GOD

[brainfreeze]

So to you - God made you the lying forum huckster persona that you bring to SBR? A bet welcher who refused to honor his arrangement with another poster? Did you pray for forgiveness? Does wearing your hood affect the speed/time which your prayer reaches your non random God?

If believing in God creates behavior like yours, then you can keep your fantasy and rational people will hope it dies out with you and your ilk.

FYI - it's a big leap from arguing the origin of the universe and consciousness to you supporting a child pedophile protecting crime ring that you currently (claim) to belong to.

Though pope is not mentioned, nor calling priest father, nor praying to Mary with repetitive prayer, or even stone images all over ..I do believe some who believe and fear God in catholicism will get to God, same with other denominations, it's about what lives in the heart of the individual not what church they go to...

Mathew 6:. 7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

[brainfreeze]

Once again, your gullibility is on full display.

2015 and snake oil is still top shelf to some.

I've seen plenty of things with my own eyes, none of this is new to me, yet it still gives me goosebumps all the time, if you just want to wave it off, call me a liar and gullible, so be it, but don't ever say no one told you nothing, I'll pray you keep searching with a open heart muldoon.

[muldoon]

but don't ever say no one told you nothing

How could no one tell me nothing? How would I even know?

[Seaweed]

Though pope is not mentioned, nor calling priest father, nor praying to Mary with repetitive prayer, or even stone images all over ..I do believe some who believe and fear God in catholicism will get to God, same with other denominations, it's about what lives in the heart of the individual not what church they go to...

Mathew 6:. 7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

http://www.catholic.com/video/praying-to-mary-a-biblical-defense

"Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2)

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth."

for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

[Seaweed]

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized the Biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, and they applied this teaching in their practice.

Hermas

"[The Shepherd said:] 'But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?'" (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Anonymous

"Hail, Mary!" (inscription at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth [A.D. 200]).

Clement of Alexandria

"In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

"But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence the first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father's mercy" (Letters 56 [60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

Anonymous

"Atticus, sleep in peace, secure in your safety, and pray anxiously for our sins" (funerary inscription near St. Sabina's in Rome [A.D. 300]).

Anonymous

"Pray for your parents, Matronata Matrona. She lived one year, fifty-two days" (ibid.).

Methodius

"Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for unto thee do I again return. Thou are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs unto the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son's love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing mother, of the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of thee . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father--the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

Methodius

"Therefore, we pray thee, the most excellent among women, who glories in the confidence of your maternal honors, that you would unceasingly keep us in remembrance. O holy Mother of God, remember us, I say, who make our boast in thee, and who in hymns august celebrate the memory, which will ever live, and never fade away" (ibid.).

Methodius

"And you also, O honored and venerable Simeon, you earliest host of our holy religion, and teacher of the resurrection of the faithful, do be our patron and advocate with that Savior God, whom you were deemed worthy to receive into your arms. We, together with thee, sing our praises to Christ, who has the power of life and death, saying, Thou art the true Light, proceeding from the true Light; the true God, begotten of the true God" (ibid.).

Anonymous

"Mother of God,[listen to] my petitions; do not disregard us in adversity, but rescue us from danger" (Rylands Papyrus 3 [A.D. 350]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

"Then [during the Eucharistic prayer] we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition . . . " (Catechetical Lectures 23:9 [A.D. 350]).

Hilary of Poitiers

"To those who wish to stand [in God's grace], neither the guardianship of saints nor the defenses of angels are wanting" (Commentary on the Psalms 124:5:6 [A.D. 365]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"Remember me, you heirs of God, you brethren of Christ; supplicate the Savior earnestly for me, that I may be freed through Christ from him that fights against me day by day" (The Fear at the End of Life [A.D. 370]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"You victorious martyrs who endured torments gladly for the sake of the God and Savior, you who have boldness of speech toward the Lord himself, you saints, intercede for us who are timid and sinful men, full of sloth, that the grace of Christ may come upon us, and enlighten the hearts of all of us that so we may love him" (Commentary on Mark [A.D. 370]).

The Liturgy of St. Basil

"By the command of your only-begotten Son we communicate with the memory of your saints . . . by whose prayers and supplications have mercy upon us all, and deliver us for the sake of your holy name" (Liturgy of St. Basil [A.D. 373]).

Pectorius

"Aschandius, my father, dearly beloved of my heart, with my sweet mother and my brethren, remember your Pectorius in the peace of the Fish [Christ]" (Epitaph of Pectorius [A.D. 375]).

Gregory Nazianz

"May you [Cyprian] look down from above propitiously upon us, and guide our word and life; and shepherd this sacred flock . . . gladden the Holy Trinity, before which you stand" (Orations 17 [24] [A.D. 380]).

Gregory Nazianz

"Yes, I am well assured that [my father's] intercession is of more avail now than was his instruction in former days, since he is closer to God, now that he has shaken off his bodily fetters, and freed his mind from the clay that obscured it, and holds conversation naked with the nakedness of the prime and purest mind . . . " (ibid., 18:4).

Gregory of Nyssa

"[Ephraim], you who are standing at the divine altar [in heaven] . . . bear us all in remembrance, petitioning for us the remission of sins, and the fruition of an everlasting kingdom" (Sermon on Ephraim the Syrian [A.D. 380]).

John Chrysostom

"He that wears the purple [i.e. a royal man] . . . stands begging of the saints to be his patrons with God, and he that wears a diadem begs the tent-maker [Paul] and the fisherman [Peter] as patrons, even though they be dead" (Homilies on 2 Corinthians 26 [A.D. 392]).

John Chrysostom

"When you perceive that God is chastening you, fly not to his enemies . . . but to his friends, the martyrs, the saints, and those who were pleasing to him, and who have great power [in God]" (Orations 8:6 [A.D. 396]).

Ambrose of Milan

"May Peter, who wept so efficaciously for himself, weep for us and turn towards us Christ's benign countenance" (The Six Days' Work 5:25:90 [A.D. 393]).

Jerome

"You say in your book that while we live we are able to pray for each other, but afterwards when we have died, the prayer of no person for another can be heard . . . But if the apostles and martyrs while still in the body can pray for others, at a time when they ought still be solicitous about themselves, how much more will they do so after their crowns, victories, and triumphs?" (Against Vigilantius 6 [A.D. 406]).

Augustine

"A Christian people celebrates together in religious solemnity the memorials of the martyrs, both to encourage their being imitated and so that it can share in their merits and be aided by their prayers" (Against Faustus the Manichean [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

"There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for the dead who are remembered. For it is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended" (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

Augustine

"At the Lord's table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84 [A.D. 416]).

Augustine

"Neither are the souls of the pious dead separated from the Church which even now is the kingdom of Christ. Otherwise there would be no remembrance of them at the altar of God in the communication of the Body of Christ" (The City of God 20:9:2 [A.D. 419]).

Sozomen

"Gregory of Nazianz presided over those who maintain the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, and assembled them together in a little dwelling, which had been altered into the form of a house of prayer, by those who held the same opinions and had a like form of worship. It subsequently became one of the most conspicuous in the city, and is so now, not only for the beauty and number of its structures, but also for the advantages accruing to it from the visible manifestations of God. For the power of God was there manifested, and was helpful both in waking visions and in dreams, often for the relief of many diseases and for those afflicted by some sudden transmutation in their affairs. The power was accredited to Mary, the Mother of God, the holy virgin, for she does manifest herself in this way" (Church History 7:5 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I

"Let us rejoice, then, dearly beloved, with spiritual joy, and make our boast over the happy end of this illustrious man in the Lord [the martyr Laurentius] . . . By his prayer and intercession we trust at all times to be assisted . . ." (Sermons 85:4 [A.D. 450]).

[brainfreeze]

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

http://www.catholic.com/video/praying-to-mary-a-biblical-defense

"Thus in Psalm 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalm 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2)

Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In Revelation, John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). Thus the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth."

for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).

Jesus Testifies about John
…10"This is the one about whom it is written, 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.' 11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.…


…33But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!" 34And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."

Matthew 20:16 (KJV)

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.


Seaweed, I know what you guys believe, I believe it's wrong, and all the corruption, of vatican bank to priest hurting children, or killing christians in earlier years... doesn't help, the pope is a man, I don't follow man or the billion dollar church, I follow Gods Word, and His word alone..but as I said it's on the individual heart and mind of the followers of Gods church " the bride ", some don't fully understand, and that's ok, as long as they believe Gods words ... Word for Word..

[The Kraken]

I'm starting to think Brainfreeze is either Loshak or Seaweed and is just trolling

[brainfreeze]

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.




…15and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,…

[Seaweed]

Jesus Testifies about John
…10"This is the one about whom it is written, 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.' 11"Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist! Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12"From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.…


…33But he said to Him, "Lord, with You I am ready to go both to prison and to death!" 34And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me."

Matthew 20:16 (KJV)

16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.


Seaweed, I know what you guys believe, I believe it's wrong, and all the corruption, of vatican bank to priest hurting children, or killing christians in earlier years... doesn't help, the pope is a man, I don't follow man or the billion dollar church, I follow Gods Word, and His word alone..but as I said it's on the individual heart and mind of the followers of Gods church " the bride ", some don't fully understand, and that's ok, as long as they believe Gods words ... Word for Word..

Without the Catholic Church there would be no bible. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. The bible is a product of the Church. There is one Church. The Church Jesus established and gave Peter the keys to it. He promised to protect it against the gates of hell. The thousands and thousands of Christian denominations proves the point on what happens when you cater the bible tp suit your interpretation. All these denominations break off and form new and new Churches who all claim to preaching the Word of God. This is what happens when individuals believe they have the power to do so. How can the Holy Spirit be present in all those Churches protecting the Word when they all preach different and they all stand behind different names? Thr Catholic Church has NEVER changed since Jesus established the one Body of Christ. For 2,000 years it has stood the test of time. The Catholic Church is the home to all Christians because it is where apostolic succession can be traced to Peter. It is a Church with oral and written tradition. Jesus taught orally, he did not write anything down. Would Jesus create many denominational curches all claiming to speak His word? Or would he create one universal (catholic) Church to unite all of us? How can humans claim to interpret the text? This is why the Catholic Chuch has the magesterium,
where the bible is carefully examined, and with the Holy Spirit, the Pope protects the teachings on faith and morals. Pope's are only infallible on faith and morala. They can still sin and fall short as good people, but every Pope has been infallible in protecting the Church's teachings on faith and morals. We
are all sinners and we need the grace of God to heal us and bring us home. The Bible is inspired because when treated like a historical text, we find out that it is inspired.

[brainfreeze]

Without the Catholic Church there would be no bible. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. The bible is a product of the Church. There is one Church. The Church Jesus established and gave Peter the keys to it. He promised to protect it against the gates of hell. The thousands and thousands of Christian denominations proves the point on what happens when you cater the bible tp suit your interpretation. All these denominations break off and form new and new Churches who all claim to preaching the Word of God. This is what happens when individuals believe they have the power to do so. How can the Holy Spirit be present in all those Churches protecting the Word when they all preach different and they all stand behind different names? Thr Catholic Church has NEVER changed since Jesus established the one Body of Christ. For 2,000 years it has stood the test of time. The Catholic Church is the home to all Christians because it is where apostolic succession can be traced to Peter. It is a Church with oral and written tradition. Jesus taught orally, he did not write anything down. Would Jesus create many denominational curches all claiming to speak His word? Or would he create one universal (catholic) Church to unite all of us? How can humans claim to interpret the text? This is why the Catholic Chuch has the magesterium,
where the bible is carefully examined, and with the Holy Spirit, the Pope protects the teachings on faith and morals. Pope's are only infallible on faith and morala. They can still sin and fall short as good people, but every Pope has been infallible in protecting the Church's teachings on faith and morals. We
are all sinners and we need the grace of God to heal us and bring us home. The Bible is inspired because when treated like a historical text, we find out that it is inspired.

I'm sorry seaweed, OT was written in ancient Hebrew, and the NT was in Aramaic and Greek ..what does this have to do with Catholics again ?

[brainfreeze]

I'm sorry seaweed, OT was written in ancient Hebrew, and the NT was in Aramaic and Greek ..what does this have to do with Catholics again ?

Matter a fact show me a verse where Peter was ever in Rome ??... Paul was in Rome, Peter was in Jerusalem, the scripture I just posted with Paul confronting Peter to his face.... Paul went to Jerusalem to do so, it's right there in scripture...

[Seaweed]

I'm sorry seaweed, OT was written in ancient Hebrew, and the NT was in Aramaic and Greek ..what does this have to do with Catholics again ?

Catholic Church compiled the New Testament. Without the Catholic Church you wouldn't know what is and is not inspired.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm

[Spedizzo]

to everyone here who is completely anti-religious:

most of you guys are hoping that religion is real in some aspect, or a God, or some sort of afterlife

no one wants to become nothingness, have their life really have no meaning, and hopes they can see their loved ones again when they die

its like when you bet on a game and are losing miserably, and you make a reverse jinx thread about how so-and-so team (that you bet on) sucks and will lose... but you secretly pray they will score 28 unanswered points in the second half and pull it off

I don't necessarily believe that any organized religion is real... but I do believe and hope that something more is out there. so I just be the best person I can be in the meantime (in real life, I like to troll on here)

the universe is limitless, there is so much we don't know. our brains cannot comprehend the scale of the universe. you never know...

however a lot of organized religion like muslims and the baptist singing ignorant christians and whatnot are pretty ridiculous

[brainfreeze]

Catholic Church compiled the New Testament. Without the Catholic Church you wouldn't know what is and is not inspired.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Ancient_Revelations/epigraphy/1960_peterson_peters-tomb.html

Peter buried in Jerusalem ...

The apostles wrote the Gospels, I don't care who compiled them, what is written is what matters, you do know " the Catholics " kept it translated in Latin for hundreds of years right ? People died to have these words translated from Greek to other languages, you do know this right ?

[brainfreeze]

I don't think the Catholics compiled anything for these people....

During the 16th century, Waldensian leaders embraced the Protestant Reformation and joined various local Protestant regional entities. As early as 1631, Protestant scholars (and Waldensian theologicans themselves) began to regard the Waldensians as early forerunners of the Reformation and keepers of the apostolic faith against Catholic oppression. Modern Waldensians share core tenets with e.g. Reformed Protestants, namely the priesthood of all believers, congregational polity, and a "low" view of the sacraments (Lord's Supper and Baptism). They are members of the Leuenberger Konkordie (Community of Protestant Churches in Europe) and its affiliates world wide.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians

[Seaweed]

"As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles."

[Seaweed]

"Canon of the Bible (CCC 120-130) Church Fathers

It is a simple fact of history that the Protestant Bible with its 66 books is missing seven whole books (I and II Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and portions of two others (Daniel and Esther). These were removed primarily for doctrinal reasons (II Maccabees supports the doctrine of purgatory, for example).

Protestants will make a number of claims regarding these books, and the Catholic apologist should be prepared for them all.

These books weren't in the Hebrew Scriptures

It is true that these seven books and portions of Daniel and Esther were not written in the Hebrew language. However, they were part of the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Scriptures. As mentioned in the history of the Bible article, during the Hellenic period many Jews spoke Greek. It was for this reason that the Jewish Scriptures (in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic) were translated into Greek in Alexandria. Although these Scriptures were not written in Hebrew, they were part of the Scriptures used by the Hebrew people.

The Jews rejected these books

The so-called council of Jamnia held around 100 AD allegedly rejected these books. The word “allegedly” is used because it is not certain if the school of Jamnia (it was never an official council, and to call it one suggests it had an authority which it absolutely did not have) rejected these books. Historical evidence is unclear on this matter – although it may be generous to give the Protestants the benefit of the doubt and agree that it is certainly possible that Jamnia rejected these seven books.

What else did Jamnia reject, and why did it reject anything at all? To answer in a somewhat facetious fashion, the Jews rejected Christ and the Christian Scriptures. What the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings.

Thus, if a Protestant chooses to reject the Septuagint canon because the Jews did so, why is he not rejecting Christ and the New Testament? The Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples.

Saint Jerome rejected these books

No, he didn't. What Saint Jerome (the man who compiled and translated the first unified Bible in the early 400s) did was believe in Hebraica veritias (“Hebrew truth”). He believed that the Scriptures written in Hebrew were superior and gave a better witness to Christ. He expressed misgivings about the seven deuterocanonical books but agreed to the authority of the Church and the pope and included them in his translation. Jerome was criticized for his views on the Septuagint, and he flew in the face of most scholarship of the time.

Jerome's opinions are not infallible, and his actions are a clear demonstration that a perfect Church can contain imperfect men and that the authority of the Church is paramount.

These books contain fantastical and inappropriate elements

Many Protestants (forgetting or never knowing Luther's real reasons for rejecting these books) latch onto the notion that – because they contain fantastical elements or things which are against their personal theology, they should be rejected. A short consideration will suggest just how ludicrous this is.

As an example, some Protestants complain that the tale of a dragon in the expunged sections of Daniel is “fantastical” and impossible. But the Gospels contain a man being resurrected from the dead, the ascension of Jesus. Genesis contains the creation of the whole universe! These things are just as fantastical as anything in the deuterocanon.

The foolishness of suggesting that because something does not match up with a personal theology it can be discarded is easily dealt with too; there are some people today who deny certain aspects of Christian moral teaching (such as homosexuality, for example). Would it be appropriate to discard any sections of the Bible that put forward those moral views, or not?

The canon of the Bible is not open to interpretation and modification by people who are doing so because it doesn't agree with their personal theology. If a book of the Bible disagrees with a personal theology it is a sign that the personal theology is wrong, not that the book should not be in the Bible!

Deuterocanon means “secondary canon” - thus, it is inferior

Deutrerocanon means “second canon”. Deuteronomy means “second book”. II Peter is also second book. III John is a third book – are these books all inferior in some way?

The term “deuterocanon” refers to the fact that these books were written and accepted later in time than the rest of the Old Testament canon. The word was never intended to imply that these books were not suitable to be read.

Defending the deuterocanon

There are many ways to defend the deuterocanon – one of the best ways is to show that the Church Fathers not only quoted from the deuterocanon, but that all the lists of the canonical books of the Bible prepared by the Church Fathers (the people who put the Bible together) contain these seven books. Additionally, the number of quotes from the Septuagint in the New Testament (some of which come from the deuterocanonical books) show that Jesus and the apostles considered the Septuagint (which contained the deuterocanon) to be Scripture.

A very important point to stress to non-Catholics who deny the inclusion of the deuterocanon is that the final lists produced by the various councils who were inspired by the Holy Spirit to determine which books were in the Bible are the very same lists which give us the books of the New Testament. If they don't trust the lists for the Old Testament, why do they trust them for the New Testament?

The answer is simple – they are creating their own theology and are seeking to reject anything and everything that does not fit with that; including the books of the Sacred Scriptures given to us by the Holy Spirit."

[brainfreeze]

"As can clearly be seen the canon of the Bible was produced by the Catholic Church. The Church also existed long before the Bible – it was the early fifth century before the Bible existed as we might recognize it today, and none of the books of the Bible were even written until around 50 AD. But the Catholic Church began 20 years earlier, at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles."

lol, Catholics began at Pentecost... Funny stuff seaweed

Im still waiting on the verse showing Peter in Rome ... Let's start there.

[Spedizzo]

My only problem with Jesus is;

Why was he not written about by a CREDIBLE source WHEN he was alive? We have every detail of Herod the Great, but we cannot get details of a guy performing miracles who spearheaded one of the biggest religions in human history at the time outside of gospel?

Any accounts from historians in antiquity came about like 30-50 years after he died by guys who weren't born until he was already dead.. Do you know how much could have been lost in translations back then as compared to day in 50 years??? Someone who was performing such miracles surely would have been documented better as he was alive? Every other historical figure was documented accordingly...

Sometimes I feel like it was just made up by the rulers of the time to brainwash and control the believers. (i.e the commandments, etc)

People were essentially savages back then, they needed structure and the fear of religion gave them that.

[gauchojake]

Thank god seaweed is here to straighten this thing out.

[brainfreeze]

"Canon of the Bible (CCC 120-130) Church Fathers

It is a simple fact of history that the Protestant Bible with its 66 books is missing seven whole books (I and II Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith) and portions of two others (Daniel and Esther). These were removed primarily for doctrinal reasons (II Maccabees supports the doctrine of purgatory, for example).


These books weren't in the Hebrew Scriptures

It is true that these seven books and portions of Daniel and Esther were not written in the Hebrew language. However, they were part of the Septuagint translation of the Jewish Scriptures. As mentioned in the history of the Bible article, during the Hellenic period many Jews spoke Greek. It was for this reason that the Jewish Scriptures (in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic) were translated into Greek in Alexandria. Although these Scriptures were not written in Hebrew, they were part of the Scriptures used by the Hebrew people.

The Jews rejected these books
E
The so-called council of Jamnia held around 100 AD allegedly rejected these books. The word “allegedly” is used because it is not certain if the school of Jamnia (it was never an official council, and to call it one suggests it had an authority which it absolutely did not have) rejected these books. Historical evidence is unclear on this matter – although it may be generous to give the Protestants the benefit of the doubt and agree that it is certainly possible that Jamnia rejected these seven books.

What else did Jamnia reject, and why did it reject anything at all? To answer in a somewhat facetious fashion, the Jews rejected Christ and the Christian Scriptures. What the Jews rejected were all the Christian writings (which included the books which eventually became the New Testament) and the Septuagint. They rejected the Septuagint because the Christians were using it to support their own views of who the Messiah was (namely, Jesus Christ) and quoting from it in their writings.

Thus, if a Protestant chooses to reject the Septuagint canon because the Jews did so, why is he not rejecting Christ and the New Testament? The Jews did not reject these seven books – or the Septuagint as a whole – for roughly 250 years. From the completion of the Septuagint to the school of Jamnia a large group of Greek speaking Jews were happy to use the Septuagint. This group of Jews included Jesus and His disciples.


These books contain fantastical and inappropriate elements

Many Protestants (forgetting or never knowing Luther's real reasons for rejecting these books) latch onto the notion that – because they contain fantastical elements or things which are against their personal theology, they should be rejected. A short consideration will suggest just how ludicrous this is.



The answer is simple – they are creating their own theology and are seeking to reject anything and everything that does not fit with that; including the books of the Sacred Scriptures given to us by the Holy Spirit."

The Apocrypha (also called the Deuterocanonical books) are included in Roman Catholic Bibles and are used by some other traditions within Christianity. What are these additional writings? What is their origin? First, the words themselves cause many readers to pause. The word apocrypha means "hidden," while the word deuterocanonical means "second canon." The books found in the Apocrypha were primarily written during the four-hundred-year period between the completion of the Old Testament writings and the beginning of the New Testament's events (they also include claimed additions to the Old Testament books of Esther and Daniel). These books include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.


Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/Apocr...#ixzz3QFUE6c4z


Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

these same Jews are kabbalahist today.... not catholic, but follow what you want seaweed.. The important thing is you confess that Yahshua is the Messiah and He died, and resurrected, washed in the blood of the Messiah , you repent of your sin (turn away), and share with others the love of God... I can agree there

[Seaweed]

The Apocrypha (also called the Deuterocanonical books) are included in Roman Catholic Bibles and are used by some other traditions within Christianity. What are these additional writings? What is their origin? First, the words themselves cause many readers to pause. The word apocrypha means "hidden," while the word deuterocanonical means "second canon." The books found in the Apocrypha were primarily written during the four-hundred-year period between the completion of the Old Testament writings and the beginning of the New Testament's events (they also include claimed additions to the Old Testament books of Esther and Daniel). These books include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees.


Read more: http://www.compellingtruth.org/Apocr...#ixzz3QFUE6c4z


Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

these same Jews are kabbalahist today.... not catholic, but follow what you want seaweed.. The important thing is you confess that Yahshua is the Messiah and He died, and resurrected, washed in the blood of the Messiah , you repent of your sin (turn away), and share with others the love of God... I can agree there

Fair enough. I will pray that God leads you home to the full Truth in the Catholic Church.

[Seaweed]

lol, Catholics began at Pentecost... Funny stuff seaweed

Im still waiting on the verse showing Peter in Rome ... Let's start there.

"A key premise of their argument is the assertion that Peter was never in Rome. It follows that if Peter were never in Rome, he could not have been Rome’s first bishop and so could not have had any successors in that office. How can Catholics talk about the divine origin of the papacy, Fundamentalists argue, when their claim about Peter’s whereabouts is wrong?

Let’s look at this last charge, reserving for another tract a look at Peter’s position among the apostles and in the early Church.



How to Understand the Argument

At first glance, it might seem that the question, of whether Peter went to Rome and died there, is inconsequential. And in a way it is. After all, his being in Rome would not itself prove the existence of the papacy. In fact, it would be a false inference to say he must have been the first pope since he was in Rome and later popes ruled from Rome. With that logic, Paul would have been the first pope, too, since he was an apostle and went to Rome.

On the other hand, if Peter never made it to the capital, he still could have been the first pope, since one of his successors could have been the first holder of that office to settle in Rome. After all, if the papacy exists, it was established by Christ during his lifetime, long before Peter is said to have reached Rome. There must have been a period of some years in which the papacy did not yet have its connection to Rome.

So, if the apostle got there only much later, that might have something to say about who his legitimate successors would be (and it does, since the man elected bishop of Rome is automatically the new pope on the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the pope is merely Peter’s successor), but it would say nothing about the status of the papal office. It would not establish that the papacy was instituted by Christ in the first place.

No, somehow the question, while interesting historically, doesn’t seem to be crucial to the real issue, whether the papacy was founded by Christ. Still, most anti-Catholic organizations take up the matter and go to considerable trouble to “prove” Peter could not have been in Rome. Why? Because they think they can get mileage out of it.

“Here’s a point on which we can point to the lies of Catholic claims,” they say. “Catholics trace the papacy to Peter, and they say he was martyred in Rome after heading the Church there. If we could show he never went to Rome, that would undermine—psychologically if not logically—their assertion that Peter was the first pope. If people conclude the Catholic Church is wrong on this historical point, they’ll conclude it’s wrong on the larger one, the supposed existence of the papacy.” Such is the reasoning of some leading anti-Catholics.



The Charges in Brief

The case is stated perhaps most succinctly, even if not so bluntly, by Loraine Boettner in his best-known book, Roman Catholicism (117): “The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged bishopric in Rome is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the Bible [actually, ten times in the Old Testament and ten times in the New], and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. Paul’s journey to the city is recorded in great detail (Acts 27 and 28). There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend.”

Well, what about it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismiss these early historical documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.



What the Bible Says

Boettner is also wrong when he claims “there is no allusion to Rome in either of [Peter’s] epistles.” There is, in the greeting at the end of the first epistle: “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13, Knox). Babylon is a code-word for Rome. It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1). Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.”

Consider now the other New Testament citations: “Another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all nations drink the wine of her impure passion’” (Rev. 14:8). “The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury of his wrath” (Rev. 16:19). “[A]nd on her forehead was written a name of mystery: ‘Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth’s abominations’” (Rev. 17:5). “And he called out with a mighty voice, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great’” (Rev. 18:2). “[T]hey will stand far off, in fear of her torment, and say, ‘Alas! alas! thou great city, thou mighty city, Babylon! In one hour has thy judgment come’” (Rev. 18:10). “So shall Babylon the great city be thrown down with violence” (Rev. 18:21).

These references can’t be to the one-time capital of the Babylonian empire. That Babylon had been reduced to an inconsequential village by the march of years, military defeat, and political subjugation; it was no longer a “great city.” It played no important part in the recent history of the ancient world. From the New Testament perspective, the only candidates for the “great city” mentioned in Revelation are Rome and Jerusalem.

“But there is no good reason for saying that ‘Babylon’ means ‘Rome,’” insists Boettner. But there is, and the good reason is persecution. The authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered organized atheism. (The worship of any gods other than the Roman was considered atheism.) Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital—after all, mail service from Rome was then even worse than it is today, and letters were routinely read by Roman officials. Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. Why encourage a manhunt? We also know that the apostles sometimes referred to cities under symbolic names (cf. Rev. 11:8).

In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.



Early Christian Testimony

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.” A few examples must suffice, but they and other early references demonstrate that there can be no question that the universal—and very early—position (one hesitates to use the word “tradition,” since some people read that as “legend”) was that Peter certainly did end up in the capital of the Empire.



A Very Early Reference

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].” Fundamentalists admit Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” This Clement, known as Clement of Rome, later would be the fourth pope. (Note that Tertullian didn’t say Peter consecrated Clement as pope, which would have been impossible since a pope doesn’t consecrate his own successor; he merely ordained Clement as priest.) Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians perhaps before the year 70, just a few years after Peter and Paul were killed; in it he made reference to Peter ending his life where Paul ended his.

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

Clement of Alexandria wrote at the turn of the third century. A fragment of his work Sketches is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Ecclesiastical History, the first history of the Church. Clement wrote, “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

These citations could be multiplied. (Refer to Jurgens’ books or to the Catholic Answers tract Peter’s Roman Residency.) No ancient writer claimed Peter ended his life anywhere other than in Rome. On the question of Peter’s whereabouts they are in agreement, and their cumulative testimony carries enormous weight.



What Archaeology Proved

There is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome, but Boettner, like other Fundamentalist apologists, must dismiss it, claiming that “exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin” (118).

Boettner saw Roman Catholicism through the presses in 1962. His original book and the revisions to it since then have failed to mention the results of the excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, excavations that had been underway for decades, but which were undertaken in earnest after World War II. What Boettner casually dismissed as “some bones of uncertain origin” were the contents of a tomb on Vatican Hill that was covered with early inscriptions attesting to the fact that Peter’s remains were inside.

After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason."

[MoMoneyMoVaughn]

Yikes.

[gauchojake]

Seaweed, why are there 2 popes now? Which one do I worship?

[raydog]

because religion contradicts itself and was used to control a herd/give people false hope when no one knew any better
and my experience with Acid and DMT make me believe there is a God, just not one we can understand.

blacky, id hang at the party with you pal, but if you think the drugs you have done, have Fukk all to do with there being a higher power, then you have reached a level of abuse i never want to see... believing in god because of the drugs that have fukked you up, is almost as ridiculous as believing in god because someone told you to believe...

this is similar to my example of reading the bible, if you had never heard of god or anything... if you had taken those drugs, and never heard of god or the bible or any of that, then you would never have had certain images flash in your mind and wouldnt think twice about it...

but its been a while since ive had some dmt, myself, and you might have just reminded me i need a good trip soon

[muldoon]

Seaweed, why are there 2 popes now? Which one do I worship?

Using the logic of some here - better be safe and pray to them all dude

[brainfreeze]

"


Well, what about it? Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years. Boettner is wrong to dismiss these early historical documents as conveyors of mere “legend.” They are genuine historical evidence, as every professional historian recognizes.



In any event, let us be generous and admit that it is easy for an opponent of Catholicism to think, in good faith, that Peter was never in Rome, at least if he bases his conclusion on the Bible alone. But restricting his inquiry to the Bible is something he should not do; external evidence has to be considered, too.


. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason."

This is all that needed to be said seaweed.... All that needed to be said

[raydog]

seaweed and his Catholicism

weeder, in my city, we had the best fukking strip club in the nation at one time.. it got shut down.. it had purple lights and was nicknamed the Purple Church... along side the ATMs, they took some old , out of order ATMs and put a sign on them.. called them Catholic ATMs and the joke was you could type in your sin and the ATM would spit out how many hail marys and shit you were to do...raping kids and stealing money aside, the catholic religion lost credibility a long time ago

[brainfreeze]

Let's just think, how did a mostly Protestant America become mostly catholic ? Hmmmmm.....

The Coadjutors as Secret Agents
"The Jesuit missionary or worker in any sphere may adapt his dress, manner of life, and occupation to the exigencies of the occasion. He may disguise himself and figure as a Protestant or a Brahmin, if by so doing he can gain an entrance otherwise difficult for Catholic teaching. The story is familiar of a Jesuit who mastered the Sanskrit language and the Vedas, assumed the dress and the mode of life of a Brahmin priest, and finally wrote and palmed off as ancient a Veda in which Roman Catholic Christianity under a thin disguise was taught." --Newman, page 373.

An interesting publication is the Monita Secreta (Secret Instructions) that H. Zaorowski, a former Jesuit, published in 1612, as a true and authentic account of the inner workings of the Society. Although quickly denied by the Jesuits themselves, it nonetheless provides a view of the worldly wisdom and unscrupulous tactics, that we shall now see verified from other sources. Consider the following:



" part of the Jesuit ethical system "

"14. It is allowed to wish, with an absolute desire, for the death of your father, not as an evil for him, but as an advantage to the wisher; for instance, if a large inheritance is to result from that death.


Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, was born about the year 1491 in northern Spain.

Love of military discipline, combat and competition brought him several victories until the battle between the Spanish and the French at Pampeluna in 1521, at which time he received a permanent knee injury. While recovering, he studied books of legends about the saints of the church, and he vowed to even greater achievements than they for the remainder of his life. Gradually he developed what he called "the Spiritual Exercises" for absorbing other minds into his feverish zeal to excel in service to the pope.




In 1528, at the age of 37, he went to the University of Paris, and the disciples that he made there he used as the nucleus for his new organization, which he named "the Society of Jesus," but which under its more familiar name, "the Jesuits," was soon to bring fear--and death--to millions.

[Seaweed]

This is all that needed to be said seaweed.... All that needed to be said

Not at all. That's only because you ignored the other parts and Protestants ONLY use the bible while ignoring oral traditions from early Church Fathers. This will go back and forth forever because discussing with Protestants goes in a circle. The bible is inspired-its not in the bible-its not inspired. Where Catholics look at the bible as a historical text-examine it-and conclude that the bible is inspired. Protestants start of with the bible is inspired before proving that it is. Second, you failed to adress most that I wrote about the problem. Oy picking and choosing what suits your conclusion.

[Seaweed]

seaweed and his Catholicism

weeder, in my city, we had the best fukking strip club in the nation at one time.. it got shut down.. it had purple lights and was nicknamed the Purple Church... along side the ATMs, they took some old , out of order ATMs and put a sign on them.. called them Catholic ATMs and the joke was you could type in your sin and the ATM would spit out how many hail marys and shit you were to do...raping kids and stealing money aside, the catholic religion lost credibility a long time ago

There are bad people all over the world. That does not discredit the good that institutiom provides. There are teachers who abuse kids, does that discredit the good the school institution provides? No. If there were reports that members in the UN abused people, does that mean the institution of the UN provides is wrong and bad? No. Point is, all humans are sinners. The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum of Saints.

[muldoon]

There are teachers who abuse kids, does that discredit the good the school institution provides?.

If the school district did the following:
- Allowed the teacher to relocate and change their name
- Hired private investigators to trash the reputations of the victims
- Hid assets to limit their liability in future lawsuits
- Hired PR firms to cast doubt on the claims of abuse

Then yeah...that particular "school" institution would be discredited.

But instead - it's the church you claim to be a supporter of. Hard to tell since you're a cheezeball troll who couldn't even honor his word in here. But hey, as a Catholic, maybe you brought it up at confession and that chalkboard got wiped clean.

[brainfreeze]

Not at all. That's only because you ignored the other parts and Protestants ONLY use the bible while ignoring oral traditions from early Church Fathers. This will go back and forth forever because discussing with Protestants goes in a circle. The bible is inspired-its not in the bible-its not inspired. Where Catholics look at the bible as a historical text-examine it-and conclude that the bible is inspired. Protestants start of with the bible is inspired before proving that it is. Second, you failed to adress most that I wrote about the problem. Oy picking and choosing what suits your conclusion.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

There's nothing to go in circles about ... From kissing stone images of Peter to billion dollar churches ... Bad fruit looks bad...

[Seaweed]

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Matthew 7:20
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

There's nothing to go in circles about ... From kissing stone images of Peter to billion dollar churches ... Bad fruit looks bad...

What institution is the largest Charity donator on earth?

Answer: Catholic Church

Kissing does not = worship


When you kiss your mom, do you worship her?