The American Spectator : Spiritual Decay

Text Size

Spiritual Decay

By Jeff Walton on 11.16.11 @ 6:07AM

Washington's new Episcopal bishop is candid about the church's decline, but won't acknowledge the cause.

It's commonly remarked that obfuscation is a job requirement for liberal bishops in the Episcopal Church. Never content with reading scripture's plain meaning, they often explain away parts of the Bible that sound unpleasant to today's supposedly enlightened ears. As if out of habit, this practice carries over into church operations, where decaying Mainline Protestant houses of worship situated near booming evangelical churches rarely lead to straightforward discussions about church vitality.

It may come as a surprise, then, that Washington, D.C.'s new bishop is being heralded for her candor in acknowledging the Episcopal Church's decline, even as she fails to identify the underlying reasons for the decline that traditionalists argue got the church into such dire straits in the first place.

Mariann Budde, the first woman to be installed as Washington's top bishop (another briefly led on an interim basis), comes to the diocese acknowledging years of decline and a culture of Episcopalians who, she told the Washington Post, have lost focus on the core missions of worship and evangelizing. Statistics released in October by the U.S.-based church reveal it has lost over 40 percent of its churchgoers since the mid-1960s. Budde replaces John Bryson Chane, who famously said he was "so sick and tired of reading reports about the statistical decline of The Episcopal Church" that he no longer reads them. In selecting a replacement, the diocese sought a candidate who did not fatigue as quickly.

Weak spiritual foundations and churches that don't demand enough commitment from members are among Budde's targets. In her interview with the Post she dramatically compared the denomination to the interstate bridge that collapsed in her hometown of Minneapolis in 2007. But while calls for children's ministries and stronger pastoral care are needed, the root of the church's crisis lies elsewhere.

Budde told the Post of people wanting to "connect to transcendence and the spiritual basis of life we call God" and cheered the Episcopal Church being "open-minded and inclusive of other faith traditions." The Minnesota cleric's choice of words was typical of a Religious Left uncomfortable with Christianity's exclusivist truth claims, instead opting for a belief system where nothing is certain in the character of God, save indiscriminate affirmation.

In Budde's view, the church's longtime expectation of monogamy in traditional marriage, and the loyalties inherent to traditional families, make way for "full inclusion."

Professing to be "thrilled" to be in D.C., where same-gender marriage is legal, Budde told the Washington Examiner: "I'm pretty confident that the gospel is clear on this in terms of our accepting people as we are created by God to be and not asking people to change to conform to some uniform standard of human expression."

So we can forget about presenting people with a transforming encounter with the living God; Christianity is about "a spiritual basis of life" that is focused strictly upon acceptance. Never mind that churches which elevate this teaching are those experiencing the most rapid declines.

Budde has been touted in the local media as a church growth expert, as her congregation initially grew from an attendance of 100 to about 275 in her first years there. But only in a diocese like Minnesota, losing a quarter of its members in the past decade, would Budde's own congregation -- where growth has stalled since 2003 -- be identified as especially vibrant, and Budde seen as some kind of miracle worker.

Perhaps most attractive on Budde's résumé was a devotion to liberal political causes. In an interview with the public radio show Interfaith Voices, Budde cited "progressive Catholics" as an early influence in her life, referring to those who opposed "the Reagan wars" in Central America, and the Catholic Worker Movement. Identified by the fawning interviewer as having "a strong social justice agenda," Budde said she would make her views -- and the progressive social justice views of the Episcopal Church -- known.

Washington's new bishop seems the ideal candidate for leadership within the Episcopal Church: motivating enough to require more of her parishioners than simply showing up at Sunday worship, but inoffensive enough to not challenge any of liberal Protestantism's shibboleths, such as universalist salvation or complete affirmation of alternative sexualities and liberal political advocacy.

In Budde, Washington Episcopalians see an official who acknowledges with candor the failings of the church in evangelism and hospitality, but who does not make theological demands that would compromise the Episcopal Church's new gospel of indiscriminate inclusion and ultimately steer the church back onto a path of renewal.

Speaking to the Examiner, Budde asserted: "The Episcopal Church is a jewel of Christianity." With a moneyed history that built ornate houses of worship, the "jewel" language seems apt, even if American Christianity seems to find less and less of value in what the Episcopal Church offers.

About the Author

Jeff Walton directs the Anglican program at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (593) | Leave a comment

Kitty| 11.16.11 @ 6:25AM

It was the "progressive social justice views of the Episcopal Church" which drove me out of the Episcopal Church one Sunday in the middle of a sermon.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 8:25AM

And guess who's taking your place? The liberal Catholics who are leaving their churches by droves. They still like the liturgical practice but want to belong to a church that agrees w/their progressive political beliefs. In my neck-of-the-woods, there is a vibrant & healthy(in congregation size) Episcopal church whose members are a majority of ex-Catholics.

Trebuchet| 11.16.11 @ 8:46AM

And those liberal Catholics are being replaced by the Anglicans who split fron the Episcopals, The Eastern Rite and Orthodox, who have all come into full communion under this Pope as an act of preservation against the Epicopal Bozo's. The Church is growing.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 8:53AM

This is very true. But I think that there are more leaving, i.e., the Catholic Church, then entering, currently.

Jeff| 11.16.11 @ 9:52AM

PJ, this is a good point: there are many "trains passing in the night" going opposite directions. However, the fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church grew about half a percent in the most recently reported year, while the Episcopal Church is shrinking between 2-3% each year. The National Council of Churches reports these statistics here: http://www.ncccusa.org/news/11.....2011.html. Catholicity features my commentary on Episcopal-Catholic conversion here: http://www.catholicity.com/com.....08160.html Check them out, and I welcome your challenges: we need vigorous discussion about these matters.

PaulyD| 11.16.11 @ 3:43PM

Of course a fish would be the last to discover water.

So I don't suppose an ordained priestess would be too happy to admit the ordination of women is directly contrary to scripture.

So why would we expect to even begin to think the "Reverend" Budde would see the problem?

Divinity Student| 11.16.11 @ 12:38PM

Conservatives favor a short, oversimplified statement to the effect that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation and that Jesus is the only way to God. Rev. Nancy Gillard of Missouri, for example, endorses the statement "Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope and love in him."

Liberals, however, favor a more complex theological statement which does not, in the words of Rev. James Belle of North Carolina, "reduce Jesus to simple-minded sound bites."

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 2:47PM

Indeed, those silly conservatives have no understanding about the wondrous power of God(dess) flowing from magical crystals and hideous giant puppets...

While it is certainly true that I was bored to tears after surviving a recent visit to an Evangelical worship service, and it is due to the unceasing repetition of a small handful of themes distilled from cherry picked verses in Scripture arranged in ad hoc manner, I would rather brave another hour long altar call with the same one song than endure five minutes of gender-neutered neologisms and all the other kumbaya drek bloviating found in the Episcopal Church.

SteveInFl| 11.16.11 @ 2:59PM

Liberals, however, favor a more complex theological statement which does not, in the words of Rev. James Belle of North Carolina, "reduce Jesus to simple-minded sound bites."

Once again liberals loving to pat themselves on the back at being more complex (i.e. smarter). When liberals say complex they mean they want something that pretty much let's them do whatever they want but still get to call themselves that.

PaulyD| 11.16.11 @ 3:39PM

Amen brother!

Quartermaster| 11.16.11 @ 8:11PM

Having met a few of those "priestesses" I've noted that beyond the dreck they swallowed in seminary, they know nothing of the living Christ they purport to represent.

The Priests are no better, but both are very good at projection, as Patrick shows above.

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 8:19PM

Yes, by all means let's have an explanation of salvation that only a pure and privileged elite can understand. This has always worked so well everywhere its been tried.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 8:52PM

That's why God gave us the Bible, to read for ourselves!

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:14PM

God didn't "give us the Bible." The early church assembled together various writings that the Jews had passed on from generation to generation -- a diverse group of writings ranging from common Jewish proverbs, genealogies, prayers TO God (which God obviously didn't write), an erotic love poem (Song of Solomon) as well as the Torah (the Law and the Prophets, which they considered Scripture) -- and added to it both the Gospels, written by Christ's apostles, and various letters (the Epistles, written by Paul and others after Christ died) that they found inspiring.

The words of all these books, songs, poems, letters and other literature were written by humans -- fallible people -- and then passed down orally for centuries before many of the works were even written down. Many of the writings are prophetic, written by people who were filled with the Holy Spirit. But they are subject to all the errors and foibles that humans are subject to, not to mention the inaccuracies of the "telephone game" we all know from experience.

It is so ironic to me that you who rail at the early Church Fathers as heretics and worse, are so ready to accept THEIR decision of what to call "Scripture". How do you know it's so? The CHURCH said so!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:21PM

"And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:19-21.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 6:01PM

"Scripture," as referred to in passage, meant the Torah - the Law and the Prophets. The Second Letter of Peter in the New Testament was likely written by an elder in the church established by Peter in Rome, although it is unlikely that it bears the same authorship as the First Letter of Peter, the elder Sylvanus (see 1 Peter 5:12). The Second letter of Peter was likely composed in the second century after Christ's death, given its use of Jude and the reference to Peter's collected letters. Nothing in the New Testament was referred to by the early Christians as "scripture" -- much of it, indeed, had not yet been written.

This shows exactly why those who refer to "the Bible", as if it were a single book written by a single person, need to understand who they are quoting and what the purpose of the letter was. Perhaps you, Margie, believe thatthe person who composed this letter two centuries after Christ is inerrent, but all you're going on is the imprimatur of the Church you so roundly condemn.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 6:50PM

False on at least six accounts. (1 & 2) The Torah is only the Law, or instruction. It does NOT include the prophets. The Jewish canon included the Torah (instruction), Nebi'im (prophets), and the Ketubim (writings). These were collected and finalized between 450BC and around 200BC. The initial letters of these yields the Tanakh (or Tenakh). The LXX was the translation into Greek because Hebrew was falling into disuse due to the diaspora.

(3) 1 Peter 2:6 refers to Scripture, and in 2 Pet 3:16, Paul's epistles are called Scripture.

(4) The church did not determine Scripture, but only received it. It was the usage and recognized inspiration that made it so.

(5) Peter was the author, not Silounaos - Peter used an emanuensis, or scribe.

(6) No scholar dates the 2 Peter to "two centuries after Christ", as you claim.

See F. F. Bruce, "The Canon of Scripture"

I'm too busy to deal with the errors in your 4:14 post above.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 6:52PM

Transposition typo -> Silouanos.

Sorry.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 7:49PM

Thanks for your "corrections". My responses follow:

(1-2) My dash meant to refer Torah as Law, and then include both within the term "Scripture". Jews, including Jews of Christ's time, did not put "the Writings" (Ketubim) on the same level (see e.g. Christ's several references to "the Law and the Prophets"), notwithstanding loose references to "scripture," a word that itself just means "writings". (See also, the Introduction by the NRSV translators, "The Hebrew Scriptures Commonly Called The Old Testament": "In contrast to the Law and the Prophets, the books of the Writings contain less homogenous materials. They were not edited in groups or combined as in the case of the other books, but circulated separately. ...It was not until the time of the Christian era that the authority of the disputed books among the Writings ... were definitively settled among the Jews themselves. Later in the Christian era the five of the shortest of the Writings came to form a group called the "Scrolls" ... They were associated with certain Jewish festivals, where they were read publicaly...".

The Bible, in short, contains a disparate group of writings from different sources and authorship and used by the Jews for very different purposes.

(4) To say that "the early Church did not determine scripture, but only received it," is sophistry. As the NRSV translators remind us, the process of assembing various books that circulated among Christians into a single codex was gradual and imprecise. "The Bible of the earliest Christians was the Old Testament. Of equal authority to these writings were the remembered words of Jesus. ... At first a local church would have only a few apostolic letters and perhaps one or two Gospels."

It was not until sometime well into the second century that most -- but not all -- of the disparate Christian churches came to acknowledge a roughly common canon. This common canon did not include Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude or Revelations. And the consensus canon included other writings, such as the Letter of Barnabas and The Sehpard of Hermas.

Disputes over what should be included in the canon continued through the third and fourth centuries. St Athananasius's Festal Letter of 367 is the first known citation of the modern day canon, but many churches including the Armenian Church and others in the West disputed this list, some well up into Luther's time. Those interested in further exposition can consult B.M. Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development and Significance" (1987).

In sum, God did not hand down the New Testament to us. Early Church fathers argued over what should be included, and the disputes continued over centuries. There was no "revelation" or "epiphany" on the subject. Only men determining what they found inspirational.

(3) As to the reference to Paul's letters as "scripture", I would refer you to the commentary in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV): ("At the same time, identification with Peter, or even with a disciple of Peter (like the author of 1 Peter) appears unlikely. Although the author claims to have written a previous letter (3:1), 2 Peter does not reflect the social setting of 1 Peter or its imagery for the new covenant community. Despite the author's claim to fellowship with Paul (3.15), the reference to misinterpretation of Paul's letters suggest that they have already been collected and are treated as 'scriptures' in some churches (3.16) -- clearly not the case during the lifetime of the apostles."

(5) Few respected biblical scholars now believe that. See the NRSV notes cited above.

(6) I should have said "second century after Christ" rather than "two centuries after Christ."

When you're not so busy, would love to hear your remarks on the other commentary.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:37PM

Heh. Apparently RCV doesn't understand the first part of 2 Pe. 1:19-21.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 6:45PM

Bigot Margie,
How did God give us the Bible? Do you know, can you even explain?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 9:03PM

So now you don't believe in God?
Why don't you believe in God, Papist?
You deny that God exists?
Bigot!!

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 10:54PM

Bigot Margie,
You seem to be devolving and getting more stupid each day. Did I say I don't believe in God? I asked you, our direct line to God, how God gave us the Bible because I want to know your reply. Apparantly you can't answer, or are too paranoid to give an answer.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 3:05PM

Did I ever say I didn't believe in God, either, you idiot?
Buzz off, I'm just giving you a taste of your own FOUL medicine!
Fool.

Jacob R| 11.18.11 @ 8:59AM

You sure the One True Church isn't where the Protestants got their bible?

Quit disrespecting the early (Catholic) Christians who made your religions (and "enlightened" secularism) possible!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:41PM

Jacob,

The One True Church is not the Catholic church. It's actually not a Religion OR a building, but it is the Body of Christ, which is made up of individual Christians that believe all that is written in the Scriptures concerning the Christ, the Son of God, and who do His will according to HIS WORDS.

As to the so called early church fathers, Jesus warned us to not listen to anything that they or anyone else teaches or has taught if it does not agree with HIS WORDS.

"So, then, brothers, stand firm and
strongly hold the teachings you were
taught, whether by word or by our letter." 2 Thess. 2:15.

For Christians, we reject all teachings that are unscriptural.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 11:50PM

Margie,

Christ's "WORDS" were preached orally, and, it is these Traditions, of which Saint Paul is referring in 2 Thess., that you refuse to believe.

Plus, Paul, along with Saints Matthew and Jude, also used oral tradition in their writings (cf. Matt. 2:23; 1 Cor. 10:4; 2 Tim. 3:8; & Jude 9, 14-15). These are all ORAL traditions, not found in the Old Testament.

Even Christ acknowledged the tradition of Moses seat, in Matt. 23:2-3, and the authority of the scribes to teach from it.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 3:08PM

Christ's Words were written in Greek and they are in the Bible that GOD gave us.

And yes, these TEACHINGS are what CHRISTIANS live by.

Not Papists of course. But Christians, yes.

Screw you for saying I do not believe in them, PUNK.

I reject yOUR CULT'S teachings.

The sick and perverted teachings that say for one thing that MAry is the Mother of God.

Repent you lying imbecile.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 6:37PM

Margie,

So, Saints Matthew, Paul, and Jude were all wrong to use Jewish traditions in their preaching of the Gospel? Was Christ also wrong to refer Jewish tradition, which is not found in the Old Testament?

Also, the oral traditions to which Paul refers, in 2 Thess., are the Sacred Traditions, which, along with Sacred Scripture, make up the Catholic Church's Deposit of Faith.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:22PM

More deceit. I spoke nothing of the old Jewish traditions, and you know it.

I was speaking to the FACT that we have been warned to not to believe anything that does not comport with the Scriptures and what His APPOINTED Apostles taught.

Nice try at yet another straw man,

Repent and believe the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, it isn't the one YOU are teaching!

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 8:47PM

Bigot Margie,
You are truly stupid.
You know that Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Mary is called the Mother of God out of respect and not worship and it does not make Mary part of the Divinity. What part of that don't you understand, pea brain? You don't agree that Jesus is God, that is your opinon based on your cult's interpretation of the Bible. Nobody here is calling your beliefs sick and perverted even though you are the only one who believes it.
Learn how to read. Stop lying.
Repent, idiot bigot.

Peace be with thee| 11.16.11 @ 9:07AM

"Never content with reading the scripture's plain meaning . . ."

Plain meaning?

The plain meaning of many Biblical passages is, as many readers have pointed out in previous posts, too barbaric and downright evil to even consider.

We progressive Episcopalians are too humane, too ethical to accept the "plain meaning" of many of the Bible's primitive and hateful texts, and you know which texts I mean, or you should know.

Because of members like Mariann Budde , the church is evolving spiritually and intellectually. I thank God for that.

Peace be with thee . . .

AhiaGuy| 11.16.11 @ 9:22AM

"We progressive Episcopalians are too humane, too ethical to accept the "plain meaning" of many of the Bible's primitive and hateful texts, and you know which texts I mean, or you should know."

Typical Liberalism: we are morally superior to you Neanderthals who believe something different. As Thomas Sowell pointed out, the difference between Liberals & Conservatives is that Conservatives believe Liberals are naive while Liberals believe Conservatives are evil.

And no, Peace, even trying to read between the lines of your fuzzy philosophy, I don't know which texts you mean, so why don't you just tell us? Or are you afraid you can't back up your relativism with any logical arguments?

Peace be with thee| 11.16.11 @ 9:45AM

The Bible and Koran are full of barbarity. Grab your Bible, folks, and read along. Here are just a few of the hateful texts (you probably know them by heart):

God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).

I could go on and on, but I think I've said enough.

Peace be with thee . . .

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 9:58AM

Uh, gosh! God kills! Who knew??
“Peace”, He commanded us not to murder;
God still determines who lives, when, and how they die. That’s, like, something that He gets to decide, not us. Read Acts 17:26.
(It is always amazing to me that liberals judge God for not providing the Heaven on earth that liberals think they deserve.)

Bobbie from Baltimore| 11.16.11 @ 10:25AM

Rocin, I think Peace is pointing out the immorality of God's actions. You would say his actions are immoral by modern standards, wouldn't you.

If your reasoning and moral development is at a primitive level, I'm sure you would see no evil in God's actions.

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 10:39AM

Yes, Bobbie, I agree with you that Peace thinks he can judge God. No doubt about it.
You liberals look at the sins of man, and hold God accountable.
This is not heaven, it is the kingdom of man.

Franco| 11.16.11 @ 12:06PM

Judging and criticizing and questioning and complaining about God is wholly normal and natural (what we Zionist Occupationist GOvernment types call "kvetching"). Moses does it. Job does it. Jesus did it. We're all entitled to do it. This dosen't obligate God to give us the answers we want, though, as the Bibl also makes plain.

edo| 11.17.11 @ 7:37PM

True enough!

edo| 11.17.11 @ 7:38PM

(replying to Franco)

Poppyseed| 11.16.11 @ 12:25PM

Answer Bobbie's question, Rocin. Don't skirt it.

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 12:31PM

What's to answer, Poppy? Bobbie thinks we can hold God accountable; the Bible says we cannot.
Try reading Job again; very enlightening. :)

yuyu my| 11.16.11 @ 10:31AM

Does God decide how a child dies when the child is raped and murdered? Is it God's decision to have the child tortured and then killed?

yuyu my| 11.16.11 @ 10:31AM

My response is to Rocin's comment about "God decides . . ."

Trish| 11.16.11 @ 7:37PM

The Bible is clear that Satan is the god of this world. He comes to 'kill, steal, and destroy'. He is the spirit behind barbarism.

Tina B| 11.17.11 @ 8:13AM

If everything we do is decided by God, we are nothing but robots, programmed droids. We were given free will, from the start, and Adam chose to disobey God.

I cannot make good choices by myself either. But, having come to know God, through His Word, and getting the big picture of His grace and salvation through the atoning death of Christ, who is God and man, I am daily making better choices.

As far as your rapist and murderer of children goes, again, these are choices made by man resulting in evil deeds. This is not the will of God, but if you don't know the whole story, and you just read the violent parts, even the Bible won't help you to choose to follow Him.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 2:04PM

"We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose.

For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the Image of his Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren.

And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called he also justified; and those whom He justified he also glorified." Rom. 8:28-30.

And yet:

"For many are called, but few are chosen." Mt. 22:14.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 11:11AM

Wow, several massive misunderstandings, particularly of WHY God told the Israelites to kill off many of the Canaanites.

Simply put, it was idolatry, and God did not want His people corrupted with false Gods. It was actually His justice being enacted.

Trish| 11.16.11 @ 7:38PM

Correct.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 3:19PM

Are you sure that we should take Joshua as history? I think not.

Jill James| 11.16.11 @ 11:28AM

Right. You do not believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We get that. Do you have any other authoritative canon, or do you get to choose what parts of the Bible to believe? That bit about killing your own son as a sacrifice for sin ... is that barbaric too?

Poppyseed| 11.16.11 @ 12:27PM

"Killing your own son as a sicrifice for sin . . ."

Yes, that is positively barbaric. The whole sacrificial idea of sacrificing animals and humans in religious ritual is barbaric.

Without a doubt.

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 2:24PM

Well, Poppy, "barbaric" or not, 'the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23 )

Ian| 11.16.11 @ 5:57PM

Well if by Barbaric we mean destroying a group of people who raped, murdered and sacrificed children to their false Gods, then of course the Bible is barbaric. That is a strange definition, but if they were to be consistent, then most liberals are in the same boat as the Pagans, since their support for Abortion is basically the same as child sacrifice, the taking of innocent life for false idols, naming the idol of "women's rights". So of course it is barbaric to kill those who commit such things.

Dr. X| 11.16.11 @ 1:29PM

People like you who cite the Bible as "full of barbarity" are 100% totally clueless as to what Christianity is all about.

Every time a lefty cites the "violence" of the Bible, it invariably comes straight out of the Old Testament. Well, if you actually read the New Testament you'll find that Jesus was a SEVERE critic of the Jewish religion. He drove the money-changers from the Jewish temple, and ripped into the Pharisees, who he called a "brood of vipers." He was executed for blasphemy and heresy on false testimony solicited by Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin and a bribe paid to Judas.

NOWHERE in the New Testament will you find God or Jesus sanctioning killing people or conquering them through violence (unlike Islam, which did nothing but). Or, for that matter, sanctioning anal buggery, promiscuity, political Machiavellianism, or whoredom. When Jesus meets the sinners, he forgives their sins and commands them to "sin no more," NOT tolerate and encourage sin. Christianity commands us to pity the sickos and perverts, not indulge their perversions.

Try reading it sometime before you bloviate your ignorance into the blogosphere.

rnb| 11.17.11 @ 1:37AM

Right, Doctor X.

How about when Jesus used the phrase "whited sepulchers" to describe the Pharises.

Our Heavenly Father is righteous. He is good. He is loving. And He judges.

No need to get deep into so many passages in the Old Testament. One either believes that God destroyed man in the Great Flood (sparing Noah and Noah's family) or one doesn't.

God killed.

If you don't believe in God and His character that we learn of in the Bible, well, please do not call yourself a Christian.

And don't call whatever you are doing on Sunday morning church.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 1:53AM

Dr. X.,

This is not accurate, at all.

First of all, God killed every man, woman, and child, (except Noah and his family) when He sent the Flood. God also killed the first-born of Egypt.

God also allowed the Israelites to put the people of Canaan under the ban and use herem warfare against their cities, after the sin of Baal of Peor. This required the killing of every man, woman, and child.

Christ is God, so, this was allowed by Him. Christ also never condemns what the Hebrews of Moses' Joshua's time did to the Canannites, in the New Testament.

Of course, only God has the right to ask for the lives, or, take the lives, of these people. We only have the right to defend ourselves, if our lives are threatened. Plus, the Israelites were only taking back what belonged to them, the Promised Land of Abraham, their father.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 3:21PM

Are you taking Joshua as history? Jericho didn't even exist at the time.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 5:09PM

Rich D.,

"Jericho didn't even exist at the time."

It didn't?
Then what city did they march the Ark of the Covenant around, seven times? Miami Beach?

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 7:11PM

Funny.

Jericho was destroyed before 1560 BC and resettled in the 800's BC. When was the Exodus?

Ai was a tiny city uninhabited between 2400 and 1000 BC.

Joshua is theology, not history as we would write it.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 1:37AM

Rich D.,

"Funny."
Thank you.

"Jericho was destroyed before 1560 BC and resettled in the 800's BC. "

According to whom? The "experts"? The minimalists? Are you one of them?

So, in your opinion, Joshua didn't march the Ark around Jericho for 7 days, blow the shofars, and then God made the walls fall down?

Do you also not believe in the Exodus, or, that God parted the Red Sea?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:17PM

I found nothing incorrect about Dr. X's post.
Nothing at all.
Apparently Nick, you cannot read.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 5:22PM

Margie is the sole judge of what is correct and true

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 5:58PM

No, I'm not. And neither are you, punk.
The Bible (God's Own Words) are.
If you can say what was wrong with Dr. X's post with Scripture to back up your claim, then prove he was wrong.
Otherwise shut up.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 6:43PM

Idiot Margie,
Since you admit your are not the judge of the bible, then take your advice and shut up with your ignorant opinions.
We can all read the Bible and don't need a stupid ignoratn Bigot like you pontificating every day like some mad Mullah issuing fatwas.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:34PM

Follow some logic here, punk. (Steve).
YOU said I thought I was the "sole judge of blah blah blah.
I said I am not but that the Bible is.
YOU then say, "Then why don't you shut up if you aren't the judge of the Bible."
What an idiot.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 11:03PM

Margie the village Idiot,

You are truly stupid.

Don't you understand that if you do not know what your are talking about, i. e. the Bible, then you should not give opinions on the Bible? You preach and pontificate as if you are the judge and authority on the Bible. Then when questioned you fall back on your standard line that the Bible is the authority or judge on the Bible. If the Bible is the judge and authority on the Bible, then we don't need your ignorant opinions about the Bible, such as what God says or God wants.

Do you want me to use smaller words or draw pictures for you:?

Do you even know what logic means?

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 6:47PM

Margie,

Do you agree with Rich D.? That the Book of Joshua is not history and that Jericho didn't exist at the time of the Conquest of Canaan?

Also, the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are the same God.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 7:25PM

Don't go overboard here and twist my words - there were many cities on the site, but it was uninhabited at the time that Joshua was entering Canaan, as was Ai, which means ruins. See my previous post containing more detail. I did NOT say flatly that Joshua was not history in the context of the post. It is not history as we mean today by the word. Why are you obfuscating?

Why does it matter who Margie agrees with? Debate me yourself.

Do you know when Joshua was composed? Deuteronomy? Do you think that God ordered genocide?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:32PM

Nick enjoys trying to pin me, more than anyone else it seems.
He's a liar and doesn't care one whit for the truth.
Have at him, but I doubt he will continue the conversation with you, it is me he is after.
LOL.

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 12:01AM

Oh, he generally responds, but seldom answers.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 1:28AM

No, Rich, I always have answers. You just don't like them

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:42PM

LOL, for certain!

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 1:27AM

Rich D.,

How did I twist your words, exactly?

"I did NOT say flatly that Joshua was not history in the context of the post."

Not in your response to me, perhaps. But, 3 minutes before your reply to me, you wrote:

"11.17.11 @ 3:19PM
Are you sure that we should take Joshua as history? I think not."

Did you forget what you wrote? And, how am I obfuscating?

"Why does it matter who Margie agrees with? Debate me yourself."

I was just curios. Plus, I am debating you. What is your point?

"Do you know when Joshua was composed? Deuteronomy?"

Precisely? No. So what? It doesn't make the history recorded in them any less historical, does it? I believe Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, but, how it came to us in its final version, I do not know.

"Do you think that God ordered genocide?"

No. Did God commit genocide when He flooded the entire earth? But, He did allow the destruction of every man, woman, and child, from many cities. This is well recorded in the Torah (cf. Deut. 2:33-34; 3:6; 7:2; 20:10-18).

This was after the sin of Baal of Peor, mind you. Before that great apostasy, God's plan was for Israel to live among the Canaanites, so that the pagans would learn about the True God, from them. After Baal of Peor, God knew that the Israelites would always succumb to the pagan idols.

Moses had had to plead with God not destroy Israel once, already. Moses was allowed to make a second law, i.e., Deuteronomy, which was a little more lax than the law established by God, in Exodus. Divorce was allowed, for example.

And, harem warfare was allowed, so that no pagan influences would be around to tempt Israel. But, as usual, Israel failed to put the Canaanites under the ban. They kept booty for themselves. They disobeyed God.

After the Conquest of Canaan, God did command Samuel, when he anointed Saul king, to tell Saul to "utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." - 1 Sam. 15:1-3

God Bless!

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 11:02AM

R: "I did NOT say flatly that Joshua was not history in the context of the post."

N: Not in your response to me, perhaps. But, 3 minutes before your reply to me, you wrote:

R: "11.17.11 @ 3:19PM
Are you sure that we should take Joshua as history? I think not."

N: Did you forget what you wrote? And, how am I obfuscating?

Just like that - thanks for the perfect example. You took it out of the discussion context as you normally do. Only a fool or con man would do what you just did to twist the common MODERN standard behind the word "history". Which are you?

That's what you do to Scripture, also - take one line and build a house of cards around it.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 5:32PM

Rich D.,

"You took it out of the discussion context as you normally do."

I did not. And you question my reading comprehension?

In your 11.17.11 @ 3:19PM comment you asked Ryan or Trish (you didn't state to whom you were replying) if "we should take Joshua as history?" You then answered with a simple declarative sentence, "I think not."

Three minutes later, you asked me if I took Joshua as history. Based on both of your comments, I concluded that you do not consider Joshua as actual, true history, since you did not qualify either of your statements with the word "MODERN" or in any other way.

So, what am I missing? The only person twisting things, here, is you, my friend. Write more clearly next time.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 11:07AM

R: "Do you know when Joshua was composed? Deuteronomy?"

N: Precisely? No. So what?

Go study. Your ignorance is wider than the sea.

N: It doesn't make the history recorded in them any less historical, does it?

Precisely the point - wake up! What they wrote was not history in the sense that we judge it. No wonder you are lost.

N: I believe Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, but, how it came to us in its final version, I do not know.

Yeah, he wrote about his own death, too, in chapter 34. Go study and stop preaching to us out of ignorance.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 5:42PM

Rich D.,

"Go study. Your ignorance is wider than the sea."

You don't know, either. Nobody knows precisely when Joshua was written. Those in glass houses, ya' know?

"What they wrote was not history in the sense that we judge it."

Straw man. I never claimed that it was. But, they do contain true, historic events. I am not lost, at all.

"Yeah, he wrote about his own death, too, in chapter 34."

Another straw man. I never claimed he did. I stated perfectly clearly that I did not know how the final version of Deuteronomy came to us. Again, no one does. But, I trust the tradition that says that Moses wrote the Torah.

I do have much more to study, I readily admit this. But, I am hardly ignorant.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 11:45PM

N: "Another straw man. I never claimed he did. I stated perfectly clearly that I did not know how the final version of Deuteronomy came to us. Again, no one does. But, I trust the tradition that says that Moses wrote the Torah."

Well, the last chapter is part of it, so you are claiming that he wrote of his own death. Can't have it both ways.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 1:05AM

Rich D.,

I'm not trying to have it both ways.

Is it not possible that Moses wrote the Book of Deuteronomy and that someone added the circumstances of his death at a later time?
Has this never occurred to you?

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 11:25AM

R: "Do you think that God ordered genocide?"

N: No. Did God commit genocide when He flooded the entire earth? But, He did allow the destruction of every man, woman, and child, from many cities.

ALLOW? He caused it! Be consistent. It's funny how you reject the plain literal meaning of the texts when they would undercut your sect's heresies.

genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.

So, go back to Jericho and Ai if you can and tell me that the radiocarbon dating and the archeologists are uniformly wrong. That is the topic. Stop flim-flaming and changing the subject. Moses (if you will) wrote that God said to commit genocide, wiping out whole peoples by ethnicity in Deut 7:1. Deal with it. Critics here read the texts and say that God did order genocide, and your weak response is that, yeah, but it wasn't genocide because God ordered it. You'll make a lot of converts with that dodge.

And what's with the gratuitous "God bless" at the end of all of your posts? You look like an insincere fool trying to impress with false piety, a "reverend" Wright in reverse.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 6:46PM

Rich D.,

"ALLOW? He caused it!"

I was referring to the Deuteronomy verses I listed, not the Flood. My apologies, if this was not clear enough for you.

"So, go back to Jericho and Ai if you can and tell me that the radiocarbon dating and the archeologists are uniformly wrong."

Biblical Archaeology is a subject in which I am very interested. I'm no expert, but, I do know that there are plenty of archaeologists who reject the minimalist's dating of these sites. Just like there are plenty of scientists who don't accept AGW.

"Stop flim-flaming and changing the subject."

I am doing no such thing.

"Moses (if you will) wrote that God said to commit genocide [...]."

Not in my Bible He didn't. My citations from Deut. just say that God "delivered them up to" them. I was attempting to pre-empt a reply from you on the order of: "God didn't order the Israelites to kill everyone." This is why I cited 1 Sam., because God did specifically tell Samuel to tell Saul to kill everyone. So, I'm not sure to what you are objecting?

"Deal with it."

I'm pretty sure that I did deal with it, when I explained that these actions were allowed by God after the sin of Baal of Peor.

It was not genocide, in our modern use of the word (ha-ha!), for two reasons. Because life is a gift from God, which He can take back whenever He wants. It is His right as Creator.

Secondly, the Israelites had every right to take back the Promised Land because it was theirs, by right of inheritance. If I leave my house, even for many years, and return to find a biker gang squatting in my house, I have every right to expel the gang, even using deadly force to do so.

"And what's with the gratuitous "God bless" at the end of all of your posts? "

I'm sorry that you can't discuss the Word of God without being acrimonious. I enjoy sharing the Gospel of Christ with whomever I'm able, and I do wish you well. This is why I end my comments with this little prayer. And also to show that I am not offended by what others have written.
So, how about:
Yours in Christ, Nick
(Is that better?)

Rich D| 11.19.11 @ 12:01AM

R: "Moses (if you will) wrote that God said to commit genocide [...]."

"Not in my Bible He didn't."

What does Deut 7:1 say in yours? It lists the groups by name in every version that I know of. This is echoed in chapter 9 and again in Joshua 1, 3, 6:21, 8:24, 10:28, 32, 35, 39 and especially 40. The rest of Joshua says the same thing - Joshua utterly destroyed people as the Lord commanded.

As I said, you will gain no converts with the argument that it wasn't genocide because the Lord commanded it. Nor will you get converts by saying that the Lord destroyed them himself. The text says mostly that he delivered them up, i. e., made them available for destruction by Joshua.

If you read this by today's history standards, then you will see that the objectors in this thread have a point.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 1:18AM

Rich D.,

"What does Deut 7:1 say in yours?"

This: "When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir'gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per'izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb'usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves [...]." - RSV

Why are you going off on this tangent? I have admitted that God ordered herem warfare in 1 Samuel (sorry, I misspelled herem, earlier.) I haven't researched every instance of God specifically ordering the killing of men, women, and children, so, I'm sure there are other verses.

"As I said, you will gain no converts with the argument that it wasn't genocide because the Lord commanded it."

Okay, how do you explain God's command to kill everybody?

"The text says mostly that he delivered them up, i. e., made them available for destruction by Joshua."

I believe I stated as much, when referring to Deut., didn't I?

"If you read this by today's history standards, then you will see that the objectors in this thread have a point."

No, I do not see their point. History must be read in the context of the times in which it happened.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.29.11 @ 1:09PM

"No, I do not see their point. History must be read in the context of the times in which it happened."

I didn't say that you had to agree with their point - that you can't see that they have a point makes it a problem for you to debate with them.

It is NOT history as we use the word. You can't see that point, either, because you are not properly schooled in Biblical interpretation.

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 3:56PM

Rich D.,

"I didn't say that you had to agree with their point [...]."

In order for me to "see that the objectors in this thread have a point," do I not have to admit that the objectors have, at least partially, made their point? I do not concede that they have made their point, in whole, nor in part.

If your point is that they have made an argument, well, anyone can make an argument. It doesn't mean the argument has any validity.

It doesn't matter that it is not "history" as we use the word. The events recorded, such as Red Sea crossing and the Fall of Jericho, actually happened and are historic. No one has proved otherwise.

Now, I see that you ignored the hard question: How do you explain God's command to kill everybody?
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.19.11 @ 12:03AM

N: Biblical Archaeology is a subject in which I am very interested. I'm no expert, but, I do know that there are plenty of archaeologists who reject the minimalist's dating of these sites.

Names and article references, please.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 1:37AM

Rich D.,

I stated that I'm no expert.

Although, I did recently watch a documentary that mentioned Yigael Yadin and Israel Finkelstein. There were many others, but, I don't recall their names. I'm also familiar with names Gabriel Barkay and David Ussishkin.

Are you claiming that the dating of both Jericho, and Ai, are settled among archaeologists?

Rich D| 11.29.11 @ 1:35PM

"Are you claiming that the dating of both Jericho, and Ai, are settled among archaeologists?"

First, there were as many as 20 settlements at the site of Jericho. The site was unoccupied between 1560 BC (end of City IV) and the 9th century BC. Thus, it was destroyed before Joshua. Radiocarbon sat that it was destroyed around 1562 BC, +/- 38 years. This datum was published in "Radiocarbon", Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995. Look up Kenyon's work in the city.

Second, the location of Ai (meaning "ruins"), if correct, shows it to have been unoccupied for 1000 years. It is too large to fit the Biblical text, and the next city built there was built peaceably. Perhaps the conquest was really at Beth-El, but they are not sure where that is. Who would name a thriving city "ruins"?

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:05PM

Rich D.,

Now, that doesn't answer my question, does it?

When Jericho's ruins were first discovered, they were dated to the time of the Conquest. Also, radiocarbon dating, a very inexact science (to say the least,) is never given with margins of error of less than a century.

Rich D| 11.19.11 @ 12:12AM

N: Secondly, the Israelites had every right to take back the Promised Land because it was theirs, by right of inheritance. If I leave my house, even for many years, and return to find a biker gang squatting in my house, I have every right to expel the gang, even using deadly force to do so."

Maybe not - there is the law of adverse possession, and depending how long and they occupy and use the property, you might lose title.

Besides, they never held title in the first place, not for 500 years.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 1:54AM

Rich D.,

"Maybe not - there is the law of adverse possession [...]."

Which book is this law in? Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy?

"Besides, they never held title in the first place, not for 500 years."

They most certainly did. They were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. The Twelve Tribes of Israel went down to sojourn in Egypt, when Joseph was pharaoh's prime minister. And they were then enslaved by the Egyptians.

They still had claim to the Promised Land. Even 400 years later. Would God have sent them to re-enter the land if they had no right to it? Did not God first deliver the land into the hands of Abraham?

Again, before the sin of Baal of Peor, God's plan was for the Israelites to simply enter the land and live among the pagans, so that they could teach the pagans about the true God.

After wandering for 40 years, the next generation apostatized, just like the first generation did at the Golden Calf. Baal of Peor showed that the next generation could not live among the pagans. So, they would have to eliminate the source of their temptation. Not to mention, the Canaanites had abominable practices.
God Bless!

Rich D| 11.29.11 @ 1:04PM

C'mon - you make things hard. I was obviously referring to your comment about abandoning your house.

Nick| 11.30.11 @ 4:07PM

Rich D.,

And, I was obviously making a tongue-in-cheek comment.
My actual point was made in the next four paragraphs.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:37AM

Usually such interpretation requires taking passages severely out of context, or forgetting certain purposes.

What specifically is "hateful?"

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 9:42AM

Denying the basic tenet of Jer. 17:9, “Peace”, like Budde, has judged God’s Word and found it wanting; not a good strategy, people.

Bobbie from Baltimore| 11.16.11 @ 10:28AM

Yes it is a good strategy.

We have the ability to reason, and analytical reasoning should be applied to religious texts. When you analyze some of the Bible's texts, you are left bewildered at the savagery.

This should be admitted by all honest people.

Rocin| 11.16.11 @ 11:11AM

This should be acknowledged by all honest Christians:
"But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Rom 9:20)
(Might want to read Job, btw. Just sayin'. )

Tina B| 11.17.11 @ 11:37AM

Key words in your erroneous post, Bobbie, "some of the Bible's texts," and this is your error: the Bible was not meant to be read only in part. It is God's story with mankind and eventually with a Chosen People, who were first only the Israelites, and then the Gentile believers and followers of Jesus Christ, Emanuel, God with us.

The entire story is there, from beginning to end, from Creation to Armageddon, from a friendly relationship with God, to an intimate relationship with His Son. All of it is vitally important in understanding the nature of the Old Testament Decalog and the obedience demanded, to the New Testament and the two Great Commandments and the relationship this created.

When God sent His only Son to die for us, in our place, we found out how great His love is for His human creation. When Christ, who was the Second Person of the Godhead, chose to come to Earth and die on a cross, carrying the sins of the world, mine and yours, to their horrible finality, we found out how great is His passion for His Father and us as well.

This is where we should come full circle, trust in that love and atoning death, and follow Him to the best of our ability. He will do the rest.

The entire story needs to be understood, to comprehend the most violent times in God's relationship with His creation. We are the sinners, He is the perfect One, and now we can be part of His Kingdom by accepting His sacrifice for our own sins.

Read the whole Bible, then call me back.

Rich D| 11.18.11 @ 12:03AM

Maybe you are if you treat it as a modern history text and not a theological account.

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 2:48PM

I thought the new Episcopalian motto was "blessed be" or something like that.

Trish| 11.16.11 @ 7:15PM

Which 'evil' passage(s) in the New Testament? I have rejected the Episcopalian organization precisely because it has rejected the scriptures. I can go to the local democrat hdqtrs to hear the same empty claptrap the Episcopalian church is dishing.

Dmac| 11.17.11 @ 11:41AM

Hmmm, I thought the Episcopal Church was a Christian church. Do tell if you would, exactly what passages of the New Testiment do you find evil or hateful?

C Smith| 11.16.11 @ 12:32PM

Kitty,

Respect your discernment of that which is the Gospel and that which is not. For there is another "Jesus," another "Spirit," and another "Gospel," and those who fail to discern the difference forfeited eternal life.

"... another Jesus, whom we did not preach... a different spirit, which ye did not receive, or a different gospel, which ye did not accept...." (Corinthians 11:4).

Andrew B| 11.16.11 @ 6:36AM

Me too, Kitty. I was a lifelong Episcopalian, but I began to lose all hope when it became clear that there was no longer a place for those of us who actually believed in God. The Episcopal Church has clergy who are atheists, pantheists, deists, Buddists, Muslims, Druids and who knows what else. At that point decline isn't a bug, but a feature.

Tina B| 11.17.11 @ 11:39AM

Very well stated, Andrew.

POST American| 11.16.11 @ 6:37AM

"H G Wells, traveling on behalf of the Fabians
a century ago surveyed America. On returning
to London he reported 'the agenda' would never
work in America due, very largely, to the country's
Calvinist churches. Even the post WWI 'Roaring
Twenties' were stymied by all the illegitimate
children, and all the virulent denunciations of
Baptist preachers. Something had to be done about that."

----Something WAS done about that.

Rockefeller 'ECK--YOU---MEN--ICK---ALL--ism'
they call it.

And NOW ------HUAC/NUREMBERG II------
we're calling for.

Meanwhile, one and all can clean out their
particular churches, or leave them.

----------And download that Calvin and Bunyan
and Gill, and prayerfully search the scriptures
for yourselves.

WilliamInWien| 11.16.11 @ 7:13AM

I, for one, do not attend church to have a pastor address political and social issues. I can get that 7 x 24 from the media. Nor do I go to a "political scientist" for insight into religious matters. In most follow-on discussions with religious leaders, I have come to the conclusion that they are "preaching" what they have read somewhere and are not acquainted by experience with the issues. As a result, why would people go to church to listen to a subject being addressed that has already been gone over at the dinner table?

Jarvis| 11.16.11 @ 12:04PM

Dead on, William. I don't think the Episcopalian clergy is much interested, or knows much about, theology. As far as I can tell, they spend their time watching CBS news and repeating what they hear.
Like another contributor above, I walked out in the middle of a sermon and never went back.

RND| 11.17.11 @ 1:44AM

Jarvis, I had to do the same in a Presbyterian Sunday evening gathering three years ago.

Yes, I walked out and never looked back. Thankfully God has been good and I've located Bible believing and Bible practicing! devoted friends in a church aiming to serve God, follow scripture, and serve our community.

I will gladly partner in various community projects with folks of many 'stripes,' but I won't tolerate sitting in and contributing to a false teaching that grieves the Holy Spirit.

Herb| 11.16.11 @ 7:34AM

If I recall correctly, the Episcopalian Church was once referred to as "the Republican Party at prayer". Then it became known as "the Democratic Party at prayer".

Then it became known, to paraphrase Mencken, as "an innocent pastime, preferred by some to tennis or canasta."

Anyway, why is the installing of another liberal feminist woman as archbishop in the D.C. area even considered news? Dog bites man.

Trish| 11.16.11 @ 7:18PM

Exactly Herb. Prior to reading your post I wrote one saying I could go down to the local dem hdqts for the same empty claptrap. Great minds...

Appleby| 11.16.11 @ 7:40AM

Everyone in my family who used to be Episcopal or Anglican has decamped for conservative, orthodox churches where God is worshipped and glorified, charity towards our neighbours (in the original meaning of the word CARITAS) is front and centre, and we do not have to sit tensed in our seat awaiting some verbose barrage from the pulpit that will require us to get up and walk out. In my case here in Toronto it was the preaching of homosexuality 24/7/366 and the rampant anti-Americanism that caused me to abandon that church and become Catholic. My church is somewhat lazy, by American standards, but Canada being a socialist country has no clear understanding that Jesus never said Force Your Neighbours to Feed My Sheep; that this was an individual mandate and their quotation of Scrooge, *I pay taxes to support those institutions [debtors prison and the poorhouse] and people who are badly off must go there* is not the answer He requires. However there are enough who know better to give me hope that with the rise in vocations among the conservative seminaries that are bursting at the seams, we will one day get a priest who will lead. (Our Archbishop is named Tom Collins. He is very good.)

Margie, before you release the brakes, I am praying for your conversion. God bless you.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 8:31AM

Ooooh, nice point there about Scrooge.

MikeBee| 11.16.11 @ 10:39AM

Appleby,
Very well said. Today, the greatest numbers of people are flocking to churches where they get solid, biblical Truth. Most are fed up with the preaching of social causes from the pulpits. In fact, in the Catholic church, there is NO shortage of candidates for priesthood in the seminaries which place their focus on biblical Truth, on God. The seminaries which primarily teach social issues, and ignore biblical Truth, are pretty empty.

On another issue, I think this article just explained to me why there is such a crisis in the Republican party. The Republican party has long been a party of people from protestant denominations. As these people have become morally relativized (as preached from their pulpits), their politics has also changed to become more liberal, to the point that many now sound like liberal Democrats. But, like the churches, the Republican party will be saved by conservative folks who stand solidly on the Truth.

RND | 11.17.11 @ 1:55AM

MikeBee, you got a bingo -- second paragraph.

This is why the GOP has earned every bit of ridicule we can muster. It is only two steps apart from the liberal deviants in the Dems. So I am convinced that any effort expended to save the GOP is wasted effort, unnessary anguish, and fruitless.

Just as some formerly respectable Protestant denominations are destined to blow away. Once the doctrine has been so thoroughly polluted and perverted, well, it is not the responsibility of parishoners to save it.

So -- we form something new. Authentic. True to the faith.

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 7:44AM

False "Christianty" existed just after true Christianity began
Galatians 1:
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
How can we tell if what we are told or believe is true or false??
Study the word. Jesus taught people during his ministry that was why the scriptures existed. His reply many times; "It is Written."

Just from the above scriptures we can conclude several things;
There was falsehood being taught.
We are not to believe the messenger unless it conforms to the scriptures of the Gospel.
No matter how great the speaker may be or seem, we are not to trust them if the message is different than the scriptures.
Since the full Gospel had already been preached by this time. Notice "past" tense. Any "new" Christianity preached after this time must be inherently "false."

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 8:51AM

I think that there is something here that both sides of the Catholic and Protestant aisle need to pay attention to - that first century Christianity didn't necessarily have everything right. There were handful of traditions which arose out of the period which didn't find debate until sometimes hundreds of years later and the Church leadership stood its ground on tradition rather than examine that some historical practices may have been wrong.

Several cases in point:
1. The physical act of Baptism being salvific in nature.
2. Veneration/prayer to deceased Saints (Christ commands us to pray "Our Father...")
3. All the "solas" (sola fide and sola scriptura being the big ones)
4. Apostolic succession (arising out of a possible misinterpretation of the grammar in "upon this rock..."

On the Protestant side:
1. Infant baptism. We almost don't know the specific general practice for the first century Christianity, and there's a good argument that the household baptisms in the NT include babies.
2. Dispensationalism/the rapture - a VERY recent concept in Christianity (as is evangelicalism in general) - really arose late 1800s....and the guy who came up with Dispensationalism wasn't exactly...normal.
3. Creeds/councils aren't necessarily bad, and help clarify scripture where it may be somewhat unclear. I've seen some "Bible alone" believers almost directly quote concepts which were figured out not through directly reading scripture, but went through extensive debate when some creeds were being written.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 9:13AM

On the Catholic side, all 4 items mentioned have been analyzed, reanalyzed extensively for centuries by Catholics & non-Catholics alike. To this day they are still being studied & still reaffirmed as biblical-based dogma of the Catholic Church.

In order not to start any heated & nasty debate by exciting the Catholic bashers in this particular blog, I will end this posting by saying that you need to buy or borrow the Catholic Catechism to understand (not necessarily agree with) why & what the Catholic Church believes in. And examine the references; many are from the bible or from documents that reference the bible. I would also suggest that you watch the Catholicism Series in your local PBS station to get your questions answered in an entertaining way. Good luck!

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:40AM

Like I stated, however, the problem tends to arise, I think, because there were generally accepted practices that simply weren't questioned, and they were stated as dogma when they were almost because they were held for so long rather than genuine scriptural adherence.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 11:33AM

They were generally accepted practices because the 1st Christians were Jews. Those 1st Christians knew the OT Scriptures & incorporated many of the Jewish beliefs & practices into the Christian religion & liturgy. For example if 1 witnesses a properly prayed Catholic mass of today, 1 will see & hear many Jewish rituals & prayers that were used by the Jews of the OT. (& Jews of today?)

These practices were questioned by the non-Jews who later became Christians. Ever heard of St Augustine of Hippo?

These beliefs were stated as dogma because many heresies such as Arianism & Donatism were rising up to corrupt the essential beliefs of Christology & the Triune God. The bishops & other important Christian leaders got together in councils (Nicaea, Chaldean, Constantinople, etc) to study, debate, & finally reaffirm those beliefs that were already understood to be true (passed down by each generation through speeches, bible studying, sermons, letter writing, & treatises, ---> = tradition) & to officially reject the heresies.

I think you would probably enjoy reading early Christian history. Try The Story of Christianity by Collins & Price.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 11:54AM

The first Christians were Jews, but there was plenty of Gentile influence early enough to question the "Judaizers" of the day - something Paul regularly addressed in the epistles.

Arianism and Donatism are okay examples, but the ones I pointed out were even later than those....such as infant baptism. It pops up in the first century and isn't questioned until the 1600s! It's the same with many of the issues which were not questioned until the Reformation, where the primary defense of the RCC was more or less "Tradition" without searching scripture the way the Reformers did.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 5:17PM

Infant baptism is not dogma but a practice that is encouraged to this day by the Church because of its understanding of the beliefs of Original Sin & the Sacrament of Baptism.

My prior post was briefly explaining the evolution of Church doctrine not practices.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 8:56PM

The "sacrament of baptism?"
Heh, what would that be?

Jesus says to "Repent and believe"... and then be baptized in His Name. Acts 2:38.

Children cannot repent, can they? Nor can infants. Therefore the Catholic teaching of infant baptism is utterly ridiculous, and unscriptural.

Repent and believe the true Gospel of God, lest you perish. Lk. 13:5.

Ryan| 11.17.11 @ 11:11AM

Then why were baby boys circumcised?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 2:06PM

What does that have to do with it?

Ryan| 11.17.11 @ 3:22PM

Circumcision was involuntary, and was the command to mark an Israelite as a Jew.

Why do Jewish people circumcise their sons at birth, rather than after they proclaim themselves to be Jewish?

There's a good argument that has been historically made that baptism replaces circumcision, from the Protestant side based on
Col 2: 9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. "

And if baptism replaces circumcision, then there's an argument that it's for children.

Here's a question for you as well.

Are Christians who believe in one form or another of infant baptism (either covenental or salvific) saved? If not, then how do you explain the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:10PM

So, if it was a command, then it has the same thing in common with the Word of God when He commands us to "REPENT and BELIEVE the GOSPEL of GOD."
Beginning with Mk. 1:1.

And the command to "
REPENT and be baptized."
They are commands, so?

And did God tell babies to be circumcised, or was that command to the adults?

Can a baby circumcise himself?

Wow. Stretching, aren't we?

And why? Why do you do that?

You WANT to believe false doctrine, that's why.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:24PM

The Mullah Margie has spoken on the meaning of the Bible. Anyone who disagrees will burn in hell.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 6:00PM

I post Scripture to back what I;m saying, punk.
The only thing you have are constant taunts.
Buzz off, lying Troll.
Or post something meaningful.

Ryan| 11.18.11 @ 8:27AM

Oddly enough, we agree on baptism, but I still have the question.

"Are Christians who believe in one form or another of infant baptism (either covenental or salvific) saved? If not, then how do you explain the first 1500 years of Christianity?"

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:12PM

p.s. your last paragraph is so convoluted, and you know it. If you seriously have to be that ridiculous, I pity you.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 7:33PM

Can't buy the replacement argument, Ryan. And 1500 years is less than the time it takes God to sneeze. We need to get rid of infant baptism.

Ryan| 11.18.11 @ 8:25AM

I more or less agree, mostly because I think the "covenental" argument is faulty in that either a person is/was saved by circumcision/baptism or they aren't. I tend to stand with the Baptist side, but I know far too many good people (particularly PCA Presbyterians) who baptize their children and ARE believers.

Infant baptism isn't so unbiblical a concept that true Christians cannot do it. Many of them still believe in salvation by grace, through faith, and not by works.

Jobe| 11.16.11 @ 2:47PM

The Roman Catholic Church is, as I write, in the process of returning to a much more literal translation of the original Latin prayers used in the Mass. Most Catholics, especially younger ones, perceive it as a change rather than a return to what once was. As a 50's and early 60's altar boy, I can recall these prayers in Latin as I learned them in order to serve Mass. I wonder if this means that the Church will swing away from its recent past (liberation theology) and back to the mysticism of prayer and sacrifice.

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 2:54PM

As Fr. Z puts it, "brick by brick".

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 9:37AM

The Infant Batism problem is solved:
Ezekiel 18:20 (NKJV)
"20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."
Everyone is responsible for themselves. Calvinism teaches that man is born totally depraved, yet Jesus in Matthew 19 says "13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away." Children are born innocent and pure and we are commanded to become like them if we wish to enter heaven. If we are born depraved, then logic dictates that Jesus was half depraved because he had a human mother. Jesus lived a sinless life. A common error is made when reading the book of Acts, when the Gospel was first preached; we overlook the words hear & heard. In the Greek it means there was an understanding of what was being spoken. Infants are incapable of understanding the Gospel message. These scriptures lead to the conclusion that infants and young children are pure and sinless and have no need to be Baptised. Baptism is for remission of sins and would apply to those old enough and with the mental capaticy to understand. Every example of an individual being baptised in the New Testament is an adult i.e. (meeting the criteria above).
Deuteronomy 12:32 (NKJV)
32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:50AM

Several problems:

Total depravity can still work within the context of EZ 18, because Ezekial just addresses individual behaviour and repentance, but not original sin (which is what we have to tie everything back to here). The same with Christ's admonition about the children - nothing in there refutes the idea that "There is none righteous, not even one." I personally DO believe in a sort of "age of accountability," but scripture at best dances around the idea rather than addresses it specifically.

God also has a specific admonition about idolatry, where He DOES "{visit} the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me... (Ex 20:4).

Also, you're right on SPECIFIC mentions of baptism, but something like 4-5 of the baptisms mentioned in the NT were HOUSEHOLD baptisms - which actually has an easier interpretation if children are included (as well as the concept that Baptism replaces circumcision as a "sign and a seal"), and there is nothing in scripture which specifically states that infants are NOT to be baptized.

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 10:21AM

Household would mean everyone in the household meeting the criteria. People must consent willingly. Babies cannot.
(Ex 20:4) would have God removing our free choice. "Visiting the iniquities" means the consequences of the fathers wrong doing will be felt by the 3rd or 4th generation. i.e By my father being a drug addict, there is a good chance that me and my children will fall into that same trap.

"and there is nothing in scripture which specifically states that infants are NOT to be baptized." There is nothing in the scriptures that states we cannot have a hamburger & Coke in communion.
Luke 6:46 Why do you call me Lord, Lord and do not the things that I say? That is where people err, they do things that he has not spoken about.

Oiginal Sin? See
Romans 5:12–14 (NKJV)

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—
The only reason is because all men sin.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 11:04AM

There's nothing about "criteria" in any household baptism verses. It just isn't there. Acts 16 particularly points out two households which were baptized, but states nothing about excluding children because they didn't believe or something. If it wasn't the practice of the early church, you may have a point, but when we get to the end of the first century, infant baptism is a well-established practice, which means that it had to have some basis for its existence in the early church during the apostolic period...and they stated nothing against it....and there was a myriad of problems which the NT DOES address.

The reason all men sin is because we have no choice. Scripture - including what you quoted - is replete with man's utter inability to be perfect. If we could choose not to sin, someone may have done so...so there is something in us warped from birth which causes sin. It's not a hard concept.

Where does it state that I come willingly to my own salvation? Can I make God save me? Can I make the Holy Spirit enter my heart? Can I desire God on my own?

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 12:02PM

Acts16: 14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. 15 And after she was baptized, and her household as well, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us.
The key to the above scripture is the third word "Heard" In the Greek it means to listen. Logic would lead us to "If she believed after she listened, then so likewise would her household have to listen and believe." Also in verse 14 "to pay attention to what was said by Paul' is stated. An infant cannot do these.

Acts 16:30 Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.
There are two keys in this verse:
1. They were told to believe in order to be saved. An infant cannot do this.
2. They spoke the word of the Lord to them. In other words, they were taught the plan of salvation.

An infant cannot believe and an infant cannot understand the plan of salvation. Infants/children are in a saved condition. God has never condemned the innocent. The New Testament never tells us how to save infants and children. Why not? Because they are innocent. God loves children! ;)

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 12:51PM

The last part is why I don't hold to infant baptism (particularly when it's considered salvific), actually - I think that it's a stretch of scripture to say they should be baptized from other verses as well.

However, the situation with Lydia still doesn't take away the matter that the conclusion you're reaching about the household not having children just isn't there. Lydia heard and believed. That's it. That's all it says. There's no logical stretch to attach it to the rest of her household in the text.

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 1:22PM

Both of those quoted examples in Acts have one common thread. Both have a requirement of belief before the baptism. An infant is not capable of belief. Therefore it not possible to baptise scriptually. Have a good one! :-)

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 8:33PM

In addition to the mentions of household baptisms in the NT, we have affirmation of the practice of infant baptism by the Fathers of the Early Church. There really is no factual, historical or theological basis for denial of the validity of infant baptism. St. Paul himself also mentions that as circumcision was to the Old Covenant, Baptism is to the New Covenant. Circumcisions were and are typically performed on the eigth day after birth.

This conflict is based upon an erroneous tradition - - sola scriptura - - and compounded by an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Somebody find me sola scriptura in the Bible.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 8:58PM

The "Early church fathers?"

have you actually read what they taught? Te lot were a bunch of heretics.

For example, ever read Origen?
He claimed that Satan would be redeemed.
How about Tertullian?
Ugh.
See my above post as to "Infant baptism." An utterly false teaching against the will of God in the Bible.

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 11:07PM

Actually, Margie, I have read some of what the Fathers have taught. I'd be willing to bet you haven't read any of it outside of an antiCatholic piece. If you did, I think you might be afraid of what you'd find.
St. Augustine is probably the best apologist for infant baptism.
You didn't answer my earlier challenge, though, Margie. I asked you to find sola scriptura in the Bible. This is a fair question. Imagine you are trying to evangelize a reasonably curious person with no religious background and you tell them sola scriptura is a doctrine of Christian belief. A reasonable person would ask, " Why ? ". He would also ask for some proof. Where is the proof ?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:31AM

Tony,

You're actually extremely UNfair!
First, you assign to me things that aren't true, and assume that they are, (as most of you Pope worshippers are constantly wont to do).

Then, you speak to me about something I didn't mention, which is sola scriptura.

Get honest, and then I'll speak to you.

Oh, and by the way, I notice you completely disregard the Scriptures I posted showing what a false teaching infant baptism is.
As usual.
Repent, stop making excuses, and believe the TRUE gospel of Jesus Christ, lest you too perish.
(Lk. 13:3 & 5.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 3:15PM

How about those who deny that Jesus is God, of one being with the Father. Are not they heretics also?

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:25PM

The Mullah Margie has spoken on the meaning of the Bible. Anyone who disagrees will burn in hell.

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.17.11 @ 7:49AM

Please read Galatians Chapter one. ANYTHING written after that time, whether by "church fathers" or an angel, that conflicts with with that which the scriptures had already taught, we are to totally disregard. Infant baptism is not/was not taught in the scriptures.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:34AM

Yes, Kevin, that is what the Bible says, (God's Own Words).
But the Pope worshippers choose to believe the Pope, instead of God.

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--
not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." Gal. 1:6-9.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 3:13PM

And this is God's word, too, is it not, Margie?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... And the Word became flesh and lived among us ...".

Please tell me what you think that means.

Christopher| 11.17.11 @ 4:03PM

Margie,
Catholics do not worship the pope. Why do you keep lying about this?
Can you answer RCV, you do not believe Jesus is God. Why not?

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 4:29PM

Once again, well stayed, Kevin.
Christians who believe the Scriptures and not false Religion are dealt with with the utmost vileness here.
Prepare thyself!!

aware| 11.16.11 @ 11:45AM

What about this:
Rom 9:11-12
11 But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes; 12 he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.)
And then this:
Rom 9:16

16 So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose it nor work for it.

Nothing scares me more than thinking I'm in charge. All of Romans 9 must be discarded to accept Arminianism. And quite a bit of the rest of Scripture too. No offense. Doubting isn't the opposite of faith, fear is.

There many reasons for things in Scripture and the world itself that we are not privy too. Speculating about them is talking about things we know nothing about.

John 9:1-4

As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 "Rabbi," his disciples asked him, "why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents' sins?"

3 "It was not because of his sins or his parents' sins," Jesus answered. "This happened so the power of God could be seen in him. 4 We must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one who sent us.

One example of the real reason for a seemingly bad circumstance not even guessed at by the speculators.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 3:17PM

Kevin: "Calvinism teaches that man is born totally depraved..."

Not the Calvin that I read. It is "utterly" depraved. Total depravity means just that - beyond redemption.

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 3:43PM

The infant baptism section is being waged already, so I'll skip that.

2. Veneration of the saints. Well, that all goes back to the Body of Christ and the consequences of taking John 6 literally.

3. Sola fide conflicts with Sola Scriptura, unless you jettison James as apocryphal. Of course, there is no scripture regarding what is or is not scripture....

4. The grammar actually sides with the Catholics in this regard. First, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so there would have been no play of words to begin with. Second, while the masculine diminutive of πετρα would be valid if obscure 500 BC in Athens (Attic Greek), the Koinic dialect makes no use of it.

Protestant #2 - I actually have sympathy for those Protestants that have a problem with all this Rapture-mania. I suppose it was bound to happen, as people who wait for the doorbell before greeting arriving guests would have trouble understanding of 1 Thes 4:16.

Ryan| 11.17.11 @ 8:54AM

2. It depends on what you mean by "literally." In light of the rest of scripture and how salvation is treated (ie, Romans), it appears more appropriate that Christ may have been preaching metaphorically than hyper-literally. Again, this was a question hardly breached for several hundred years.

3. It depends on how one interprets James in the light of the rest of scripture as well, which is pretty backing of sola fide. This is one point where I think that Catholics and Protestants actually tend to "talk past" each other rather than being wholly wrong. Any Protestant will (or should) say that works are a natural product of genuine faith, and God doesn't become happy with us simply because we are people who do good stuff. Most/all Catholic doctrine is actually in general agreement with that statement. It's still sola fide, because there is no basis in scripture for earning/working a way into heaven for the core of either doctrine.

4. We could go round and round on this one. Of course, this was a matter that took a while to get "settled," and then came into question when the printing press came about and more people became educated and able to read.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 5:38PM

Ryan,

"[...] it appears more appropriate that Christ may have been preaching metaphorically than hyper-literally."

If Christ was speaking metaphorically, why didn't He stop His disciples from leaving that day and explain His metaphor? Like He always did with a parable they did not understand?

Also, asking people to eat His flesh was not exactly a good thing to say about someone. Besides the prohibitions, found in the Torah, against drinking the blood from all living creatures, David wrote about those who eat his flesh as "evil" or "wicked."

"Whilst the wicked draw near against me, to eat my flesh." - Psalm 27:2

This is why those who were present, in John 6, said, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and, "This saying is hard; and who can hear it?"

Christ's answer to ALL who question the literalness of His teaching is, "Does this scandalize you? 62 If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not."

Of all the metaphors Christ could have used, eating His flesh and drinking His blood were probably the worst that He could have chosen to use, don't you think?
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 6:06PM

Good luck, Ryan. You see, you don't have the strength to refute Nick do you?
No, because you're too busy making excuses for yourself.
It's called spiritual warfare, and you're involved, as is each one of us.
We either stand strong in the Word of God, or wimp out.
Nick believes the Pope's teachings and needs to repent of that, but he isn't interested.

Yes, yes. How can He give us His flesh to eat, indeed.

They said this for the same reason that Nick asks it.. they were spiritually blind.

They couldn't "see" the Kingdom of God, nor understand what Jesus was telling them.. which was... "Do this in remembrance of Me." Lk. 22:19.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 6:43PM

I believe the Word of God, and, all of the teachings of Christ, Margie. You don't.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:19PM

Liar.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 12:12AM

Still love ya', Margie.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:46PM

What you practice isn't love, Nick.
It's sheer hatred.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 11:59PM

Margie,

This is called projection. The liberals practice this all the time, so, you should be familiar with it.

Showing you Christ's Truth, and praying for you, is the definition of caritas, Latin for charity, that is, love. I don't do it perfectly, hardly! But, I do try.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:25PM

Nick, you are a blatant liar.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 7:23PM

Margie,

I don't lie. And, you are not practicing Christian charity.

Ryan| 11.18.11 @ 8:35AM

The parable becomes clear at the last supper and the crucifixion, both of which complete the picture regarding the sacrifice. If He was being so literal, then why did He not cut off a portion of Himself and pour His blood into the cup?

The other side is this: what do they all say about salvation in the rest of the New Testament, particularly Paul's letters? Where is Paul's encouragement to eat and drink the body and blood for salvation? Are Paul's instructions to consume Christ, or to live a Holy life?

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 7:50PM

Ryan,

"The parable becomes clear at the last supper and the crucifixion, both of which complete the picture regarding the sacrifice."

But, Christ isn't telling a parable in John 6, is He? Christ is speaking plainly to His audience. This is why the non-disciples, along with His disciples, are perplexed by what He is saying. If He was speaking symbolically, wouldn't He have explained the symbolism to His disciples, at least, so that they wouldn't leave Him?

To convince me that Christ was speaking symbolically, in John 6, you will need to explain to me why Christ let all of those disciples leave Him, without setting the record straight.

It is inconceivable to me that Christ would do such a thing to those who sacrificed to follow Him. Especially, when Christ never did this to the disciples anywhere else in the Gospels.

Jesus Christ is the Light, not the darkness. So, He wouldn't let His followers leave Him, and remain in the dark, until the Last Supper. They were no longer following Christ, then. Didn't they, therefore, remain in the dark?
God Bless!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:50PM

Silly Catholics also believe that Jesus is a walking loaf of bread.

"Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.: Jn. 6:35.

This is what the Bible refers to as "a different gospel."

They believe this literal nonsense because some man in a robe who pretends to be Christ on earth tells them so.

REPENT! And believe the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ. Mk. 1:1 is the place to start.

Jesus is LORD, He sits at the Right Hand of God in Heaven, and does NOT come under men's teeth!

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 12:06AM

Margie,

"They believe this literal nonsense because some man in a robe who pretends to be Christ on earth tells them so."

We believe it because Jesus Christ said it. And, because the Apostles and first Christians practiced it.

By the way, you are aware that "LORD" was the word that Jews used in order that they didn't write God's true name, out of reverence? So, LORD means God, Kurios in Greek, Adonai in Hebrew.

When you call Christ LORD, you are calling Him God. And, Mary was His mother.

Rich D| 11.17.11 @ 7:48PM

Patrick: "Sola fide conflicts with Sola Scriptura"

Huh?! We are justified by faith alone, and Scripture contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. These are two different categories altogether!

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 4:27PM

Well stated. Kevin. Praise God.

Steve B| 11.16.11 @ 7:48AM

Budde said, "I'm pretty confident that the gospel is clear on this in terms of our accepting people as we are created by God to be and not asking people to change to conform to some uniform standard of human expression."

Though raised Episcopalian, I'm now a self-described "cheerful agnostic" so I believe I can claim a certain degree of objectivity.

So how in the heck can anyone be raised in the church, go through seminary, get that Master of Divinity degree and spout that hogwash?

The whole point of Christianity is NOT to be accepting of the way you are - and since the Fall of Man you can't lay that on God anymore, but to strive to become something better.

Kevin in Appalachia| 11.16.11 @ 8:08AM

"Because it sounds so good and non-offense. Jesus just loves everyone." And while the New Testament quotes Jesus and God saying that "They want all to be saved," Just preaching the truth causes divisions.
As Christians we are to be (Ephesians 4:) 15 ... speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.
But upon hearing the Word it will have various effects as noted.
Jesus in Matthew 10: 34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

"Soft" Christianity is easy to peddle and even easier to purchase!

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 4:32PM

Excellent, Kevin. Thank you.

Christopher| 11.17.11 @ 4:04PM

Kevin,
Do you believe that Jesus is God?

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 8:39AM

"So how in the heck can anyone be raised in the church, go through seminary, get that Master of Divinity degree and spout that hogwash?"

It's called relativism. -----If you believe or feel it is right, then it must be right, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks or knows. There are no standards, ethical or moral. In this thinking, 2 + 2 does not have to equal to 4.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:05AM

It starts at the church and seminary (and at home). There are either subjects avoided or not taught there, and the whole approach to theology and the Gospel from the beginning.

Dick Nome| 11.16.11 @ 8:08AM

Without moral grounding and foundations to sustain civil society, men become someything less than the creator intended. The way whese secular clergy are going, the Episcopal church will soon be facing Mecca 5 times a day and calling their remaining flocks to prayer.

Melvin| 11.16.11 @ 8:17AM

This has been my argument all along with all religions. Too much time preaching politics and social issues and less time preaching the gospel.
I am studying to become a Catholic, right now I'm not taking RCIA classes because they are offered but once a year and the conversion takes a year and is culminated on Easter of the following year.
Anyway
I don't know if I am explaining this correctly but in my studying in which I am a history fanatic anyway, I didn't realize there is sooooo much history in this faith.
The Faith and the history, the more I read the more it is amazing. My son belongs to one of the Born Again groups, I attended and this is just my personal viewpoint, To me there seemed to be allot of gimmicks, or a carnival atmosphere if you will.
Maybe its because I'm a traditionalist in that respect. If it isn't broke don't try to fix it mentality.
But then again if it works for those parishioners more power to them, because who am I to judge? I have a terrible habit of that anyway, in which I am trying to break myself of.

PJ| 11.16.11 @ 8:47AM

Good luck to you, Melvin. My husband was on your path a yr ago. He experienced inner peace & joy & continues to this day. I hope you too experience this.

Melvin| 11.16.11 @ 10:07AM

Thank you PJ and Ryan. Not that I'm becoming an old softy mind you. But you are correct about peace & joy.
My wife being a Catholic, is extremely happy, because I don't get wrapped around the axle like I used to over small things, especially in traffic.

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 3:01PM

Congrats and welcome.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 9:04AM

Some of the conservative branches of the mainline denominations may be to your liking. Presbyterian-PCA; older Baptist congregations; Lutheran - Missouri synod, among others.

Denver Todd| 11.16.11 @ 8:41AM

Women having authority over men is another thing that the Episcopal church has wrong.

daveng| 11.16.11 @ 9:32AM

Along with many other mainline protestant denominations.

yuyu my| 11.16.11 @ 11:10AM

Good God! Can you believe Denver Todd!

Oops, I forgot. Easy for Denver to believe this since the Bible sanctions it. Alas.

Angela from Nasheville| 11.16.11 @ 11:21AM

Whoa!

Denver you have made an excellent point about why the bible is flawed from a moral standpoint.

Thanks for the unintentional support of "Peace be with you's" post.

Le Cracquere| 11.16.11 @ 5:07PM

Unless ol' Todd's single, at least one woman wields ironclad authority over him ... whether she lets him know it or not.

Anthony| 11.16.11 @ 9:03AM

Well, look on the bright side, Budde could have applied her penchant to the leftist's version of a"living and breathing" Bible, to the law and could have become a lawyer instead.
Who knows, with such a dedication to moral relativism, redistributionism, and social justice, Budde might have ended up on the Obozo Supreme Court.
It appears God faces the same problems with the Left that we conservatives do.

Jarvis| 11.16.11 @ 2:28PM

She still might.

Timothy L. Pennell| 11.16.11 @ 9:06AM

Who wants to go to a "Church" that doesn't believe in the Bible? Who wants to go to a "Church" that flouts the Scriptures. Who "Picks and Chooses" which Gospels to believe, and which to Ignore? We can get that out here, with our Judges and the Constitution.

Openly GAY Ministers? Gay Marriage? Abortion's okay? Is that what the BIBLE teaches us?

Look at this way. It's like having a Red Headed White Irishman, teaching Black Studies, or Women's Studies, or Hispanic Culture. You'd be looking at Empty Classrooms. The same thing applies with these "If it feels good? Do it" Churches.

The BIBLE, like the Constitution, is all about "Negative Rights". It's like that with our Boy King President (Born and Raised in the Muslim Schools and Mosques for the first 11 Years of his life) and our Constitution. He sees that Document as one of Negative Rights, and he REJECTS, and IGNORES it. And we all can see where that has led this Country.

The old saying goes: You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose, but you can't pick your Relatives. It's the same with Faith. You can pick whatever Religion you choose to follow. But if you don't actually FOLLOW it's Core Beliefs and Principles, and Adhere to its' Beliefs. Then, what's the point?

The Death of many of these Churches, is hardly unexpected. They're like New Football Leagues that play in the Summer. They can't survive for long because there's always that feeling that something's just not right.
Ya know what I mean?

Tiddly| 11.16.11 @ 2:09PM

Like women "bishops." Something is definitely not right.

Richard Baker| 11.16.11 @ 9:55AM

Now you know why Miss Daisy had such a dislike of Episcopalians.

Poppyseed| 11.16.11 @ 11:24AM

She had good reason to dislike Episcopalians and other Protestant denominations, considering their historic founder's--Martin Luther--vicious antisemitism.

Do a google search: Type Martin Luther Antisemitism

You will be appalled.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 12:53PM

Antisemitism of someone several hundred years ago doesn't negate an overall message. Luther was simply wrong along those lines.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 3:09PM

Luther was as blindly intolerent and filled with venom for those who disagreed with his theology as the Church which he condemned.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:04PM

God has venom for lying Pope worshippers who reject the Scriptures for the word of the Pope, as well.

Have you not read Rev. 21:8?
I love His promises.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:17PM

Have you not read John 1:1?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:24PM

Have you done a John 3:3 yet?

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 6:08PM

You've never answered the question I repeatedly ask you, Margie: Is Jesus 'the Word" the apostle John refers to? If so, He is with God, and is God, and always was God, from the beginning.

Why do you continue to reject John's clear teaching?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:18PM

Stuff it, RCV.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 11:10PM

Wow, what an intelligent reply by Margie to the question is Jesus God.
Gee, everybody, except Margie, would say yes or no.
So Margie, should we take "stuff it" as your way of saying "no."

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:55PM

Stuff it to your sick games.

And, here's that verse good ol' RCV was pointing to. Except I'll post the rest of it, in full:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." Jn. 1:14.

NOW:
Do YOU guys agree with it, or NOT?

If so, then you agree with God. If not, you do not agree with God.

I believe it.

Do you?

RCV| 11.19.11 @ 12:19AM

Of course I believe it. I believe in the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit, one God now and forever. That's precisely what John tells us, Margie. The Word (Jesus) was with God, and was God, from the beginning. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Are you so blind you cannot see what John is teaching us? There is one God, in the persons of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It has always been so, from the beginning, John says. The Son and the Father are of one Being, God.

Steve| 11.19.11 @ 6:32PM

My God, are you really this dense and stupid Margie? What is wrong with you? Has the hate of your parents' religion filled you with so much hate you can't even read and reason? Sick, sick, sick.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 7:34PM

Margie,

"Have you done a John 3:3 yet?"

Have you done a John 6:53 yet?
(Who talks like this?)

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:28PM

Christians talk like that, Papist.

Have YOU gotten born again by His Spirit Nick? YOU are supposed to be preaching HIS WORD, not the Pope's.
His Word says in order for you to see Heaven you MUST be regenerated from above.
That's Jn. 3:3.
If you obeyed His Words, you wouldn't be MOCKING those that preach them, hypocrite Pharisee.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 7:37PM

Margie,

Yes, I have, when my parents baptized me a month after my birth. I completed my Christian initiation when I was confirmed with the Holy Spirit, at age 14. This completed the baptismal grace I received as an infant.

Did you receive these Sacraments, as a child, Margie? Along with eating His flesh and drinking His blood, the Thanksgiving Meal, i.e., the Eucharist, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9)?

Vern Crisler| 11.16.11 @ 3:09PM

Poppyseed, who wasn't an antisemite back in those days? See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....tisemitism

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:35AM

I see. And some have a dislike for Catholicism. My, my, Richard~ are you a BIGOT for "judging" another's Religion?
Hypocrite much?
Making yourself God much?

KSmedman| 11.16.11 @ 9:56AM

Budde might be more open about the decline of Liberal christianity. However, she fails to see that she, her existence as a pastor and now Bishop, is both a sympton and cause of that decline. How openly will she address that?
Churches enjoy good growth when they stick to Biblical truism. The Episcopals and other liberal sects have watered down the Message in an attempt to make it palatable to a broader audience.
The problem is that, like thinning soup to feed more people, when you dilute the Gospel it does not nourish as well...

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 3:04PM

Episcopalian Church, when lukewarm just isn't tepid enough.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:36AM

Catholic church~ utterly fraudulent and a cult.
Its adherents place the words of the Pope above the Word of God.

Patrick| 11.17.11 @ 2:47PM

Ah Margie, your venom never disappoints.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:02PM

Ah Patrick, your asinine reply doesn't surprise. Or shall I call it venom, hmm, Papist?

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:27PM

The mad Mullah Margie is in full form.

mildred bean| 11.16.11 @ 10:11AM

Next month the Roman Catholics will change the English version of the Creed from "one in being with the father" to "consubstantial with the father" The reason: The new version more precisely decribes the reality of the trinity.

Can anyone imagine the Episcopalians doing this? That is, getting the basic beliefs of Christianity as precisely as one would a mathematical postulate?

Rocco| 11.16.11 @ 1:11PM

The English version is designed to be a better translation from the Latin: ".....Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt."

David W| 11.16.11 @ 10:14AM

Thus by this quote, would we also be required by God to not provide surgery to those born with cleft palates? After all, they were 'created' by God and they shouldn't be required to fit in with our uniform standard of human beauty. The same would hold true for those who believe that intimacy with children is not only okay but a gift from God??

I wonder how she feels about the idea that only through Jesus Christ can we (Gentiles) get into Heaven? I think I know..

RND| 11.17.11 @ 2:15AM

David, thank you.

I can't speak for anyone else here.

But I was born into sin. No, nothing my parents did wrong. I'm talking about the fact that I'm just born into a fallen world and a sinful nature.

And the way I behave affirms to me my sinful nature - what my proclivities would be without God in my life.

So the Washington Bishop saying "accepting people as we are created by God to be and not asking people to change to conform to some uniform standard of human expression...."

So what exactly was Jesus telling Nichodemus in chapter 3 in the book of John? Jesus did not tell him, "Hey, no worries, old man. You're just fine just as you are! Give me some skin and a high five; brother, you're on E-Z street."

That's not what I read in the Gospels.

Uniformity? Well, Bishop, there's only one way to salvation. There is only one.

Gary| 11.16.11 @ 10:41AM

These so called liberal or "progressive" religions are really secular "religion" in disguise where all is relative and the bible is a mere prop used to hide the true face of these people. God and his more unpleasant commandments are not really needed and afforded lip service only. The only real morality to them is the expanding government social programs, redistribution of wealth, promoting acceptance of deviant sex, (except sexual "harassment" of course) illegal immigration, and eco worship. They do not need God, to them government replaces God and the need for individual morality, character, responsibility, loyalty. fidelity, chastity, and obedience whichonly applies to government fiat, not parents or family.

rn| 11.17.11 @ 2:25AM

Yes, Gary.

Alsooooo -- those clergy folk, oohhhwee, they love those Reverend titles.

Or being called Doctor.

Ooooohhhh, that sounds so good.

All them fancy titles.

And so formal. So, so e-l-i-t-e!

Fancy garb!

On their business cards with DR in front. Even how they have it all printed up fancy-like in the Yellow Pages and on the internet.

Bigtime civic 'n community STATUS.

Invites to big events.

Invocations! Sittin right up there on the dias....

Amazin' what real big educated academic theologic-like divinity degrees can do for a man .... or a woman.

S T A T U S !

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:38AM

Amen!
They're usually, not always, but usually pompous asses.

Eduardo| 11.16.11 @ 10:51AM

Satan and his legions are at this moment doing everything in their descipable power to deceive us and corrupt us. He wants our precious soul. And it is easy because of our nature. We are weak, cursed with greed, envy, cowardice and lust. We dream of and yearn for the Truth but we cannot seem to live with the Truth.

Remember, brothers and sisters, that the Truth is not something, it is someone. And we know who that someone is. Serve the Master, my friends, and you shall be free. I beg you all to serve Christ, the King. OBEY his commandments, feed his sheep, and follow his example by washing others' feet. He WILL set you free if you let Him. Love and Peace to all people of good will who are struggling to do what's right. Over and out.

C Smith| 11.16.11 @ 11:18AM

"The Episcopal Church. Never content with reading scripture's plain meaning, they often explain away parts of the Bible that sound unpleasant to today's supposedly enlightened ears."

A strategy Satan initiated in the first century that is still proliferating today: spiritualization, reading one's own ideas into any passage one chooses:

Although some early Church Fathers attempted to refute Gnosticism, they often applied their own spiritualizing hermeneutic to make Scripture more contemporary. The more radical were Alexandrian academics intent on a syncretism of Christianity with the mysticism of Hellenist philosophy and the rationalism of Greek science. Preeminent among early Church Fathers was Origen of Alexandra, the first to compile a comprehensive systemization of theology: Origen de Principiis (On First Principles). Origen writes: “for sins to be visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation … By us, however, such things are not understood literally” (Origen, Origen de Principiis, Book II.V.2, emphasis added). “But when we read either in the Old Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning” (Ibid, Book II.IV.4. emphasis added). Origin instructs that “discrepancy between John and the other three Gospels … must be interpreted spiritually” i.e., by “mystical interpretation” (Origen, Roberts-Donaldson English Translation, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book X.2, emphasis added). Applying this interpretative principle, Origen misappropriates Israel’s identity as evident from the title of the first chapter of this work: “How Christians are the Spiritual Israel” (Ibid., Book I.1). Origen’s mystical rendering of Scripture, conveniently spiritualizing the same passage in different ways on different occasions, propagated many unorthodox doctrines e.g., reincarnation, universalism, denial of a flesh and blood resurrection of the body. Consequentially in 553 AD, Origen was posthumously condemned as a heretic, his teaching proclaimed anathema, and virtually all of his work in the original Greek systematically destroyed. “We have more in the Latin translation of Rufinus; but this translation is by no means trustworthy” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Origen, V20, p. 271, 1926).

A fragment from a translation by Jerome is extent and more representative of his teaching:
At the end and consummation of the world, when souls and rational creatures shall have been sent forth as from bolts and barriers, some of them walk slowly on account of their slothful habits, others fly with rapid flight on account of their diligence. And since all are possessed of free-will, and may of their own accord admit either of good or evil, the former will be in a worse condition than they are at present, while the latter will advance to a better state of things; because different conduct and varying wills will admit of a different condition in either direction, i.e., angels may become men or demons, and again from the latter they may rise to be men or angels (Origen, op. cit., Book I, emphasis added).

“On this method [spiritualization] the sacred writings are regarded as an inexhaustible mine of philosophical and dogmatic wisdom; in reality the exegete [Origen] reads his own ideas into any passage he chooses” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Ed., V20, p. 271, 1926, emphasis added). Unfortunately, the influence of Origen’s undisciplined method of interpretation extends from his day to our own. His subversion of a literal exegesis of Scripture laid the foundation for a number of theologies e.g., Replacement Theology, Reformed Theology, Covenant Theology, and their contemporary counterpart, Preterism. It is sobering to realize that the world’s most prolific writer, a man who opposed Gnosticism (Origen against Celsus), affirmed the authority of Scripture, and literally meditated day and night on the "spiritual,” like Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, offered strange fire before the Lord.

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 11:57AM

Reformed theology undisciplened. Right....how so? If there is any theology that is less mystical, I would like to see it...

C Smith| 11.16.11 @ 1:22PM

Consider the "discipline" of Reformed theologians R. Fowler White and R.C. Sproul and their "unpardonable journalistic sin" in "An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties…," 2002:

“In the year 2002,” an Open Letter impugned those who embrace the verbal inspiration of Scripture and share His love for Israel with the phrases: “a serious misreading of Holy Scripture”; “false claims”; “[compromising] the Gospel”; “bad Christian theology”; and “a violation of the Gospel mandate” (R. Fowler White, Ph.D., Knox Theological Seminary; R. C. Sproul, Ph.D., President & Ligonier Ministries, first and second signatories respectively), An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties…, 2002). This Open Letter is reminiscent of the inaccurate, undocumented, and inflammatory “yellow” journalism of the 1890s when newspaper giants Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst competed for market share. In January of 1887, Hearst’s foreign correspondent telegraphed: “Everything is quiet. There is not trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return.” Hearst is alleged to have replied, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war.” In the months that followed, as Hearst repeatedly committed the unpardonable journalistic sin of misquoting a source, America found herself at war.

But in matters of more apocalyptic consequence, this Open Letter commits the unpardonable journalistic sin of misquoting God:

The Open Letter states: “The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the ‘Holy Land’ cannot be supported by Scripture.” However, the “Source” indicates otherwise:

He said unto him [Abram], I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. … to thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates (Genesis 15:18).

The LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God. … And I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God (Genesis 17:1-8).

… I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee [Jacob] will I give it, and to thy seed (Genesis 28:13).

For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again [turn back] the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD: and I will cause them to return to the land that I gave to their fathers, and they shall possess it (Jeremiah 30:3).

Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place,and I will cause them to dwell safely: And they shall be my people, and I will be their God… And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that theyshall not depart from me. Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul (Jeremiah 32:37-41).

… Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel (Ezekiel 11:17).

Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel. … And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever (Ezekiel 37:21-25).

Saith the LORD … I will bring again [turn back] the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God (Amos 9:13-15).

Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD. … And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, O all flesh, before the LORD: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation (Zechariah 2:10-13).

… and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. … Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified (Isaiah 60:16-21).

The Open Letter states: “The worship of God is no longer identified with any specific earthly sanctuary.” But the “Source” has announced a future earthly sanctuary over twenty times (Ezekiel chapters 41 through 49). And He is very specific about this tabernacle and where it will reside: the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel … and bring them into their own land … I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore (Ezekiel 37:21-28).

The Open Letter states: “… all who bless him [Jesus] and his people will be blessed of God, and all who curse him and his people will be cursed of God. These promises do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel.” But the “Source” is very specific regarding these promises and the particular persons or ethnic group to which they apply:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram … I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee (Genesis 12:1-3).

And his father Isaac said unto him [Jacob], Come near now, and kiss me, my son. … Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee. (Genesis 27:26-29).

How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel. … Blessed is he that blesseth thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee (Numbers 24:5-9).

And the authors of the Open Letter are detached from reality in attributing Israeli culpability for “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” If Israel’s enemies would lay down their arms, there would be peace, but if Israel would lay down her arms, there would be NO Israel:

On Sabbath morning, April 27, 2002, a terrorist infiltrated the community of Adora and broke into the Shefi family home. He burst into the children’s room where he found the mother, Shiri, trying to protect her three small children – Danielle, 5; Eliad, 4; and Oriel, 2. The terrorist certainly saw the fear in their eyes. He shot them all. Daneille was killed on the spot; her mother and two brothers were wounded (Target: Israeli Children, [Israeli] Ministry of Education).

JERUSALEM, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Israeli Hani Avrahami phoned her husband to check that he was safe as he travelled through the West Bank on the way to the army base in which he served as a reserve soldier. But instead his killer answered the call. 'We are now slaughtering your husband,' said the voice that answered Yossi Avrahami's mobile telephone…. Vadim Novesche had been married only a week to his wife Irina when he was killed by the mob. She too, was trying to reach him by phone in the last moments of his life. ``I said 'Vadim?' and they hung up the phone,'' she said.

After using the unpardonable journalistic sin of misquoting God to strip Israel of every covenant, promise, and blessing, the signatories of the Open Letter, with verbiage consistent with the UN, EU, WCC, Oslo Accord, and Road Map to Peace (sic), cast their lot with the world. And as a consequence, they recklessly impugn Israel and those who love her with complicity in a “vicious cycle of atrocity and displacement,” “violent seizure and occupation,” and “a divine mandate to conquer and hold.” Sadly, the Open Letter blesses those who curse Israel and curses those who bless Israel.

Conserdude| 11.16.11 @ 1:35PM

Lots of interesting theology here, but as the New Testament says, the veil of the temple was torn in two upon the death of Christ, and other passages in Romans and Hebrews speak of a the spritual seed of Abraham, that Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ as Messiah are the "Israel of God." In other words, in the New Testament, Israel is no longer the physical nation-state, but the worldwide church that includes people from every tongue, tribe and nation.
(Btw, I'm a strong supporter of Israel as a demoncratic ally of the U.S., which should be protected.)

Ryan| 11.16.11 @ 1:54PM

This is about where I stand. I DO believe that the Dispensationalists make a good point about a physical Israel, but there is also plenty to support the Preterist notion that much of prophecy may have been fulfilled in Nero's time AND by acknowledging that the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham is with the Gentiles.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 4:52PM

.."Israel is no longer the physical nation-state,"

Really?

That's Supersessionism, a false teaching brought in by the Papacy.

And the Bible says that Jesus Himself is the Rock of Israel:

"You shall have a song as in the night when a holy feast is kept; and gladness of heart, as when one sets out to the sound of the flute to go to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel." Is. 30:29.

And here:

"This one will say, 'I am the LORD's,' another will call himself by the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, 'The LORD's,' and surname himself by the Name of Israel." Is. 44:5.

And as to Israel being null & void, well, you'll have to speak to God about that there statement. I'll just post it for your viewing pleasure.
Then, you can take it up with Him, thereafter:

"Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar--the LORD of hosts is his name: "If this fixed order departs from before me, says the LORD, then shall the descendants of Israel cease from being a nation before me for ever."
Thus says the LORD: "If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the descendants of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD." Jer. 31:35-37.

Then read Romans 11 to completely understand that the gifts and the call of God are Irrevocable.

"Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant; I formed you, you are My servant; O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me." Is. 44:21.

Nick| 11.16.11 @ 6:42PM

Margie,

"That's Supersessionism, a false teaching brought in by the Papacy."

How many times do I have to tell you that you are wrong? Why do you keep repeating this falsehood?

Protestants came up with the idea of Supersessionism, not Catholics. It has never been a teaching of the Church, nor, any of the Popes. Your bias blinds you to the truth.
God Bless!

Papist Dan| 11.16.11 @ 7:04PM

Nick,
I know you are patient, but Margie is either the stupidest person or just refuses to accept anything except her cult., I think it is a combination of both.
She wilfully lies and misrepresents Catholic theology. She refuses to accept that Jesus is God. It is not worth trying to educate her because she has closed her mind.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:29PM

Papist PUNK and filthy liar:

Keep on lying, with each lie, you assure your entrance in to the Lake of Fire reserved for Satan and his pals.

I haven't lied about a single thing.

Apparently, you're too ignorant and non caring to look up the history of your cult.
But then, that's not my problem, it's yours.

Now, I hear a rock calling for you.
Go crawl under it, fool.

DaveD| 11.17.11 @ 11:41PM

Margie, Margie, Margie.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?8 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
--- Matthew 5: 43-48

A direct quote. Maybe you should ponder this for a while. You claim to be A Christian, yet you are the most hate-filled person I have ever met.

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:57PM

Davey Davey Davey:

Hypocrite! Where is YOUR love? Where is YOUR standing on God's Words here in the face of blatant false teachings?

Care to take a stand one way or the other?
Or are you just a stone thrower like most here?

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 12:27AM

Dan,

Our job, as Catholic Christians, is to "[a]lways be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; and keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame." (1 Peter 3:15, emphasis mine.)

I'm just turning my cyberspace cheek, so to speak. Repeatedly! As Christ and the Apostles told us to do.

I want to be a member of the Church Militant. Not the Church Billigerent:

http://archive.catholic.com/th.....05fea2.asp

God Bless!

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:18PM

God bless you, Nick.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 5:45PM

Thanks, RCV.

I need all of God's blessings I can get!
(I really need all of His blessings. Ha-ha!)
God Bless!

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:33PM

Nick,
You have my admiration.
Margie the Bigot is just too much, can't turn the other cheeck. I believe she has a weird sense of persecution that she intentionally provokes everyone here so she can feel like a martyr. She repeats the same lies about theology, and the same bigoted opinons. Why? To feel like a martyr. She says stuff like: you would like to burn me or kill me. Just crazy.
Maybe your approach will work, I will continue to respond to her bigotry.
I wish I had your patience and good will.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 5:50PM

Dan,

You may be correct about Margie, I don't know. I will pray for the Holy Spirit to give you more patience. Something we all need.

Keep defending the faith! Also, please read that link to Catholic Answers. It is very illuminating.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:07PM

How many times do you have to tell me I am wrong?
As many as you want, lying Papist.
But it doesn't matter.
READ ORIGEN.
Read the writings of the current Pope.

We get it, you're a lying Pope worshipper, who denies the despicable MURDEROUS history of the Papists.

It doesn't matter because God knows the truth. And the Papists will be thrown into Hell, while the Martyrs whom the tortured to death for six centuries will go on to Glory, honor and immortality.

Those would be the MArtyrs who YOU the Pope worshipper calls "heretics."

Repent, liar~ and believe the true Gospel of God, lest you perish.

That's what the God of the Bible says~ that UNLESS you REPENT and believe the GOSPEL of God, you WILL perish. Read Mark chapter one for starters.

The truth is that Supersessionism was taight by the early so called church fathers, and it was a most convenient teaching with which they used to hate and murder the Jews, along with what they labeled heretics (my brethren, Bible believing Christians), for six centuries.
Now, I know that the truth does not suit you very well, but I'm sorry.

And by the way, according to the Bible~ that would be where God's Own Words are written~ Israel is and NEVER will be null & void.

Got it, fool?

gh west| 11.16.11 @ 7:26PM

Margie, please!

Behave yourself, and watch your tongue! Try to be more Christian.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:30PM

Spare me.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:36PM

http://theologicalstudies.org/.....sessionism

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 7:37PM

That's one of the early church Papists that taught it, Nick.

This is the same man, Origen, who taught that Satan will be redeemed. He's one of the Papists I'm talking about.

Repent, Nick. You worship a lie.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 8:34PM

http://www.shema.com/Combating Replacement Theology/crt-004.php

And also, the words of your Popey:

"While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.” [46]

Now, do you know what the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith was responsible for?

The Inquisitions!

Yes, that's right~ the murderous Papacy that put to death Jews and Christians alike.
The Jews, because according to your murderous Popes~ believed that they were null & void, that because their ancestors killed Jesus, they too deserved to die.

IT IS HISTORY.

The Pope believes that the New Covenant REPLACED the OLD, but the GOD OF THE BIBLE SAYS THIS:

"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished." Mt. 5:17 & 18.

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 8:41PM

Yes, those murderous Catholics. Aren't they horrible ? The world became such a better place when Luther started the ball rolling. He said all we needed was the Bible ( his Bible, anyway ) and we could all be our own Pope interpreting it.

You would think that freed of the bloodthirsty Catholic hierarchy, Luther's Germany would be the very model of Christianity built upon the rock of sola scriptura. How did that work out ?

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 9:02PM

Tony,

yes the murderous Popes were disgusting and will burn in Hell.
I take it you are mocking that fact, and reject the truth?
To your own detriment.
And there is NO SUCH THING as Popery in the Bible, anywhere, it is utterly false.

Thanks to Luther, and others~ who were hounded and put to death by the Papacy, YES, thanks to THEM we have the Bible in our languages, and can read it for ourselves, just as God intended it.

I am sorry that you have been led astray, to believe otherwise.

Papist Dan| 11.16.11 @ 9:38PM

Bigot Idiot Margie,
You have no credibility with anyone here. You have made a fool of yourself with your rantings.
You are not a true Christian because you don't believe that Jesus is God.
Why were you banned from this site?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:18PM

Sorry, Pope worshipper, I happen to be a fool for Christ, and unless you kill me, I;ll never shut up.

Repent, and believe the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ, liar.

Beginning with Mk. 1:1.
Jesus Christ is LORD, not the Pope.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:34PM

Margie, why don't you believe that Jesus is God?

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 10:56PM

Yup, one thing's for sure ; if there's evil in the world, the Catholic Church is behind it. The Inquisition, World Wars One and Two, the Holocaust, JFK assassination, 9/11...
I think I'm finally starting to see through the clever web of deciet.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:29PM

Tony,

Keep on putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, it's deceitful.

The only think I spoke to was the Inquisitions.
Why do you turn a blind eye?

It makes you worse than a Holocaust denier, but this holocaust of Christians was far worse. For it was conducted by a "Church" that claims to have its Popery as Christ on Earth.

Do you not know that the teachers of these Popes continue to teach the same false teachings today that led them to do this?

Your cult practices the SAME hatred today as it did then, as seen in these very pages.

History cannot be denied, facts are facts. Your cult has NEVER repented.
I hope you do.
Beginning with believing Christ's Gospel. Mk. 1:1.

Papist Dan| 11.16.11 @ 9:42PM

Tony,
Margie is too stupid to know Luther was very anti-semitic, or else she is in denial, or both. She is not even a true Christian because she doesn't believe that Jesus is God. She made up a cult worshipping the Bible, which she dosn't even understand.
She actually believes that the Popes killed fifty million (50,000,000) people. She is obsessed with the Popes and Catholics, because here parents are Catholic. See a problem here?
She is intolerant like the Mullahs. Mullah Margie.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:51AM

Pope worshippers are too stupid to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.
They are choosing death over life, therefore.
They choose to believe that "Mary is the Mother of God."
This is against the WORD OF GOD,
Repent, liar.
God will throw ANY and ALL lying Popes along with you into Hell.
It's not even a threat, it's a PROMISE.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8.

"You shall have no other gods before me." Ex. 20:3.

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other." Is. 45:22.

"I, I am the LORD, and besides Me there is no Savior." Is. 43:11.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:24PM

Too bad, Pope worshipper, but you are too stupid to heed the warnings from God that say that all LIARS get thrown into Hell.

You are too stupid to care that you are being led to Hell.

You continue to lie about me here every single day.

What I do not bellieve is what your cult teaches, that MAry is the "Mother of God."

That makes her God, and above Him.

You are too ignorant to pay attention to the Scriptures concerning the biblical divinity of Christ.

Oh, and by the way~ God is ANGRY with LIARS like you and your Papist pals: In fact He's holding His wrath till Jesus returns, so you could say God is holding the biggest "GRUDGE":

His plan is throw ALL LIARS into Hell for Eternity.
And contrary to Catholic doctrine, it's forever.

There is no such thing as "Purgatory".
Hell is forever with NO escape.

And I had no "credibility" with liars anyway, and never sought it.
And why would I ever want to be credible to liars who pervert the Words of God to suit themselves?

Jesus commands me to preach HIS Gospel.
And that's what I'll do till my dying day.
Got, PUNK?

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 12:04AM

Margie,

From your broken link:

"Replacement Theology is closely associated with Reformed (or Covenant) Theology, the brand of theology historically linked to John Calvin (1509-1564) and the Protestant Reformation."

Calvin was one of your persecuted brethren, wasn't he?

Also:

"Elements of Replacement Theology can be traced as far back as Marcion (A.D. 160) [...]."

Marcion was a heretic, by the way.

Oh, and you are a first-class hypocrite. Just yesterday, you ripped Ryan for using wiki, and now YOU quote them. Hypocrite. Tip: Next time, don't leave the footnote number in the quote.

Plus, you didn't read the quote very well. Did you not see that, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was referring to "the Prophet"? He's talking about Mohammed, brainiac! Not his own thoughts. Your research skills are severely lacking.

"IT IS HISTORY."

You wouldn't know history, especially the history of early Christianity, if it hit you in the head.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:05PM

You cherry picked one statement from that. I know nothing about Calvin, I do not worship what men think, but what Christ says, in the Bible.

You chose to leave out all the HISTORY of the so called early church heretics that first taught Supersessionism that was in that link, because you are so deceitful.

And it is still am historical FACT that your disgusting Popery used it to torture and kill Jews as well as MILLIONS of Bible believing Christians for SIX CENTURIES.

And the Popery have STILL never repented, because if they did, they would have repented from the myriads of false techings that they taught at that time WHICH LED THEM TO KILL the Jews AND the Christians.

Got, deceitful one?

You need to Repent, as you are deceived, and a deceiver.

God WILL throw you into Hell for it.
He PROMISES:

His Words, not mine, Papist.

Just where do you think the murderous Popes are today, Nick?
The murderers who passed on the heretical and abominable teachings that by so believing led them to torture and kill my brethren whom you also call heretics because they, like me clung to the WORD OF GOD?

Your condescending hypocritical and lying mouth matches with those of those murderers.
For they spoke in the same exact manner to those whom they tortured and killed.

Read this testimony of just ONE soul that your Popery tortured and killed for the "crime" of refusing to believe in infant baptism, and see whether this is EXACTLY how you and you Pope worshippers speak to me, or to ANY Bible believing Christian who also stands on the Scripture.

Read it carefully, as it was written centuries ago.. Cl. is the Christian sister, Claesken, and Com. is the Papist.

CONFESSION OF A WOMAN CALLED CLAESKEN, WHO LAID DOWN HER LIFE FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS, A. D. 1559
Questions and answers between the commissary and Claesken
The commissary first interrogated me concerning my name, the place I was from, my age, and other like things. He then asked me, "Are you baptized?" Claesken. "Yes." Copra."Who baptized you?"
Cl. "Jelis of Aix-la-Chapelle." Com. "The deceiver; he himself has renounced his belief. How did he do when he baptized you?"
Cl. "He baptized me in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."
Com. "Where did you receive baptism?"
Cl. "At Workum, in the field."
Com. "Were there others present?"
Cl. "Yes." Com. "Who were they?"
Cl. "I have forgotten."
Com. "What brought you there?"
Cl. "I have forgotten."
I could truthfully give this answer both times.
Com. "Are your children not baptized?" Cl."My youngest two are not."
Com. "Why did you not have your children baptized?" Cd."Because I was satisfied with them as the Lord had given them to me." Com."Why were you so satisfied with Abraham and Sicke, and not with Douwe; you had Douwe baptized?"
Cl. "I did not know it then."
Com. "What did you not know then?"
Cl. "What I know now."
Com. "What do you know now?"
Cl. "What the Lord has given me to know." Corn."What has the Lord given you to know?"
Cl. "That I cannot find it in the Scriptures, that this ought to be."
Com. "How long have you not been to church?"
Cl. "Not for nine or ten years."
These are the questions which he put to me; but he used far more words, and when I did not readily answer him, he said that I had a dumb devil in me, that the devil transformed himself into an angel of light in us, and that we were all heretics. He then

Page 612
read to me the articles I had confessed, and said it should come before the lords, and that if I desired it, he would write it differently. I replied, "You need not change anything."
Questions and answers between the inquisitor and Claesken
Inquisitor. "Why did you have yourself baptized?" Claesken. "The Scriptures speak of anew life. John first calls to repentance, Christ Himself also, and afterwards the apostles; they taught the people to repent and reform, and then to be baptized. Thus did I repent and reform, and was baptized." Against this he did not say much.
Inq. "Why did you not have your children baptized?"
Cl. "I cannot find in the Scriptures that this ought to be."
Inq. "David says: 'I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' Ps. 51:5. Since children are born with original sin, they must be baptized, if they are to be saved."
Cl. "If a man can be saved by an external sign, then Christ has died in vain."
Inq. "It is written, John 3:5, that we must be born again, of water and of the Spirit; hence, children must be baptized."
Cl. "Christ does not say this to children, but to the adult; therefore did I become regenerated. We know that the children are in the hands of the Lord. The Lord said: -;Suffer little children to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."' Matthew 19:14. Inq. "The household of Stephanas was baptized, which probably also included children." I Cor. 1:16. Cl."We do not depend on probabilities; we have the certain assurance." He did not say much against this either. Ing. "What do you think of the holy church?"
Cl. "I think much of it."
Inq. "Why then do you not go to church?"
Cl. "I think nothing of your churchgoing." Inq."Do you believe that God is Almighty?"
Cl. "Yes, I believe this."
Inq. "Do you then also believe that Christ consecrates Himself, and is present in the bread? Paul says: 'The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? And the cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?"' I Cor. 10:16. Cl."I well know what Paul says, and believe it, too."
Inq. ."Christ said: 'Take, eat; this is my body;' and Paul likewise." Matt. 26:26; I Cor. 11:24. Cl."I well know what Christ and Paul say, and thus I believe." Ing."Do you believe that Christ consecrates Himself, and is present in the bread?"
Cl. "Christ sitteth at the right hand of His Father; He does not come under men's teeth."
Inq. "If you continue in this belief, you will have to go into the abyss of hell forever. It is what all heretics say. Jelis of Aix-la-Chapelle has deceived you; he himself has renounced his belief, because he saw that he had erred." Cd."I do not depend on Jelis, or any other man, but only on Christ; He is our foundation, upon whom we have built ourselves, even as Christ teaches us in His Gospel: 'Whosoever heareth my words, and doeth them. I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock; and though storms come, and beat against the house, yet it will not fall.' Matt. 7:24. These now are the storms that beat against our house; but Christ is our stronghold, and He will preserve us."
Inq. "You do not understand it; there are many other writings, of which you know nothing."
Cl. "We need no other writings than the holy Gospel, which Christ Himself, with His blessed mouth, has spoken to us, and sealed with His blood; if we can observe that, we shall be saved." Inq."You should suffer yourself to be instructed; the holy fathers instituted churching* fifteen hundred years ago."
Cl. "The holy fathers did not have this holiness; these are human commandments and institutions. Neither did the apostles practice this holiness; I never read it." Ing. "Are you wiser than the holy church?" C1."I do not wish to do anything against the holy church; I have yielded myself to the obedience 61 the holy church." Inq."You should think: Do I know better than the holy fathers fifteen hundred years ago? You should think that you are simple."
Cl. "Though I am simple before men, I am not simple in the knowledge of the Lord. Do you not know that the Lord thanked His Father, that He had hid these things from the wise and prudent, and had revealed them to the simple and unto babes?" Matt. 11:25.
At one time there were also two monks with him, who were to instruct me. They had but little to say, only that we were people of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. I Tim. 6:5; II Tim. 3:7, 8. I replied, "When the day of the Lord will come, you will find it to be otherwise; take heed lest you then be of those who will say: 'These are they whom we had in derision; behold, how they are now numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints."' Wisd. 5:3, 5. Then they said, "Behold, she judges us." I replied, "I do not judge you; but I tell you to take heed unto yourselves. Now our life is accounted madness, and our end to be without honor; but when the day of the Lord comes, it will be found quite different." The sum of the matter was, that I had a devil, and was deceived. I said, "Is Christ then a deceiver?" He replied, "No; Christ is no deceiver." I said, "Then I am not deceived; I neither seek nor desire anything else than to fear the Lord with all my heart, and (knowingly) not to transgress one tittle of His commandments." After he had talked to me still further, he said, "I can tell you nothing else; you may consider the matter." I replied, "I need not consider it otherwise; I know full well that I hold the truth."
When I came before him again, he said, "Claesken, to what conclusion have you come?"
Cl. "I have concluded to adhere to that to which the Lord has called me." Matt. 20:1. Ing."The devil has
* Den Kerck-gang.

Page 613
called you, who transforms himself into an angel of light in you people."
When he examined me the sixth time, he asked me, "When Christ held His supper with His apostles, did He not give them His flesh to eat, and His blood to drink."
Cl. "He gave them bread and wine, and He gave them His body for redemption."
Inq. "Christ certainly clearly says: 'Take, eat; this is my flesh;' you certainly cannot contradict this."
Cl. "Paul says: 'I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his apostles, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.' I Cor. 11:23-26. Thus Christ left us His supper, that we should remember His death by it, that He gave His body and shed His blood for us. This supper I want to hold with the people of God, and no other."
He held to his twaddle: that we must eat Christ's flesh, and drink. His blood, since these were clearly implied by the words of Christ and of Paul.
Cl."Since the words are so plain, I can well understand them; but it is as Paul says: that those who do not turn to the Lord, have a vail before their hearts; but those who turn to the Lord, from their hearts the vail is taken away. II Cor. 3:1416. We have turned to the Lord; nothing is hid to us."
Inq. "In the 6th chapter of John (verse 53) Christ also clearly says that we must eat His flesh, and drink His blood."
Cl. "It is also written there: 'Then the Jews murmured, and said: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Christ said: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye have no life in you.' Again, He says: 'Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life:' He also said: 'Flesh and blood profit nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.' Those who believe in God, and walk in all righteousness, they are temples of God, in whom God will dwell and walk, as Paul testifies." II Cor. 6:16.
When, he examined me the seventh time, he said, "Do you not believe that the apostles ate the flesh of Christ?"
Cl. "Christ took the bread, gave thanks, brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and His body He gave for their redemption." Ing. "Do you not believe otherwise?"
Cl. "I do not believe otherwise than Christ has spoken."
Inq. "Then I declare unto you, that I am clear of your blood; your blood be upon your own head."
Cl. "I am well satisfied with this."
Inq. "Herewith I commit you to the lord."
He afterwards examined me once more, and asked me, "Do you not vet believe that the apostles ate the flesh of Christ?"
Cl. "I have told you."
Inq. "Tell it now."
Cl. "I will not tell it again."
Inq. "Do you still persist in your views respecting baptism?"
Cl. "You certainly well know that the penitent ought to be baptized."
Inq. "This is true enough, if for instance a Jew comes, who is not baptized yet. Are you still of the same opinion in regard to infant baptism?"
Cl. "Yes."
Inq. "Do you not believe otherwise?"
Cl. "I do not believe otherwise than Christ has commanded."
Inq. "Then I declare unto you, that you will be tormented forever in the abyss of hell."
Cl. "How dare you judge me so awfully, seeing judgment belongs to the Lord alone? Acts 17:31. I am not terrified by this; I know better; when the day of the Lord comes, it will be found different."
I then asked him, "What does my husband say?"
Inq. "Your husband also still persists in his views; may the Lord enlighten you."
Cl. "We are already enlightened, the Lord be praised."
Concerning my baptism he did not say much, nor about infant baptism; but the whole of his talk was that we must eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood, and that this had been instituted fifteen hundred years ago, and that I was simple and had hardly once read the Testament through. I said, "Do you think that we, run on uncertainties? We are not ignorant of the contents of the New Testament. We forsake out dear children, whom I would not forsake for the whole world, and we stake upon it all that we have-should we run on uncertainties yet? We seek nothing but our salvation; you certainly cannot prove to us by the Scriptures, that we practice and believe one tittle against the Word of the Lord." But he only said that we had all from the devil, and that we were possessed of the devil of pride. I said, "We know that the proud are cast down from their seats." Luke 1:52. He talked so long, that he sometimes already fancied that I would heed him; hence I had to speak now and then, because I did not want him to think this; I could not bear to hear him speak so awfully against the truth.
A letter by Claesken to her friends according to the flesh, and also according to the spirit, written in prison, the 14th of March, A. D. 1559, at which time, or thereabouts, she, her dear husband, and her brother Jacques, were put to death for the testimony of Jesus.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 3:06PM

A demonstration of the same intolerence, the same insistence that you and you alone know what God wants and orders, and that all who disagree with you must repent, that we hear from you virtually every time you post, Margie. Don't you see that you are no different from those whom you condemn?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:00PM

Leftist liar lawyer reprobate RCV the Papist who says the Homosexuality isn't sin is now going to lecture against the Scriptures once again.

No you fool~ I have just posted an example of the PURE hatred the cult of Catholicism has towards Bible believing Christians, how their sick cult tortured and killed millions who believe what I do~ and that to show a perfect example of the same taunting I receive here by the modern day Inquisitors.

I cannot help it if you don't like it.

And the Word of God (Jesus Christ) condemns liars and murderers. His promise is to throw you into Hell.

Repent, liar.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 4:14PM

Margie,
The other day you were begging RCV for legal advice to sue Ken, and to help you. Now you are back to your usual rants: fool, liar, punk, blah blah blah.
Are you really this stupid that you don't even read what YOU say? It is clear you don't read and understand what others say to you. You persist in your lies that Catholics worship the pope, that Mary is above God( because she is called the Mother of God out of reverence, not worship, since she is the Mother of Jesus, who is God), and others too numerous to mention.

How is that lawsuit coming?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:30PM

If you accept the false and unbiblical teachings of the Papacy~ you are worshipping him.

If you believe the false teaching of Mary as Mother of God, you are believing a lie.

Repent, and believe in the Gospel of GOD.
He says that for a reason, Papist liar.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:36PM

Margie, why don't you believe that Jesus is God?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:16PM

Jesus never claimed HE was God. Don't you read the Bible? He never claimed He was God, but His Son.

He says that the Father is greater than He. Jn. 14:28.

I am sorry that you have been taught lies by your cult.

God is God, and Jesus is His Son.

Now, you should truly repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.
Mark 1 is a good start.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 11:20PM

Finally, you say that Jesus is not God. So Jesus is less than God. Then you are not a Christian. Just admit it. You believe in Arianism, that Jesus is "lesser" than God. So how do you reconcile your cult with RCV's question about the Gospel of John where John? You refuse or are unable to answer.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 12:07AM

Margie,

"Jesus never claimed HE was God."

You should know the Word of God better than this. Christ claimed that He was God at least twice, that I know of.

"The Jews therefore said to him: You are not yet fifty years old. And you have seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." John 8:57-59

"But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' And Jesus said, 'I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' And the high priest tore his garments, and said, 'Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision'" And they all condemned him as deserving death." - Mark 14:61-64

You are aware of the significance of Christ using "I AM"? Apparently not. Christ was saying the He IS God, in both instances. That is why they wanted to kill Him.

If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God, but only "His Son," you are, as Dan stated, an Arian, not a Christian. Christ is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.

You can learn more about this here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:00PM

He answered to the question of if HE was the Son of Man. Indeed He is.
Oh yes, Papist liar, I believe every Word of God.
Just not YOUR perversion of it!
JESUS IS LORD.
Repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God, which does NOT include Mary as Mother of God!

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 12:16AM

Margie,

"He answered to the question of if [sic] HE was the Son of Man."

How was claiming to be the Son of man blasphemy? Deserving of death? The Jews were expecting the Messiah.

Also, you totally ignored John 8. Christ said, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was made, I AM." He was not saying that He was the Son of man, here. Christ's claim was that He IS God. This is why they were going to stone Him.

Jesus is God. Believe it.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 1:25PM

"How was claiming to be the Son of Man blasphemy?

I'm sorry, you're asking ME that question?

Punk.

And I never said Jesus wasn't God, cultist. I said He never made Himself greater than God. Nor did He put Himself in a TRINITY of which Mary was the "Mother" of.
Now, go try messing with someone else's head you freak.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 3:56PM

Margie,

"I said He never made Himself greater than God."

No, you did not. You are now changing what you have you written. Why? Because you realize that you are wrong? I quoted your comment verbatim: "Jesus never claimed HE was God."

You have also wrongly asserted that Christ "never made Himself equal with God." As I have shown, both of these claims are not true.

Why can't you answer my question? Claiming to be the Messiah was not a capital offense. But, claiming to be God sure was.
Jesus is God. Believe it.
And, Mary is His mother.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:32PM

He did not refer to Himself as God, but the Son of God.
You want to put Him in a Papal box, but you cannot.
You have never read the Bible, have you?

"For the Father is greater than I."
Jesus says it, therefore it's true.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 7:54PM

Margie,

"He did not refer to Himself as God, but the Son of God."

Yes, He did so, when He said, "Before Abraham was made, I AM." They didn't pick up stones to kill Him because He was claiming to be the Son of God.

"You have never read the Bible, have you?"

What a silly statement. You should know better.

"Jesus says it, therefore it's true."

Yes, but, Christ doesn't mean it the way you think He does. Because you have neither eyes to see, nor ears to hear.

I can provide you with a long list of Scripture verses that show that Jesus Christ is God, if you would like?
God Bless!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 9:11PM

nick:
"I can provide you with a long list of Scripture verses that show that Jesus Christ is God,"

Go right ahead, you're up.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 2:19PM

And you little twero, I didn't "ignore" any Scripture. So good for you that you poted Jn. 8. I agree with Jesus, as I said, in everything He says about Himself, I believe IN Him, and am IN Him.

Just as Jesus prayed in Jn. 17 that we would "be one, even as He was one with the Father."

And Jn. 8 is an excellent reference as well to Jn. 1 where John says, by the Spirit of God, that He "was in the beginning with God." And all things are created through Him.

Yes, He is the Word become flesh, The Word was God!

I simply will not say what YOUR cult wants me to say, as it teaches about a Jesus that is a created one, and not the one of the gospels.

It teaches that Mary is the "Mother of God", and places her above God, and a so called "Trinity" of which she is God.

That is a LIE.

Don't like it that I disagree? Not only do I disagree,
I call blasphemy, dude!

Repent, and believe the Gospel of God.
Beginning in Mk. 1:1.
It does NOT include Mary or anyone else above God, the Father, and Jesus Christ as LORD!

Okeedokee, Papist?

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 4:26PM

Margie,

"[...] as it teaches about a Jesus that is a created one [...]."

This is not true. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, "Begotten, not made, One Being [homoousios] with the Father."

And, that Christ had two natures, human and Divine. But, both natures were God, because Christ could not separate His Divinity from His human nature. Christ is "True God and True man."

"[...] and places her above God [...]."

No, the Church does not do this. You repeat falsehoods. You can keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true. What did Victor say about Goebbels and telling the big lie over and over enough?

"Jesus Christ as LORD!"

Did you miss my comment about the word "LORD," from yesterday? I'll repost it:

By the way, you are aware that "LORD" was the word that Jews used in order that they didn't write God's true name, out of reverence? So, LORD means God, Kurios in Greek, Adonai in Hebrew.

When you call Christ LORD, you are calling Him God. And, Mary is His mother.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:41PM

The Bible (Go's Own Words say the opposite to your CULT'S teachings.

Rev. 3:4 : "And to the angel of the church in La-odice'a write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the Beginning of God's creation."

Looks to me like Jesus was the Beginning of God's Creation.. unless of course you want to try and deny the Word of God.

"He is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all Creation; for in Him all things were created, in Heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through Him and for Him.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is the Beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything He might be pre-eminent.

For in Him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in Heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross." Col. 1:15-20.

Repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.

God HAS no Mother and Jesus Christ is LORD.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 6:26PM

Margie,

"Looks to me like Jesus was the Beginning of God's Creation.. unless of course you want to try and deny the Word of God."

Looks to me like you are horrendously wrenching the Word of God out of context.

Jesus Christ is not a creature. Christ began God's Creation because the Word spoke, "Let there be light." Christ is the Word, and "the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1). Was not Jesus the Word?

Saint Paul is not saying that Jesus Christ was created, either. I don't know how you are able to come to such a conclusion. Only God can create the Heaven and earth, not one of God's creatures. This is all that Paul is saying in Colossians.

This is what happens to those who try to understand the Scriptures without praying to the Holy Spirit, and, the guidance of the Church that Christ founded upon Simon Kephas (Rock) and the Apostles. Just reading the words is enough for them.

It's as if I went into the control room of a nuclear power plant claiming that I could run the place, just because I had seen The China Syndrome.

Pray for the gifts of knowledge and understanding from the Holy Spirit (who is also God, by the way,) Margie.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:02PM

Furthermore scumbag that is trying to make me out to be a denier of God:

Jesus of course is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, yes indeed.

And yet, He never claimed He was God, but the Son of God.

And screw YOU for what you are trying to assign to me you little scumbag.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 12:20AM

"And screw YOU for what you are trying to assign to me you little scumbag."

I love you Margie, my sister in Christ. And Victor, my brother in Christ. Please, keep me in your prayers. I will pray for you. Christ wants us to love each other. Pray for the gifts of understanding and fortitude.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:41PM

Blechhh.

RCV| 11.19.11 @ 12:22AM

If He is the Alpha, the beginning, how could He not be God?

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 1:08PM

I never said He wasn't, did I?
I said He never referred to Himself as God, but His Son, and never made Himself equal with God, as the Catholic cult does, forming a TRINITY of which Mary is the "Mother" of.

The Scriptures I provided explain EXACTLY who God is and EXACTLY who Christ is.

God is God the Father, and Jesus Christ is His Son.

I'm not sure why the Papists saw fit to try and change that, but they did, and have for centuries perverted the WORD of GOD.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 9:01PM

Margie,
You sound like a politician talking in circles. Are you now trying to say that Jesus never said he is God but Jesus is God? You keep lying that Catholics believe that Mary is part of the Divinity. For the last time, pea brain, Mary is the Mothere of Jesus. Jesus is God. She is referred as the Mother of God out of respect and not that she is part of the Divinity. You make up lies and then attribute the lies to Catholics.
Why don't you just admit you made a mistake and you were wrong?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:48PM

You have said Mary is the Mother of God. I have said no she wasn't, she was only the Mother of Jesus.

You now say she isn't the Mother of God, and that your cult does NOT teach it.

Here it is from the Vatican website, the perverted teaching:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.135

492 The "splendour of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son".136 The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".137

493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature".138 By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
"Let it be done to me according to your word. . ."

494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:140

As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."141 Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert. . .: "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."142 Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary "the Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "Death through Eve, life through Mary."143

Mary's divine motherhood

495 Called in the Gospels "the mother of Jesus", Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as "the mother of my Lord".144 In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Spirit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father's eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly "Mother of God" (Theotokos).145.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:51PM

Note the false and unbiblical teachings! Mary was born sinless! This is exactly how they JUSTIFY the false teaching of God a a "Trinity", of which they can put Mary as head of, since they believe (wrongly) that she was conceived sinless!

Bible believing Christians were tortured, men women AND children for six centuries because they REFUSED to accept this false teaching!

Bow the knee or accept your fate, O Christian!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 3:57PM

DISPUTATION BETWEEN HERMAN VLECKWIJK, IMPRISONED BY THE LORDS OF THE COUNTRY VAN DEN VRYE IN BRUGES, AND FRIAR CORNELIS, IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. JAN VAN DAM, ON THE 10TH OF MAY, A. D. 1569

"Fr. Corn. Bah, the devil and 'his mother wag your tongue. You would now like to bite into my trap, would you? Ali, you wicked, vile, false, crafty Anabaptist and Sacramentarian, yea, also Trinitarian, because you speak so abominably of the holy Trinity, do you then not believe, that Christ is the second person in the Godhead of the holy Trinity? Bah, it seems not from your speaking.
Herm. We only know to speak of things that are mentioned in the holy Scriptures.
Fr. Corn. O you Trinitarian, do we not read in the holy Scriptures of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost, eh?
Herm. Yet the holy Scriptures speak of only one God, and of the Son of the living God, and of the Holy Ghost.
Fr. Corn. Indeed? you accursed Trinitarian; if you would read the symbol* of Athanasius, you would read of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost, which three persons are therein called one true God, of whom the Father is the first person in the Godhead; the Son is the second person in the Godhead, and the Holy Ghost is the third person in the Godhead; and these three persons constitute the holy Trinity, that they do. Do you understand now, you Trinitarian, eh?
Herm. I have not studied the symbol of Athanasius; for it is enough for me, that I believe in the living God, and that Christ is the Son of the living God, as Peter believed (Matt. 16), and in the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly through
Jesus Christ our Saviour, as Paul writes in the third chapter of his epistle to Titus.
Fr. Corn. Indeed? you are certainly fine fellows, that God should shed His Holy Spirit upon you who will not believe that the Holy Ghost is also God Himself. But this heresy you pick up and study in the devilish books of that accursed Erasmus of Rotterdam, who in his preface to the books of St. Hilary writes, that St. Hilary, at the end of his twelfth book, says, that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in the holy Scriptures called God, but that we have become so presumptuous as to dare call the Holy Ghost God, which the ancient teachers of the church did not dare do. In like manner this wicked Erasmus is also a great enemy of the divinity of Christ. Ah, bah I would you follow this damned Trinitarian, eh?
Herm. We follow neither Erasmus nor Hilary, but we follow the holy Scriptures, as Hilary and Erasmus herein do.
Fr. Corn. Though the holy Scriptures nowhere call the Holy Spirit God, what matters it? The Holy Ghost Himself has inspired our mother the holy Roman Catholic church, to call Him God, as appears from the symbol of Athanasius, see. But in good faith, if you believe the holy Scriptures, why then will you not believe in the divinity of Christ, eh?
Herm. That be far from us, that we should not believe in the divinity of Christ, that He is divine and heavenly, and not earthly, as you people believe; therefore we are put to death by you.
Fr. Corn. * * * Bah, we put you to death, because you people will not believe, that Christ assumed the seed of Mary His blessed mother, see.
Herm. We believe that the Word became flesh, as John writes in the first chapter of his Gospel.
Fr. Corn. Bah, now I have got you well cornered; for God was the Word. And if God became flesh, why then would you bite into my trap, because I say, God's flesh, God's body, and God's blood, eh?
Herm. We too believe that God was the Word; but would you then therefrom understand, that the living God (of whom Christ is the Son) became Himself flesh? this were certainly contrary to the entire holy Scriptures.
Fr. Corn. Yet Christ says, John 10:30, "1 and my Father are one." Again, John 14:9, "He that bath seen me bath seen the Father." Bah, where are you now, eh?
Herm. Christ also says (John 17:21-23), "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one." Again (Acts 4:32), "The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." Again, Paul to the Galatians (3:8) says, "For ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Again (Ephe sians 5:31, 32), "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery."
Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, you have preached enough; for all this you have drawn from the venomous breasts of Erasmus. But answer me, why Christ says, "He that bath seen me bath seen the Father," see.
Herm. Christ also says, John 6:46, "Not that any man bath seen the Father, save he which is of the Father, he bath seen the Father." Again, John 1:18, "No man bath seen God at any time." Again, John 14:28, "For my Father is greater than I." Again, Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." From this it is sufficiently shown that the Father Himself did not become flesh.
Fr. Corn. Bah, this you need not teach me; for I say myself that Christ, the second person in the Godhead, or of the holy Trinity, became man, whom you will not call God; do you understand this, you accursed Trinitarian that you are?
Herm. I call Him the Son of the living God, as Peter called Him. (Matt. 16:16), and Lord, as the apostles call Him.
Fr. Corn. O you accursed Trinitarian, I could jump out of my skin for anger, that I could.
Herm. Then you must jump out of your skin, when in the second chapter of the Acts of the apostles (verse 22), you read that Peter calls Him but a man of God, saying, "Jesus of Nazareth, a man* approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him." Again, in the same chapter (verse 32), "This Jesus bath God raised up." Again, in the third chapter (verse 15)"Whom God bath raised from the dead." Again in Acts 4:10, "Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead." Again, Paul (Acts 17:31) says, "Because he bath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he bath ordained; whereof he bath given assurance unto all men, in that he bath raised him from the dead."
Fr. Corn. Yes, yes, tush, tush, tush, bah I these are the same arguments which this damned Erasmus prefers, in his book, de modo orandi, and in Apologia ad Episcopum Hispalensem, Alphonsum Mauracum. But you Trinitarian, if you will call Christ only the Son of God, you do not esteem Him better than Adam; for Luke says in his third chapter, that Adam also was the son of God. Bah! see once, with what we are tormented.
Herm. That be far from us, that we should not esteem Christ better than Adam; for because we believe, that the body of Christ is not earthy of the earth, as was Adam the first man, but that He is a heavenly man, as Paul writes in the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians; therefore

* See German version.
Page 794
we are put to death by you; hence you yourselves do not esteem Him better than Adarii.
Fr. Corn. O you accursed Trinitarian, how the devil does wag your tongue. Bah, if you, will not. believe, that Christ is truly man; and if you will also not believe that He is the true God, what * * * is He then?
Herm. Do not talk so unbecomingly; for 'Christ is no devil; but He is the true Son of God, 'as John writes in the fifth chapter of his first epistle; and He is also a true man; as Paul writes in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans.
Fr. Corn. Bah, but does not St. John in the same chapter say of the Son, "This is the true, God;" eh?
Herm. No, for John says, "We know that .the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under standing, that we may know the true God, and that we should be in his true Son. 'This is the true God, and eternal life." Hereby John means this true God whom the Son taught us to know:
Fr. Corn. Bah, you Trinitarian; now it occurs to me that St. John says in the same chapter, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one." Bah, here you are, soundly cornered, poor Trinitarian that you are.
Herm. I have often heard it said; that Erasmus in his Annotations charges you papists with having interpolated these words, and that they are not contained in the Greek text, even as you people have taken out and added many other things' in the holy Scriptures.
Fr. Corn. Bah, may the fire of hell forever burn and torment you with your devilish, damned, accursed heretic Erasmus. Bah, I 'could tear my cap for anger; that I could:
Herm. Why then do you not tear, your cap, when you read that Greek text yourslf; and' see that this is not contained in it?
Fr. Corn. Bah, my lords, what do you think of this-am I wrong in so sharply attacking in my sermons this damned heretic, , this wicked Trinitarian Erasmus? For it is true, this he writes; yea, what is still worse, in his Annotations to the fourth chapter of St. Luke he has written.; that a very great and strange corruption has been wrought:in the holy Scriptures in the Greek and Latin copies, that sometimes something is added and interpolated and sometimes something taken away, omitted, and erased, on account of the heretics; yea, that the marginal notes which were now and then written by one or the other have all been foisted into the text, my lords, is it not a fine thing?
Recorder. Ali, Father Cornelis, we are no theologians; we do not understand these things.
Fr. Corn. Indeed? Bah, I believe it; but this Trinitarian would certainly understand it very well, as you hear, that he charges us with it. Bah, he would dare charge us Catholics with his archheretic, this wicked Erasmus, that in the ,ninth chapter of Romans, where Paul says, "Whose are he fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came;" we' have interpolated, "Who is over all, God blessed forever: Amen." For this accursed .Erasmus writes, that he has great doubts with regard to this clause, "Oui est benedictus in saecula. Amen." Or these words are to be interpretedand understood- as a thanksgiving to God the Father; thus,"Christ, etc., who is over ail. God be blessed for ever. Amen.""Otherwise," he writes;"I have great doubts; whether this clause has not been interpolated, as I find also in some other texts, that they have added similar clauses, for .the conclusion of discourses, as, Tu autem Domine; etc.; Gloria Patri et Filio, etc., as their lessons and prayers are all concluded with such clauses." But as regards the words of St. Thomas, in the twentieth chapter of St. John's gospel, you have no way of escape; for there St. Thomas said to Christ, "My Lord and my God." Bah, to this he does not reply, yea, with this he is soundly cornered- nevertheless, he spitefully writes with regard to this, "This is the first and last passage in the Scriptures, where Christ is called God." Bah, but you Trinitarian, let us hear what you can say to this.
Herm. I reply to this, that Thomas said very well here; for David says in the eighty-second Psalm, "I have said, Ye are gods'; and all of you are children. of the Most High." Christ Himself also quotes these words in the tenth chapter of John. When the Jews took up stones to stone Him, because He had said,"I and the Fattier are one," esus answered them, "Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?' The Jews answered him, saying: For a good work we stone thee not; but for'blaspherny; and because that thou, being a man, iiiakest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods. If he called.them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest;. because I said, I am the son of God?" Again, Ex. 22:8, 9, "If the thief, be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the gods, etc. The cause of both parties shall come before the gods; and whom the gods. shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor."
Fr. Corn. Bah, but tell me without many words, why Christ did not say to St. Thomas, "Stay: I am not your God?" let us hear.
Herm. In regard to this my previous answer, John 10; David in Ps. 82 will serve; but answer
Te why Christ did not reply to these words of homas, " Vpon this rock I will build my church," as He .said, .1Vlatt. 16:18, when Peter answered Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?" He also did not say to Thomas, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which i's in heaven." Why also does Christ, John 20:17; say to His disciples, "I ascend unto my Fa-

Page 795
ther and your Father; and to my God, and your God? Again, Matt. 27:46, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, you Trinitarian. Bah, from this would probably follow diabolical arguments which would transcend all human comprehension. Ah, bah, is Christ not truly God? why then do we call His blessed mother the mother of God, eh?
Herm. Because you will nowhere follow the holy Scriptures, but would call everything by a contrary and different name; for the holy Scriptures call her the mother of Jesus, as in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in the nineteenth chapter of John, and in many other places of holy Scripture, where she is not once called the mother of God.
Fr. Corn. Indeed? Bah, do you think that we Catholics pay so much regard to the naked, bare, meagre Scriptures? Ah, bah, the worthy, holy council of Nice has ordained and decreed that she should be called the mother of God. What do you say to this?"

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs114.htm

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 3:20PM

Hey moron Margie, don't you understand what your read? She is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God.
You are the one interpreting the Bible for "Mary's divine motherhood."
Being the Mother of Jesus, who is God, is not the same as being part of the Divinity. You can't be this dense. Think for a change, and remove the blind hatred you have of Catholics. You post Bible verses that you don't understand and twist them to conform to you pre-conceived bigoted opinions.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:44PM

Hypocrite and liar, "Dan" today, Joseph yesterday, lying Troll and anti-Christ:

YOU have said Mary is the Mother of God.
Now you want to deny it and try and say your CULT doesn't teach it?
LOL. I just posted your CULT'S disgusting teaching.

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:27PM

Hey idiot, are you this dense. Maybe you want take a remedial course in reading and comprehensio. Mary is the Mother of God, moron. I have explained it to you ,idiot., many times. Mary is the Mother of Jesus. Jesus is God. Six simple words that even an idiot like you should understand. Don't like, nobody cares. Stick to you cult of one of which you are the Mullah. By the way, didnt the Anabaptist believe in polygamy, sharing wives, and having sex with young girls, and that was the reason they were persecuted by Protestants and Catholics?
You get more stupid and more bigoted every day.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 3:55PM

Margie,

Why don't you try reading the things that you copy and paste? Or, did you miss the repeated references to Our Lady being a creature? Like this one: "The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person [...]."

How can the Virgin Mary be "the head of" the Most Holy Trinity, when she is a creature? And, when Trinity means three. If she was the head, wouldn't that make four?

Again, you keep repeating these falsehoods because you don't know what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Just the anti-Catholic propaganda that you have read over the years.

Plus, I see you have no response to the fact that "LORD" means God. Or, that you were completely wrong about the fact that Christ did claim that He was God. When the questions get tough, you just stop answering, is that it?
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:47PM

I just posted your CULT'S Catechism, twerp.

Your CULT is the that pervets the Scripture, making Mary Mother of God and sinless you lying little twit.

Repent of your lying, Papist.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 6:45PM

Margie,

That is not an answer, now, is it? Let me know if you find one. I can save you some time, you won't.

Stating the fact that Our Lady was sinless, is not making her superior to God. If you read, and understand, what the Catechism is saying, you will see it does not say what you claim it does.

Your mere assertions are inventions that were concocted by anti-Catholics centuries ago. It's sad that they still get repeated.
God Bless!

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:28PM

Nick, Margie can't read and comprehend, she is so full of hate. Why are you so full of hate Margie?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 1:34AM

RCV:
"If He is the Alpha, the beginning, how could He not be God?"

Are you normally this obtuse or do you have to practice?

Jesus was with God since the beginning.
Gen 2:26
"And God said, let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness;"

Who was the Us God was speaking of, eh?

Or this:

John 1:1-2
"In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.
He was in the beginning with God."

Who was the "He" in John 1:2?

Why, it was Jesus, the Son of God!
John 5:43
"I have come in the name of My Father,
and you do not receive Me. If another
comes in his own name, you will receive
that one."

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 6:22PM

Margie,

"I know nothing about Calvin [...] ."

So, Calvin isn't one of your brethren? Another one under the bus, huh?

"You chose to leave out all the HISTORY of the so called early church heretics that first taught Supersessionism that was in that link, because you are so deceitful."

No, I mentioned Marcion.

"And it is still am historical FACT that [...]."

No, it's not, and, you cannot produce any evidence to support your false claims. Except wiki, that is. What about your hypocrisy concerning Ryan's use of wiki? Are you going to apologize to him?

"Just where do you think the murderous Popes are today, Nick?"

I would bet most of them are in Heaven, but, I have no way of knowing for sure (except for those who are declared saints, of course.) None of us know, for sure, who is Heaven and who is Gehenna, even you.

What about your false claim about the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, believing in Supersessionism? Couldn't google another quote to paste, huh?

I did read this so-called testimony of Claesken, when you pasted it before. My guess, it's fabricated. Like most of the anti-Catholic propaganda from that era.

But, if you believe it is true, then don't you have to also believe what Martyrs Mirror says about Saints Ignatius and Ireneaus? And, they both taught Catholic doctrine, remember?
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:13PM

Deceitful PUNK:

I didn't say he wasn't one of my brethren, did I?

You are so filled with utter deceit, it gets sickening dealing with it.

You're a disgusting liar.

I posted the truth. Anyone with eyes to see will see.

Your false judgments of not only me, but my Martyred brethren has been noted by the God of the Universe.
He will be the Judge, aye?

Repent liar.
If you don't, you will likewise perish, as it is written in Lk. 13:3.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 11:31PM

Margie,

"I didn't say he wasn't one of my brethren, did I?"

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

And, I see that you won't apologize to Ryan for your hypocrisy? That says much about you. You just keep on using wiki and denouncing them, okay?

Plus, you didn't even acknowledge the huge mistake you committed quoting wiki's false quotation of then Cardinal Ratzinger's book Many Religions, One Covenant, in which he was talking about Mohammed, "the Prophet."

No, when you are shown your numerous mistakes, you just ignore them and never acknowledge them. Total denial. I'll keep praying for you.
God Bless!

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:52PM

Nick:
"Margie,

"I know nothing about Calvin [...] ."

So, Calvin isn't one of your brethren? Another one under the bus, huh?"

Once again, Calvin nor Luther mean anything to us.
Repeating it endlessly does not make it so Goebbels.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 7:20PM

Victor,

Then, can you explain what Margie meant by, "I didn't say he wasn't one of my brethren, did I?"

Goebbels? That's a little harsh, isn't it?
God Bless!

victor| 11.19.11 @ 4:33AM

Nick:
"Goebbels? That's a little harsh, isn't it?"

"“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it"

Since you, RCV, Dan and others have repeatedly asserted that we are "protestants" others believe that we are.
RCV keeps asserting that we admire, revere and adore Luther or Calvin.
We do not, never have and never will, but that does not stop you from endlessly repeating it.

Now that you have been told once more, maybe you will stop.
Or maybe you won't.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 2:33PM

To clarify, because Papists have such an awful time reading our words for soooome reason, I will repeat myself again.
I never studied Calvin, I do not know whether he was my brother. I never got into his teachings, sorry.
I have always stuck to the Bible, and have no idols in men.
So, how can I "throw him" under the bus, you insipid little twerp?

I have read some of the works of John Bunyan, like Pilgrim's Progress" which ALL Christians ought to read. But I do know that Pope worshippers can't STAND John Bunyan, too. Because he was a genuine Christian.

He also wrote a book called "Grace abounding to the Chief of Sinners."

Tina B., now that you have retired from teaching, you could maybe find the time to read it, it is WONDERFUL!

I've also read some of Spurgeon's writings, and they are pretty biblically sound, though I haven't looked into him in depth.

No, more prize, my joy, my love is the actual Words of God as written in that book He gave us~ and He gave it to ALL of us, NOT to any church alone, whether it be Catholic or not!

I am with King David, that man who God said that he was a man after His Own Heart, and the apple of His eye if I am remembering correctly.
I'm with him when he speaks about how he loves God's Words:

"Through Thy precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path." Ps. 119:105 & 6.

Mind if I hate every false way?
What? You do?
For shame!

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 4:58PM

Margie,

My question about Calvin was the result of my faulty memory.

I remembered that you called William Tyndale one of your brethren, and wrongly thought that Tyndale was a Calvinist. He was more of a Lutheran.

I apologize for my mistake. (See, it's not so hard for one to admit one's mistakes. I mess-up all the time.)

You did, however, defend the Huguenots. They were Calvinists. I believe you also called them brethren. So, I must have conflated the two.

My point was this: If Tyndale is one of your brethren, and he was a follower of Luther, doesn't that make Luther, also, one of your brethren? Even if you do reject Luther's teachings?

There seems to some sort of disconnect there, in my opinion.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:32PM

Nick,
How could I call the Huguenots Calvinists? I don't know what it is!

And you are continuing to twist my words here.
Really, it's pretty disgusting.
Where did I say Luther is or was one of my brethren, and anyway, what's the point? And when did I reject his teachings?
Grow up, you little twerp.
Deal with the truth of what's being said for just one nano second, if you are able!

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:15PM

Margie,

"How could I call the Huguenots Calvinists? I don't know what it is!"

I didn't claim that you called the Huguenots Calvinists. I stated that you defended them. What is the "it" that you don't know about?

"And you are continuing to twist my words here."

How am I twisting your words?

"Where did I say Luther is or was one of my brethren [...]."

You called Tyndale one of your brethren. Tyndale was a Lutheran. Wouldn't that also make Luther one of your brethren? If not, what makes Tyndale one of your brethren? I'm not saying that logic proves this point. I'm just giving my opinion and asking a question.

"[...] and anyway, what's the point?"

Again, the point is if Tyndale and the Huguenots are your brethren, then why aren't Luther and Calvin. I'm just curious as to what makes someone your brother.

"And when did I reject his teachings?"

I'm pretty sure that you stated repeatedly that you do not follow the teachings of men, correct? Are you now saying that you do follow the teachings of Luther?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:48PM

What an utter lowlife.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 6:49PM

Margie,

Can't answer simple questions, huh?
Who is the one obfuscating again?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 9:52PM

nick:
"My point was this: If my boss is one of my brethren, and he was a follower of Charlie Manson, doesn't that make Charlie Manson, also, one of my brethren? Even if I reject Manson's teachings?

"There seems to some sort of disconnect there, in my opinion."

Sure does, nick. Yours.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 12:13AM

Victor,

William Tyndale was your boss? You are aware that he has been dead for almost 5 centuries? Ha-ha!

Perhaps you missed my elaboration? Here it is, again:

"[...] and anyway, what's the point?"

Again, the point is if Tyndale and the Huguenots are your brethren, then why aren't Luther and Calvin. I'm just curious as to what makes someone your brother.
God Bless!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 2:07AM

missing the point on purpose:

Let's say your brother was a follower of Charles Manson.
Because he was your bother, would that make you a follower as well?

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 4:56PM

Victor,

Now, that would depend on why he was my brother, wouldn't it?

Which is what I asked. Why is Tyndale one of your brethren? If it isn't because he was a Lutheran, what is it?

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 4:32PM

Victor,

"Since you, RCV, Dan and others have repeatedly asserted [...]."

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

I don't call you and Margie Protestants. You two have made this perfectly clear, and I respect your definition and description of your faith. When I do classify you two, I use "non-Catholic" or just plain Christian.

I will explain my question about Calvin, below, to Margie.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 4:59PM

Oops! It posted above. Sorry!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 9:56PM

nick:
"When I do classify you two, I use "non-Catholic""

Much the same way muslims refer to Christians as "infidels"?

Maybe you wish for the goode olde dayes
when you could make us "unpersons", eh?

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 12:19AM

Victor,

"Much the same way muslims refer to Christians as infidels'?"

Um, no. Why did you cut-off the part where I wrote, "or just plain Christian"?

"Maybe you wish for the goode olde dayes
when you could make us 'unpersons', eh?"

Did I say that the Goebbels reference was a stretch? I was mistaken.
God Bless!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 2:10AM

What a great and happy world it would be for you catholics without us pesky Bible Believing Christians.
But then again, catholics always have had a problem with Evangelical Christians.
They were very jealous and very hostile towards them.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 5:00PM

Victor,

"But then again, catholics always have had a problem with Evangelical Christians."

Catholics have problems with anyone who tries to change the teachings of Christ, or, misinterpret His Holy Word.

But, don't worry your paranoid little head, the Inquisition isn't coming back anytime soon.
Unless I missed a newsletter! Ha-ha!
God Bless!

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 12:13AM

Margie,

As I just stated, in another reply, you know almost nothing about early Christian history.

If you did, you would know that the Church did not endorse all of Origen's writings and teachings. Far from it. After his death there were councils that dealt with the errors his followers were teaching.

I repeat, because you are unwilling to accept the truth, the Catholic Church has never taught Universalism or Supersessionism.
EVER.

Capiche?

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 12:14AM

My 12:13 AM reply is in response to your 7:37PM comment.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:12PM

Hey Nick,

Rush just said they took down a picture of your Popey kissing a Muslim cleric.

I also posted one of him smiling and giving the thumbs up to another scumbag Muslim.

Again: if your Popey and your cult didn't teach anti-semitism (Supersessionism), they sure do practice it and are pals with the scum.

REPENT, LIAR.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:23PM

For your info, Margie, the Benneton photo campaign consists of photoshopped pictures they created of world leaders "kissing" each other. The photos aren't real. That's why they took it down because of the danger that ignorant folks would think it was real.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:33PM

Uh huh. So you're saying that the Pope doesn't meet with Muslim leaders and Kings, and give them the thumbs up?
Heh, he DOES.
And why do they want to meet with them, anyway?

"Will two walk together except they are
agreed?" Amos 3:3.

The Pope's a FRAUD.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:37PM

Margie, why are you obsessed with the Pope?

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:49PM

papist dan:
"why are you obsessed with the Pope?"

And you're not?

Can you take the pope or leave him, eh?

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 6:37PM

Idiot Margie,
"ignorant folks" means idiot white trash like you.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 1:02PM

Hi Clint.
Your "white trash" gave you away, slimebnag.

Steve| 11.19.11 @ 6:38PM

Margie,
Not Clint. I did see he refers to you as white trash, though. That doesn't make me Clint. Not too difficult for you to understand, is it?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:49PM

What I understand is that you're a disgusting filthy liar, and that God will deal with you Himself.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:50PM

What I understand is that you're a disgusting filthy liar, and that God will deal with you Himself, and in that I am satisfied completely!

So, mock on, Papist liar.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 1:10AM

Actually RCV we were talking about these photos:

http://blogs.reuters.com/faith.....utside.jpg

or this:

http://www.toledoblade.com/ima.....dullah.jpg

There are more of benedict canoodling with the muslims.
I'll post them later.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 1:17AM

Oh heck, here are two more:

http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpre.....muslim.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_WPjZ...../cwpix.jpg

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:24PM

Victor,

So, Christians aren't supposed to talk to any people who are of a different religion?
I guess that means the Apostles weren't really Christians, huh?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 9:58PM

nick:
":So, Christians aren't supposed to talk to any people who are of a different religion?
I guess that means the Apostles weren't really Christians, huh?"

When the Apostles "talked" to others they spoke to them about Jesus and His Salvation.

Does the pope?
Do you?

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 12:21AM

Victor,

"Do you?"

I'm talking to you, aren't I?

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 6:28PM

Margie,

"Again: if your Popey and your cult didn't teach anti-semitism (Supersessionism), they sure do practice it and are pals with the scum."

They never taught it, or, practiced it. Is this clear now?
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:09PM

They indeed practiced it, as History proves.
They tortured and killed Jews using that belief.
Now, anyone can do the research.
The Papists did murder Jews as well as Christians.
You are a liar.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 11:18PM

Margie,

Everything that you just asserted is FALSE.
And, yes, anyone can do the research. Everyone, that is, but you, apparently.
God Bless!

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:47PM

Nick:
"Margie,

Everything that you just asserted is FALSE.
And, yes, anyone can do the research."

In other words, you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT kill anyone?

That there was nothing called the INQUISITION?

Historians distinguish four different manifestations of the Inquisition:

the Medieval Inquisition (1231–16th century)
the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860)

Take your pick, they all ( the inquisitions) persecuted Bible Believing Christians.

Do YOUR research.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 7:17PM

Victor,

"In other words, you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church did NOT kill anyone?"

No, this is not what I am claiming. The Catholic Church, as an institution, did not shed blood, even during the Inquisition. Canon Law has always prohibited any cleric from shedding blood. So, any cleric that did so, was violating the Law.

This is not a dodge. I'm just trying to be as accurate as possible.

During the Inquisition, it was the secular authorities who executed people, not Church authorities. And, yes, there were too many abuses during this time. Especially, in Spain.

So, as you can see, I have done some research on this subject.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:06PM

Oh I see. Ya mean sorta like how Charlie Manson gave the orders to his followers to kill those people, but he didn't do it himself.

Or how like Hitler gave the orders to kill everyone that wasn't Communist and believed like he did, to kill those Christians and Jews?

Like that? Oh. I get it, Papist.

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 3:22PM

Bigot Margie , you are one sick person comparing anyone to Hitler and Charles Manson.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:53PM

No, you're the sick human being since you are the one who denies the millions of Christians and Jews who the Papists tortured and killed!

You put your cult above everything, don't you?
That makes you a bloody idolator.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:22PM

Margie,

Show me the orders. Or, did you just make that up?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:54PM

Heil Hitler!
Sieg Heil!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:27PM

Ya mean like Pope Innocent III's murderous crusades?
Like that, Papist?

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs042.htm

More on the Martyrs of the 12th century:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs040.htm

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:21PM

The same Martyrs Mirror that sings the praises of great Catholic saints, like Ignatius and Irenaeus.

And praises Origen and Tertullian, as well.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 10:00PM

nick:
" great Catholic saints, like Ignatius and Irenaeus."

What makes them "great Catholic saints", eh?

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 12:53AM

Victor,

They were "great" because they died as witnesses (martyria) for the Gospel of Christ.
They were "Catholic" because they taught Catholic doctrines, like Apostolic Succession and the Eucharist.
They were "saints" because they were martyrs for Christ.

Interesting facts: Ignatius' writings show that the Church was called katholikos, i.e., Catholic, by the end of the first century A.D.
Also, Irenaeus' tomb and remains were destroyed by the Huguenots.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 2:03PM

You want history, Papist?

http://paintingpictures.xanga.com/505737249/item/

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:28PM

No, Margie, I would like actual history.
Not the fiction that you copy and paste.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:55PM

It isn't fiction, liar.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 6:58PM

Margie,

Prove it, then.
Don't just merely assert it.

Or, copy and paste from a book that, on one hand, attacks the Catholic Church, and, on the other hand, praises great Catholic saints like Ignatius and Irenaeus.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:08PM

Heh. Nick~ if they didn't teach it, they murdered Christians by it.

Repent, liar.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:08PM

Heh. Nick~ if they didn't teach it, they murdered Christians and Jews by it.

Repent, liar.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:25PM

...just like your hero, Martin Luther did : inciting his congregations to burn down the homes of and murder Jews, a strong inspiration for generations of later Germans, culminating in the Shoah.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:35PM

God used Luther, sorry about that, Papist.
If it weren't for him and some other brave Martyrs, the stinking lousy murderous Popes would still be hoarding it for themselves.

Heh, God is getting a good laugh at them now, while they are burning in Hell for torturing and killing these Christian men for bringing us the Bible in our language.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 5:39PM

Margie,
You are truly stupid. God used Luther?? So God also used Luther to spread the anti semitism in Germany? Did you talk to God to know He is laughing? How do you know who is in hell?
You really do need psychiatric help.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:54PM

Again, I'm not stupid, but you're the one who refuses to face reality. That'd be the reality that Luther used God, as I said to go up against the lying Popes who didn't want the Bible to be translated into English because they were (and still are) too haughty and made themselves (and still do) out to be some kind of authority over men!

Repent, Papist, and believe the TRUE Gospel of God. The one in which Jesus tells the Religious Pharisees that they are of their father the Devil because they refuse to believe in Him.

The Gospel in which He calls liars liars and hypocrites hypocrites!

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 3:25PM

Margie,
You are either stupid or a complet bigot. You keep repeating lies which means you are blinded by your hate, or too stupid to understand Catholic theology.
Do you talk to your parents who are Catholics this way, call the popey, liar, punk,etc.?

Repent. And get help.

Tony in Central PA| 11.17.11 @ 8:32PM

Few people seem to know or care to know about historical inconveniences like this. The Nazi Party invoked Luther freely in the formation of the Reichskirche. And the Catholic Church gets blamed for supporting Hitler and aiding and abetting the Holocaust. If the Catholic Church had some kind of deal with Hitler, she apparently was more than willing to have three million Catholic Poles and almost the entire priest population of Poland exterminated. Not a very good deal, huh ?
Were Luther's followers as uninformed or helpless to do anything about the Final Solution as they later told us ? Dietrich Bonhoffer certainly acted, but there were very few like him. Its ironic that in a postCatholic country the Church gets blamed for the industrial slaughter of millions while its national church gets a pass.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:45PM

You keep justifying the millions put to death by your Papists.

They will burn in Hell along with the Nazi murderers.

There is more than enough history to "blame" the Papists for their murders of Jews, and Bible believing Christians.

MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of them.
And, as I said, the "church" has NOT yet repented of the FALSE and abominable teachings that led them to do it.

These are the same teachings that cause you to so vehemently despise Bible believing Christians.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 11:23PM

You mean fifty million,50,000,000, right Margie?

victor| 11.18.11 @ 7:45PM

Papist Dan:
"You mean fifty million,50,000,000, right Margie?"

In other words, you are minimizing those that were martyred by the Roman Catholic Church?

the Medieval Inquisition (1231–16th century)
the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860)

Papist Dan| 11.18.11 @ 7:53PM

Victor/Margie,
You made the claim for fifty million people. What you want to compare the numbers killed by your Protestant pals with the four inquisitions? The Irish Genocide by your Protestant pals exceeds these four.
You are stupid and a bigot.

victor| 11.18.11 @ 8:05PM

papist danny boy:
"the numbers killed by your Protestant pals with the four inquisitions?"

Got some data for me?

"The Irish Genocide by your Protestant pals"

Got any data for that too?

BTW I am not, nor ever been a protestant.

Show me where I have said that I was.

Put up or shut, eh?

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:43PM

Margie/victor

Try reading some history. Idiot. Not wasting my time to direct you to specific books when you are not interested in learning anything that does not fit in with your pre-conceived intolerant views. You already should know you just don't want to accept it.
I am sure your parents must have told you all this since they are Catholics.
Do you call your parents popey, punk, liar, papist, and tell them they will burn in hell?
Repent.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:58AM

Papist Dan:
"Not wasting my time to direct you to specific books when you are not interested in learning anything that does not fit in with your pre-conceived intolerant views."

In other words, you cannot prove it with even a single citation, can you.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 1:02AM

DannyBoy:
"I am sure your parents must have told you all this since they are Catholics."

BTW my folks were never ever Roman Catholics, but they were raised in a similar environment.
One of the 23 catholic churches.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:49PM

I'm not the idiot you filthy man.
I am the one who believes the Bible is the written words of God.
You don't, and it's why you are here.
You cannot STAND the fact that I refuse to bow to your Popes, and the cult of Catholicism, which is an ABOMINATION to God!

Idiots believe false teachings.
Christians believe the WORD OF GOD.
Repent, liar Troll.
God really DOES throw liars into Hell.
And contrary to your cult's teachings, there is no Purgatory, and it IS for eternity.

"And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes Judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him." Heb. 9:27 & 28.

Are YOU eagerly waiting for Him? Or are you too busy hounding and lying about Christians who believe in Him?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:06PM

Actually Papist liar, it was way more than 50,000.00.
God knows the exact number.
And you so far are counting yourself as an enemy of the Cross of Christ!

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:39PM

More that fifty million, how many Mullah?
Did God tell you in your last conversation with Jesus?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:40PM

Lying Pope worshipper Troll:

You care not for the truth of how many tortured and killed my brethren whom you and your foul friends call heretics.

You wish you could do the same to me, I am sure of it!
Go ahead and deny that you would.
We'll wait.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:57PM

Still waiting lying anti-Christ Troll...

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:42PM

I haven't heard you say what a horrible atrocity!
NOT ONCE!

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:56PM

RCV:
"...just like your hero, Martin Luther did"

Once again, we are not protestants, never have been, never will be, but that doesn't or will not stop you from spreading this lie.

Martin Luther means nothing to us, never has, never will.

Course that won't stop you from repeating it, will it?

RCV| 11.19.11 @ 12:24AM

That's not what your wife has said, Victor. I was responding to her high praise of the vile Luther.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:38PM

RCV is a lying hypocrite.
He constantly looks to find fault because he's also a Pope worshipper, and a sin worshipper, as he denies that Homosexuality is sin, according to the Bible.

He is a VILE man, though he accuses Luther of being vile.
A blind hypocrite and a liar is RCV.

And the so called high praise (to RCV) is that I claimed that God used him. Well, He did.
RCV just doesn't like that.
Tsk, tsk, tsk!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:31PM

RCV:
"That's not what your wife has said, Victor. I was responding to her high praise of the vile Luther."

That's EXACTLY what she said.
God uses whomever He wishes to use.
Do you not agree?

And stating that God uses whomever He wishes to use is simply a fact.

If God used a jawbone of an ass to slay His enemies, then I suppose God could do the same with you.
Saying so would be a fact, not praise.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 1:04AM

RCV:
"..just like your hero, Martin Luther..."

Martin Luther is no hero to any Bible Believing Christian.
On the Other hand, have you read John Bunyan.
Now that's a man to model your life on, eh RCV?

victor| 11.21.11 @ 2:11AM

I see RCV has nothing to say about Bunyan.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:59PM

RCV~ you may have played a lawyer on t.v. or in real life, but I never was impressed with the ones like you who lie and obfuscate in order to try and misrepresent what the person on the other side was saying, but here... here.. and with me, you cannot get away with it.

So, now I will say to your blatant characterization~ I did not say anything about him being my hero, I said God used him, and He did.

I never said he was perfect, just as YOU cultists always LOVE to say about your cult leader, the Popey, who tries to pretend he's Christ on Earth!

Talk about hypocrisy! Luther never did that, he wanted the Bible to be read by all, and knew that the Popery was FRAUDULENT!

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 6:29PM

Margie,

Did you really get duped by those photos?

Well, of course you did. Your bias blinds you to the truth. All Truth.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 6:38PM

It is more than bias, Margie is stupid.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 7:58PM

Ask Rush. I suppose he's duped as well, therefore blinded by his bias to ALL truth?

PUNK.

Besides, Popey Boy, your cult leader has "met" with plenty of Muslim clerics and shaken hands with them.
Jesus told Religious (false) leaders that they were of their Father the Devil, that the truth was not in them, and that they took others to Hell with them which piled onto their sin.

Do you suppose the Pope did the same with these scumbags?
Did he preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them?
Wait!
He couldn't! He doesn't believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, he's created his own.

"Will two walk together except they are
agreed?" Amos 3:3.

Jesus kissed the rear ends of NO ONE. And neither do His children.

Repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God, lest you perish along with the liars.

Mk. 1:1 is a good start.

Nick| 11.17.11 @ 11:15PM

Margie,

I didn't catch Rush, today. But, I'm certainly not going to take your word for it.

Plus, I'm sure you're unaware of this, but, the Holy Father is Head-of-State of the Vatican. This means he attempts to have diplomatic relations with ALL of the nations of the world, in order to preach the Gospel to "the ends of the Earth." As Christ commanded.
God Bless!

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 11:25PM

Nick,
Did you see above where Margie finally admitted she does not believe that Jesus is God because God is "greater" than Jesus.

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:43PM

Papist Dan:
"she does not believe that Jesus is God because God is "greater" than Jesus."

Margie knows that because Jesus Himself said it:

John 14:28
"you would rejoice because I said I go unto the Father for my Father is greater than I"

She believes what Jesus said, do you?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:07PM

See? No answer. They DESPISE the WORD OF GOD!

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 12:59PM

And, I never said He wasn't God in my post. I said Jesus never EVER made Himself equal with God. EVER.

I believe ALL the Scriptures, I just don't believe the Catholic perversion of the Scriptures... got it?
No?
Too bad.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 9:06PM

Margie,
Try to speak clearly. Are you now saying that Jesus is God but a lesser God than God?
That is what Victor said about you on 11/18 at 6:43

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:56AM

Try to speak clearly. Are you now saying that Jesus is God but a lesser God than God?"

Oh Dan, Dan, Dan.

God is the Father and Jesus is His Son.
What could be more plainer than that, eh?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:35PM

Try being honest for once in your life, Troll.

Do you believe what Jesus says, or do you not?

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:37PM

Margie/victor
I dont believe what you believe Jesus says when you cite a few words and not the entire Bible. You have no credibility. You choose to read one and ignore the rest, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you by Nick and RCV, but then you are not interested in that. It is your way and that is it. That is why you are a Mullah.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:33PM

In other words, you reject the Scriptures, but believe in lies instead.

And I COULD post the entire Bible here, but that still wouldn't please you because you're a lying Troll and really couldn't care less!

Me quoting Scripture as to what I believe isn't good enough for you because you're not an honest person.
The bottom line for you is that you're a cultist, and unless I say exactly what YOU want me to say, that Mary is the Mother of God, which she isn't, along with the myriad of other false doctrine, you'll continue your stalking and lying.
It's what you thrive on.
So be it, but God will judge you for it.
Lotsa luck, liar!

victor| 11.18.11 @ 6:38PM

Nick:
"This means he attempts to have diplomatic relations with ALL of the nations of the world, in order to preach the Gospel to "the ends of the Earth." As Christ commanded."

And you also mean Acts 1:8:
"but you will receive power, the Holy
Spirit having come upon you, and you will
be witnesses of Me both in Jerusalem, and
in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end
of the earth."

When did your pope witness to the muslims; that is, preach the Gospel and the Eternal Salvation of Jesus Christ?
I must have missed that one too.

BTW why is is that muslim clerics want to meet the pope so badly?
Is is because they know he will tell them about Jesus?

You mean Matthew 28:18-19:
"And coming up, Jesus spoke with them,
saying, All authority in Heaven and on
earth was given to Me.
Therefore having gone, disciple all nations,
baptizing them into the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit,"

When did benedict do that when he met the muslims, "baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,"

I must have missed that.

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 7:09PM

Victor,

"When did your pope witness to the muslims; that is, preach the Gospel and the Eternal Salvation of Jesus Christ?"

I believe there were attempts made during the time of the Crusades. Although, some Catholics did totally pervert the Gospel, and act like the Moslems, and try to convert at the point of the sword.

I'm not an expert on this subject, though. I'm sure there are many examples of preaching the Good News to the Moslems over the past 13 centuries.

Here is an article that I just read, which deals with the failure of Christians to stand up to Moslem crimes and invasions, until the First Crusade:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/zaftcrus.HTM

The reason the Pope attempts diplomatic relations with Moslem countries is so that Christians can worship in those countries freely. That is how the Gospel is spread. One ekklesia at a time.

"When did benedict do that when he met the muslims [...]."

Baptism is a voluntary act by the believer. (Except for infants, of course. Because the parents have every right to make that decision for them.)

Christian initiation for adults requires free submission of the will. I don't think that a practicing Moslem would want to be baptized. Do you?
God Bless!

victor| 11.18.11 @ 7:41PM

Nick| 11.18.11 @ 7:09PM

Victor,

""When did your pope witness to the muslims; that is, preach the Gospel and the Eternal Salvation of Jesus Christ?""

"I believe there were attempts made during the time of the Crusades. "

We are not and were not talking about the Crusades, were we?
And besides, what pope went to the Ho;y Land during those crusades?
The subject is benedict, the present pope.
That is the only question you need to answer.
All else is a bloody diversion, but then again, you
catholics know about those, eh?

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 12:34AM

Victor,

"We are not and were not talking about the Crusades, were we?"

Actually, you didn't specify.

"And besides, what pope went to the Ho;y [sic] Land during those crusades?"

I didn't say that any Pope went to the Holy Land, at that time. Just that there were attempts at evangelization.

"That is the only question you need to answer."

I believe I did, when I repeated why the Holy Father has diplomatic relations with Moslem countries, and, why he tries to open relations with Moslem governments which do not have any with the Vatican.

I was attempting no diversion, I promise. I'm explaining why Pope Benedict XVI is meeting with Saudi diplomats.

If there is any hope, at all, of getting Saudi Arabia to allow open worship of Christ by Christians, it is with the Holy Father.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 12:57PM

"The Holy Father."
Ha! There is only one Holy Father, and that is God!

"For a Child is born; to us, a Son is given;
and the dominion is on His shoulder; and
His name is called Wonderful, Counselor,
The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father,
The Prince of Peace." Is, 9:6.

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:34PM

Jesus Christ is God.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:10PM

So, you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ?

victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:17AM

Why won't you answer the question?

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?

victor| 11.18.11 @ 7:42PM

Nick:
"One ekklesia at a time."

ecclesia, or local congregation, or house church

Strange that you should use that word for house church.

Here's some persecutions by the friends of benedict:

http://www.persecution.com/

Maybe you can read what they do to those house churches, eh?

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 12:45AM

Victor,

"Strange that you should use that word for house church."

Not strange at all. I used that word on purpose. House churches became parish churches. With an episkopos, i.e., bishops, to rule over them. And presbyters, i.e. elders, or priests, to serve in them.

Does your house church have any of these?

"Here's some persecutions by the friends of benedict [sic]"

Um, your link lists no "persecutions by the friends of" the Holy Father, that I could see. Would you please elaborate?

victor| 11.19.11 @ 3:51AM

Nick:
"

Didn't go to far in your search, did you?
Here, let me help:
http://www.persecution.com/pub.....Fpbl9tZW51

Saudi Arabia is the second most repressive nation in the world for Christians. Converts from Islam to Christianity are rare in this nation. Barriers to spreading the gospel are intense. Leaving Islam is punishable by death. Anyone who does mission work or converts a Muslim faces jail, expulsion, lashing, torture or execution. Public non-Muslim worship, even for foreign Christians, is prohibited. Christians are regularly imprisoned or deported, and Christian churches are banned. Saudi Arabia is a main source of funding for madrassas (Islamic religious schools) worldwide, where extremism can breed. In a positive sign, Saudi Arabian Christian Hamoud Bin Saleh was released from prison on March 28, 2009. Hamoud was arrested three months earlier for writing about his conversion from Islam on his blog. Hamoud attributed his release to the actions of human rights groups who campaigned on his behalf.

http://www.persecution.com/pub.....Fpbl9tZW51

Despite government claims and a constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, Christians do not enjoy freedom of religion in many areas. Politicians, police and the growing Islamist movement are hostile to anything Christian. Foreign missionaries are not given visas. The media portrays Christians as foreign government agents and spreads rumors that Christians bribe young people with money and sex. The public tends to believe these false accusations. A VOM contact has reported people throwing things at him, spitting at him and verbally abusing him for talking about Christ. He was also interrogated by the police after handing out New Testaments. On Feb. 12, 2009, a Turkish Bible Society bookstore in the city of Adana was vandalized by Muslim extremists for the second time in a week. A court trial continues for two men accused of killing two Turkish Christians and one German Christian in Malatya in 2007.

Benedict visited Turkey and Saudi Arabia and embraced the muslim clerics.

taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2006/12/02/2003338796

"The pope removed his shoes and put on white slippers. Then he walked beside Mustafa Cagrici, the head cleric of Istanbul. Facing the holy city of Mecca -- in the tradition of Islamic worship -- Cagrici said: "Now I'm going to pray." Benedict, too, bowed his head and his lips moved as if reciting words.
Before the pope left, he turned to Cagrici and thanked him "for this moment of prayer."

Who and what was he praying for while facing mecca, eh?

He should have been praying for the conversions of the muslims to the faith of Jesus Christ.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 5:08PM

Victor,

This is why I was confused. You wrote "friends" of the Holy Father, not diplomats to the Holy See. We have diplomatic relations with China. Does this make China our friend?

"Who and what was he praying for while facing mecca, eh?"

I don't know, I wasn't there. Is it wrong to pray, even if you're facing Mecca? (Your inner Canuck slipped out there, Victor, eh? Ha-ha!)

"He should have been praying for the conversions of the muslims to the faith of Jesus Christ."

How do you know that he wasn't?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:05PM

Hypocrite Nick mocks my husband's comment.
You phony Pope who makes himself like God on earth should NOT have done that.
It is a disgrace!
Repent, hypocrite Religious Pharisee, and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:09PM

Furthermore, Nick the hypocritical Religious Pope worshipper NEVER deals honestly with the truth. He cannot, as his will is to do the will of his father, the Devil.
He will NEVER admit the truth as to the wrongdoing of his Pope or his pretending to be Christ on earth.
He is in one of the biggest cults on earth, and needs to repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God, where it says that only CHRIST is LORD, there is NO POPE, there are NO OTHER MEDIATORS.

Until then, he will continue to obfuscate and lie about the Bible, what it means, and about those who worship Christ and not Man.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:41PM

Margie,

Don't forget, LORD means God. So, saying that Christ is LORD, is still saying that Christ is God. And Mary is His mother.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 4:36PM

Margie,

"You [sic] phony Pope who makes himself like God on earth should NOT have done that."

As I just replied to Victor, Christians aren't supposed to talk to any people who are of a different religion?
I guess that means the Apostles weren't really Christians, huh?

Also, the Holy Father DOES NOT make himself "God" or "Christ" on earth. Why do you keep repeating this falsehood? I wasn't mocking Victor, either.
God Bless!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 10:51PM

Nick:
"Victor,

This is why I was confused. You wrote "friends" of the Holy Father, not diplomats to the Holy See. We have diplomatic relations with China. Does this make China our friend?"

We also have diplomatic relations with Israel.
There are those here that consider them NOT to be our friends.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:05AM

Victor,

"There are those here that consider them NOT to be our friends."

So what? I don't understand your point.

victor| 11.19.11 @ 4:25AM

Nick:
"With an episkopos, i.e., bishops,"

Funny, Strong's Concordance or Thayer and Smith don't mention a "bishop"
episkopos: a superintendent, an overseer
Original Word: ἐπίσκοπος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: episkopos
Phonetic Spelling: (ep-is'-kop-os)
Short Definition: overseer, supervisor, ruler
Definition: (used as an official title in civil life), overseer, supervisor, ruler, especially used with reference to the supervising function exercised by an elder or presbyter of a church or congregation.

Episkopos

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 1985
Original Word Word Origin
episkopoß from (1909) and (4649) (in the sense of (1983))
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Episkopos 2:608,244
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
ep-is'-kop-os Noun Masculine
Definition
an overseer
a man charged with the duty of seeing that things to be done by others are done rightly, any curator, guardian or superintendent
the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church

NAS Word Usage - Total: 5
guardian 1, overseer 2, overseers 2

NAS Verse Count
Acts 1
Philippians 1
1 Timothy 1
Titus 1
1 Peter 1
Total 5
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Episkopos". "The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon". . 1999.

They seem to be in agreement that it is an overseer or an elder.

"presbyters, i.e. elders, or priests, to serve in them."

presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Short Definition: elder
Definition: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, an elder of a Christian assembly.

Presbuteros

The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 4245
Original Word Word Origin
presbuvteroß comparative of presbus (elderly)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Presbuteros 6:651,931
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pres-boo'-ter-os Adjective
Definition
elder, of age,
the elder of two people
advanced in life, an elder, a senior
forefathers
a term of rank or office
among the Jews
members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
the twenty four members of the heavenly Sanhedrin or court seated on thrones around the throne of God

King James Word Usage - Total: 67
elder 64, old man 1, eldest 1, elder woman 1

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 13
Mark 7
Luke 5
John 1
Acts 18
1 Timothy 4
Titus 1
Hebrews 1
James 1
1 Peter 2
2 John 1
3 John 1
Revelation 12
Total 67
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Thayer and Smith. "Greek Lexicon entry for Presbuteros". "The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon". .

Again, nothing there about "priests"

On the other hand, "priest" was used in the New Testament:

hiereus: a priest
Original Word: ἱερεύς, έως, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hiereus
Phonetic Spelling: (hee-er-yooce')
Short Definition: a priest
Definition: a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god (in Jewish and pagan religions;

or:

archiereus: high priest
Original Word: ἀρχιερεύς, έως, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: archiereus
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khee-er-yuce')
Short Definition: high priest, chief priest
Definition: high priest, chief priest.

Maybe in the Catholic Church.
A priest is there to perform "sacred rites" of the religion and act as an intermediary between the congregation and God.
Much like the Old Testament Levites, eh?

Are you saying that an elder is a go-between between the Believer and God?
What "rites" does an elder perform?

You are deliberately conflating two different
words to be one and the same.
Wronga!

victor| 11.19.11 @ 3:03PM

Nick:
"presbyters, i.e. elders, or priests, to serve in them."

Is this why the Roman Catholic Church forbade the Bible to be written in any other language other than Latin, which almost no one could read.
That way you could say any word could mean anything and no one could say otherwise.
And they put people to death for reading the Bible in a language other than Latin.

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 6:25PM

Victor,

"Is this why the Roman Catholic Church forbade the Bible to be written in any other language other than Latin, which almost no one could read."

This is not true. Ask Margie. I've shown her a couple of times that the Catholic Church has always endeavored to get the Scriptures into the hands of the laity.

This is why Pope Damasus ordered Saint Jerome to translate the entire Bible into Latin. Because Latin had replaced Greek as the common language, in the West.

As Latin was replaced by local dialects and other languages, the Church authorized many translations into the local vernacular.

"And they put people to death for reading the Bible in a language other than Latin."

This, of course, also never happened. Show me one case, just one, of anyone being put to death for reading the Bible in a different language. Or, for unauthorized translating, for that matter.

I'll save you some time. You can't.
God Bless!

p.s. You didn't answer my question. Does your house church have bishops, elders, and deacons?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:58PM

nick:
"bishops, elders, and deacons?"

I see your confusion. The catholic church has a problem with Greek.
The word episkopoi or overseers are "translated" by the catholics as "bishops".
The word presbuteroi or elders are "translated" as "priests".

I get it now, words mean whatever you want them to mean.

From a catholic website.
In fact the one you recommend. no?

Theres your problem right there;
the Roman Catholic Church's first language was Latin! not Greek.
Problem solved.
Translate the Bible from the Greek into English and not from Latin, eh?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:58PM

oops forgot the website:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts.....and-deacon

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:31AM

Victor,

I'm not the one who is confused. You seem to have missed my further explanation of this, from today. Here is the etymology of the word priest, from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

priest
O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos.

See? It comes from the Greek. So did the word bishop:

bishop
O.E. bisceop, from L.L. episcopus, from Gk. episkopos "watcher, overseer," a title for various government officials, later taken over in a Church sense, from epi- "over" + skopos "watcher," from skeptesthai "look at" (see scope (1)). Given a specific sense in the Church, but the word also was used in the N.T. as a descriptive title for elders, and continues as such in some non-hierarchical Christian sects. The chess piece (formerly archer, before that alfin) was so called from 1560s.

"Theres your problem right there;
the Roman Catholic Church's first language was Latin!"

Wrong. The Church's first language was Aramaic (and Hebrew, as they are very similar,) because it is what Christ and the Apostles spoke. Some of the Apostles could also probably read and write Aramaic.

So, you are wrong about the Catholic Church and Greek. Latin only became the Church's official language after it replaced Greek as the more common international language.
God Bless!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:56AM

nick:
"The Church's first language was Aramaic (and Hebrew, as they are very similar,) because it is what Christ and the Apostles spoke. Some of the Apostles could also probably read and write Aramaic."

So what. God arranged it for the Apostles to write the Gospels in Greek.
The Apostles were appointed by God, remember?
The Papists weasled in all sorts of false teachings like you are doing right now using the Latin.
And what you are doing is based on deceit and not the written Word of God.

" because it is what Christ and the Apostles spoke. Some of the Apostles could also probably read and write Aramaic."

If that's the case, why were the Gospels written in Greek, eh?
Because that's what God wanted them to do.
It was God's Will.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 5:31PM

Victor,

"So what. God arranged it for the Apostles to write the Gospels in Greek."

Um, what happened to your mistaken notion that the words bishop and priest came from Latin? Why are you changing the subject? Can't you admit that you were wrong? It's not hard, really.

I will correct your new mistakes, though.

"If that's the case, why were the Gospels written in Greek, eh?"

Saint Matthew might have written in Greek, as he was a tax collector. But, it is generally agreed that he wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. Saint John could have learned to speak and write Greek by the time he wrote his Gospel. Saint Luke most definitely wrote in Greek. Saints Mark, maybe.

But, none of that matters because the Gospel was PREACHED for 10 to 20 years before the first Gospel were even written down. So, the language of the early Church was Aramaic.

"The Papists weasled in all sorts of false teachings like you are doing right now using the Latin."

Not true, at all. Saints Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, & Irenaeus, all would have used Greek, as well.

The Catholic Church worked hard to spread the Gospel, in Greek, for the first few centuries of Christianity. Until, Latin replaced Greek as the common language of the laity, in the West. Then She worked hard to translate the Greek into Latin, so that the common man could hear, and read, the Gospel in his own language.
God Bless!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 6:43PM

nick:
"Um, what happened to your mistaken notion that the words bishop and priest came from Latin? Why are you changing the subject? Can't you admit that you were wrong? It's not hard, really."

MY mistaken notion?!?
I provided you with the GREEK definitions and you gave me back your catholic definitions where you conflated the two words together as if they were they same words.

"priest
O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester "priest," from L.L. presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian). In O.T. sense, a translation of Heb. kohen, Gk. hiereus, L. sacerdos."

You gave me a source that combined origins fron several languages that included Olde High German, Vulgar Latin and then finally Greek.

You deliberately conflated the two words.
priest is from the hebrew kohen and elder is from the Greek presbyter.

They are NOT the same and you know it.
What do you think I will get if I call the nearest catholic church tomorrow, eh?
Will they have elders or priests?

Nick| 11.22.11 @ 6:45PM

Victor,

"I provided you with the GREEK definitions and you gave me back your catholic definitions where you conflated the two words together as if they were they same words."

I gave no "catholic definitions." The Online Etymology Dictionary is a secular source. I found it on Dictionary.com.

"You gave me a source that combined origins fron several languages that included Olde High German, Vulgar Latin and then finally Greek."

Do you not understand what etymology means? Etymology gives a word's origin and development through time.

"You deliberately conflated the two words.
priest is from the hebrew kohen and elder is from the Greek presbyter."

This is completely wrong. You need to learn more about languages. The English word priest comes directly from the Greek presbuteros. The English word elder has no link to presbyter. It comes from the Old English ald, which comes from the base al-, "to grow, nourish."

So, using priest for presbuteros is not a translation, it is an Anglicized version of the Greek. Using the word priest for kohen, or hiereus, is the translation. So is using elder for presbyter, also, a translation. You, actually, have it completely backwards.

The same goes for the word bishop. It comes directly from the Greek episkopos. It is the English word overseer that is the translation.

In case you're interested, the Latin for elder is seniores or senibus. The Latin for priest is sacerdos. This is how these two words are translated in the Vulgate, at least. The Vulgate is the official translation used by the Catholic Church, by the way.

The elders, or old men, were the Sanhedrin in Christ's time. There were also elders in each local synagogue. This is why the early Church adopted this office. They were not always the same as the bishop.
God Bless!

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:38AM

Victor,

"In fact the one you recommend. no?"

Yes, I do. Did you even read that article? Do you, or Margie, ever read what you guys post?

That article, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, does not contradict anything I have stated. And, it says nothing about Latin! It specifically mentions the Greek for priest (presbuteroi) and bishop (episkopos.) You'll find this in the second and third paragraphs!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:45AM

nick:
"That article, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, does not contradict anything I have stated."

Course it does. they are translating it into english from the Greek.
The original Greek which i posted said nothing of the sort.
Go and re read the post.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 5:36PM

Victor,

I am not following your point, here.
Would please clarify who they are, and what it is?

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:32PM

Nick,
Margie/victor is too stupid to read and understand anything beyong the filthy language she uses.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 5:39PM

Dan,

You catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar, as they say.
Don't let others drag you down to their level.
And, above all, pray!
God Bless!

Nick| 11.19.11 @ 6:11PM

Victor,

"Funny, Strong's Concordance or Thayer and Smith don't mention a 'bishop' [...]."

This is the same problem you had (and still do) with the word priest. The mistake you are making is that bishop and priest are English words. Look up the etymology of both, and you will see that I am correct. Presbuter0s (elder) became priest in English.

In the first century, the Greek for priest, hiereus, would have referred to the Temple priests. It would have been confusing to use the same word for the Christian priests and the Hebrew priests.

Also, at the beginning, the elders were administrators of the local church, "under the presidency of the bishop." As the Church grew, the bishop had to oversee ever more parish churches, ekklesias. This required the elders to become "the minister of worship and of the sacrifice" for each town parish (see Catholic Encyclopedia: Priest.)

This is why the word priest can be used for elder (presbyter) and one who offers sacrifice (hiereus.) Elders also harks back to Moses appointing the 70 elders, in Numbers 11:16.

This is why Catholics call them priests. The "rites" they perform would be too long to list. Attend a Mass tomorrow, and see for yourself.

"You are deliberately conflating two different
words to be one and the same."

I'm not sure to which two words you are referring. Priest and bishop? Or, priest and elder? Would you please clarify?

Hope I cleared this up.
God Bless!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:38AM

Nick:
"Presbuter0s (elder) became priest in English."

We are not talking about english here are we?
In the Grek they are two completely different words.
That's the problem with the King James. The translators did not follow the rules and substituted whatever words they wanted. Just as you do.

"Elders also harks back to Moses appointing the 70 elders, in Numbers 11:16."

"And the LORD said unto Moses Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people and officers over them and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation that they may stand there with thee"

zaqen: old
Original Word: זָקֵן
Transliteration: zaqen
Phonetic Spelling: (zaw-kane')
Short Definition: elders

Word Origin
from the same as zaqan
Definition
old
NASB Word Usage
aged (3), aged* (1), elder (3), elders (132), old (21), old man (7), old men (7), old women (1), older (1), oldest (1), senior (1).

Nothing there about "priests" either.

If "priest" is what they wanted or menat they would have used the following:

kohen: priest
Original Word: כֹּהֵן
Transliteration: kohen
Phonetic Spelling: (ko-hane')
Short Definition: priest

Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
priest
NASB Word Usage
chief ministers (1), priest (425), priest and the priests (2), priest's (9), priestly (2), priests (301), priests' (5).

Catholic priests have nothing at all to do with elders, but everything to do with kohens.

After all they perform nearly all of the same functions.

"Attend a Mass tomorrow, and see for yourself."

No thanks, I prefer Jesus straight, with no chaser (priest).

God does not require us to have Religion.
Do you agree or not agree?

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 5:17PM

Victor,

"We are not talking about english here are we?"

Um, I believe you were. Did you not quibble with my use of the words bishop and priest? These are English words.

"The translators did not follow the rules and substituted whatever words they wanted."

Not in this case, they didn't. Bishop is English for the Greek episkopos, and priest is English for the Greek presbuteros and hiereus. Did you look up the etymology? Here it is, from the Online Etymology Dictionary:

"If 'priest' is what they wanted or menat [sic] they would have used the following [...]."

You misunderstood my statement. I was not claiming that Moses' elders were priests. I was showing that the early Church office of presbuteros, elder, was prefigured by Moses appointing 70 elders, in Num. 11. Remember that bishop, elder, and deacon were separate offices.

"Catholic priests have nothing at all to do with elders, but everything to do with kohens."

I only gave you a snippet of the history. Here is a more complete explanation of how the office of elder became the ordained priesthood, if you are truly interested:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12406a.htm

"God does not require us to have Religion.
Do you agree or not agree?"

God certainly did require it for the Hebrews. Just read Exodus and Leviticus.
And, since Tabernacle/Temple Worship, and the Levitical Priesthood, both prefigured the New Covenant Church that Christ founded upon Simon Kephas (Rock) and the Apostles, the answer to your question is, yes, God does seem to require religion. Both in the Old and New Covenants.

I don't think God defines religion the way that you do, though.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:31PM

I choose to g with and actually base my Chrsitian life on what Jesus says:

"..and from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." Rev. 1:5 & 6.

Oh boy, looky thar!
Once again the Word of God comes through for all Christians who believe that Jesus Christ is LORD!

God says we are all priests, small"p". That is, those who do His Will and believe HIS WORDS.

Just like your cult makes Priests wrongly, it also makes saints wrongly.

The Word of God says that ALL faithful Christians are Saints!

Yet your cult has created a different gospel.. it "Cannonizes" and only calls its Papists who are dead for years saints!
It's a total JOKE.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:44AM

Margie,

"God says we are all priests, small'p'."

Would you like me to explain these verses to you? Since you are wrenching the Word of God out of context again?

victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:40AM

nick:
"God certainly did require it for the Hebrews."

Are you living under the Law or under Grace?

Do you know how many times the word "religion" is used in the New Testament?

Not very many times at all. A very small number of times.

As to Christians it is used with a small"r" and defined thusly:
James 1:27
"Pure and undefiled religion before God
and the Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their afflictions, and to keep
oneself without blemish from the world."

To get born of God's Spirit, the old has passed away, behold the new has come.

Thank you Jesus!

Not that His commandment are null and void, they are not, but they are fulfilled in Christ as He has become our High Priest and Mediator.
By being faithful to Him, we are justified by our faith.
After all, the promises of God find their yes in Him
2Cor 1:20

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 6:42PM

Victor,

"Are you living under the Law or under Grace?"

Under Grace, I believe.

"Not that His commandment are null and void, they are not, but they are fulfilled in Christ as He has become our High Priest and Mediator."

Yes, I agree, they are fulfilled in Christ.

Also, notice that Saint James does not condemn religion. This verse comes at the end of a discourse about doers of the word, which begins at verse 19.

James says, "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (v. 22). This is the religion we must practice. Notice that James uses the word hearers, not readers.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:00PM

Apparently, Nick the Pope worshipper doesn't agree with the Word of God. His cult has taught him that priests are still necessary, contrary to God's Own Words.
He refuses to repent, and instead pushes his Religion on Christians, who already know that priests are no longer necessary, but that Christ Jesus IS the High Priest forever. He refuses to accept the TRUE Gospel of God, which says that there is only ONE MEdiator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus.

"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 2 Tim. 2:5 & 6.

He keeps trying to push his false Religion down our throats, when Christ died to SAVE us from Religion.
READ:

"This makes Jesus the surety of a better covenant.
The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds His priesthood permanently, because He continues for ever.

Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

For it was fitting that we should have such a High Priest, holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the Heavens.

He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for His own sins and then for those of the people; He did this once for all when He offered up Himself.

Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son Who has been made perfect for ever." Heb. 7:22-28.

I choose to believe what the Bible says, and not what Nick says, he's a Religionist who knows his Religion well, but it is FALSE.

No more priests are necessary! Jesus Christ is LORD!

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 5:25PM

Margie,

"His cult has taught him that priests are still necessary, contrary to God's Own Words."

Priests have always been necessary. Read about the priest-king Melchizedek.

"He keeps trying to push his false Religion down our throats [...]."

How am I pushing anything, on anyone? This is the internet, not a locked room. You are projecting, again.

"I choose to believe what the Bible says [...]."

I believe what the whole Bible says. You, on the other hand...well.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:32PM

You just completely DISREGARDED the Scripture I quoted!
But then, your deceit continues, doesn't it?
To your own peril, Papist.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 6:14PM

Jesus is Melchizedek.
Read the words in the Scripture I posted from Hebrews.
And read the whole chapter, I posted it. It says that we no longer have the need for priests and that Jesus is our High Priest, nailing our sin to the cross once and for all.
You know nothing!
You are blatantly deceiving.
I pity you.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 6:51PM

Margie,

"Jesus is Melchizedek."

I don't think so. Read Genesis 14. Melchizedek was the king of Salem (Jerusalem) and made an offering of bread and wine with Abraham. He was a type of Christ. Do you know about Old Testament typology?

"It says that we no longer have the need for priests [...]."

So, which is it? Are we all priests? Or, we have no need for priests? It can't be both.
God Bless!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 12:00AM

nick:
"This is the same problem you had (and still do) with the word priest. The mistake you are making is that bishop and priest are English words. "

Translated from the Latin and not the Greek.
The Gospels were written in Greek, not Latin.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:51AM

Victor,

Wrong. See my response, above.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 1:15PM

Nick the Pope worshipper says:

"I believe there were attempts made during the time of the Crusades. Although, some Catholics did totally pervert the Gospel, and act like the Moslems, and try to convert at the point of the sword."

What they tried to "convert" them to wasn't Christianity, it was Catholicism. The two are not the same.
And Christians NEVER try to convert or torture or kill~ not at the point of a sword, nor with horrible torture, but we allow the Sword of the Spirit do the work for us:

"For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." Heb. 4:12.

Nick needs to repent, believe the Gospel, and get the Spirit of God.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 5:30PM

Margie,

"What they tried to "convert" them to wasn't Christianity, it was Catholicism."

What they tried to convert them to was the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"And Christians NEVER try to convert or torture or kill [...]."

This is why you need to learn the real history of the Reformation. Read about Elizabethan England and Calvin.

Did you forget why the Pilgrims came to the New World? Because they were persecuted by their fellow Protestants.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:36PM

As I'v e proven here with the Scriptures, Catholicism is a cult.
It preaches a different gospel, not that of Jesus Christ.
A cult that teaches that Mary is sinless like Jesus and the Mother of God for the "trinity."

Repent, liar, to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which does NOT say that Mary was sinless like Jesus, and does NOT say she is the Mother of God.
You lied when you said your cult doesn't teach that, yet I posted the Vatican's words. Not the Words of Christ, but the words of the fraudulent Popes.

repent, liar!

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 6:11PM

I have proven that your cult has created its own Gospel.
I have posted your own Religion's catechism that says that Mary is sinless like Christ, can intercede for us, and that she is the Mother of God!

You have blatantly lied (either that or you are the kind of stupid that your lying Troll pal accuses me of being), and said that your cult does NOT teach that!

Since I have provided PROOF that it indeed does, I have shown that what your cult teaches is A DIFFERENT GOSPEL and not that of Jesus Christ.

Now, if you were an honest man, you'd repent, and believe the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But so far you are only proving that you love lies and not Truth.
I hope you repent, Jesus is coming back soon.

"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.

Humble yourself, now, Papist.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 7:08PM

Margie,

"I have proven that your cult has created its own Gospel."

You have proven no such thing.

"I have posted your own Religion's catechism that says that Mary is sinless like Christ, can intercede for us, and that she is the Mother of God!"

Except for the part about Mary being sinless like Christ, yes, those are all true statements about Our Lady. The Catechism has nothing but Truth in it. The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Immaculate Conception, and was created sinless; while Christ was not created. He was sinless because He was God.

"[...] and said that your cult does NOT teach that!"

When did I state any such thing? You are mistaken, I'm afraid. You need to get facts straight, if you are going to accuse me.

RCV| 11.19.11 @ 12:25AM

Those Muslim clerics have the same view of Jesus's non-divinity as you and Margie, Victor.

victor| 11.19.11 @ 3:55AM

RomanCatholicVicar:
"Those Muslim clerics have the same view of Jesus"

That Jesus is the Son of God and was sent to die for the sins of the whole world, which surely must include not only you, but the muslims as well?

That Jesus?
I daresay that if I were to say that Jesus is the Son of God, I would be tried as a heretic and put to death. Sound familiar?

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 12:52PM

Beautiful response, sweetheart!

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:32PM

Margie/victor
You really need to get help. You actually believe you will be put to death as a heretic. Nobody cares what you believe in. We care only that you are an intolerant bigot who attacks the Catholics and anybody else who disagrees with your made up cult of one, or is it two?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:23AM

Then you do not believe what Jesus said in Mark 13:11-12:
"And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;"

Ever hear of these people?

http://www.persecution.com/

Read how Christians are put on trial and put to death for their belief in Jesus.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 12:41PM

Like always, that isn't what I said, retard.
You're nothing but a Troll, here to make trouble on one person who you have singled out.
God is my Judge and not you!
Jesus Christ is LORD.
I know you don't like that, but He is.
Repent, liar.
God really does throw liars into Hell, and with every post of yours, you are putting yourself there, because in each one of them, you lie.

I keep saying it but you persist anyway, but if you don't care what I believe, then why do you keep asking me what I believe?
Are you mentally ill or just a complete and utter hypocrite?
Lotsa luck!

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 12:45PM

As if RCV is an honest man! He's a fraud who tries to act like he believes in Jesus, but he believes in his own made up Jesus.
The one he says doesn't call Homosexuality a sin.
This is why Ken the Old Accuser MAn and him stick up for each other.
Ken says God made Homosexuals that way, and both of them believe in Darwinism.
One's a flaming reprobate and the other's just allowed himself to be deceived.
And the both of them are blatant liars, so they share the same fate.
Hell.
Unless of course they repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That's the one where Jesus is LORD and Saviour and Mary isn't the Mother of God.
LOL.

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:34PM

Margie,
Why did you beg RCV for free legal advice about suing your friend Ken?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:59PM

Oh, ya mean like how Obama has diplomatic relations with the scumbag terrorists and Jew haters?

Right.

And preaching the Gospel isn't what Popey does. Since he preaches another gospel, and not that of Jesus Christ.

perhaps though, he told the scumbag Islamists while he was "praying" with them on their turf that Mary is the Mother of God. But maybe the Islamist Christian hater and Jew hater figured that was a joke.

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 10:48PM

Bigot Margie,
At one point I felt sorry for you when you posted your personal emails.
But can't feel sorry for someone so filled with hate.
What is the cause of your hate? Your parents who are Catholic? A sane person does not have your level of hate because of disagreement over theology. Gryz is correct. You enjoy your hate, you wallow in it. You look for arguments here, you provoke arguments and call everyone you filthy names. You have been banned from this site and you will probably be banned again.
What is the cause of your hate? Get help, you are sick.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 6:05PM

Wow, perhaps one day God will grant you a conscience since all you ever do is pour forth hatred towards Christians who take their stand strongly on the Scriptures.

You're a liar and a fool.

The God of the Bible blesses those who stand on His Word.
Those who reject His Words, not so much.
Lotsa luck, lying Troll filled with pure hate towards the Word of God and His followers.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 1:54AM

Margie,

"Oh, ya mean like how Obama has diplomatic relations with the scumbag terrorists and Jew haters?"

Was this addressed to me? If it was, Presidents Reagan and Bush, both, had diplomatic relations with the Saudis.

Are they both under the bus now?

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 6:02PM

Way to try and justify the fraudulent pretender's actions.

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 7:16PM

Margie,

The Holy Father has done nothing that needs defending.
God Bless!

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:06PM

http://gdb.rferl.org/03C0C3AC-.....1_w203.jpg

http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandl.....x?ID=10132

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:07PM

http://www.instablogsimages.co.....00x150.jpg

Citizen Jerry| 11.16.11 @ 11:29AM

One of the big (but not only) reasons for the decline of the Episcopal Church (I used to be one of them) is the heresy of women's ordination. So I'm not surprised that "Bishop" Budde wouldn't admit she's part of the cause.

The Episcopal Church no longer believes the Nicene Creed, the basis of the faith. Its churches are mostly populated by agnostics and atheists who enjoy ecclesiastical dress-up on Sundays. Sadly, the Church's author and one foundation has moved on.

Sylvia Swank| 11.16.11 @ 12:57PM

The Episcopalians are far too snooty. Too class conscious.

As for myself, I'm a Lesbyterian.

Patrick| 11.16.11 @ 3:12PM

You forgot golf at the country club after service.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 12:16PM

But God hasn't forgotten the millions upon millions of MArtyrs that your cult tortured and killed for centuries.

God hasn't forgotten that your cult still teaches the same perverted teachings that led them to do the murders.

See the above testimony.
Then repent of your Pope worship or perish.

Conserdude| 11.16.11 @ 1:25PM

This new Episcopal "bishop" is a complete fraud and a non-Christian, like her modern day church which has completely jettisoned the truths and authority of the Bible. It's time they stop fooling themselves and attempting to fool the rest of us with their baseless claim of being a Christian sect. These often-spoken tenets embraced by American Episcopal church--homosexuality, female ministers, universal salvation, abortion, etc., are completely contrary to the Bible and unchristian.

Occam's Tool| 11.16.11 @ 3:03PM

Well, the non-evangelical churches, such as the Presbyterian Church USA, are increasingly antisemitic (ESPECIALLY the PC (USA)). They will reap their just deserts, just as Italy, Japan, and Germany are reaping theirs now. G-d does not forget, and he is patient; and while his mills grind slowly, they grind with pulping power.

Trish| 11.16.11 @ 7:28PM

You hit the nail on the head Occam. God is more 'slow to anger'. The hatred of Jews and Israel is official policy in many of these churches in addition to many so called evangelical churches.

Gen. 12:3-I will bless those that bless thee and curse those that curse thee.

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 9:03PM

Occam,

Bless you! Jesus loves you so much.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 4:15PM

Margie,
by Jesus do you mean God?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:08PM

I meant what I said, do you have a problem with Jesus?

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:29PM

Jesus is God.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:00PM

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ?

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 10:42PM

Margie/victor
see answer below, idiot.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:26PM

Papist D is his own god.

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:35PM

Margie/victor
Wrong again,idiot. Jesus is God. Not your fantasy made up cult of one.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 5:59PM

I have simply posted the Scriptures to prove that:
1. Your Religion is a cult that has created their own Jesus, and you have lied continually, saying that your Religion "doesn't believe that Mary is the Mother of God".

I have proven that it does and I posted your own Catholic catechism proving that you are not only stupid but blind as well, and a flaming hypocrite.

2. I have proven to everyone who reads here what an utterly mindless, immature, base liar you are, and anti-Christian Troll.

3. I never stated that Jesus wasn't God, but that he NEVER called Himself God, but that God is His Father, and He is His Son. I provided Scriptures to that as well, and proved that your cult has created a doctrine which is thoroughly unbiblical and an abomination to God, which says the Mary was born sinless like Christ.

You do not care about the truth because there is no truth in you.

You are of your father the Devil, a liar.

Imbecile.

victor| 11.19.11 @ 3:37AM

Steve:
"by Jesus do you mean God?"

No, by Jesus, she means the Son of God:

John 8:42
"Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent Me."

Who was Jesus referring to as His Father, eh?

Are you saying that Jesus came forth from Himself and sent Himself to earth??

If you are, are really saying that Jesus is His own Father?

I cited Jesus the Son.
Now you cite where Jesus is the Father. Right?

Steve| 11.19.11 @ 2:32PM

Margie/victor, whatever.

It has been cited over and over to you by Nick and RCV, don't waste our time, try reading it if you know how to read. Read the entire Bible idiot.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:16AM

You're like Dan, cannot answer a simple question, eh?

I cited Jesus the Son.
Now you cite where Jesus is the Father. Right?

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 9:09PM

Victor,

What's with the eh, are you Canadian,eh?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:15AM

Papist Dan:
"Victor,

What's with the eh, are you Canadian,eh?"

Why, yes Dan, I am.
Born a Canuck, but raised an American.

What's your excuse, eh?

Uriel| 11.16.11 @ 3:50PM

Since women are specifically forbidden from leading churches in Scripture, Budde has no authority before she even opens her mouth. Christianity is what it is, and people know hypocrisy when they see it. The sad part is in our age when the norm is belief in nothing and complacent relativistic detachment, the one thing people really hunger for is Truth. Jesus said "I am the truth"; he also said (paraphrasing): "better an honest atheist than a lukewarm hypocrite".

Saul| 11.16.11 @ 4:15PM

According to your logic a countriy suffers because God is punishing it, as in the old testament when God was continually punishing Israel. This is absurd. You are in effect saying that God punished the Jews with the Holocaust because of something Jews did, and now God is punishing Germany for the Holocaust? You can't be serious.

Red Raven| 11.16.11 @ 4:30PM

"I'm pretty confident that the gospel is clear on this in terms of our accepting people as we are created by God to be and not asking people to change to conform to some uniform standard of human expression." = "I'm pretty confident that 2 + 2 = a 3-dollar bill (or, whatever else works to get what you want in the moment). The illiberal Left is clear on this in terms of you people accepting me as sort of a legitimate bishop, and 'our' view of the world according to 'our' passions and fantacies. An' besides, you people who believe in the spiritual basis of life we call God (if there is a God) should not require other people to change their sexual proclivities, fanticies, and acting out, to conform to some uniform standard of human behavior that may, or may not, be based on history, tradition, common sense, proven effectiveness ... or possibly lined out in that Big Black Book written by a bunch of Dead White MEN."

"And, by the way; while I'm busy screeching my pulpit-based illiberal Left-wing tyrades, I better NOT catch any of you people spacing out in admiration of church architecture and sunlight shining through the stained glass!"

Merrie-go-round Buddie

Margie| 11.16.11 @ 4:55PM

Intersting, nut not to me, how Catholics can see fit to "disparage" and "hate" and be "bigoted" towards another Religion, pointing out the fallacies of it, but when a Bible believing Christian points out the unscriptural false teachings of Catholicism, that is not permitted!

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 2:58PM

No one has said that's "not permitted". But everyone is free to disagree with your analysis of scripture and theology, Margie.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 3:56PM

Oh, I see. Well yes, it isn't permitted, and the evidence of that is the daily taunts of Bigot! for proving the false teaches with Scripture that I present.

Ahh, but it IS ok for Catholics to say what they wish about other Religions!!

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 4:17PM

You have not proven anything Margie. You have only given your opinion. It is your opinions that label you as a bigot, and a stupid bigot since your opinions are shared only by you.

RCV| 11.17.11 @ 4:30PM

It's OK for Catholics or anyone else to discuss theology and explain why they disagree with others' beliefs. It doesn't have to accompanied by viscious, hateful slurs and taunts. Do you really think that calling other people "scumbag", "asshole" and similar vile names is the way to discuss who God is and how He wants us to behave?

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:37PM

Uhm, no. I shouldn't call a scumbag a scumbag... I guess. I'll give you that much.
But in fact, which is worse? A liar who repeatedly lies about the character of another, not to mention tries perverting the Scripture, or the one to whom the taunts are relegated, for calling them a name that is actually.... quite fitting!

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 5:15PM

You can't help yourself Margie, you say " I shouldn't call a scumbag a scumbag." Like saying I should not call an idiot an idiot or a bigot a bigot.
Trying to be clever reveals the real Margie

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:22PM

Tanks. I think I'll refer to you with the same thing Jesus would: you're a lying anti-Christ Troll.
is that better?

Le Cracquere| 11.16.11 @ 5:12PM

If I believed as few things as Budde, and believed them as anodynely, I hope I'd have the rocks to admit my essential atheism, drop the "Reverend" bit, and start sleeping in on Sunday.

Merlin| 11.16.11 @ 6:55PM

Thanks to all for the thoughtful and (generally) respectful comments.

God bless you all. Your faith encourages me.

Red Raven| 11.16.11 @ 7:18PM

Thanks Merlin. Any time. Where respect is merited, respect is given.

OBTW, does it occur to you that there's a WAR going on ... waged by a PERVERTED enemy whose mission is to reduce you to a subhuman robot?

Red Raven

Tony in Central PA| 11.16.11 @ 8:36PM

I guess it was inevitable some formerly mainline denomination would promote itself as a postChristian Christianity.

Mazzuchelli| 11.17.11 @ 4:39PM

LOL.

Richard Baker| 11.16.11 @ 9:23PM

Margie:
I went to Mass today and enjoyed worshipping God and Jesus. Doesn't that just uncork you? If you're a Christian then so is my dog, Kenan.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 11:46AM

Richard:

You're a lying scumbag. You are a blatant hypocrite and a liar.
That takes you straight to Hell, no matter WHICH church you go to.
Got it?

Mazzuchelli| 11.17.11 @ 4:35PM

Nice display of passion in defense of Christianity. While agnostic, I suspect your comments are true.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 4:46PM

Thanks. I think.
Well, I used to be an agnostic, too you know.
But Jesus Christ had mercy on me and poured His love into my heart.
What these Papists don't know is that when you know Him for almost 40 years, you will not relent in your defense of the Scriptures.
Especially in the case of false Religion, which is an abomination to Him.
God especially despises pompous Religionists!
Jesus does, too. If you read the New Testament you'll see that.
He doesn't want ANYTHING to do with POMP and hierarchy. He was a Servant to His disciples!
I love the real Jesus of the Bible, He is nothing like the Popes are.
Here's one of my favorite verses that He says to us:

"Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take My Yoke upon you, and learn from Me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
For My Yoke is easy, and My Burden is light." Mt. 11:28-30.

Now look at that! Jesus came to free us from the heavy burden of Religion.. He died for that, to set us free from it.

He actually lives now, to bring us into a relationship with His Father, God, through Him.

Have you ever heard about being born spiritually, Mazzuchelli?
(Jn. 3:3).

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 5:16PM

Yes, Margie, the love and mercy in your heart is on display here every day.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 6:11PM

No, I hate falsehood. I love the God of the Bible, and I revere Hs Words.

As to what you continually display every day? I am happy with the promises of God that He promises to throw liars into the Lake of Fire.
Get ready, punk.

Steve| 11.17.11 @ 6:40PM

Margie, So you are happy that people go to the Lake of Fire. Where is this lake?
You love God but hate people like most fanatics. You don't get along with anyone here.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 7:31PM

If you don't know where the Lake is, you will find out soon enough.
Unless you repent.. by the Grace of God.
Liar.

W| 11.20.11 @ 1:17PM

Mazzuchelli,
Are you the one that writes that comic books?

WGMOW| 11.16.11 @ 9:47PM

Mariann Budde herself is a perfect specimen of what's creating the decline in the Episcoplian church.

POST American| 11.16.11 @ 10:08PM

--Rockefeller --'ECK-YOU--MEN--ICK-ALL--ism'.

While the rectum worshippers and 'benny
addicted' puppets of our media will NEVER
use it --the KEY PHRASE for ANY discussion
of 20th century American christian culture and its
downfall.

--------------------------KEY!-----------------------------

Just as ----'HUAC/ NUREMBERG 2011' is
KEY to even having a 21st century at all.

--------------------------ABSOLUTELY KEY. . .

redfish| 11.17.11 @ 12:36PM

Since the 60s, progressive members of religious congregations have been talking about liberalizing the religions to attract young people and expand the ranks. They don't realize this narrows the ranks instead of expanding them, over the long term. Young people who are very liberal are more likely to be atheists and antipathetic towards religion, and are not likely to attend no matter how liberal you make the doctrines. They think religion is a waste of time. Young people who are more conservative, however, want a home, and you're not giving it to them. The only way to expand the church is to make it more conservative. But, conservative in an intellectual bent, that appeals to reason, rather than focusing purely on emotion.

Also, Christianity is dead when it equates sexual relationships with "human expression." Budde is right in a sense that Christianity is about "acceptance," but that means more than accepting other people. It means accepting that you will die and the things you desire are expressions of vanity. That begins with sex: you can not be "accepting" as long as you believe having sex (as a thing in itself) is important to life. The issue of whether someone is gay is not important, the issue is whether that person thinks he needs sex to be happy -- whether gay or straight.

Mazzuchelli| 11.17.11 @ 4:32PM

The passion illustrated in these comments is exhilarating. As an agnostic, I long for a modicum of spirituality that seems to have skipped some in our family. Having said that, there is so much history and wisdom contained in the Bible, it almost makes up for my lack.
To stir the pot, as a conservative and a traditionalist, the thought of ordained women doesn't bother me that much. Christianity grew from the services held by women in their shelters. It seems a common thread that the female radicals of that day are mirrored by the female radicals assuming ordained positions today. Do I like it? No. The women then were providing a refuge from ancient Judaism. The women today don't have anything to take the place of that which they are destroying.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 5:06PM

"The Kingdom of God has come near to you." (Mazzuchelli). Lk. 10:9.

The reason women aren't permitted to teach in the churches of Christians is because, simply, He wants the Brothers to be in charge.

Some women want to be men, and sometimes men want to be women.. sadly.

And sometimes both men and women just do not take seriously the Scriptures.

I am so glad that you came by, and commented.

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him." Heb. 11:6.

Take heart!!

Tina B| 11.17.11 @ 7:14PM

". . .He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." Heb. 11:6

So don't just casually seek Him, like so many are prone to do. Seek Him like the pearl of great price that He is. Earnestly and with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.

Hi Margie, God bless you, my friend.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 7:29PM

I love that you said that, Tina B. Thank you, it is precious and very excellent admonishment, if it can be called that. I rather consider it an encouragement, actually.

Bless you too, sister.

Papist Dan| 11.17.11 @ 11:27PM

Tina,
Do you believe that Jesus is God?

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 10:54AM

I believe that I have stated it clearly in 2 prev posts above. I believe in One God, who is mysteriously three 'persons', for lack of a better word. God is Father, Son and Spirit. All three distinct, but still one. Nothing on earth like it. And God is not limited by my understanding, so I leave it at that.

Christ said "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 And, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9 (NIV)

And the best view we get from Scripture that they are three and yet one is at the baptism of Jesus by John at the River Jordan.

The Spirit (Jesus called Him the Counselor) appears as a dove above Christ as He emerges from the water, and the Father speaks from heaven, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Matt. 3:17

I believe Christ is eternal, and appeared as what is called a Theophony in the generations before His birth on planet Earth, whenever the "angel of the Lord" appeared to man.

I know this is frequently called a trinity, and this word is not found in Scripture, but men use it anyway. I call God a triune God, just because triune means three, but words don't matter much compared to The Word.

IN John 1:1 we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Big "G".

"The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us." John 1:14 (NIV) This refers to Jesus, Creator and God, the Word made flesh. Emanuel. God with us.

My favorite pastor, Rev. Ralph Maynard, a missionary for 15 years (with his family) t0 the Dani tribe in Irian Jaya, once called Him the "Deity in Diapers." (BTW, Ralph was treated abominably by a Christian Missionary Alliance Church congregation and hierarchy and I will never trust a large Church organization again.)

Does that settle it with my belief about my Savior and Lord, and yours too, hopefully.

And now, why do you call yourself a Papist, Dan, what does that mean to you? I am an ex (half of my life)Catholic and that is another story for another day.

Papist Dan| 11.18.11 @ 4:52PM

Tina,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I take it you believe Jesus is God and therefore you disagree with Margie.
I called myself Papist to distinguish myself from the other Dan, and because Margie in her spirited bigotry calls Catholics papists, so I took the name Papist to respond to her daily bigoted comments.

I have always believed in the divinity of Jesus, that Jesus is God. This is a central tenet of Christianity, and you can't call yourself a Christian if you don't believe that Jesus is God.

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 6:11PM

How do you, or I, know that Margie denies the divinity of Christ? I have never read her post that. I know Christ is her Lord and her Savior, and that she won't answer people's accusations that she does not believe He is God, but I don't know that she does not believe it.

I sense a deep hurt and a deep distrust of the Catholic Church in my friend Margie. And I know I have read her often angry and fiesty responses. But most of the ugliness directed at her because she loathes the Roman Catholic Church, and the Papacy, and the notion of Papal "infallibility," is just that, ugliness, and I don't know her history with this institution.

Personally, two of my four best friends are Catholic, and they pray only to Christ and never discuss the Pope. We have mourned, cried, celebrated and prayed together to the same God.

However, I have seen immoral priests up close and personal. I know that the pain they have caused in some lives is pure evil. But I know that God has many Catholics, Protestants of all flavors, and non-religionists in His family. And I know Christ Himself said that many who will say "Lord, Lord," will never see heaven. So I don't even try to make that call.

Papist Dan| 11.18.11 @ 7:49PM

Tina, Don't you read what Margie/victor write? It is on this thread above. For example;

"Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:16PM
Jesus never claimed HE was God. Don't you read the Bible? He never claimed He was God, but His Son.

He says that the Father is greater than He. Jn. 14:28.

I am sorry that you have been taught lies by your cult.

God is God, and Jesus is His Son.

Now, you should truly repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.
Mark 1 is a good start."

She has said this repeatedly, Ask her. Or read it above,

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:00PM

OK, Dan. I scrolled up, and sure enough there it is. Until that post I had never read Margie say that. I read every post of hers today, except that one. Strange.

Anyway, I will love her like a sister if she loves and serves my Jesus. However, may I say to anyone who cares, I believe that John 14:28 is supported by John 10:29 "I and the Father are one." The word greater is a translation of I don't know what Aramaic, or Hebrew word. Now I will research that. But I also don't pretend to understand the 'positional' relationship between Father, Son and Spirit, just their 'unity' of this mysterious nature I alluded to above.

Margie's understanding of the positional relationship may be totally different. Mankind cannot begin to understand some aspects of God, anymore than my German Shepherd can understand how crazy worried I was when she got lost. (Yes Margie, we found her, praise God.)

I know we have a God who sees the heart, and we can't.

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:14PM

No, Tina, the Scripture isn't strange.
Catholicism is strange.

I believe what this Scripture also states concerning the Divinity of Christ, and have been since I was born again by the Grace of God in 1975:

The Papists refuse to accept it, but here it is:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation;
for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent.

For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." Col. 1:15-20.

Try something, Tin~ try asking the lying Troll if he she or it believes this!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:10PM

Say,, DannyBoy:

Since the Apostle Paul referred to Jesus Christ as LORD, was He wrong, too?
And what would you have asked him?
You little twerp.
Repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:00PM

Tina B.,

The Troll refuses to accept the answers from the Scriptures. He's a lying little twerp that no matter how many times I answer it finds an excuse to constantly stalk.

What I reject is the Catholic teaching concerning the Divinity of Christ.

The one that includes Mary as the "Mother of God."
Their "divinity" is a false one.

I believe everything that is written in the Bible concerning the God I love and serve.
But every time I've posted the Scriptures to show what I believe, this little twerp says immediately following that I still refuse to answer. This person is nothing but a lying little punk.

And Jesus NEVER did EVER make Himself equal with God.

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though He was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form He humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every Name, that at the Name of Jesus every knee should bow, in Heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:5-11.

Now, the little twerp cannot stand the quoting of Scripture.
Catholics cannot BEAR it!
You must confess to what THEY are taught, and if you do not, they will kill you.

I simply choose to honor what Christ says about Himself, nothing more and nothing less.

"And to the angel of the church in La-odice'a write: 'The words of the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the beginning of God's creation..." Rev. 3:14.

He's the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End." Rev. 1:18, 21:6, & 22:13.

And yes, He is the WORD become flesh, and all things were made through Him.

He did not, however EVER make Himself equal to God. As I said, I choose to honor HIS OWN WORDS.

When Jesus said He and the Father are one, He was praying that His children would be one, as they are one. It was in the sense of unity.

The Catholics put together a thing called a Trinity. It's not in Scripture anywhere, nor does Scripture speak anything about a "Triune God."

What the Bible DOES say is this:

.."yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for Whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things and through Whom we exist." 1 Cor. 8:6.

And Tina, every Scripture you quoted, I also believe, I think you know that anyway.

But now watch~ the Troll will not be satisfied. He she or it will still continue with the his garbage.

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:11PM

Wow, you and I posted at the same minute in time. I love it. Now I will read your post and yes, I know what you believe, and I know what the ugliness aimed at you must feel like, having gone door to door in my time, just sharing with folks in a very low-economic neighborhod where I attended a tiny Methodist Church.

My Jamaican friend Thelma and I were mocked, laughed at and ignored by most of the people we met. All we were doing was asking if they needed prayer for anything, and inviting them to a covered dish supper the next afternoon. We witnessed a little and I learned from Thelma how to answer with a winsome word, and try to show people Christ's love for them. It sure didn't come naturally to me then, and I struggle with it now. God isn't finished with us yet, right?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:16PM

Praise God!
In that I rejoice my beloved sister!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:21PM

Oh, and God sure isn't finished with me, I just pray and BEG for His mercy every single day because I know I deserve to burn in Hell. I know that with each day that passes my flesh gets worse and worse. I know that i will be held accountable for every word that I utter here and elsewhere and for every thought I have ever thought.
I just want God to use me to speak HIS WORDS and I know I fail miserably.
See that all you Papists~ I fail miserably.
Yet I pray that God will have used the Words of the Scriptures that some soul may read and see that they are true.

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:37PM

You have been very successful, with me. I am bolder and use Scripture in my emails and posts more now, and I try harder to learn it by heart. I do consider you a sister in Christ. So don't stop praying, He IS using you. Have a great night,

And, "Grace to all of you who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love." Eph. 6: 24 (NIV)

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:11PM

Excellent, Tina B!

Jesus IS LORD!

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 10:15PM

p.s. I use this site to grab Scriptures. You can just type a word in the search bar and it will bring up every verse for that word. It is wonderful. You can also find out the Greek and Hebrew meanings of words too.
I spend hours there reading and studying.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/index.cfm

Papist Dan| 11.18.11 @ 11:22PM

Margie,
As I, and others, explained repeatedly to you, I call you a stupid bigot because you behave like one, and not because of your religion, whatever that may be.

I don't care what you believe. Don't change the subject. The reason why you are a bigot is you believe you are right and evrybody who disagrees with you is a liar, punk, papist, burn in hell,etc. You are the only one who speaks like that. Tina doesn't.

And you pretend to lecture as a Christian when you don't accept the most basic tenet of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

You are also an intolerant, foul and filthy mouthed person.

You can cite all the verses you want but if you don't believe that Jesus is God then you are not a Christian. Again, nobody cares what you believe, except you pretent to lecture everybody on what is true Christianity.

Do you call you Catholic parents papists, punk, and liars, and tell them they will burn in hell?
If you do pray, pray that you start acting in a tolerant open minded manner like Tina, and stop insulting everyone here. Then I will stop calling you a stupid bigot.

And to be clear, I don't care what religion you practice, even if you have invented your own cult and interpret the Bible to suit yourself, and imposed yourself as the Mullah consigning everyone who disagrees with you to burn in hell.

Until that happens, you are just a plain stupid bigot.

victor| 11.19.11 @ 4:37AM

Tell me Dan, do you believe that God requires man to have Religion?
If yes, why?
If not, why not?

Can you cite any verses to back up your position, whatever it is?

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 8:15AM

Margie/victor,
It is a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion with a stupid bigot like you since the only reply you have is Liar, Punk, Papist, Burn in Hell. You have proven that repeatedly with Nick and my questions to you. When you start acting rationally and shed your bigotry we can talk; until then I will continue to reply to each of your bigoted stupid statements as you post them. You are unable to post a rational thought, all you do is cut and paste verses you don't understand.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 12:47PM

That was my husband responding to you, liar.
As the Scripture say, you will burn in Hell for the constant lying you are doing here, right along with your other Papist pals.
Unless of course you repent, and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.
Beginning in Mk. 1:1.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 1:35PM

Unable to post a rational thought?
I post God's Own Words. I cannot help it that you are such a cultist that you reject His Own Words!

As to rational thoughts?
You only have irrational and repeated taunts, of which are ALL lies.

Why don't you tell us which exactly of the Scriptures that I presented from the Bible you disagree with?

LOL, you can't because you are only here for one purpose only: to taunt and deride me!

You are a sick joke, Papist.

Repent! Else you will likewise perish, along with your other lying pals.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 2:42PM

Bigot Margie,
I am not wasting my time trying to educate you. Nick and others have tried only to be insulted by you because they don't agree with you.
I will respond to you bigotry every time you post your bigotry.
Repent, you are a sick person.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 2:57PM

dan:
"victor,
It is a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion"

In other words, you cannot answer the question, nor did you respond to any Scriptures that were quoted to you in answer to your constant and repeated taunting as to what she believes.
You have nothing to say except more taunts and more derision.

You've proven that you are here for one thing and one thing only, and that is to find fault wher there is no fault.
You cannot argue with Scripture so you do not even try. You just carry out your sole purpose, which is to destroy.
And that makes you a brother to him who destroys and we all know who that is.

If you truly believe in having a rational and reasonable discussion you will answer the simple question with a yes or no:

Tell me Dan, do you believe that God requires man to have Religion?
If yes, why?
If not, why not?

Can you cite any verses to back up your position, whatever it is?

victor| 11.19.11 @ 2:58PM

That was my comment to your non-answer to my question.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 9:15PM

Bigot Margie
As stated above you have proven you are not capable or interested, or both, in a rational civil discussion. Anyone who disagrees with you is called a papist, liar, popey, blah blah.
So, No, I am not wasting my time quoting Bible or history to you. Nick and RCV have done that at length and it has made no impression on you.
What I will do is respond to your daily bigotry. Every post you make attacking Catholics I will respond, got that Mullah.

victor| 11.20.11 @ 12:12AM

dan:
"victor,
It is a waste of time to try to have a rational discussion"

If you truly believe in having a rational and reasonable discussion you will answer the simple question with a yes or no:

Tell me Dan, do you believe that God requires man to have Religion?
If yes, why?
If not, why not?

Can you cite any verses to back up your position, whatever it is?

Still not able to answer the question Dan?

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 4:49PM

Margie/victor

Your question is not serious because you two are not interested or capable of a rational civil discussion. You have proven that repeatedly.Eh?
Maybe you want to define what you mean by Religion, since your aim seems to be that your interpretation of the Bible does not provide for Religion. You are so transparantly stupid,,Eh?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 10:57PM

Papist D:
"Your question is not serious because you two are not interested or capable of a rational civil discussion."

I see you are still unable to answer my question.

BTW you may want to learn the proper use of periods and commas, eh?

Tina B| 11.19.11 @ 8:43AM

"Until that happens, you are just a plain stupid bigot."

Pot calling the kettle black, my British mum used to say. I have never called Margie a name, and she has never called me a name (except sister). I may be wrong about this but here goes.

Margie argues religion vs. Jesus Christ. Just as Jesus argued with the religious of His day vs. those who really showed love for His Father. Having been very religious myself, as I was concurrently unfaithful and adulterous, and claiming all the while to love Christ with ALL my heart, soul mind and strength, I managed to be a liar, a thief, an adultress, a drunk, a gossip, a drugee, let me see, what have I missed? God only knows. Truly.

Like the woman at the well, and Mary the Magdalene, I have been forgiven much and so I love and tolerate much from sinners such as me.

Margie has disagreed with me and never dissed me. And yet she has a penchant for arguing with what she senses as religiosity, and fights with people who seem, to her, to trust in their religion, or their religious leader, or their traditions more than the Word of God and her Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.

All His children are not perfect, and some of us still have a loooooong way to go. Actually we'll never be perfect, not this side of heaven anyway. So, in the name of Christ, agree to disagree in print, and pray like crazy for the other person. Not for them to see it your way, but to see things God's Way. Amen.

"May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Corin. 14:14 (NIV)

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 2:40PM

Tina,
Were you a teacher, I thought I read one of your comments about that.
You don't call people that disagree with you a liar, punk, papist, burn in hell, blah, blah.
It is also appears you have not read much of Margie's literary output here. Read her comments to Nick, RCV, Ross, Nancy, Gryz, and others who try to be civil with her. She calls them the same names as she uses on me, of course she does have a limited vocabulary.
It is your business who you are friends with.

Tina B| 11.19.11 @ 6:40PM

I think they said that to Christ, too. Believe me I do not equate myself with Him, but it's true.

Margie was here long before me, I started regularly reading and responding here just after my husband passed away, a year and a half ago.
She was already being called names then, and yes, she was a name caller right back. I don't know who started it, I just know I have grown to love Margie, and several other posters here, all whom I have never met outside this forum.

Yes, as a teacher I learned not to call people names, to their face anyway, haha. I wasn't always a teacher, I waited tables and bartended. I could be a name caller with the best of them. I was particularly fluent with the F-word. I could use it as a noun, a verb, an adjective and an adverb, you know what I'm saying. Not proud of it now but I am honest.

I am still not nearly as Christlike as I would like to be, and as He would like me to be, but I'm growing in that area.

That is where I have seen Margie growing too. She is one of the few people here who admits it when she has been rough on people. She gangs up on no one and many times people gang up on her. She is called trailer trash and other personal type demeaning terms, and she calls people demeaning terms regarding their religiosity and RC traditions and beliefs. She has said, recently, she isn't happy with herself when she gets goaded into snarky responses. She is a work in progress, as are we all.

Yes you sometimes try and be civil with her, but with some posters, I get the feeling some damage has already been done. There's some baggage there with Margie and some of you. I don't judge Margie by that, nor do I try to judge Margie's critics by that.

Her love for my Jesus goes a long way with me. She seems to hate religion, and I can often relate to that. I have danced many times with Christian religion and my tendency to religiosity when I start thinking I am good. I love what some Christian Churches do for people, and I hate what some so-called Christian Churches do for/to people.

I love it when you guys are civil to each other, and my BP goes up when you aren't. True story.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:16PM

Civil?
By accusing me that I don't believe in the Divinity of Christ repeatedly?
Calling me a liar and bigot?
Gryz lumping me in with your pal Clint?
Nancy slapping me in the face for defending myself against false accusations by the Reprobate Ken?

Liar Troll.
God is my Judge, and you have no fear of Him in you.

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 10:37PM

Margie,
You need help, get help.

Margie| 11.19.11 @ 2:46PM

Scumbag:

If you don't care what I believe then buzz off, imbecile.

If you don't care about the Scriptures, or whether or not I believe in them, then why are you here constantly asking me what I believe you little punk?

Grow up and come to your right mind.
Better yet, REPENT from your lying and believe the TRUE Gospel of God, like I do.
It's actually IN THE BIBLE.
YOU disagree with His Words, that isn't my problem it's yours.

And most importantly, GOD DOES NOT TOLERATE LIARS, (neither do I), AND YOU ARE A LIAR!
REPENT!
OR suffer the consequences.
That would be this:

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:37PM

Tina,
Be careful. Margie wants to sue her last friend here, Ken.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 5:53PM

Get lost Troll. And that post was to you, creep.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:02PM

Margie, are you really this dense or just a hateful liar? Or both? You know that Catholics do not worship Mary and that Mary is not part of the Divinity. She is referred to as the Mother of God only because she is the Mother of Jesus, who is God.
I know it must be difficult for your tiny mind to understand. You don't have to accept it, nobody cares what your believe.
I am sure your Catholic parents taught you all this but you just keep repeating lies.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:06PM

You have clearly proven you have no interest in anything at all.. not conversation, not opinion, and especially not the Scriptures.

Yet you continually ask for what I believe.
For you to then say, I'm not interested in anything you have to say because you're a "liar, Bigot, stupid, etc."
Only PROVES that you're an anti-Christ Troll.
That means anti-Jesus, by the way.
have you yet confessed that Jesus is the Christ?
I'm waiting for your answer.
Is Jesus the Christ?

Papist Dan| 11.20.11 @ 10:36PM

Bigot Margie
You get more stupid every day.
Jesus is God, idiot.
What is your moronic point, that Jesus can't be God if he is Christ,or that being Christ excludes being God. Nobody cares about your made up cult's theology. The reason everyone here thinks your are crazy is because you believe your made up cult is the truth and every other religon is false.
Is that too difficult for your tiny brain to comprehend?

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 5:52PM

So, you refuse to confess that Jesus is the Christ?

Richard Baker| 11.17.11 @ 6:56PM

Margie:
How Christ-like your responses are. You must be SO proud. You will have MUCH to answer for.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 7:28PM

You know NOTHING about Christ-like, pervert.
Pope-like, yes.
LOL.

Tony in Central PA| 11.17.11 @ 8:08PM

Margie, do you ever ask yourself, " would anybody want to follow my example ? ". I only know you from what you post here. I do know plenty of Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians ( including my wife of 16 years ) and none of them are anything like you.

Margie| 11.17.11 @ 8:41PM

Well, good for you, Papist.
But YOU still do need to REPENT and believe the True Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Tony in Central PA| 11.17.11 @ 9:43PM

How would anybody reading your posts conclude that you follow your own advice ?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:03PM

I did, almost 40 years ago, punk. It's exactly why I reject your cult with all of its false teachings.
And you're a perfect result of it, as is the slimebag Richard Baker.
Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:05PM

Bigot Margie,
What wonderful Christian words from the Bigot Mullah Margie.

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:13PM

God has greater wrath than my words by far towards liars. And His wrath has been stored up for a loooong time, Papist.

Lotsa luck!

Tina B| 11.17.11 @ 7:20PM

We will all have much to answer for. Fortunately for some of us, we joyfully accept Christ's atoning sacrifice for our sins, and, like the thief on the cross next to Jesus, will hear, "this day you will be with me in Paradise."

Tony in Central PA| 11.17.11 @ 7:53PM

" These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own ".
G.K. Chesterton, 1928.

POST American| 11.18.11 @ 1:49AM

"---It's in the nature of HERESY to
enter as the voice of 'reason' ---and wound,
wound, wound unto DEATH."
-G K Chesterton

"Ye Shall be as gods.
Surely, ye Shall NOT DIE."
-Satan

-------Come out from among them.
----------Do NOT partake of their sins. . .

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 10:58AM

Well said, PA.

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:06PM

Au contraire!

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy." Pro. 27:6.

Repent and believe the TRUE Gospel of God.
Beginning in Mk. 1:1.

Papist Dan| 11.19.11 @ 5:06PM

Bigot Margie
Chesterton is Catholic. Must bother you right Mullah?

victor| 11.20.11 @ 3:31AM

Papist Dan:
"Chesterton is Catholic. Must bother you"

Not as long as he loved Jesus, right?

But then to you, his being a catholic is so much more important, eh?

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:08PM

He's a Catholic? That figures because what he said totally is the opposite if what the Scripture says, which I posted, above!

Catholicism is a cult of lies, and it's Trolls are liars.
They care NOTHING for the Word of God!

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:38PM

So, Bigot Margie, you now disagree with Tina who liked the Chesterton quote. You are running out of people to insult here.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 5:51PM

Buzz off, lying Troll.

victor| 11.21.11 @ 7:00PM

Hey Papist D, maybe you should get your prescription checked, eh?

Margie was disagreeing with G K Chesterton who by the way believed in Universal Salvation.

And purgatory as well:

http://blog.adw.org/2011/11/an.....purgatory/

GK Chesterton, responding to a Critic of Purgatory said,

Purgatory may exist whether he likes it or not…..It may be obvious to us that [a person] is already utterly sinless, at one with the saints. It may be evident to us that [he] is already utterly selfless, filled only with God and forgetful of the very meaning of gain. But if the cosmic power holds that there are still some strange finishing touches, beyond our fancy, to put to his perfection, then certainly there will be some cosmic provision for that mysterious completion of the seemingly complete. The stars are not clean in His sight and His angels He chargeth with folly; and if [God] should decide….there is room for improvement, we can but admit that omniscience can heal the defect that we cannot even see. (G.K’s Weekly 4/11/1925)

"Yes, even if we were to engage in the folly of thinking we ourselves, or someone else had reached perfection, the truth is we don’t really know what true, God-like perfection is. All I know is, that if I were to die today, God would have to bring to completion the good work he has begun in me."

Totall unbiblical and there is nothing in Scripture that plainly says that.
You have to twist and convolute some things to get what you want, eh?

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 7:37PM

Victor,

You should have clicked the Monsignor's link, so that you could have learned about the biblical proof of Purgatory. Like these verses of Sacred Scripture:

"Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God." - 2 Cor. 7:1

"And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing." - James 1:4

Is your holiness "perfect and complete" Victor?
God Bless!

Nick| 11.21.11 @ 7:45PM

Oops! Here is the link, to save you some time:

http://blog.adw.org/wp-content.....gatory.pdf

Jarvis| 11.18.11 @ 9:22PM

Has it occurred to anyone, other than me , that "Margie" is putting you on?

Margie| 11.18.11 @ 9:27PM

So "Jarvis", do you also choose to reject the Scripture in place of the false teachings of men?

Jarvis| 11.18.11 @ 9:24PM

And talk about rising to the bait!

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:39PM

Jarvis, why would you want to "bait" anyone? Are you fishing, or trolling per chance?

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:41PM

^ ^
(*) (*)
---------o0O0----( )-----oO0o------------

Tina B| 11.18.11 @ 9:41PM

that looked a lot better on my laptop. LOL

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 3:58PM

HILARIUS ON BAPTISM AND SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF HIS FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK

Hilarius, originally a heathen, who subsequently became a Christian, and was baptized at Rome, A. D. 350, was a very learned and eloquent man. He writes (lib. 2), "The Lord has commanded 'to baptize on, or in, the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that is," etc.
He also defended the truth against the Arians, on account of which he was exiled: and he likewise vigorously opposed the arrogance of the see of Rome, and its dominion over other churches, and said that antichrist would devastate the earth through wars and murder.
To those who concerned themselves more in wondering at the building of the temple, than in the' consideration of the doctrine he says, "You are indeed, unwise, to look with wonder upon these things; for, you must know that antichrist shall once, .set, his throne there., "The nature of the name antichrist is opposition to Christ, which he effects under a specious semblance of the Gospel. He transforms himself into an angel of light, that he may alienate the Christian mind. He has already, to some extent, commenced his progress, pretending to be Christ, though he is departed very far from Christ., "They (that is, the Antichristians) ambitiously desire the aid of the secular power, which they draw,to themselves in order to advance their name and honor, and to protect their church; thus working with a worldly ambition, notwithstanding it is folly to employ secular power in defense of the Christian church.
'.'Let me ask you, ye bishops, what aid did the apostles employ in proclaiming the Gospel? by the assistance of what magistracy did they preach Christ, and convert the heathen from idolatry to God?, "Now the church counts the favor of the world, and boasts that the world loves her, who could at no time have been the church of Christ, without being hated by the world."
Again, on the 68th Psalm, he says, "God is now preached, honored, and worshiped in stone, wood, and metal, and the Master-builder of the world, the Father of us all, is fashioned in perishable matter, to which they have been brought by the, enticing words of philosophy. With these and like words he greatly censures the abuse practiced by the church of Rome." P. J. Tzvisck, Chron., 4th book, page 104, col. 1, 2, from Socrat., lib. 3. Casp. Swine, epist. 1, fol. 877. Seb. Fr.
Since the above passages from Hilarius are not only excellent, but also plain, so that they require

Page 158
no explanation, we leave them and proceed to others who confessed the same faith.
NOTE.-At this time, Hilarius taught that all human traditions, on account of which God's commandments are transgressed, must be rooted out. On Matt. 15, Canon 14. Sam. heltius, Geslnchtregister, page 122. He also writes, "The Father revealed to Peter, who said: 'Thou art the Son of God,' that the church should be built upon this rock of confession.""This faith," he says,"is the foundation of the church; this faith has the keys of heaven."

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 4:13PM

OF A CERTAIN PROHIBITION PUBLISHED BY THOSE OF AERDENBORGH AGAINST THE ANABAPTISTS, AND WHAT WAS DONE BY THE LORDS STATES GENERAL OF THE UNITED NETHERLANDS FOR THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE SAME, A. D. 1615
Also at Aerdenborgh in Flanders they began to put into execution various means for the oppression of the Anabaptists who resided there and had escaped the claws of the Romish wolf, the cause of which was a certain prohibition emitted by the bailiff and the council of said city; in which said people in the first place, were refused liberty in the practice of their religion, insomuch that they were not allowed to assemble for this purpose, neither in the city, nor within the limits of its jurisdiction.
Thereupon there began they to afflict these innocent and defenseless people, not only with heavy fines, but also with arrest and imprisonment.
This sad beginning would, to all appearance, have culminated in greater mischief to the aforesaid people, had not their High Mightinesses, the Lords States General of the United Netherlands, who had received information of this, opposed it with a certain mandate, whereby those who were the cause of said oppression were prevented from proceeding with the execution of their aforementioned prohibition, and on the other hand, liberty of religion was granted to those that were oppressed. The contents of the afore-mentioned mandate are as follows:
The States General, etc., to the Bailiff, Burgomasters and Judges of Aerdenborgh.
Honorable, etc.: We have learned with surprise, that contrary to our resolution announced to Your Honor by our order by the clerk, Jan Bogaerd, you still hinder the members of the community called Anabaptists or Mennonists, residing in Aerdenborgh and the parts under its jurisdiction, in the freedom of their assembling and the exercise of their religion in Aerdenborgh, and trouble and oppress them, by prohibiting their assembling, by arrests, and fines.
Whereas we desire that the aforesaid members of the community belonging to the Anabaptist persuasion be allowed to enjoy just as much freedom, with all quietness and modesty, in their mind, conscience, assembling, and exercise of their religion, in Aerdenborgh as is the case every where else in the provinces, cities, and places of the United Netherlands, without any contradiction or resistance, except that you may exercise an oversight over their gatherings, as far as they deem it well, and that they, to this end, may inform you every time that they desire to assemble. Hence we command you, to govern yourselves precisely in accordance with this, to the better maintenance of tranquillity, peace and unity in the aforesaid city; without causing the apprehension or execution of the aforesaid members for any fine or contravention, because of previous gatherings. Upon this we shall rely, and, etc. Given this 1st of May, 1615.
This agrees with the minutes preserved in the rolls of their High Mightinesses. Signed,
N. RUYSCH.
FURTHER OBSERVATION, A. D. 1619

When the aforesaid mandate had been drawn up, and properly delivered by order of their High Mightinesses, the hope was indulged in that it would be obeyed, and thereby the peace desired accomplished, but through the intervention of envious and malevolent persons this hope was frustrated; for it was sought, notwithstanding said mandate to find cause whereby the liberty of the afore-mentioned people might be annulled justly as it were, and their peace disturbed.
To this end served, or at least was used, a certain ordinance decreed in July of the year 1619, by order of the Excellencies lords in power against certain individuals. Though this ordinance had no reference whatever to the Anabaptists, yet their assembling and religious worship was prohibited; hence they again addressed themselves with humble supplications to the High Mightinesses of the United Netherlands, to the end that they might be delivered from this disturbance of their peace, and freely permitted (as had been ordained before) to practice their religion; whereupon followed another mandate to the governor of Sluys, and the

Page 1106
bailiff and magistrates of Aerdenborgh, it read as follows
The States, etc., to the Lord o f Haultain, Governor of Sluys and the adjacent parts,-, as also to the Bailiff and Magistrates of the city of Aerdenborgh.
Noble, august, honorable, dear, particular: We here send you the adjoined request presented to us in the behalf of the members of the community called Mennonites or Anabaptists, residing in Aerdenborgh who complain that they are disturbed in the free exercise of their religion which we have granted them in the aforesaid city; you doing this under the pretext of the decree emitted by us on the 3d of July last; whereupon we have deemed it necessary to advertise and explain to you, that it is not our intention that the supplicants be comprehended in the aforesaid decree of the 3rd of July, but that the supplicants shall retain, enjoy, and continue in, said freedom in the exercise of their religion, in Aerdenborgh, even as they have previously had and enjoyed. Hence we charge you, to govern yourselves in accordance with this, without further troubling the supplicants, as that they have to follow our previous concession and resolution. Hereupon we shall rely and commend you into the high protection of the Almighty. From the Hague, the 16th of November, 1619.
This agrees with the minutes preserved in the rolls of their High Mightinesses. Signed,
N. RUYSCH.
REMARKS AS TO WHAT FOLLOWED HEREUPON

After this second mandate there followed in the aforesaid city and its jurisdiction the hoped for peace, at least so that we have learned of no noteworthy disturbance or obstruction of religion.
Meantime the mischief broke out again in other places, especially at Deventer, though also from those professing the Calvinistic doctrine; insomuch that the authorities of said city, instigated by certain bitter and malignant persons, endeavored, through a certain edict containing divers punishments against the Anabaptists, to abolish the gatherings of those professing that belief; an account of which we shall forthwith give.
OF AN EDICT OF THOSE OF DEVENTER AGAINST (AMONG OTHERS) THE SO CALLED MENNONISTS OR ANABAPTISTS, A. D. 1620

When the year sixteen hundred and twenty, after the birth of Christ had come, the aforesaid magistrates emitted an edict, not only against the Romanists (from whom they had formerly suffered persecution themselves), but also against the Mennonites or Anabaptists, who had always shown themselves peaceable and friendly toward and among them, whereby they prohibited, among others, also the assemblies of the Anabaptists, yet not on pain of death.
That this may be well understood, we shall correctly copy the edict; as far as it is directed against he Anabaptists, and present it to the impartial reader.
EDICT

The magistrates of the city of Deventer prohibit all citizens and residents of their city; that no Mennists, etc., shall hold any secret or open assembly or meeting where any preaching . ~ .* marriage, or any other exercise of religion is practiced; under whatever pretext the same may be done; on pain that those who shall be found to practice it shall forthwith be banished from the country forever; and every person that shall be found at such a place or in the assembly shall forfeit the upper garment and twenty-five guilders in money; the second time, the upper garment and fifty guilders; the third time, to be punished arbitrarily. And he that lends his house, for the purpose of holding such gatherings, forfeits a hundred guilders; the second time, two hundred guilders; the third time, he shall be banished forever. See Chron. van den Ondergang, Book 17, for the year 1620, etc., page 1825, col. 1.
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward Gad endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, -this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow His steps. I Pet. 2:19-21.
OF SEVERE SLANDERS AGAINST THE ANABAPTISTS IN THE PROVINCE OF HOLLAND, ETC. (TO IN STIGATE TO PERSECUTION) , AND HOW THEY DEFENDED THEMSELVES TO THE STATES OF SAID COUNTRY, ON THE 8TH OF OCTOBER, A. D. 1626

In the meantime men did not cease to slander and speak evil of the doctrines of the Anabaptists; especially about the article which they confessed concerning God, as also touching the incarnation of the .Son of God, etc., even as though they advanced the most absurd, yea, ungodly opinions in regard to it; which was done, in order, if possible, to cause a persecution of these people, even in the midst of the Netherlands.
For this occurred in such a way, that also the high magistrates and States of the country were exercised with regard to it; who, to get full information about this matter, gave orders to divers churches. of the Anabaptists, to make a uniform confession touching the afore-mentioned articles, anti to deliver the same to their noble High Mightinesses.
To this. the afore-mentioned Anabaptists were, " That which is left out here concerns the religion of the papists; hence we have omitted it.

Page 1107
not averse; inasmuch as they composed these articles in writing, and delivered them, on the 9th of October, A. D. 1626, to the deputies of the Court of Holland. The contents thereof were as follows

OF THE ONLY GOD, FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST

We believe from the heart, and confess herewith according to the testimony of the Word of God, that there is one, only, eternal, almighty, merciful and just God (Deut. 6:4; Matt. 19:17; Ps. 90:2; Isaiah 40:28; Rom. 16:26; Gen. 17:1; Ps. 103:8; Philippians 2:4; Dan. 9:7), and none other (I Corinthians 8:4, 5), to whom there is none like (Ex. 8:10; Isa. 46:9), whose greatness is immeasurable, and His form indescribable, II Chron. 6:18; Job 11:8, 9. Before whom, above whom, and beside whom, there is no other, Isa. 43:11; Deut. 10:17; 32:39. Who is of Himself that He is, Ex. 3:14. To whom all things that are owe their existence, Gen. 1; Ps. 146:6; Acts 14:15. Who is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, Rev. 21:6; Isa. 41:4. Who knows, sees, and hears all things, Ps. 94:11; I John 3:20; Ps. 33:13; 94:9. Who alone is good, and the fountain and source of all good, Matt. 19:17; James 1:17. Wherefore to Him, blessed be He, belongs and must be given all divine honor, fear, love and obedience (Ps. 29:1; Luke 2:14; Deut. 10:12, 20; 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Jeremiah 11:7), which may not be shown to any other, neither to angels, nor to men, nor to any other, whether they be heavenly or earthly creatures, Rev. 19:10; Acts 10:26. For He will not give His glory unto another, neither His praise to idols, Isa. 48:11, 42:8. But although God in the aforesaid manner manifests and makes Himself known in general by His Word: yet by the same word He also shows Himself distinctively and separately, as, namely: That there are three that bear record in heaven, I John 5:7. Not three gods, but one Father, one Word or Son, and one Holy Ghost, even as this was shown, when the Lord Christ was baptized (Matt. 3:16); and is also taught in the words of Christ, where He commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 28:19. So that therefore, according to the Word of God, the Father is the true Father of the Son (Matt. 7:21; 10:32, 33; 16:17; Mark 14:36; John 17), from whom the Son proceeded in an incomprehensible manner from eternity, and was born before every creature. Micah 5:2; Col. 1:15. Hence the Son is also the true Son of the Father (Ps. 2:7, 12; Matt. 3:17; 17:5 ), so that also the Father, as far as He is the Father, is not the Son, John 3:16, 17; Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4. That likewise the Son, as far as He is the Son, is not the Father, John 16:28; Rom. 5:10. But that herein the Father is another than the Son, and the Son another than the Father, John 5:32, 37; 10:25, 29; 15:24. That also the Father and the Son, as far as they are Father and Son, are not the Holy Ghost. That also the Holy Ghost, as far as He proceeds or is sent out by the Father, in the name of the Son, is another than the Father or the Son. But as far as the Father is God, eternal, uncreated, but the Creator of all things, with many other divine attributes, herein we believe that the Son and the Holy Ghost are one with the Father, to whom one and the same title of God, in the highest significance, honor, service, and obedience, belongs.
However, the manner, how and wherein Father, Son and holy Ghost are three and also one, we do not think that God has so fully revealed to us in His Word; that also all the knowledge of it is not necessary to salvation, since it is a high or deep mystery, which here in this life can be known but in part, as if seen through a glass darkly, I Cor. 13:12. The perfect knowledge and true contemplation of which, is hoped for by faith, in this life, but will only hereafter, in the life eternal, be fully known. I John 3:2. Wherefore deep investigation of this matter, beyond or above the Word of God, is more subtilty than Christian simplicity. The terms, of one essence, trinity, three persons, invented in former times by the ancients, we avoid, because they are unknown to the Scriptures, and because it is dangerous, in naming God, to use other words than those of the holy Scriptures. By the words, three beings, or three in one being, previously used by Jaques Outerman, as also by some of our teachers, we understand nothing else than what is comprehended in this our preceding confession.

OF THE INCARNATION OF THE SON OF GOD

We believe and confess, that God, willing to show His very great love to the human race (who through sin had fallen into death and into much corruption), and to perform by the deed His gracious promises made to the fathers (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; 22:18; Deut. 18:18), sent to this purpose His only (John 3:16), dear (Luke 9:35), and beloved Son (Matthew 3:17), who was from eternity (Heb. 1:2), by whom all things were created and made (Col. 1:16; Heb. 1), into this world (John 3:17; 1 John 4:9), who gladly obeyed the will of His Father (Ps. 40:8: Heb. 10:7), and came from above (John 3:31; 8:23), from heaven (3:13; 6: 62), came forth from His Father (16:28), leaving His divine glory (17:5), form (Phil. 2:6), and riches (II Cor. 8:9), descended (Eph. 4:9), came into this world (John 16:28), so that the virgin Mary, by the power of the Most High (Luke 1
35), conceived Him (Isa. 7:14; Matt. 1:23; Luke 2:7), so that also the same, and no other, was born of her (Isa. 7; Matthew 1:25; Luke 1; Gal. 4:4). For although Mary bore the Son of God in another form, than in which He was with the Father before the foundation of the world; yet it is nevertheless the same, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, Micah 5:2; Isa. 9:6. For the Word or Son became flesh. John 1:14. Yea, He that was like unto God, be-

Page 1108
came like another man. Phil. 2:7. The Son of God appeared in the form of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), and God was manifested in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16), so that the second man Christ is the Lord Himself from heaven. I Cor. 15:47. Hence that which the apostles saw in Christ, with their eyes, heard with their ears, and handled with their hands, was of the Word of life; so that they saw that eternal life which was with the Father. 1 John 1. For God brought His first begotten Son into the world, whom all angels and men must worship. Heb. 1:6; Phil. 2:10. And when we thus believe, we have in our favor the testimony of God and of all the righteous, who with one accord unanimously exclaim: that this visible man Christ is the Son of God (Matt. 3:17; John 1:2; 9:37; 11:27; Matt. 16:16; I John 4:10; 5:5), who dwelt among men (John 1:14; Zech. 2:10; Bar. 3:37), and whom the high priests, because He confessed Himself to be the Son of God, also condemned to death. Mark 14:64; John 18:35. For, not knowing Him, they nailed the Lord of glory, that is the Lord from heaven, to the cross. I ~Cor. 2:8; 15:47. There the Son of the living God suffered (Heb. 5:8), whom God did not spare (Rom. 8:32), but delivered Him up for the life of the world (John 3:16; I John 4:14), to the most ignominious death of the cross. Phil. 2:8. There the Son of God shed His precious blood for the forgiveness of our sins (Acts 20:28; Col. 1:14; I John 1:7; Rev. 1:5); He by whom God made the worlds, by Himself purged our sins. Heb. 1:2, 3. He was buried, and the third day was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. I Cor. 15:12; Acts 3:26; Rom. 6:4; I Thess. 1:10. He ascended up to where He was before. John 3:13; 6:62; 16:28; Eph. 4:8; I Tim. 3:16. He is sitting there at the right hand of the Majesty of His Father (Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:3), whence He shall come in the clouds of heaven, to judge the quick and the dead. Matt. 24:30; Acts 10:42; Rev. 1:7.
The final cause of the sending, advent, incarnation, and suffering and death of the only begotten Son of God in this world, was to save sinners (I Tim. 1:15; Matt. 18:11), or to reconcile the sinful world to God the Father, John 3:17; I John 2:2; II Cor. 5:19. Hence He is also the only foundation (I Cor. 3:11), the only door to the Father (John 10), the only way to eternal life (John 14: 6), and the only meritorious cause of justification (Acts 13:38; Rom. 3:24), and of eternal salvation; for there is salvation in no other, as the apostle Peter says, neither is there any other name under heaven given among men, whereby they must be saved, than in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 4:12. To Him be praise, honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
This was subscribed by twenty ministers of the Anabaptists (who are all well known), in the name of their churches; as of Amsterdam, Haerlem, Leyden, Delft, Rotterdam, Dergoude, Schiedam, Bommel, Blockzijl, etc.
This confession of faith, concerning the articles about God and the incarnation of the Son of God, etc., having been delivered to the deputies of the Court of Holland, produced satisfaction with their high excellencies, and hence the establishment of greater peace and liberty for the Anabaptists in said country, although to the dissatisfaction of those who, through bitterness, had first endeavored to disturb their peace, and, if they could have succeeded to cause an oppression or persecution of them.
NOTE.-Just in time two manuscript tracts, in the Swiss language, were sent to us, both of them having been sent before this date, from the Swiss parts, to divers churches of our fellow believers, but principally to those of Amsterdam, at the request and in the name of some of the oppressed brethren; also in general, of the ministers and elders of the church in the Palatinate and Alsace.
The first was written and completed on the 15th of September, 1645, and bears the signature of Jeremiah Mangold.
The second, in the month of February, 1658, by M. Meyli.
These two tracts, both of them written with one design and purpose, and sent to us, shall aid us in the carrying out of the work we have undertaken; namely, to extend the history of the holy martyrs who suffered for our common Christian faith, to this our present time, and bring it to a completion.
In order to do this in the best manner, and to bring these matters (which in one tract are described very diffusely, and in the other, very briefly, and sometimes abruptly), into a convenient form or shape, we shall not grudge the labor of treating them from their first rise, and to follow up the matters chronologically (though they are described indiscriminately), and to indicate each time, in order that no error be made, as to which tract from which we have taken it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The above is wat ALL Bible believing Christians believe concerning God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

The above is biblically sound, and rejects the teachings of Catholicism.

It is what the Papists used, this biblically sound belief according to the Scriptures~ it is what they used to imprison, torture and kill, Men Women and children (including infants).

It is true, and not a lie.

The Papists here will deny it, mock it and continue to ridicule me for speaking in agreement with my Martyred brethren, but so be it, I'm a fool for Christ.

They are the very modern day Papist Inquisitors, seeking to destroy the Word of God.

"..since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt." Heb. 6:6.

Nick| 11.20.11 @ 5:41PM

"It is true, and not a lie."

It is NOT true, and, therefore, false.

But, this is the same Martyrs Mirror that praises the great Catholic saints Ignatius and Irenaeus.
And, also, praises Origen and Tertullian.

Are you an Anabaptist, Margie?
God Bless!

victor| 11.20.11 @ 11:25PM

nick:
"Are you an Anabaptist,"

"Anabaptists require that candidates be able to make their own confessions of faith and so refused baptism to infants. As a result, Anabaptists were heavily persecuted during the 16th century and into the 17th by both other Protestants and Roman Catholics."

Yes. we were then and we are now.

victor| 11.21.11 @ 1:13AM

Just to clarify, we are non-denominational Christians, not Anabaptists, just as to adult baptism. They are Scripturally sound, therefore we are in agreement.
The Papists and the Protestants both persecuted and put them to death for their Biblical stance.
All for rejecting the false teaching of infant baptism.
Satan so despises the Word of God and those who are faithful to Him.
Fast forward to right here on these very pages.
Only to see the same type of questioning and hounding by you and your Papist pals.
It's the same exact spirit.
That should frighten you, but it obviously doesn't.

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 4:49PM

Marge/victor,
No wonder you were always evading the questions of what you believe in. Victor told the truth that you are anabaptists. Anabaptists of Munster believed in communism, polygamy, and sharing the women. That is why they were persecuted. Is this your brand of anabaptism? And you have the nerve to criticize other religions. What a phony.

Margie| 11.21.11 @ 5:50PM

Scumbag:

No, he didn't "tell the truth." I knew you would use that. He clarified that we are no such thing, we are non-denominational Bible believing Christians but that we are in agreement with the stance those Martyrs took, as it was biblical.

Now~ you care nothing for God's Truth and are a lying Troll.
God will judge you for what you continue to do.
And that's a lie that they were Martyred for what you say.
What a freak of a human being you are!

victor| 11.21.11 @ 6:53PM

Papist D:
"What a phony."

Yes, you are.
Why don't you repent of your lies and tell the truth for once in your life, eh?

Anabaptists were killed by you papists for denying the catholic doctrine of infant baptism.
Tell me how infants can hold to Peter's admonition in Acts 2:38:
"And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

That is what you martyred these Bible Believing Christians for and you will do so again if you have the chance.

www.persecution.com

Maybe you should read about real Believers being put to death before you open your mouth again Saul.

Papist Dan| 11.21.11 @ 7:10PM

nick:
"Are you an Anabaptist,"

Yes. we were then and we are now.

Margie/victor

You knew as soon as victor told the truth that victor made a mistake. eh.
Phony, so called Christian. Liar.
So now you will lie,evade, take back statement, and accuse others.
Scumbag is an appropriate term for sharing wives,polygamy, and commies. You are a joke.
Is that why you moved to Ohio, lots of anabaptists there.
Go crawl under your rock,phony

Margie| 11.20.11 @ 5:10PM

The above is for any souls that care about the Word of God, who care about His Truth, according to His Word, without which believing in one cannot call themselves Christian.

"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of my Words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His Glory and the glory of the Father and of the Holy Angels." Lk. 9:23.