english. The TR is reliant on the Catholics who are responsible for its translation. Unless you say that they were real believers and not RCC but you would have to prove your point.

Sorry. I don't intend to stay here much time on this section of this board either. I presume you may want to say that Erasmus was a Catholic or he received some texts from a Cardinal etc. Erasmus was a true Christian even though he looked like a Catholic on the surface. His fellowship with protestants and with reformers proves it and the fact that his books were forbidden by RCC proves this too. God sometimes brought the Isaiah scrolls thru the Beduin boys. But you have to understand the big picture of what I am saying. For example Thomas Akempis is a real Christian though he was a Catholic monk in 14 c. Maybe he had some good influence from the Brethren of Common Life ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%C3%A0_Kempis)

Especially before the formation of Protestant Churches, before the true believers disagreeing to RCC emerged on the surface, there may have been many true believers inside RCC and they didn't reveal themselves very much though they disagreed to RCC.

However, we must understand the main stream. We cannot say God owes greatly to Judas Iscariot because the Crucifixion was impossible without Judas. Without Pilate, the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ was absolutely impossible! and therefore does God owe greatly to Judas Iscariot, to Pilate, to the High Priest? Maybe God owes a lot to Satan too in such sense!

We must see the big picture and return to the simple truth. God owes nothing to the pagan believers, to idol worshippers, and to the goddess worshippers for the preservation of His Words.
RCC is full of Idolatry and Paganism, and Vatican Text B is preserved by RCC, and even Aleph is more or less the same. The key component of the bases for Modern Versions is the Vatican Text B. When there is a controversy on the discrepancy between 2 groups; Vatican Text B and Majority Texts, we must remember this background, and we must repudiate the leavens of RCC.
We must see thru why B omitted Acts 8:37 and it has neither Revelation nor Hebrews after 9:14, nor Timothy, etc.

They don't deny the Christianity as a whole. Because if they do so, they cannot continue to disguise themselves as Christians. They know that some may be saved " unfortunately" because of their fake Christinity.
The broken clocks can hit the exact time 2 times a day, and it is no wonder.

RCC is nothing but the extension of Roman Empire which persecuted Christian Believers by force, and they changed the strategy to Inquisition and Bible prohibition, Persecution of the Baptists, Bringing the Unbelievers into the churches etc.

 

[gb93433]

I find it sad that so many protestants get their information about the RCC from other protestants rather than reading the RCC documents for themselves. Of course the RCC does that about protestants. The RCC of 30 years ago is not quite the same RCC of today. In 1975 the RCC formed a scholarship committee and they seem to do quite a good job on most things. When I was in seminary we has access to all kind of documents that we could take a look at.

My mom is RCC but she is also a Christian. She attends Bible study each week and the Bible studies are very good. A few years ago she attended a conference on how to do evangelism.

While I do not agree with some of their doctrine I am glad to see them teaching the Bible rather than their dogma.

 

[Eliyahu]

I find it sad that so many protestants get their information about the RCC from other protestants rather than reading the RCC documents for themselves. Of course the RCC does that about protestants. The RCC of 30 years ago is not quite the same RCC of today. In 1975 the RCC formed a scholarship committee and they seem to do quite a good job on most things. When I was in seminary we has access to all kind of documents that we could take a look at.

My mom is RCC but she is also a Christian. She attends Bible study each week and the Bible studies are very good. A few years ago she attended a conference on how to do evangelism.

While I do not agree with some of their doctrine I am glad to see them teaching the Bible rather than their dogma.

In the eyes of many protestants, RCC people are more or less the same as the protestants. However, all the concepts of RCC are different from those of Protestants who follow the Bible faithfully.

I don't think any RCC people who understand the dogmas seriously can stay both with RCC and with Bible.
RCC people study Bible and many other things like history much harder than the Protestants in general. Some Colleges of Catholic Theology that I heard do not ordain the graduates unless they can completely defend Mother of God, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Papacy, Mass, Apostolic Tradition, Inquisition, Apocrypha, Prayer to the Dead, etc. against any attack from Protestants. They are well trained for any possible accusations and criticism from the Protestants, and they have got the pre-formulated answers for all the arguments.

But as I mentioned, 1.3 Billion people at the millions of places around the world pray to Mary. Even if she flies at the speed of million miles per second, she cannot answer the prayers. Moreover, I don't believe that she can understand all the prayers from 1.3 billion people. I don't think Mary can understand English which she never heard, and hundreds of other languages. But Jesus told us to pray to the Father in Heaven ( Mt 6:6-9).

They call Mary the Mother of God, which is found nowhere in the Bible.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Father.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Holy Spirit.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when He created the universe.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when He met Abraham ( Jn 8:56-58)
Mary was not the Mother God the Son when David called Him my Lord (Psalm 110:1)
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when she was a baby.
Mary never gave any divine nature to Jesus Christ.
How can she be called Mother of God?

Is God the Father "God" in the phrase of "Mother of God"?
Mother of God denies that God the Father is God.

Mass denies the eternal effect of Sacrifice of Jesus Christ at the Cross Once For ALL.

If we reject the Eternal Effect of His Blood, what can cleanse our sins?
Does He have to come down again every week to redeem us from the sins?If we rely on the Blood of Jesus, shouldn't we mention that it was done already at the Cross 2,000 years ago?

Would God rely on the Idol Worshippers and Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words? God forbid!

God owes NOTHING to RCC for the Preservation of His Words.

KJV needed no Alexandrian Texts. On the other hand, Modern Versions need the majority texts from time to time as we have noticed in Mark's Longer Ending and Pericope Adulturae.

 

[gb93433]

I don't think any RCC people who understand the dogmas seriously can stay both with RCC and with Bible.

While that is what you may think, it is not always true. Some have chosen to stay and make change. It is much the same idea that if you find a perfect church do not join it, because you will ruin it.

They call Mary the Mother of God, which is found nowhere in the Bible.

The logic is that Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother.

The problem is that many RCC's are aware of what you write but I have yet to meet many who agree with practicing it. Some will say they once believed it but do not now. Some will not move past it because of the historical antagonism toward them by protestants. It is about the same as saying that the SBC came out of slavery and that any southern baptist who disagrees with slavery should never be a part of the SBC.

 

[Eliyahu]

While that is what you may think, it is not always true. Some have chosen to stay and make change. It is much the same idea that if you find a perfect church do not join it, because you will ruin it.

The logic is that Jesus is God and Mary is Jesus' mother.

The problem is that many RCC's are aware of what you write but I have yet to meet many who agree with practicing it. Some will say they once believed it but do not now. Some will not move past it because of the historical antagonism toward them by protestants. It is about the same as saying that the SBC came out of slavery and that any southern baptist who disagrees with slavery should never be a part of the SBC.

I understand what you mentioned is a mild apologetics for RC faith.
I think I can never find a perfect church in my life!:laugh:
"Jesus is God and Mary is His mother" doesn't qualify Mary as Mother of God, which is not shown in Bible, but is still misleading the people to pray to her. Human Syllogism doesn't work in Trinity which is never found among human beings but only in the Godheads.

Sadly many people are indulged in the idolatry and some of my relatives are RC too, and I know I have to agree to disagree with many of them until He comes, though some of them returned to the Lord when I preached the Gospel to them.

Bible preservation is a little more serious issue than the individual's faith because God must have paid good protection for it, and I believe God likes to work with His beloved people who do not practice any Idolatry or Goddess worship. God has blessed His Believers and will do it further more.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think I have posted enough for what I wanted to say, for now.

As I mentioned I want to leave here awhile.
If Lord allows me, I may show up some years later.

If any of my statements has hurt you, please forgive me.

May God bless you all in Jesus Christ who shed the precious Blood and died for our sins.

Eliyahu

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In the eyes of many protestants, RCC people are more or less the same as the protestants. However, all the concepts of RCC are different from those of Protestants who follow the Bible faithfully.

I don't think any RCC people who understand the dogmas seriously can stay both with RCC and with Bible.
RCC people study Bible and many other things like history much harder than the Protestants in general. Some Colleges of Catholic Theology that I heard do not ordain the graduates unless they can completely defend Mother of God, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Papacy, Mass, Apostolic Tradition, Inquisition, Apocrypha, Prayer to the Dead, etc. against any attack from Protestants. They are well trained for any possible accusations and criticism from the Protestants, and they have got the pre-formulated answers for all the arguments.

But as I mentioned, 1.3 Billion people at the millions of places around the world pray to Mary. Even if she flies at the speed of million miles per second, she cannot answer the prayers. Moreover, I don't believe that she can understand all the prayers from 1.3 billion people. I don't think Mary can understand English which she never heard, and hundreds of other languages. But Jesus told us to pray to the Father in Heaven ( Mt 6:6-9).

They call Mary the Mother of God, which is found nowhere in the Bible.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Father.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Holy Spirit.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when He created the universe.
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when He met Abraham ( Jn 8:56-58)
Mary was not the Mother God the Son when David called Him my Lord (Psalm 110:1)
Mary was not the Mother of God the Son when she was a baby.
Mary never gave any divine nature to Jesus Christ.
How can she be called Mother of God?

Is God the Father "God" in the phrase of "Mother of God"?
Mother of God denies that God the Father is God.

Mass denies the eternal effect of Sacrifice of Jesus Christ at the Cross Once For ALL.

If we reject the Eternal Effect of His Blood, what can cleanse our sins?
Does He have to come down again every week to redeem us from the sins?If we rely on the Blood of Jesus, shouldn't we mention that it was done already at the Cross 2,000 years ago?

Would God rely on the Idol Worshippers and Goddess Worshippers for the preservation of His Words? God forbid!

God owes NOTHING to RCC for the Preservation of His Words.

KJV needed no Alexandrian Texts. On the other hand, Modern Versions need the majority texts from time to time as we have noticed in Mark's Longer Ending and Pericope Adulturae.

See you're missing out on actual history and expect us to follow the history of text used in the translations of the bible. Mary is called mother of God. So. And again. Let me emphasize...So.... And Just in case you didn't get it the first time... So... As in So what? Just a quick jaunt in History will tell you that the whole reason for the title has less to do with Mary than with Jesus. The debate: Is Jesus fully God? Well if Mary Gave birth to a man and then God possessed him and that was the incarnation then would that be ok? No. It had to be that Mary was the Mother of God indicating that Jesus is Homoosious with the Father not Homoiosious. Or the SAME SUBSTANCE as the Father not of LIKE SUBSTANCE. Its a key consept in Christianity to maintain the distinctiveness of the Trinity. And not Limiting Christ to be just a wise man or a man possessed. Its incongurous with our faith. The rest of your statement is nonsense. Catholics in no way believe that Mary is a god. They believe she prays to the father for people. But wait...there is only one mediator between God and man. So how about you don't pray for anyone. Or ask anyone to pray for you. I mean that makes you a god if someone things you have any pull of having your prayers answered. Oh wait... the prayers of a righteous man are effective. Then the bible contradicts its self! See the trap you lay for yourself? Stop reading the Two Babylons and read their Catachism and find out what they believe. Stop making things up. Or believe those who made those things up. Do you worship the KJV bible?