How John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, And John MacArthur, Ruin Christian History

By Theodore Shoebat

When one observes lies, one will always find them connected to some truth. The window of lies always needs the hinges of truth to have people feel comfortable enough to open it. And indeed, it has been opened many a time within the American church.

We have all heard of the old blood libel against the Jews, that they kill Christian children and use their blood to make matza bread. What is sad is that this same sort of distortion of truth has been applied on Christian history in thousands of books written by evangelical leaders.

Nazi propaganda against Jews

Nazi propaganda against Jews

Pope depicted as Harlot of Babylon

Pope depicted as Harlot of Babylon

I have heard on numerous occasions Christians attack historic revisionism, but within Christian circles I have seen, not just the most historic revisionism, but the most vitriolic and defamatory assertions, than in any other group.

The libel and slander which the Nazis once did, and what the Muslims are doing now, against the Jews, is ubiquitously known and condemned. But the lies and feigned accusations against Catholics, is almost universally accepted in America, thanks to the innumerable and artless books of many pastors and reverends, even though they are following the same slanderous logic against the Jews which they themselves condemn.

What is also amazing is how so few are willing to inquire in these lies, because evangelicals are continuously listening to sermons and reading books that are void of the careful and meticulous regard to historic sources. It is this that has been the major problem, that is, pastors all of a sudden have made themselves into historians, without even referencing any reputable historians.

John MacArthur, who is esteemed as a formidable and excellent theologian, made a sermon in which he agreed with Charles Spurgeon when he declared that he would rather be called a devil than a priest, and that the Catholic Church is worse than Satan himself. MacArthur, in agreement with the statement, proclaimed the quote in his presentation:

Call yourself a priest, sir! I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title: when I recollect what priests have done in all ages–what priests connected with the church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said: I would rather sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil, than called me a priest; for bad as the devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes, cruelties, and villainies which have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood.

Charles Spurgeon

Charles Spurgeon

The sermon may be heard on this video, and the statement of Spurgeon begins at around 1:55

MacArthur, in writing on the crimes of the Catholic Church (which are, to him, worse than the iniquities of Satan) believes that

the Roman Catholic Church has put to death more than fifty million “heretics” between A.D. 606 (the birth of the papacy) and the mid-1800s (1)

From where did he obtain this date of 606? There were heretics who were killed earlier than this. The first person to be executed for heresy was one Priscillian, who taught a doctrine in Spain which was a combination of Manichaeism and gnosticism, and in 383 he was executed. (2)

John MacArthur

John MacArthur

Another good example of this ahistoricity is John Hagee, just perusing his work one can see his vociferous disposition, and calumny toward the Catholic Church. When I was reading one of his books a number of weeks ago, I noticed how inept he is when it comes to sighting historic documents while he writes as though as he is an historian, making emphatically extreme accusations against the Catholic Church.

hagee_still

Hagee blames the Spanish Inquisition on the Catholic Church, and says that because of it, “326,362 people were burned alive”. (3) Dave Hunt writes that the Inquisition had 300,000 people burnt at the stake.

Dave Hunt

Dave Hunt

Tim LaHaye

Tim LaHaye

Tim LaHaye, in a description reminiscent to the blood libel against Jews, writes that under the Spanish Inquisition,

no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death, in the Pope’s war for the extermination of the Waldenses. Think of monks and priests directing, with heartless cruelty and inhuman brutality, the work of torturing and burning alive innocent men and women; and doing it in the Name of Christ, by the direct order of the “Vicar of Christ.” (4)

Not one reputable historian would agree with any of these numbers, and I dare anyone to find some first hand accounts, with worthy veracity, which affirms that under the Spanish Inquisition “326,362 people were burned alive,” “300,000 people burnt at the stake”, and “no fewer than 900,000 Protestants were put to death”.

All of these unfounded numbers of supposed massacred people seem to be taken from one initial claim, and by the time so many of these theologians use it, the amount of dead are recounted with a ridiculous number in one book, and an equally erroneous number in another. It is quite amazing, how a lie travels only to be mutilated into countless other lies. This reckless and irresponsible presenting of fabrications as truth, is just one illustration of what happens when pastors play the role of historians.

Sadder than this, is the fact that people believe them. We have all heard the maxim, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and so many use this when attacking liberals, without realizing that the great multitude who have accepted, without contention, the repeated lies against the Catholic Church, have fallen for this very method of deception.

All of these teachers have their sycophants, just look at this video of evangelical pastor Skip Heitzig saying “I’m not going to argue with Tim LaHaye” (starting at around 2:06):

I would argue with Tim LaHaye if I were on that stage. He, at around the 1:30 mark of the video, said that Russia, before the last 100 years was “a nothing nation”, but can only look at Russia’s Peter the Great and his war with the Ottoman Empire to know that this statement of LaHaye is pure rubbish.

Here is a brief, and factual, analysis on the Spanish Inquisition’s executions. In the first fifteen years of the Inquisition’s existence two thousand Jews were slaughtered. This was not because of the Catholic Church, but on account of the rejection of its authority and influence. In fact, when Jews fled Spain, the nation that opened their borders for them more than any other was Rome. There was even a saying within the Catholic Church, that “Rome is the paradise of the Jews.”

Most of the Spanish clergy in Rome were in fact of Jewish origin. (5) And regardless of the common assertion, no Jews are known to have fled to Turkey until a long time later. (5.1)

In the three hundred and fifty years of its existence, the Inquisition executed only four thousand people. (6) That’s about eleven people a year. It took them this amount of time to execute four thousand lives, whereas the Muslims, in the one year of 1066, managed to slaughter three thousand Jews in the Spanish city of Granada alone, (7) and this is after they conquered Spain.

The absence of prudence when speaking of historical events, is again exemplified in a book written by Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, in which the Spanish Inquisition is akin to Hitler’s Holocaust:

Anyone who reads history must admit that the Inquisition and Hitler’s holocaust were far worse and occurred long after A.D. 70. (8)

This statement illustrates their ahistorical, and slanderous, way of discourse.

Thomas Ice

Thomas Ice

What the Romans did to the Jews in 70 A.D. was much more brutal, cruel, and severe, than the Spanish Inquisition. The Romans committed more bloodshed within the year 70, than what the Spaniards did in 350 years. The historian Josephus, in his history of the Jewish War, in which he took part, describes the Romans’ innumerable crucifixions of Jews:

so they [the Jews] were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures before they died, and were crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more … So the soldiers out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest; when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies (9)

Josephus

Josephus

The Jews after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem

The Jews after the Roman conquest of Jerusalem

Hagee shows his lack of historical assiduousness when he writes on the Spanish Inquisition. He writes:

The point must be made that this Inquisition was established by the Roman church and received its power directly from the pope. (10)

But here is the reality: The Inquisition was under the control of Spanish monarchs, since it was a Spanish affair, not under the jurisdiction of the papacy. While the authority of the inquisitors came directly or indirectly from Rome, the fact still remains that from its very inception the Spanish Inquisition was established to be a governmental institution.

King Ferdinand who, with his queen Isabella, commenced the Inquisition, declared to his inquisitors in 1486:

Although you and the others enjoy the title of inquisitor, it is I and the queen who have appointed you, and without our support you can do very little.

Ferdinand and Isabella

Ferdinand and Isabella

Ferdinand actually once claimed that confiscations of property imposed upon heretics were by the order of the pope, making it seem as though it was the Church that was responsible for the punishment. But in fact it was the secular authorities who carried out the taking of property, not the Church.

Ferdinand, in 1501, actually issued a decree prohibiting anyone from asserting that the Inquisition was under papal authority, “because”, he said, “in fact it is all ours.” (11)

The constitutional rules for the Inquisition, written by Cardinal Torquemada, were made “in concert with the King.”

Inquisitor Torquemada

Inquisitor Torquemada

The lower inquisitors answered to the Grand Inquisitor who could not act without the authorization of the Supreme Council, which was not established by the Catholic Church. Thus when the Inquisition acted, they did so as royal judges, not ecclesiastical judges. (12)

From a report of the Spanish Committee we find that

in no Papal Bull, can it be found, that the Supreme Council has the right to decide any cause, in the absence of the Grand Inquisitor,–but which, however, is constantly done, without the slenderest difficulty.

The report concludes to say that “in these cases, the Councillors act, not as Ecclesiastical, but as Royal judges.”

Moreover, in showing its secular status, the Committee states that “neither at present, nor formerly, could any order of the Inquisition be, I do not say, executed, but so much as published, without the previous consent of the King.” (13)

The historian Garnier affirms that “the Religious Inquisition was nothing more nor less than a Political Institution.” (14)

Ferdinand was, in fact, so filled with rage against the Pope, that he pretended to disbelieve in the legitimacy of the papal bull.

For the next half-century the Papacy attempted to intervene in the Inquisition in order to stop abuses. For example, there were bulls by Pope Innocent VIII issued on February 11 and July 15, 1485, which asked for more mercy and leniency, and for greater use of secret conversions of heretics, on the part of the Inquisition.

Papal intervention would lead to several quarrels between the crown and the Catholic Church. (15)

Whether or not the crown would listen to the Pope completely depended on the monarchy. When Innocent VIII strived to have a policy of sending papal letters to accused people appealing to Rome, Ferdinand hindered the Pope and decreed that anyone who used papal letters of appeal without royal permission would be put to death and their property confiscated by the state. (16)

Innocent VIII

Innocent VIII

Hagee goes even so far as to carelessly, and without diligence, affirm that the pope condoned the raping of Jewish women in the First Crusade:

As a “bonus,” the Crusaders were permitted to rob the Jews of their possessions. They could murder the Jews and rape their daughters and wives, and all was forgiven by the pope even before they left on the Crusade. (17)

This is purely slanderous as one can see clearly, when reading his book, that he didn’t take the slightest measure of time to make reference to any primary source from the time of the Crusades in order to prove his assertions.

A primary source is a document written at, and recording events of, a particular time in history. When one reads primary sources, one is reading history, and when one reads a modern book on a past event, one is reading a book on history. Hagee’s book is absent of any primary sources when making such outlandish claims.

Council of Clermont

Council of Clermont

It is unjust, to blame an entire cause with evils completely contradictory to itself. Was there violence done by specific crusaders? Yes. But one must differentiate between the stated mission of the Crusade, made by Pope Urban II, and the deeds of a few men which are completely out of order from the initial goal.

The mission of the First Crusade can be found in Urban’s speech in the Council of Clermont.

When one is reading the Council of Clermont, which was the meeting that commenced the First Crusade in 1095, you will find no mention of killing or raping Jews by Pope Urban II, the man whose zealous voice ignited the unquenchable desire to fight for the Holy Land. Although, you will find mention of Muslim barbarians destroying churches and persecuting the saints, and the call to war with Islam and to preserve the eastern Christians.

Pope Urban II

Pope Urban II

There was no call made by Urban II to kill or rape Jews; one could sight the sacrilegious massacres done by certain people during the Crusades, but that can only be attributed to the wickedness of these murderous men, and not the Church.

Hagee, after writing all of this, issued an apology toward the Catholics, confessing that he was wrong in his libelous material against them:

In the process, I may have contributed to the mistaken impression that the anti-Jewish violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition defines the Catholic Church.

The apology extended by Hagee was politically motivated, since it was done during John McCain’s campaign, in which Hagee was humiliated by McCain’s disowning and rejection of him.

Hagee has continued with his flimsy, fragmented, and inadequately general accusations against the Church. In his most recent book, written in 2013, Hagee again blamed Pope Urban II for trivializing and forgiving the rapists and murderers of Jewish people:

The first crusade was declared by Pope Urban II in 1095. The Crusaders were rapists and thieves, forgiven in advance by the reigning pope for any sins they might commit while on their holy campaign to liberate Jerusalem from the infidels. (18)

Were all the Crusaders rapists? Did they all go for the purpose of ravishing and pillaging? Hagee never takes the time to give us the slightest example, from historical documentation, of these sorts of crimes. He just says it, and people modishly believe it.

In the same book, Hagee also thoughtlessly says that the seven major Crusades were in fact pogroms against the Jews:

Historic Christianity has left an evil legacy. It is responsible for the Crusades, in which Jewish people from Europe to Jerusalem were slaughtered in seven major pogroms (crusades).

Hagee apparently does not know the difference between a pogrom and a crusade. A pogrom is an organized massacre, orchestrated against a specific ethnic group. A crusade (from the French, croisée) simply signifies the state of one taking up his cross for a certain Christian cause. The Crusade was not a pogrom, because it was not deliberately targeting an ethnic group, but a religion, which for the most part part was Islam.

Hagee never takes the time to even explain the goals of each of these seven particular Crusades which took place in the Middle Ages. The Crusades, primarily, were done to drive the Muslims out of Eastern Christendom, and to preserve the Faith of the Nazarene in the Middle East. This object was that of the First Crusade, as was explicitly stated by Pope Urban II in a statement completely void of any justification of rape or murder:

Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has even grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul [France] and devoted ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free the churches of the East. (19)

The rest of the Crusades followed after, and were all done for the purpose of crushing Islam.

There is even an incident within the history of the Crusades of support for Jews. St. Bernard, who was one of the strongest advocates for the Crusades, supported the fight against Islam, but condemned any sort of violence towards Jews in Israel.

St. Bernard

St. Bernard

St. Bernard preached against the dangers of the teachings of a Cistercian monk named Raoul who called for the slaughters of the Jews (20):

Is it not a far better triumph for the Church to convince and convert the Jews than to put them all to the sword? Has that prayer which the Church offers for the Jews, from the rising up of the sun to the going down thereof, that the veil may be taken from their hearts so that they may be led from the darkness of error into the light of truth, been instituted in vain? If she did not hope that they would believe and be converted, it would seem useless and vain for her to pray for them. But with the eye of mercy she considers how the Lord regards with favour him who renders good for evil and love for hatred. …Who is this man [Raoul] that he should make out the Prophet to be a liar and render void the treasures of Christ’s love and pity? (21)

 

Another error I noticed within the works of these evangelical leaders, is their sympathy and acceptance of the heretics called the Cathars or Albigensians, or Paulicians, and the Waldensians. I have written on the Cathar heresy and its false doctrines here and here.

The Cathars rejected the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, and also believed that Christ never came in the flesh, but was a phantom or spirit. And also like the Mormons, they believed that Jesus was the brother of Lucifer. Their hatred for the Catholic Church was so immense, that one Cathar was found saying:

We have destroyed St. Anthony and St. Mary; it only remains for us to destroy God. (22)

The Waldensians, you could say, were reminiscent to the modern day Christian liberal groups who are against the death penalty. According to one medieval document, the Waldensians said, “concerning temporal justice, that kings, princes, and officials are not permitted to punish malefactors.” (23)

By this, they rejected the law which God gave to Noah:

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made man. (Genesis 9:6)

John MacArthur, as educated as he is, does not consider the Albigensians, or Cathars, and Waldensians, as heretics, but as being a part of the original believers, when in reality they simply broke away from the Catholic Church and were not pre-existent to it. While MacArthur rejects the biblical discourses of certain medieval theologians, he accepts the heretical groups:

While the period produced some famous preachers, such as Peter the Hermit, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, none handled the text in an expository fashion. Faint hints of Bible exposition have been detected among independent groups such as the Paulicians, Waldenses, and Albigenses, despite the fact that these groups are commonly dismissed as “heretics.” (24)

Tim LaHaye, who is praised and lauded as a brilliant prophecy buff, sympathized with the Cathars of southern France, who were repressed by the Catholics:

In the period immediately following [Pope] Innocent III the Inquisition did its most deadly work in Southern France (see under Albigenses) (25)

The inquisition which was done to the Cathars is called the Medieval Inquisition, and John Hagee as well condemns it:

Through his [the inquisitor Torquemada's] villainous acts of torture the Spanish Inquisition ultimately surpassed the Medieval Inquisition of 1233 in scope, intensity, and atrocities. (26)

Dave Hunt also accepted the Cathars, and the Bogomils (another heretical group very similar to the Cathars) as the being a part of the first church:

Furthermore, millions of biblical Christians resisted Rome for fifteen years before Luther or Calvin. Albigensis, Waldenses, Bogomils, Paulicians, Baptists, and those who simply called themselves “Christians” or “brethren” traced their doctrines back to the apostles and never obeyed the popes. (27)

Hagee, MacArthur, LaHaye, and many other Evangelical leaders, speak out against Iran and jihad, but are despicably ashamed of Christianity’s history, which, with the greatest fortitude and the purest piety, is filled with heroic men with endeavors to destroy the Antichrist religion of Islam, annihilate heresy, perpetuate and preserve orthodoxy with all of its glory, and advance the Kingdom of Heaven over the tyranny of the devil.

This destructive shame, which is saturated in reckless assertions, is also done by evangelical pastor Skip Heitzig:

History records the dark exploits of the church during those years of organizational cohesion, including such infamous episodes as the Crusades and the Inquisition. While a finely tuned ecclesiastical machine maintained law and order on the European continent, evangelism was conducted by the edge of the sword. Pogroms kept the infidels at bay while a strict hierarchy of bishops, friars, and cardinals maintained a fearful presence among the people. Such mistakes must not be repeated. (28)

This is a general, yet emphatic, statement, without an ounce of detail or evidence, and with utter attribution to the Catholic Church for all sorts of violence, which is not specified by Skip. It is also pathetic, and shows the weakness, frivolousness, and superficiality which has flooded the American church. Christians would be stronger today if they would study their history; if only they knew what evils the Church has defeated, would they be more zealous to confront the wicked men who seek our destruction today.

Numerous Christians, rightfully, speak out against Islam, but without ever acknowledging that if it were up to the Crusaders, there would be no Islamic problem, and not only this, but no leftist trait would ever find itself on a superior level over orthodoxy in Christendom. With such great zeal, the Crescent would be brought low before the Holy Cross, and the window of lies would be shattered, and would never manage to hijack the hinges the truth. Why are Christians so ashamed of their history? Because they do not know true history.

With all of this slander, all of this attempt to destroy the pillars of Christendom, I am reminded of the words of Petrarch:

Such are the times, my friend, upon which we have fallen; such is the period in which we live and are already growing old. Such are the judges against whom I have so often inveighed, who are the innocent of knowledge or virtue, and yet harbor the most exalted opinion of themselves. Not content with losing the works of the ancients, they must attack their ability and their ashes. They rejoice in their ignorance, as if what they did now know were not worth knowing. They give full reign to their unlicensed and conceited spirits and freely introduce among us new authors and outlandish teachings. (29)

Follow me on Facebook

Get my latest book, For God or For Tyranny

REFERENCES

(1) *MacArthur New Testament Commentary, John 12-21*

(2) *Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority, ch. i, p. 42; St. Isidore of Seville, On the heresies of the Christians, in the same work of Peters, p. 49*

(3) *Hagee, In Defense of Israel, ch. 3, p. 26*

(4)*LaHaye, Revelation Unveiled*

(5) *P.F., The Spanish Inquisition, USCM, vol. ii, p. 462. See also Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, ch. 2, p. 24; ch. 3, p. 32; Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, letter 1*

(5.1) *Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, ch. 2, p. 24*

(6) *Thomas F. Madden. “The Truth about the Spanish Inquisition.” Crisis (October 2003)*

(7) *See Moczar, Islam at the Gates, prologue, act 2, p. 17*

(8) *Tim F. LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy, intro, p. 12*

(9) *Josephus, Jewish Wars, 2.11.1, trans. William Whiston*

(10) *Hagee, In Defense of Israel, ch. 3, p. 25*

(11) *Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, ch. 7, p. 165*

(12) *Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, letter i*

(13) *Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, letter 1*

(14) * In Maistre, Letters on the Spanish Inquisition, letter 1*

(15) *Thomas F. Madden, The Truth About the Inquisition; Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, ch. 3, p. 49-50; ch. 4, p. 71; ch. 7, pp. 137-8, 149*

(16) *Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, ch. 7, p. 157*

(17) *Hagee, In Defense of Israel, ch. 3, pp. 21-22*

(18) *Hagee, Four Blood Moons, ch. 1*

(19) *Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, the version of Guibert of Nogent, in Edward Peters, The First Crusade, ch. i, pp. 15-16*

(20) *See Mills, Hist. Crus. ch. 8, p. 120; John France, War Cruel and Unremitting, in Thomas F. Madden’s The Crusades, part 3, pp. 60-1*

(21) *Quoted by Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, vol. iii, ch. ii, p. 62*

(22) *Peter of les Voix-de-Cernay, 221*

(23) *Quoted by Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, ch. iv, p. 142*

(24) *MacArthur, Preaching: How to Preach Biblically, ch. 3*

(25) *LaHaye, Revelation Unveiled*

(26) *Hagee, Four Blood Moons, ch. 3, brackets mine*

(27) *Dave Hunt, James White, Debating Calvinism*

(28) Heitzig, When God Prays, ch. 10, 129-130

(29) *Petrarch: On Some Fourteenth-Century Latin Averroists, in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, document 49*

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Gene Easley

    When I look around America today with all the money, all the knowledge, all of the energy and intelligence which it has possessed and possesses and see the behavior of the masses bordering on that of an animal I say “What is it that any Christian pastor, preacher, teacher or congregation of Christians have to glory or gloat in?” I dare say we have sent forth more missionaries, preached more sermons from pulpits than any nation that has ever existed yet I see very little evidence that would suggest our society is gaining any ground morally or spiritually. Jesus said “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.” Matthew 5:13 NASB. A majority of Americans identify themselves as ‘Christian’ yet we know this impossible because our societal sin is on the increase and if this was not so we would be laying off law enforcement officers and closing prisons and jails due to lack of work instead of hiring more law enforcement officers and building more prisons and jails as we are doing today. 12 Apostles of Jesus Christ turned the world upside down yet with all of our churches, seminaries and financial wealth we haven’t even evangelized the world after so many years of effort. These so-called ‘great’ preachers and teachers you have mentioned Ted have nothing to boast about and no real authority to point fingers because they are guilty of the same things they claim others have done. Paul tells us this in Romans 2:1. If anything all Christians in America should be burying their heads in shame of what little we have accomplished for God instead of criticizing our fellow non-Evangelical, non-Protestant believers who might be Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, etc.. As far as I can tell all Evangelical/Protestant teachers, preachers, and scholars merely eat the crumbs that have fallen from the table of work that non-Evangelicals/non-Protestants have done. It is disgusting what Christianity has become and I think that nothing will change until it is illegal to be a Christian in America- then ‘real’ Christianity will emerge as God intended-my opinion.

    • sumsrent

      Seriously!?

      You determine the level of Christian in faith America… based on how many Police Officers, jails and prisons we have?

      Tell me… are you willing to commit to doubling your taxes towards funding what you stand for? I doubt it.

      Then you say… “I think that nothing will change until it is illegal to be a Christian in America…”
      Let me tell you fella… you are one messed up in the head person! You are doing the work of satanic Islam!
      It’s people like you… who worry me the most… a step behind Islam and muslims.
      Ugh! Stupidity and ignorance runs rampant in today’s world!

  • Leo Marshall

    Nice article Brother Ted. You are showing light on the history. Thank you so much for the good knowledge you are telling us. Hope that change comes when people read articles like this. All should be one brethren in Jesus Christ(accepting all that we say as creed of Jesus as told by our earlier christian Fathers).

  • Philip Galindo

    Jesus did not commission his apostles to make catholics or protestants, but rather disciples. Therein lies today’s problem.

    • renojmc

      For the most part, Catholics are not His disciples.

  • Pingback: An eye opener on Inquisition and Crusades | Preach Word Blog

  • Elena Brown

    I do not approve of the Catholic Church and believe they are a religion all their own. Let us not forget the Romans are the ones that put Jesus on the cross. I enjoy listening to Tim and John. I have followed them and listened to their teachings most of my life. While I do not agree with your religion I do agree with your news and thankful for the work you do. You have great insight because you have a great understanding into that world. God is using you and I see that. Thank you for risking your life to spread the truth! My love and prayers to you and your family.

    • Teresa Geib Bacon

      I have to disagree w him and actually was surprised a Christian would think the Catholic Church is innocent in its teachings.I agree on Hagee on many other things wrong w his teachings.

  • richinnameonly

    I don’t see any “religions” that can rightly claim they have 100% truth now or in their past, so my tendency is to look at them in relative terms one compared to the other. Present and past faults are found in the Catholic church, but I don’t understand the preoccupation with criticism of it as opposed to spending the time turning peoples focus to Jesus and the scriptures. It’s amazing to me that some spend so much time criticizing the Catholic church and say nary a word about Islam.

  • 1Bobby8

    I was browsing through one of John Hagee’s books at a book store a few years back, when he was blaming Pope Pius XII for the Holocaust, that’s when I realized that he is nothing less than a hateful slanderer who fabricates the truth and rewrote history.

  • http://www.Starman3000.com/ Mike Ramirez

    Ted, there is no doubt that various Christian denominations have been at odds with one another over differing views and interpretations of Scripture. Even within the Catholic Church there are varying differences of thought. However, when all is said and done and we each stand to give our account before God, our trust and faith in Christ alone is what will matter; not what church, denomination, nor church leader we chose to follow. For many will be (and have been) deceived by misguided doctrines and false teachers who led their flocks astray. Trust in God alone through faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ who stated that one must be “born again” and through which we lose our denominational labels and can be called the “children of God.” (Romans 8:16-17)

  • feawen

    Perhaps the lesson we can learn from many of the leading denominations and religions is a simple one.. “Power Corrupts.” During the time of King Henry VIII and prior to his reign, the Catholic Church was, for all intents and purposes, the leadership of Britain. Were there abuses of power, misery among the masses? Certainly. But the same can be said for Early American History when the Puritans held power over the people and exacted harsh penalties for any one dissenting from their edicts. It’s when we become “Puffed Up” and forget the great commission from Christ to “Love one another” and instead focus on ourselves and the power in our grasp that we run into some of the tragic footnotes of history. I’m not a Catholic but I admire their steadfast devotion to “life” and condemning Abortion. I don’t see many Protestant faiths out there in the public with that same determination and resolve. Then there is Mother Teresa… can anyone here even come close to living the life of selfless devotion, compassion, and love to those less fortunate than she did? I hate broad brushes that paint a particular branch as all bad. Christ didn’t have separate trees for his “church”.. he simply said we would know them by their fruit. As I see it, there are (and were) a few bad apples on that tree but thank God for the “fruit” that shuns fame, power, and glory in favor of shedding light to those in darkness.

  • feawen

    In case Mr. Shoebat and his son Theodore read these comments, why are none of your books available in audio format for those of us with poor eyesight? I checked audible since that’s where I got Brigitte Gabriel’s and Nonie Darwish’s books but not a single title is available under the name “Shoebat.” They are missing out on a lot of people who need or prefer audio formats. My cataracts make it difficult and tiring to read a book but I do listen to several of them. Nothing beats listening to the KJV Bible read by Scourby. :))

  • H2o2Bill

    How do you spell Ecumenical?

  • H2o2Bill

    Jacob Prasch on Catholic Church History.

  • H2o2Bill

    In the year 1524, at a town in France, called Melden, one John Clark set up a bill on the church door, wherein he called the pope Antichrist. For this offence he was repeatedly whipped, and then branded on the forehead. Going afterward to Mentz, in Lorraine, he demolished some images, for which he had his right hand and nose cut off, and his arms and breast torn with pincers. He sustained these cruelties with amazing fortitude, and was even sufficiently cool to sing the One hundredth and fifteenth Psalm, which expressly forbids idolatry; after which he was thrown into the fire, and burnt to ashes. (Fox’s Book Martyrs)

    “Some days after this horrid transaction, the French court endeavored to palliate it by forms of law. They pretended to justify the massacre by a calumny, and accused the admiral of a conspiracy, which no one believed. The parliament was commended to proceed against the memory of Coligny; and his dead body was hanged in chains on Montfaucon gallows. The king himself went to view this shocking spectacle. So one of his courtiers advised him to retire, and complaining of the stench of the corpse, he replied, ‘A dead enemuy smells well.’ The massacres on St. Bartholomew’s day are painted in the royal saloon of the Vatican at Rome, with the following inscription: Pontifex, Coligny necem probat, i.e., ‘The pope approves of Coligny’s death.’ (Fox’s Book of Martyrs)

  • http://www.twitter.com/xthred Rick Evans

    I won’t bother reading this.

  • foxxybey

    I guess the fact Peter wasn’t a Pope and not mention in the Bible and having been a Roman Catholic for 46 years and their own history can’t show a Pope until about 325 AD doesn’t matter either? The fact the Pope said atheist were going to heaven and have to change our minds about homosexual marriage, doesn’t bother you? I may not agree with all that the men mentioned believe in but, to say Roman Catholics were the Pillars of Christian faith is just sick and demonic from the start. Wow, having been a Roman Catholic and reading their own history and false man made doctrines makes me wonder where your coming from Shoebat? If you think that religion has grounds to tell me about the Bible, your sick and demonic yourself and don’t want to hear your BS any more. A real Born Again Believer, not a religion but, a relationship with the God of the Universe and you and your sick doctrines will never change that. Bye, so long and hope you wake up to the real world.

    • 1Bobby8

      When did Pope Francis say we must change our minds on “homosexual marriage”? When did he say atheist were going to heaven? He never said those things. What he actually said was; “Who am I to judge a homosexual seeking God.” And who ARE we to judge ANYBODY who’s seeking God?? Are you without sin foxxbey?? I like to know your source of history that you read, because you are really showing your ignorance.

      • foxxybey

        A play on words shows how blind you are. Yes I’m without sin, Jesus died and paid the price of all my sins, past, present and future but, doesn’t give me the right to continue in them, 1 John 1:9 “When I confess my sin’s (To Him not a mere priest) He is faithful and just to forgive me my sins and cleanse me of all unrighteousness”. Maybe if you spent more time in the Word of God you’d know these things?

        • 1Bobby8

          So Jesus died and paid the price for all YOUR sins but not the sins of the homosexual??? Sounds like another self righteous protestant who believes he’s without sin so therefore can cast the first stone.
          And I guess your Bible studies skipped over John20:23

          • foxxybey

            Yes he did, if you confess and repent but not going to let those who continue in sin get away with it, I can tell a person when they are committing sin and that isn’t casting a stone but trying to save a soul that is lost, and that is love and not what you make it out to be. What do you think John 20:23 says? He was talking to the Apostles and not just mere men. I teach it, want to learn, send me more of your non-interpretations and I’ll try to teach you. I have taught OT and NT for years in Hebrew and Greek so if you’d like to learn would be glad to give you the truth but, when out of context will point it out every time, Shalom and hope you find Christ who died for your sins but doesn’t tell you to continue in them.

          • Guest

            So why are you assuming the homosexual is not confessing and repenting from sin?? Are you saying he’s incapable?

          • 1Bobby8

            So why are you assuming the homosexual is not repenting from his sins?? Are you saying he’s incapable of that?? And guess what, the Apostles were mere men. And believe me, I don’t need or want any lessons from your heresies. You’re leading a lot of souls astray …I found Christ a long time ago, in the Church he founded.

          • foxxybey

            I know that when a person repents of sin, God will turn him or her away from the sin of homosexuality and they will no longer be homosexuals, as far as what you know, leaves a lot to be desired as your dumber then a rock when it come’s to the Bible or the knowledge of God, sorry but, have to tell the truth from what you say, seems you need to repent of your lack of understanding of God and His Word. And if you found Christ you wouldn’t be giving me all you misconceptions about God and His Word, have a good life, enjoy your none Biblical life and practice your religion and forget the relationship with Christ who died for your sins, which seem to be many by your own words. Not judging anything but your own words, so don’t tell me about throwing stones as your wrong again. Good Bye and may you find the real God and may He bless you and peace.

          • 1Bobby8

            So now your judging a person with homosexual tendencies, even though that person may have repented and is celibate. Not only are you self righteous, but you’re also an ignorant fool who thinks has all the answers. You know nothing about Catholicism or true Christianity, nothing about the Bible and nothing about spirituality. You’re just a rigid fool who was brainwashed by protest-ant heretics…And how dare you to say I have no relationship with Jesus…You judgemental fool.

          • foxxybey

            God says in his Word that you can tell a person who is sinning and if he turns away from it you have saved him or her. And if you knew anything about Gods Word you wouldn’t call someone a fool, as God address that subject also. I was a Roman Catholic for 46 years years idiot and there is nothing you can tell me about it that I don’t already know and know more then most Catholic’s. When I was in Rome at John Paul’s 20 anniversary I stayed with his best friend of over 40 years and told him about the Gospel which there is only one true Gospel and I’m sure he told the Pope about the American who knew more about his religion then he did. If you knew Jesus you’d know I’m telling the truth about a religion that didn’t start until 325 AD under Constantine a political leader and not a religious leader and Peter was never in Rome and can’t be proven he ever left Israel. So you judgmental Catholic’s have a lot to look forward to, the anti-Christ, the tribulation and judgment as you practice a religion while I have a relationship with the risen Savior Jesus (Savior) Christ (Messiah). And again Jesus said you shouldn’t call anyone a fool, so that proves you don’t know him at all, Good Bye, So Long you Roman Catholic heretic. Pick up Gods Word and ask Him to teach you and He will but, practice your religion and end of where it is very hot.

          • 1Bobby8

            You don’t know history at all. You’re a puffed up boastful dummy. You have never read Church history or Church fathers. Why don’t you start with Ignatius of Antioch and his writings and Polycarp of Smyrna if you think the Catholic Church didn’t exist before 325ad.
            You’re lying when you say you know history and Catholicism. because if you read them, you would know that that was a lie put out by protestant heretics.
            Having a relationship with Jesus doesn’t consist of lying to sway souls from His Church.
            Also read Theodore Shoebats article “Constantine Didn’t Start The Catholic Church”. Theodore has did extensive research and has studied and is an expert on Church History.
            The Cannical Bible you read was brought to you by the Catholic Church. Your interpretation of it is one of tens of thousands of different interpretations outside the Church.

          • foxxybey

            You 1Bobby8 are to dumb to really respond to as your the boastful dummy. I studied under Jesuit’s for 12 years dumber then a rock, how close have you ever been to the Pope? Front roll with the Carinals about 7′ away from him and just a man and nothing more, in Rome, smart mouth punk, your a brain washed worshipper of a false religion that is man made in all ways and your attack on Born Again Believers proves my point. The church isn’t Roman in any way and the word for Church in the Bible is ekklesia and means called out one’s, not a religion, no popes before Constantine and at one time had 4 popes so how do you know they picked the right one? Wrong about the Bible also, from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscript’s and not the false religion of Rome. I know more Bible then all your so called priest put together and that is the reason they won’t debate me in public.
            Why would Peter if he was a Pope have a wife, as Jesus cured his mother-in-law as the scriptures inspired of God says. Your a pride filled Roman Catholic who is living a lie from hell and I’ll pray for your prideful life as pride comes before a fall. I can tell you when prayers to Mary started and what year. the so called papacy was pagan to begin with and was started under emperor Phocas in 610 AD, kissing the Popes feet, in 709 AD. The temporal power of the Pope in 750 AD. Worship of the cross, of images and relic’s in 788 AD by Pope Hadrian. Holy Water in 850 AD, the veneration of St. Joseph in 890 AD the baptism of bells in 965 AD. Canonization of dead saints in 995 AD under Pope John XV. The mass, in 1070 AD, Fasting on Fridays 998AD. Celibacy in 1079 AD by Pope Hilderbrand, Boniface Vll. The Rosary 1090AD and copied from the islamist and Hindus. Inquistion 1184 AD by the counsil of Verona. Transubstantiation 1215 AD by Pope Innocent lll, Confession to the priest in1215 AD by the same Pope. adoration of the wafer in 1220 AD by Pope Honorius. The Bible forbidden by the council of Valencia in 1229 AD. the Scapular by Simon Stock a Roman Catholic Monk in1287 AD. The Roman church forbidden the cup in 1414 AD by the Council of Constance in the same year 1414 AD. Doctrine of Purgatory by the Council of Florence in 1439 AD, the 7 Sacraments in 1439 by the same council. The Ave Maria in 1508 AD by pope Sixtus V in 1545 the council of Trent said tradition was on par with the Bible. Could go on for hours if need be. So study and learn all this information is in Roman Catholic writings. Praying for the blind and lost.

          • 1Bobby8

            You are so full of BS. You studied Catholicism like my dog studied it. You are a slanderous punk. You’re going to pray for me? You’re about as spiritual as a porn star. Your Satan trying disguise yourself as a Christian…You don’t fool me.

          • H2o2Bill

            Jesus Christ said “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” You can look at the life of Paul who once was Saul and see he had a born again experience. I think it is most important for people to see there position before a Holy God before they are really ready to turn to Christ for forgiveness
            of their sins. People don’t go to a Doctor until they are sick or hurt. People that are swimming don’t scream for a life preserver or to be saved until they actually see themselves in danger of drowning.

            Many will say I have always believed in God. I think many
            of us if we admit we are guilty of what I’m going to try and explain here to some extent (Some believers and some unto unbelief). We are guilty to many times of making an image of God within our own mind and not letting God be God the God of the Bible. Holy Holy Holy. We make an image of what we think God should be or what we think He is like within our own minds. This is not a real belief in the God of the Bible. This is why I think many struggle with the reality of hell. They can’t picture a loving God that would allow some of mankind to end up in hell and in all honesty most of mankind on a basis of numbers.

            Deserve is also a word I try to stay far away from. I see
            heaven in hell not on a deserve basis it is just the way it is. No different than the sky being blue or your hand being burned when you touch something that is red hot it is just the way it is. I hold this in reservation to be changed because it is a hard thing to be explained and I know some do reject Christ and it is possibly that these do deserve hell I don’t know. But I do know hell is a reality for those who die in their own sin with never being reconciled to God.

            I write this because I’m concerned for you. You know of the verses in Romans chapter 10 have you ever went through something as it is described their? And please if you want to answer my question to continue this discussion please do. If not please ask these things to yourself and answer yourself.
            Really no need to concern yourself of answering me. We know sin separates man from God and Christ said He is the only way to come to God (1st Timothy 2:5). We know all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). We all are guilty we all know this. So all have the need to be born again to be reconciled to God by grace through faith in Christ Jesus Ephesians 2:5.

            Peoples stories vary of how they came to know Christ but they should all have some common ground at the cross when we realize we are in need of a Savior due to our own sin and that Christ died on a cross so that we can be made right with God and have forgiveness of or sins. A 100% pardon from our sins. Maybe you know this old hymn “The Old Account was Settled Long Ago?” The song tells of person that settled the account
            of their sins long ago. They seen they had a need of A Savior and then they responded and got it settled at the cross.

            I wake up to a song each day that goes like this. “Glory to you glory to me glory to all that get on their knees (pause) and pray” The man is talking about of how we will be glorified in Christ because one day we got on our knees and came to be born again. All believers have seen the need for the forgiveness of our sins. The Law was given to show us we had need of a Savior and we can not live a good enough life. We fail we all fail the test. Perfection is required and only the perfectness of Christ will solve the problem of our own sin.

            I will ask you what do you think Christ meant when He said “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God?” We have the account of Peter’s confession and we have the
            story of a man named Saul who met Christ and became Paul. We can also see things made simply and clear to us in the 10th chapter of the book of Romans. I would encourage you to put some thought into all of this. I do believe the Christian life starts at the cross when we realize Jesus died for us. We confess with our mouths and believe in our hearts that Jesus is Lord and God
            raised him from the dead. He Lives He lives Christ Jesus lives.

            As always let me know if there is anything I can do for you. “Romans Road” is also easy to find online maybe you could read through it?

            I’m a Baptist (Baptist by distinction) and I believe the Bible
            to be 100% true cover to cover. I believe Jesus Christ was exactly who He said He was the Son of God or God the Son. I believe you “must be born again”. I also believe one must be lost before they can be born again meaning they must see their position before God (on their way to hell). People don’t go to the
            Doctor unless they are sick or something is wrong. The same goes for this spiritual condition, people need to see their need of salvation in Christ Jesus before they will truly repent that is turn away from sin and themselves and turn to GOD through his Son Jesus Christ. Some of us just need to give up and give
            ourselves fully to God (we trust Him and He accepts us) Some of us lose the idea of our hope of heaven being due to our religion or our Church attendance. Some of us will lose our faith in our own self righteousness and trust in the finished work of Christ the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our salvation. We might have various experiences in being born again and coming to faith but we all will have common ground at the cross if we are truly believers in Christ Jesus.

            I want to share some bible verses with you, some of them
            you might recognize. Like John 3:16 And if you have any
            questions please write me back. You can write me anytime for
            anything.

            Bill

            John 3:1-18 There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

            (Rom 3:20-23)
            For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all
            who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

            (Rom 10:8-13) But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
            dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who
            call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

          • 1Bobby8

            Are you assuming that I’m not saved because I’m Catholic?? The Bible you’re reading from was brought to you buy the Catholic Church.

          • H2o2Bill

            This is simply a plea to you Bobby and anyone else that might be reading here of the need to be “born again” as Christ Himself taught.

            “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus Christ

          • 1Bobby8

            “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life within you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day.”~John6:53,54
            He didn’t say symbolically eat and drink of My flesh.
            Don’t be so puffed up thinking you’re saved and Catholics aren’t. And you know everything about Catholicism…You don’t.
            God Bless.

          • H2o2Bill

            Read the verse I posted once again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Jesus Christ

            That is what I want to stress here since this is what the Bible says. “unless one is born again” you need to answer this question for yourself. Have you been born again? If not you can not see the kingdom of God this is what Jesus the Christ taught when He was on Earth.

            You seem to be wanting to insert the Catholic Mass here when the verse you quoted Christ was alive and on the planet. No one ate His flesh or drank His blood so Christ was teaching something else than the Catholic mass. in verse 47 of the same chapter we see the word “believe” and again in verse 64 then in verse 63 Christ Jesus gives us more information to His previous words.

            John 6:63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.

            The Lord’s supper had not yet been instituted yet. When the Lord ‘s supper took place they didn’t literal eat the flesh of Christ nor did they drink His blood.

            Joh 6:47-58) “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. “I am the bread of life. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

            Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Albert Barnes (1798-1870)
            John 6:53-55
            In these verses Jesus repeats what he had in substance said before.Except ye eat the flesh … – He did not mean that this should be understood literally, for it was never done, and it is absurd to suppose that it was intended to be so understood. Nothing can possibly be more absurd than to suppose that when he instituted the Supper, and gave the bread and wine to his disciples, they literally ate his flesh and drank his blood. Who can believe this? There he stood, a living man – his body yet alive, his blood flowing in his veins; and how can it be believed that this body was eaten and this blood drunk? Yet this absurdity must be held by those who hold that the bread and wine at the communion are “changed into the body, blood, and divinity of our Lord.” So it is taught in the decrees of the Council of Trent; and to such absurdities are men driven when they depart from the simple meaning of the Scriptures and from common sense. It may be added that if the bread and wine used in the Lord’s Supper were not changed into his literal body and blood when it was first instituted, they have never been since.
            The Lord Jesus would institute it just as he meant it should be observed, and there is nothing now in that ordinance which there was not when the Saviour first appointed it. His body was offered on the cross, and was raised up from the dead and received into heaven. Besides, there is no evidence that he had any reference in this passage to the Lord’s Supper. That was not yet instituted, and in that there was no literal eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood. The plain meaning of the passage is, that by his bloody death – his body and his blood offered in sacrifice for sin – he would procure pardon and life for man; that they who partook of that, or had an interest in that, should obtain eternal life. He uses the figure of eating and drinking because that was the subject of discourse; because the Jews prided themselves much on the fact that their fathers had eaten manna; and because, as he had said that he was the bread of life, it was natural and easy, especially in the language which he used, to carry out the figure, and say that bread must be eaten in order to be of any avail in supporting and saving men. To eat and to drink, among the Jews, was also expressive of sharing in or partaking of the privileges of friendship. The happiness of heaven and all spiritual blessings are often represented under this image, Mat_8:11; Mat_26:29; Luk_14:15, etc.
            Joh_6:55
            Is meat indeed – Is truly food. My doctrine is truly that which will give life to the soul.
            Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

            Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible
            John 6:52-59
            The flesh and blood of the Son of man, denote the Redeemer in the nature of man; Christ and him crucified, and the redemption wrought out by him, with all the precious benefits of redemption; pardon of sin, acceptance with God, the way to the throne of grace, the promises of the covenant, and eternal life. These are called the flesh and blood of Christ, because they are purchased by the breaking his body, and the shedding of his blood. Also, because they are meat and drink to our souls. Eating this flesh and drinking this blood mean believing in Christ. We partake of Christ and his benefits by faith. The soul that rightly knows its state and wants, finds whatever can calm the conscience, and promote true holiness, in the redeemer, God manifest in the flesh. Meditating upon the cross of Christ gives life to our repentance, love, and gratitude. We live by him, as our bodies live by our food. We live by him, as the members by the head, the branches by the root: because he lives we shall live also.
            Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible

          • 1Bobby8

            To be born again is to die to the self (pride),and have Christ live fully in you…Are you sure you died to the self? Being that you’re so puffed up thinking Catholics are incapable of it.
            …And it was those who walked away from Christ who also thought it was absurd to eat His body and drink His blood.

  • ServantOfMessiah

    While I truly appreciate Ted Shoebat and all he is trying to do, I do not believe that he has put his best foot forward in the writing of this article. For example, he quotes John MacArthur as having said,

    > “the Roman Catholic Church has put to death more than fifty million
    > “heretics” between A.D. 606 (the birth of the papacy) and the mid-1800s”

    And then he says,

    > From where did he obtain this date of 606? There were heretics who were
    > killed earlier than this. The first person to be executed for heresy was
    > one Priscillian, who taught a doctrine in Spain which was a combination
    > of Manichaeism and gnosticism, and in 383 he was executed.

    Whoops. Did the author actually bother to read what John MacArthur said? John MacArthur did not say that no one was killed earlier than this. He merely said,

    > “the Roman Catholic Church has put to death more than fifty million
    > “heretics” between A.D. 606 (the birth of the papacy) and the mid-1800s”

    The author seems to think that because others were killed prior to this time, that automatically makes John MacArthur “ahistorical.” Not so. Thus, the author’s logic fails. I did not say John MacArthur was a perfect person. I can show places where he is not. And John MacArthur can probably show me places where I am not. That is not the point. The point is, the author’s logic fails. And by failing in this area, it affects the entire article.

    • sumsrent

      I don’t get what you’re trying to say… you act as if Ted is taking John MacArthur’s words out of context.
      How do you see that? Because I don’t.
      Where is the evidence that the Catholic Church killed “Fifty Million” people? Heretics or not! To me… that’s the false distorted evidence presented by MacArthur.
      It wasn’t during the Inquisitions… or…
      Or… are you claiming that 49.99 million muslims were “put” to death during the Christian Crusades? If that’s the case… we can debate what “put to death” means.
      Also… the “quotation” marks could represent just the “heretics”… meaning… the number of Fifty Million could be increased to 100’s of millions when the reader factors in the non-heretics that were killed.
      All blatant misrepresentation of the facts by MacArthur! Skewed to brainwash and intentionally develop ill feelings against the Catholic Church. Probably because he harbored certain beliefs… aye?
      I simply don’t get your comment.

      • ServantOfMessiah

        Here’s my point. And it has nothing to do with the number of people that are alleged to have been killed. Either that number is wrong or it is right. But it does not in any way change my argument that the author has taken John MacArthur out of context.

        (Note, whether John MacArthur is wright or wrong concerning the 50 million, that is another story. If he’s right. Fine. If he’s wrong. Fine. I cannot debate that. This is not the point. The point is the author’s CLEAR MISUSE of the quote by John MacArthur. Perhaps it comes from his ignorance of not understanding the quote to begin with, so he should not have used the quote to begin with.)

        If the author understood, and if you understood, you would understand this:

        To John MacArthur, a “heretic” of the Roman Catholic church is not a heretic by the Lord’s standards!

        If you do not understand this, there is no hope for any further explanation. So I might as well give up, and cease trying to explain it. However, if you are willing to understand this, then we can move forward. OK?

        Then, go back and read my original comment.

        • sumsrent

          You say… “Here’s your point… “It has nothing to do with…”

          What kind of statement is that?

          Then you say… “the author’s CLEAR MISUSE of the quote by John MacArthur.”

          Wrong… MacArthur is addressing the [so called] crimes of the Catholic Church. Is the date a “crime”? Nope.

          The crime is killing 50 million! So therefore it has everything to do with intentionally distorting facts in order to influence the masses opinions and thoughts.

          MacArthur had an agenda. That is clear. To incite hatred towards the Catholic Church.

          Now then… maybe you would like to explain how you interpret and defend what MacArthur was trying to convey when he stated “Heretics”?

          Especially when you can’t defend his use of “50 million”… which anyone with any sense of research would know is a blatant distortion of the facts!

          Do you actually believe there were 50 million “heretics”… I don’t.
          Not only was there NOT 50 million “heretics” put to death… the Catholic Church isn’t responsible for “putting” any 50 million people to death.

          You’re position sounds quite selective and evasive.

          • ServantOfMessiah

            > MacArthur had an agenda.
            > That is clear.
            > To incite hatred towards the Catholic Church.

            Your own words pretty much lay the argument to rest. You are burying yourself as you lay false accusations against God’s people. While I do not agree with everything JM teaches, I would never lay a charge like that against him.

            “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

          • sumsrent

            Prov 14:5
            5 A faithful witness will not lie, But a false witness speaks lies.

            Prov 19:5
            5 A false witness will not go unpunished, And he who tells lies will not escape.

            Face the fact… Servant… MacArthur’s own words are evidence of malicious intent. Which makes you a hypocrite.
            See… In your eyes… it’s just dandy for MacArthur to make [false] accusations against The Catholic Church… while you accuse me of being out of place for correcting his obvious errors.
            Double standards.;.. aye? Silly you…

          • H2o2Bill

            Gee do you think it’s possible that Spurgeon was taken out of context? Maybe he was using exaggerated language to drive home a point? If so why is the writer of this article doing such a thing? Is the Catholic Church innocent of killing Christians?

          • sumsrent

            You can believe I’m not a fan of the Catholic Church… but one thing I stand with is Christians! And the Catholic Church has had and does have Christ loving Christians.
            Face the fact… when the masses think of Christianity… they visualize the Catholic Church and quickly associate any of its wrong doings with ‘all’ of Christianity.
            In fact… more people are quick to separate radical muslims from moderate muslims and not applying that same principal to Christianity. Even though moderate muslims can’t exist!
            It’s satanic Islam’s way of brainwashing the masses into despising the Church and looking for alternative methods of worship.
            Do you people not even realize it’s all an agenda to attack Christianity!?
            Get this… when you quote someone else’s exaggeration… you are NOT doing the same thing of exaggerating!
            What is the matter with y’all? You act as if exposing liars is wrong! Because I view those who exaggerate as one who is a liar!
            Don’t tell me… you believe “white lies” aren’t actual lies… aye?
            What does the headline say? It’s about those who “RUIN” history!
            Your position makes it seem as if you’d support the idea of… Telling the truth about satanic muhammad and his demented government of Islam would be blasphemy!
            Why don’t y’all take a step back and re-analyze what you stand for.

          • H2o2Bill

            You miss my point ‘exaggerated language’ is a style of writing. It’s not a person exaggerating facts to mislead people.

            Seeing this pattern here concerning the Catholic Church flat out scares me it really does, it’s a serious matter and a legitimate concern in my opinion. Would we unite with Islam to fight the teaching of Evolution? Then why would we unite with Catholics to fight Islam? Both are Pagan religions in my best opinion.

            You are smart enough to know these things, I need not make a list of the false teachings of the Catholic Church.

            And as I have already posted here the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has no pillars as this article indicates. Ecumenical-ism will play a role in End Times.

            Walid gives us a solid teaching but I do believe there is more to the story and God is going to reveal more from His word as time goes by. I’m not sure a “combination burrito” is the best way to describe it either. We will see more than one false-christ leading up to the one we call the antichrist or the false prophet.

            I have ordered some teachings from Jacob Prasch on End Times that should be most helpful what I have learned from him so far has been really good.

            There is also a man by the name of H T Spence that believes music will also play a key role in End Times. He certainly has the most in depth message on music one will ever here.

            I better go I’m working mega hours and really should put off posting until work slows down it’s harvest time. That means to much work for me.

            Take care,

            Bill

          • sumsrent

            I didn’t miss our point… YOU missed mine!
            No preacher needs to exaggerate facts!
            Actually… any preacher, like MacArthur here, who says he’d rather be a devil… is what I call questionable!
            Any preacher that says calls the devil better than any Church… is questionable and needs to be exposed!

          • H2o2Bill

            Your the one that needs to re-read the article you are still going off on on MacArthur when I thought I had highlighted Spurgeon in my point of the discussion. Further more Spurgeon does not refer to himself as a devil

          • sumsrent

            Don’t be an imbecile… you jumped in a discussion about Macarthur and now are trying to backtrack.
            The fact stands… there are Christians within the Catholic Church… those I stand with.
            And I don’t care for people who attempt to shed a negative light on Christianity… especially when Islam is far much worse. And use the figures of the Christian Crusades against Christianity when it was out to stop the ongoing slaughter of millions committed by satanic Islam. <<< DO you not get that!?
            PS…I can also see that you should spend a little time and research what Martin Luther was about.

  • http://historyscoper.com/ T.L. Winslow

    Sorry, but from Constantine on the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted by union with the state, and has an ocean of dirty laundry. True, Protestant preachers are often history ignoramuses, but that the Church suppressed Bible reading by the masses (laity) is more than enough to condemn it, even if it didn’t put itself in a position to block and stomp out virtually every scientific advance for centuries, turning the scientific establishment against it. From their POV they had the absolute truth and an infallible pope, and couldn’t trust the masses to think for themselves because the Devil would get them :) Still, since the Church had to bear the brunt of the fight against Islam, it’s no wonder that the latter didn’t corrupt it more. The Spanish Inquisition is a case in point. That’s because the Bible was preserved and read by clerics, who could read Jesus’ words and understand their import no matter how many church council rulings they had to bow to that twisted them. Now in the nuclear age it’s time to get past all that and unite all Christian orgs. for the final war against global Islam. They need to unite even with atheists if they are going to have a chance. When this happens, the Muslim World will finally disintegrate and Muhammad and his jihad e forever ditched so that the human race can progress. I see the ex-Muslims flocking to ask the help of the Jews to lead them back, turning the Middle East from a hellhole to a vibrant region.

    Study my Popescope for a complete history of the papacy, at my historyscoper dot com Web site.

    • H2o2Bill

      Unite with Atheist? Secular Conservatism stands no chance in stopping or even slowing down Islam look at Europe.
      The Pope already bows down to every know religion in the entire world. The Catholic Church says practice any religion there is just go through us for approval. I do believe the word “Catholic” means “Universal” so they got the name right.

      2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

  • wordfromthewise

    Brilliant, Mr Shoebat, and thank you.

  • Kriemhild

    Please do not equate the Roman Catholic Church with Christianity — Christianity can only be based on the words of Jesus Christ, and the Roman Church is based on Dogma, Rules and Regulations that have nothing to do with Christ’s teachings or the literal meaning of what is in the Bible. The Reformation began as an attempt to reform, not Christianity, but the Catholic Church. Luther was shocked when he went to Rome and saw the universal wickedness, and many believers were troubled by the Church and its practices, such as the sale of indulgences (tickets to paradise) and simony (buying and selling of church positions). These were a few of the corrupt doctrines within the Church. Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin, Johm Knox and other reformers protested these and other practices of the Church, such as Purgatory, devotion to Maria (Marina veneration), the intercession of and devotion to the saints, most of the sacraments, the mandatory celibacy for the clergy (including monasticism), the authority of the infallible Pope, incense, priests forgiving sins (only Jesus can forgive sins, certainly no priest), rosaries, holy water, crossing yourself, etcetera. None of these are doctrines of Christianity, they were practices of the Church. There is no Pope in the Bible, and when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church”, He was referring to Himself — He was the rock, not Peter.
    The reformers attested to the authority of the Bible and insisted the Bible should be read literally. The words meant what they said. According to Calvin and Zwingli, not only should all religious belief be founded on the literal meaning of Scriptures, but church organization, political organization, and society itself should be founded on this literal reading.
    Luther wrote a letter to Pope Leo X, (a son of Lorenzo the Magnificent) who said “This myth of Christ has served us well” and “Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it”, which enraged the believers. Leo X was also a practicing homosexual.. The letter Luther wrote was entitled “On the Freedom of the Christian”, and resulted in his ex-communication. According to Luther, the essence of Christianity is “freedom”, or liberty. It is this concept that eventually gave rise to the notion of individual freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom. Most of the European Enlightenment revolves around freedom and the project of “liberating” people from false beliefs (Jim Jones), false religions (islam), arbitrary authority (Obama), etc. — this is what is called “liberation discourse”. Westerners still participate in this Enlightenment project today.
    May I also say that the Church burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for his ideas, which were not heretical but the result of a thinking, believing man; that it almost burned Galileo at the stake and would have if he had not recanted (even though what he said was the truth and the infallible church was wrong), that the Church granted Jan Hus “safe passage” if he would come to a Council at Constance with the emperor — he trusted them and came, but after hearing his ideas, it was decided he was a heretic, and he was burned at the stake — the Emperor said the Church did not have to keep a promise given to a heretic. Luther would have been burned at the stake if Frederick the Wise of Saxony had not abducted him and brought him to safety in the Wartburg Castle, where he lived incognito while he translated the Bible into German.

    The Church fought fiercely against translating the Bible into national languages because this meant the people did not have to go through a priest to learn the Word of God, and could read Christ’s message for themwelves. The Church did not want to lose control over the people. This was of momentous importance, especially for the Pilgrims, who vigorously read the Old Testament (not available through the priests and the Church before), learning all the commandments and laws which eventually had a profound influence on the ideas in our Constitution.

    John Wycliffe translated the Bible into English — it was banned, of course, but was widely read and played a significant role in shaping the thinking of the English. Wycliffe’s followers were called “Lollards” (mumblers), and many of them were martyred. Wycliffe died of a stroke in 1384. Fourteen years later his remains were exhumed and burned at the stake, his ashes cast into a river, to satisfy the insanity of the Roman Church. About 170 examples of this Bible are still in existance today.

    Later William Tynsdale made another translation. This great man is so undervalued, he holds the distinction of being the first person to take advantage of Gutenberg’s movable printing press in order to print the Scriptures in English. He was a true scholar and a genius, so fluent in eight languages that any one of them could have been his native tongue. He is frequently referred to as the “Architect of the English Language” (even more so than William Shakespeare) as many of the phrases Tyndale coined are still in use in our language today. As both Henry VIII and the English ecclesiastes were hunting him down, Tyndale had to live in hiding on the continent, and was finally betrayed by his friend Philips, who was bribed to be an agent for the King or the Church, or probably both. Tynsdale was arrested and imprisoned in the castle of Vilvoorden in Belgium where he was horribly tortured for more than 500 days. He was tried for heresy and treason in a ridiculously unfair trial, and convicted. He was then strangled and burned at the stake. This is what the Roman Church does to its geniuses. His last words were: “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes”. This prayer was answered three years later in the publication of Henry VIII’s 1539 English “Great Bible”.
    In 1560 the Geneva Bible was published in Geneva by English reformers who had fled to the continent to escape persecutions by Queen Mary. Their leader was William Whittingham, who married a sister of John Calvin. According to one 20th century scholar, between 1560 and 1630 no fewer than 200 editions of the Geneva Bible appeared. It was the Bible of Shakespeare and John Bunyan and of Cromwell’s Army and of the Pilgrim Fathers.
    Translations of the Bible into English, or any other language other than Latin, were viewed with horror by the Vatikan and the various Catholic Heads of State, who hated the idea of ordinary people being able to read the Scriptures for themselves without an interfering priest. All tyrants and totalitarian regimes in history, including the one now occupying the White Mosque in Washington D. C., have tried to suppress the Bible and any literature or ideas that enable people to think for themselves. The Bible keeps these thoughts holy.
    To be continued ………….

    • H2o2Bill

      I look forward to reading more of what you have put forward here. I’m no expert in the field of history but I have read “Fox’s Book of Martyrs” or the “Trail of Blood” I do know enough to realize the RCC has been a great institution in bringing hard core persecution of Bible believing Christians. I here that the RCC is still persecuting Christians to this very day in places they can get away with it.

      I wrote the website we will see what happens but somebody needs to come clean and somebody needs to reel Theodore in.

      Bill Jr

      • 1Bobby8

        Tell me where the Catholic Church is persecuting Christians Bill. Who told you this Bill? You’re just proving yourself to be a stupid gullible fool who would believe anything to support your hateful bias…Jerk.

        • H2o2Bill

          I have note the concrete evidence it is something I just heard and that is what I stated. Please keep in mind persecution in it’s harshest form can be death but also can be things lie not getting a job or job promotion due to your faith in Christ. I was not insisting that the RCC is persecuting Christians to the point of death I do apologize for not being more clear. I will have to consider editing my prior post to insure I’m not taken the wrong way. I was putting it out there to see if anything might come back to me.

          And the Pope did announce Atheist can go to heaven as long as they live good moral lives. Here is his direct quote “The question for people who do not believe in God is to listen to
          their consciences. Also for those without faith, sin is going against
          your conscience,” (Pope Francis)

          • 1Bobby8

            Where ever you heard Catholics persecuting others in anyway is a complete falsehood.
            Now to get to Pope Francis, that quote was taken way out of context, and I’ll explain how; He was speaking of Catholics who said “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good,” and Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, let him do good.” Pope Francis explains, the disciples, were a little intolerant, closed off by the idea of possessing the truth, convinced that those who do not have the truth cannot do good. This was wrong…Jesus broadens the horizon. The root of this possibility of doing good-that we all have-is in creation. The Lord created us in his image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of have the commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. “But father he is not Catholic he cannot do good.” Yes he can, “The Lord has redeemed all of us with the Blood of Christ, all of us not just Catholics. Everyone! “Father even the atheists?” Even the atheists.”
            Remember Jesus spoke about the Samaritan who did good. And remember Jesus told the Pharasees that prostitutes and tax collectors will see the Kingdom of Heaven before they do. Does that mean Jesus was condoning prostitution and thieves? Of course not.
            God Bless

    • 1Bobby8

      I see your one of them who swallowed all the lies of these evangelists, you must have read John Hagee’s book…Oh, and by the way, Martin Luther left out 7 books from the Old Testament plus parts of Daniel and Esther.

  • Kriemhild

    Continuation:
    It’s a common misconception that Henry VIII became a Protestant when he broke with Rome. He did not. Though he ceased to acknowledge the Pope’s authority, he remained essentially a Catholic. His sacking of the monasteries was a political and economic move because they had power, influence and great wealth. It is often said he became the first head of the Church of England, but it’s more correct to say he appointed himself head of the Church IN England, in place of the Pope, which is quite different.
    There were no Catholics among our Founding Fathers. In fact, the Pilgrims and the Puritans left England to escape the Catholicism still extant with the Anglicans and the stranglehold it put on people trying to decipher the message of Jesus separated from the dogma, rites, rituals and nonsense of the Roman Church.
    It is said the Pilgrims and the Puritans came to America because of religious persecution. Here is what was meant: In the 1620s, the leaders of the State and Church grew increasingly hostile to Puritan demands to reform and purify the Church of England of what they considered to be unacceptable residues of Roman Catholicism. The Church insisted that the Puritans conform to religious practices they abhorred, removing their ministers from office and threatening them with “extirpation from earth” if they did not fall in line. Zealous Puritan laymen received savage punishments. In 1630, a man was sentenced to life imprisonment, had his property confiscated, his nose slit, an ear cut off and his forehead branded with “S.S.” (sower of sedition). Beginning in 1630, more than 20,000 Puritans emigrated to America to gain the liberty to worship God as they chose. Theologically, Puritans were “non-separating Congregationalists”. Every New England Congregational Church was considered an independent entity, beholden to no hierarchy. The membership was composed of men and women who had undergone a conversion experience and could prove it to the other members. The Congregational parsons of these churches were all blessed with a classical education, received at Harvard and Yale, and quoted from Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides, Cicero, Seneca and Tacitus, and of course John Locke, “that very wise man”, and Milton, Montesquieu and Voltaire. Their belief was grounded in the Scriptures and their understanding of both human and divine laws. Their sermons and writings, their devotion to education and good government, their patriotic attitudes and activities during the Revolution — all testify that “there were giants in those days” who were the “Watchmen on the Walls”. This is not the description of any Catholic priest.

    King James did not like the Geneva Bible. He thought it was very bad because there was a lot of anti-monarchial sentiment in its marginal notes — “very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits”. There were by now many different Bibles — the Clergy used the Bishops’ Bible, the people read the Geneva Bible. James wanted a new unified Bible which was to be demotic — everything clear, no hard words. This principle yielded marvelous results.

    John Rogers was a Catholic priest who converted to Protestantism in England in the 1530s under the influence of William Tyndale and assisted in the publiation of Tyndale’s Bible. Burned alive at Smithfield on 4 February 1555, Rogers became the “first Protestant martyr” executed by England’s Catholic Queen Mary. Two centuries after his execution, his ordeal, with depictions of his wife and ten children added to increase the pathos, became a staple of The New England Primer, which supplemented the picture of Rogers’ immolation with a long versified speech, said to be the dying martyr’s advice to his children. It urged them to “Keep always God before your eyes” and to “Abhor the arrant Whore of Rome, and all her Blasphemies.” This recommendation was read by generations of young New Englanders and doubtless had a strong influence on attitudes still pervading throughout the nineteenth century,

    In 1562, the beginning of more than 30 years of strife between French Protestants and Catholics took place at Sens, Burgundy with the slaughter of Huguenots. The worst atrosity was the horrendous St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in Paris, 24 August 1572. Thousands of Huguenots were butchered by Roman Catholic mobs. Even though an agreement between the two sides was sealed in 1598 by the Edict of Nantes, religious privileges of Huguenots eroded during the 17th century and were extinguished in 1685 by a revocation of the Edict- As many as 400,000 French Protestants emigrated to various parts of the world, including England and the British North American colonies.
    On 31 October 1731, the Catholic ruler of Salzburg, Austria, Archbishop Leopold von Firmian, expelled more than 20,000 Lutherans. Those who owned no property were given only eight days to leave and many froze to death as they drifted through the winter seeking sanctuary. The wealthier ones were given three months to dispose of their property, of course for only a fraction of what it was worth. The men were allowed to take their wives with them, but not their children, who were to be raised as Catholics.
    Some of the Salzburger exiles reached London in 1734, from whence they sailed to the British American Colony of Georgia. In 1741 about 150 founded the town of Ebenezer on the Savannah River. America was already a sanctury for many fleeing persecution.
    To be continued …..

  • Robert Jaspers

    There’s enough blame to go around for everyone involved concerning Rome’s attacks on Jews, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition by Spanish royalty and the Catholic Church, including it’s attempts in the past of them traveling around the Earth and “educating” the savages by words and/or force. All of these “events ” were caused by people wrongly judging other people.

    Obviously the Catholics have a reputation now due to things they’ve said and done in the past and the present which cannot be erased or forgotten, though they can be forgiven. And now we see the many churches attacking and judging each other and their secular Christian dominations, which is something that our Creator really frowns upon…

    If we’re not careful we’ll all be guilty,( by our judgments) of doing and becoming the very thing we’re blaming & criticizing each other of. Which we’re actually already guilty of to some extent.
    I doubt very much that Jesus is looking down on us all now and thinking how proud He is of us for our not following his simple teaching of loving one another. Surly we have all wandered astray and succumbed to the pressure of unseen demons, which was predicted for the end of the age, and unfortunately it will get worse before it gets better.
    I suggest we look inside ourselves and consider the work we need to do on our own selves, and for others, instead of worrying so much about what others are doing and saying. If not, many more than we think who consider themselves as Faithful & True will actually be part of the great Left Behind.

  • Kriemhild

    The following has been taken from “The Story of Philosophy” by Will Durant, the chapter about Voltaire:
    In his old age, Voltaire lived in Ferney, not far from Toulouse, the seventh city of France. In Voltaire’s day, the Catholic clergy enjoyed absolute sovereignty there; the city commemorated with frescoes the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (an edict which had given freedom of worship to the Protestants), and celebrated as a great feast the day of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew. No Protestant in Toulouse could be a lawyer, or a physician, or an apothecary, or a grocer, or a book-seller, or a printer; nor could a Catholic keep a Protestant servant or clerk — in 1748 a woman had been fined 3,000 francs for using a Protestant midwife.
    Now it happened that Jean Calas, a Protestant of Toulouse, had a daughter who became a Catholic, and a son who hanged himself, presumably because of disappointment in business. There was a law in Toulouse that every suicide should be placed naked on a hurdle, with face down, drawn through the streets, and then hanged on a gibbet. The father, to avert this, asked his friends and relatives to testify to a natural death. In consequence, rumor began to talk of murder, and to hint that the father had killed the son to prevent his imminent conversion to Catholicism. Calas was arrested, put to the torture, and died soon after (1761). His family, ruined and hunted, fled to Ferney, and sought the aid of Voltaire. He took them into his home, comforted them, and marveled at the story of medieval persecutiion which they told.About the same time, (1762) came the death of Elizabeth Sirvens; again runor charged tat she had been pushed into a well just as she was about to announce her conversion to Catholicism, That a timid minority would hardly dare to behave in this way was a rational consideration, and therefore out of the purview of rumor. In 1785 a young man by the name of La Barre, aged sixteen, was arrested on the charge of having mutillated crucifixes. Subjected to torture, he confessed his guilt; his head was cut off, and his body flung into the flames, while the crowd applauded. A copy of Voltaire’s Philosophic Dictionar, which was found on the lad, was burned with him.

    For almost the first time in his life, Voltaire became a thoroughly serious man. “Is this the country of philosophy and pleasure? It is rather the country massacres”.It was with Voltaire now as wiith Zola in the case of Dreyfus; this tyrannous injustice lifted him up; he ceased to be merely a man of letters, and became a man of action too; he laid aside philosophy for war, or rather turned his philosophy into relentless dynamite. It was now that he adopted his famous motto, Ecrasez L’infame (crush the infamy), and stirred the soul of France against the abuses of the church. He began to pour out such fire and brimstone as melted mitres and sceptures., broke the power of the priesthood in France, and helped to overthrow a throne. “We must overwhelm the fanatics and the knaves, destroy the insipid declamations, the miserable sophistries, the lying history, the absurdities without number; we must not let those who have sense be subjected to those who have none; and the generation which is being born will owe to us its reason and its liberty.”
    Just at this crisis, an offer was made to buy him off; through Mme. de Pompadour he received an offer of a cardinal’s hat as the reward for reconcillation with the Church.

    Voltaire refused and began to end all his letters with “crush the infamy”, Ge sent out his Treatise on Toleration. He said he would have borne the absurdities of dogma had the clergy lived up to their sermons and had they tolerated differences; but “subtleties of which not a trace can be found in the Gospels are the source of the bloody quarrels of Christian history.”
    “The man who says to me, ‘Believe as I do, or God will damn you,’ will presently say ‘Believe as I do, or I shall assassinate you’. “By what right could a being created free force another to think like himself?” A fanaticism composed of superstition and ignorance has been the sickness of all the centuries. The very first step towards social health,it seemed to him, was the destruction of the ecclesiastical power in which intolerance had its root.
    The Treatise on Toleration was followed up with a Niagara of pamphlets, histories, dialogues, letters, catechisms, diatribes, squibs, sermons, verses,tales, fables, commentaries and essays, under Voltaite’s own name and under a hundred pseudonyms — the most astonishing pell-mell of propaganda ever put out by one man. And so he was read. Soon everybody, even the clergy, had his pamphlets; of some of them 300,000 copies were sold, though readers then were far fewer than now.. Nothing like it had ever been seen in the history of literature. And so he sent forth his little soldiers, week after week, month after month, to attack the injustices and crimes of the rich aristocrats and the greedy and corrupt Catholic clergy, with the result that the French Revolution eventually took place.
    Voltaire has been accused of being an atheist — this is not true, he was a believer but not as a normal church-goer. To Hollbach he points out that the very title of his book “the System of Nature”, indicates a divine organizing intelligence. He said that “True prayer lies not in asking for a violation of natural law but in the acceptance of natural law as the unchangeable will of God.”. As Voltaire lay dying, Benjamin Franklin brought his grandson to receive Voltaire’s blessing. He was so ill now that a priest came to shrive him. “From whom do you come, M. l’Abbe?” asked Voltaire. “From God Himself” was the answer. “Well, well, sir”, said Voltaire, “your credentials”? The priest went away without his prey. Later Voltaire sent for another abbe, Gautier, to come and hear his confession; Gautier came, but refused Voltaire absolution until he should sign a profession of full faith in the Catholic doctrine. Voltaire rebelled; instead he drew up a statement which he gave to his secretary:to write:
    “I die adoring God, loving my friends, not hating my enemies, and detesting superstition.” (signed) Voltaire. February 28, 1778
    I think the life this man lived cannot be otherwise described as that of a Christian, not orthodox, but real. The records of his generosity are endless. Everyone, near or far,
    claimed his good offices; people consulted him, related the wrongs of which they were the victims, and solicited the help of his pen and his credit. Poor people guilty of some misdemeanor were his special care; he would secure a pardon for them and then set them up in some honest occupation, meanwhile watching and counciling them. When a young couple who had robbed him went down on their knees to beg his forgiveness, he knelt to raise them, telling them that his pardon was freely theirs, and that they should kneel only for God’s. One of his characteristic undertakings was to bring up, educate and provide a dowry for the destitute niece of Corneille. Could there be any better description of a Christian? Voltaire destroyed the corruption of the Catholic Church in France, as Luther did in Germany. May they both be praised.
    to be continued …….

  • H2o2Bill

    Spurgeon was using exaggerated language to drive home a point. I really think Theodore has slandered some people here including John MacArthur as the one person already pointed out here. I have things I don’t agree with John MacArthur yet I need not mislead people to get my point across.

    Look for an article at got questions dot org What is the origin of the Catholic Church? For some good information concerning the Catholic Church.

    The RCC kept Islam in check back in the day does not mean that the RCC is the true Church of Christ. It’s so far from the truth it’s hard to put it into words. The RCC is paganism wrapped in the disguise of Christianity. It’s not another denomination it’s a different religion just as John Mac has stated.

    The Church of Christ has no pillars and is founded on Christ.

    (Psa 118:22-23) The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.

    Mat_21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE. THIS WAS THE LORD’S DOING, AND IT IS MARVELOUS IN OUR EYES’ ?

  • Kriemhild

    The Cathers, Paulicians, Waldensians, Bogomils, Arians, Gnostics, Amish, Huttererites, Anabaptists, Quäkers and other such groups I would not designate as “heretical” — they were trying to find ways to escape from the surpressive dogma of the Roman Church and were only heretical to the demands of the Church, not necessarily to what the Bible teaches. The Huttererites (as did all Anabapists — this word means re-baptised) did not believe in baptizing babies because in the Bible only adults are baptized, and the person to be baptized must agree to the baptism and say they believe. Jakob Hutterer founded his belief in 1528 — he and his followers were hounded like criminals and murdered, but they still clung to their belirfs and still exist today. There are about 45,000 of them, mostly living in the northern states of America and Canada. They still speak “Huttererish”, a German dialect. Peter Deunov, founder of the Bogomils in Rumania, was a great and good man, and his disciple, Mikhael Aivanhov, carried on his philosopy and has established a Center in Frejus Cedex, 83601 France. Aivenhov has many followers in America, Britain, Canada, Germany, and France. These teachings are based on Biblical truths, and are not in discord with the Bible.
    Erasmus had studied with the Oxford professor Thomas Linacre, who was one of the first Englishmen to study Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he realized that Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel. Yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the Scriptures in any language but Latin, even though Latin was not an original language of the Bible. Another Oxford Professor, John Colet, assissted Linacre in producing the first greek grammar book printed in England. This book contributed greatly to the public awareness that the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin vulgate text could not be trusted and called for Christian scholars to read the Gospels in the original Greek.
    Then to come to the homosexuality rife in the Catholic Church. For decades Catholic priests have entered the priesthood to have a sheltered .

  • Pingback: How John Hagee, Tim LaHaye, And John MacArthur, Ruin Christian History | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat| Warn Radio Home of Truth |A Journey for those who look into the Whirlwind of these Last Days | Warn Radio

  • foxxybey

    1Bobby 8 your weak mind can’t find what I wrote, came right out of your Roman Catholic writing’s but, you weak mind turns evil and attacks anyone who proves you wrong, your a real joke and know nothing about your own religion and you prove that with every stupid remark you make, a very weak mind at best and pure evil at worse. God Bye stupid, you can’t be fixed since your a god man now.

  • Pingback: The Power Of The Blood Of Jesus Christ - Because He Lives I Can Face Tomorrow

  • sumsrent

    Ted says in the article…

    1) “Christians would be stronger today if they would study their history”

    Then presents the question…

    ” Why are Christians so ashamed of their history?”

    I say… VERY GOOD POINTS!

    Unfortunately… the educational system is slanted… against Christianity.

    Nowadays we have the masses more interested in getting Diplomas than seeking the face of God, the Father of our Lord and Savior… Christ Jesus.

    Folks… more people die at the hands of satanic worshipping muslims… EVERY YEAR… than all 350 years of the Inquisition combined. And there are those that refer to these Crusades and Inquisitions, just to attack Christianity. Completely unaware of the truth.

    But sadly… Christians in their ignorance… are unable to defend or even confront these distortions! And simple, basic understandings of Christian history can reveal a lot, let alone hush those who spew lies! And we are responsible for learning the Truth! To defend Christianity!

    Get this… You can quickly hush a liar when you presents the facts! And we need to hush these critics that come against Christianity! To squash this satanic agenda focusing on dissolving the Faith wherever it is presented!

    SEE… I believe this article gives us a deeper insight into today’s view and how it compares to the days of old.

    So let’s take a quick lesson on this history… which is carelessly thrown about to discredit Christianity…

    The fact stands…

    1) The Christian Crusades were implemented to stop the Islamic Jihadic Conquests.

    [Something the educational system doesn't mention much, if anything about. The history lessons were always focused on being against the Christians... satan at work... priming the kids minds for Islamic sympathy.]

    2) Then came the Inquisitions…

    Mostly people only understand this part of history as “the Witch Hunts”… and “Burning at the Stakes”. OR… envision torture chambers.

    But the truth is… it was a period of ‘Confession’… if I may say…

    See… even in todays world… muslims lie! As they did back then. They claim to be Christians… claim to recognize Jesus… slithering through society… spreading their satanic distorted filth. Weaseling around and out of speaking the Truth.

    See… right after the Islamic Jihadic Conquests… the area was saturated with people including many muslims pretending to be an extension of Christianity.

    Cordoba Spain… is a perfect example. And know this… Cordoba Spain was a major hub for the satanic Islamic world during those ‘Dark Ages”.

    [And remember... the 9/11 New York mosque was once named Cordoba!]

    At any rate… it is my opinion… that the Inquisition was implemented right after the Crusades in order to determine Confessions of faith. A period to “Test the Spirits”… To weed out those ‘pretend’… fake Christians in a time when deceit was rampant.

    And Islam is full of deceit! Trickery! Evil! Always was and always will be!

    The fact stands… muslims today act no different today than what they did 1000-500 years ago! Consider Barack Hussein Obama… who presents himself as a Christian and then secretly observes Islamic ways.

    Actually… a muslim will determine if you’re Islamic by what?
    1) Proclaiming allah as god and that muhammad as it’s messenger

    2) Reciting that faith in Arabic…

    Of course… the mall shooting is evidence of this fact.

    So… how do Christians determine True Christians?

    The Bible tells us…

    By their confession! And some faiths… by their confession of the Nicene Creed…

    By their confession that Christ Jesus is the Son of God… born of the Virgin Mary…. Who was crucified… died for our sins… and rose on the third day!

    The Bible even tells us how to determine all the “antichrist’s”… by those who deny the ‘Trinity’.

    So ask yourselves… How would you have lead the nation of Spain right after the Crusades and dealt with the untrustworthiness which existed?

    I would do it like I do it today… listening to their confession of faith!

    See… I might disagree with ministers of the faith… just as King David disagreed with King Saul. But David never came against Saul.

    I might disagree with things that John Hagee says… or even Jack Van Impe… or others…

    But I will stand with anyone who confesses Christ Jesus is Lord.

  • sumsrent

    You fail to understand the deeper aspects of things…
    Since you mention Martin Luther…
    The truth is… The Catholic Church believed… that by keeping Scripture out of the common everyday persons hands… they wouldn’t be held accountable when they stood before the Judgment Throne.
    In a big way… The Catholic Church was attempting to protect the Christians from their own doings.
    Also… the world intentionally is brainwashed to focus on the petty killings committed by the Church over the centuries… but refuse address all the other more serious atrocities in history. Namely satanic Islam! Why?
    Because it’s satan’s way to keep masses fighting against the Christian Church.
    This way… Islam can step up and be the hero! The solution to all of the world’s problems.
    Get this… The Christian Crusades were implanted to STOP the Islamic Jihadic Conquests! It was either stop Islam dead in it’s tracks or be killed!
    Now what would you do? Kill or be killed?

  • sumsrent

    Half you people have a warped sense of understanding!
    You’d stand and attempt to defend exaggerations, lies and deceits being used to shed a negative light on the Christian World…
    When your thought process should be triggering y’all to think about… all of the atrocious, terrible and more horrific crimes which satanic Islam has done throughout history!
    This article should be causing y’all to wake up and realize how even our very own Christian Brothers/Sisters come against the Body of Christ Jesus and how in a round about way they’re doing the work of satanic Islam.
    Instead… y’all focus on and think the writer of this article is wrong to be exposing those blatant exaggerators, liars and deceivers!
    Folks… get this… exposing a distorter, like MacArthur here is NOT wrong!
    It’s not a wonder why we have so many Christians believing they are involved with a religion they’d rather not belong to… they’ve been listening to truth bending, fact distorting, liars like MacArthur!
    WAKE UP PEOPLE! Arise from your slumber!

    • sumsrent

      You should easily be speaking out against any Christian who attempts to shed a negative light on Christian history when Islam is far worse!
      My question to you is… Why would any preacher swell up his gonads and take the time to speak about the atrocities of Christianity [let alone exaggerate them!]when Islam should be his/her topic, since it has been so much worse!
      And don’t jump on the bandwagon of hating ‘religion’! Way too many of you Christians are spewing this propaganda! More so as an excuse not to attend Church or tithe.
      Or… you haven’t taken the time to study the Word and can’t do much of anything but repeat the same thing you’ve heard spewed by other idiots!

      Hebrews 10:25… “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together…”

      James 1:27… “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”
      Get this… if you think using “religion” is an excuse not to go to Church… you’re wrong! Pure religion exists! And the assembling of ourselves together is just what the enemy wants us to stay away from…
      Don’t be a product of the system… you are a peculiar people! 1Peter 2:9.

  • cacslewisfan

    I do not promote insulting or persecuting Catholics, but Galatians 5:1-4 makes it clear that when people try to justify themselves through ritual, they have fallen from grace. The Catholic Church has covered for many a child molester and told people that if they reported the abuse, they would be denied the Eucharist and therefore go to hell. The Catholic Church promotes Maryology, prayers to the dead, and the necessity of the “Sacrements” for salvation. They also preach that people can lose their salvation by not keeping the sacraments current. Christians must divide truth from error. Jesus commanded us to. That said, I am devastated to learn of the suffering of Catholics in the Middle East. Now is not the time to debate theology with them.

  • H2o2Bill

    Examples of figures concerning the number killed. Chapter 2. ….. (Citing A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion, Christian Publishing Co., 1837, p. 327.).

    Looks like the 50 Million number is real solid yet to be accurate one must see how the 50 Million number was and or is acquired. I tried posting the link but it may or may not be posted. Here is my Google Search. “number of Christians killed by Catholic Church” The above is found right below the link. So calling John Mac a liar over this one is not right. The evidence is there to back up his claim it may be disputed by others yet there is a solid case to be made for the 50 million number. Ever here of John Wesley? I do believe Walid mentions him from time to time.

    • sumsrent

      Yeah… I searched your suggestion…
      And came up with garbage. Typical Christian attacks.
      1) The Crusades… stopping satanic worshipping muslims from conquering the world while enslaving and killing off everyone who refused to convert.
      Of course… that story is always milked by all the anti-Christians
      2) The Inquisitions… the facts prove that more people die every YEAR at the hands of muslims than ALL 350 years of the Inquisitions.
      3) Europe’s struggle with supremacy.
      Naturally this is another issue propagated to the fullest… most the people on this earth accuse the Christians for what is taking place in the Middle East. ALL because America is supposed to be a Christian nation.
      So let’s set the facts straight… America’s involvement in the ME is NOT a Christian movement!
      Q: Why are so many of you Christians so ready to accept the idea that Christianity isn’t that great of a religion? Because of it’s falsified history spun intentionally to discredit Christianity?
      Just like so many of y’all that let science dictate whether the Bible is true. Y’all got it backasswards!

      • H2o2Bill

        You have not refuted anything please try again the man gives many sources for his numbers and goes way out of his way to be accurate and use a just balance he also holds a PHD.

        I never said nor did I hear anyone here say Christianity was not a great religion. I think many Christians would say it’s a relationship with Christ and not a religion. I can say that the Bible is true and the Evolutionist are wrong so please save your assumptions.

        • sumsrent

          Wrong! I’ve given three examples which proves your suggested research is propaganda.

          You said… “number of Christians killed by Catholic Church”
          And… when anyone does that… they come up with those three events… I’ll name them again… since you’re having such a hard time comprehending…
          1) The Christian Crusades
          2) The inquisition
          3) European Supremacy
          All situations that are grasping at straws… for the intentional discrediting of Christianity! The satanic Islamic way!

          And actually… I believe my assumptions were correct… considering you give so much credence to those who hold diplomas. Those who are educated by the system… and brainwashed into ignorance… of the Truth.

          C’mon Bill… your sounding like a hypocrite now… you place such a high value those with educations and yet claim to disapprove of their evolutionary thinking. Hummmm….
          See… I recall a preacher once telling my wife and I how he wished he never attended Theologian Schooling… and how he had to struggle with the brainwashing they were being subjected to…
          But… I see… with your opinion… it wouldn’t matter… as long as they had that PHD… aye?

          • H2o2Bill

            Your really good at launching accusations. Yes I mentioned a PhD yet I did say the mans PhD holds a trump card over all other facts did I? No I mentioned it along with all the information the man gathered and had plenty of sources to make his case. Your trying to discredit the man for having a education. What makes you think the man believes and promotes Evolution? Seems liek your lacking evidence to make this claim.

            Your also keep blaming John Mac for a quote he made from Spurgeon. If you check the records I’m not mixed up either I brought Spurgeon into the discussion that is how I jumped in. People state facts and then you accuse them of trying to bring down Christianity.

            Your really good at making assumptions and using them as a launching point to accuse others of error this has been shown.

            I know about Islam I know the Muslim Brother hood is but one part of Islam. Yet it was the MB at the White-House during the Bush administration most likely planning the Arab Spring across the Middle East so your assessment might be off. The people of Egypt also point out that President Obama is working with the MB so again it seems your estimation is a under exaggeration on your part. And I’m not talking exaggerated language we are talking about you obscuring the truth the facts.

            Is Purgatory taught in The Bible?
            Is Praying to Mary taught in the Bible?
            How about infant baptism?
            How about the position of the Pope?
            How about the Nuns and Priest being told they can’t marry?
            How about calling the priest Father?
            The Catholic Mass?

            In closing and I do mean I have had enough of this one unless I do believe I really need to add something.

            You name one preacher and then put everyone in that boat nice try but no. It’s not going to work with me. To be honest, I think the readers here can decide for themselves at this point in time they can read from David A. Plaisted and decide for themselves.

            Bill Jr

      • H2o2Bill

        You have not refuted anything here, the man has documented many sources to calculate his numbers. He has gone to extremes to give us an accurate number and it certainly seems to me he has used a “just balance”. The man also holds a PhD.

        I for one believe Jesus Christ is the only hope for mankind. I believe the Bible over the Evolutionist and any other scientist that says the Bible is wrong. So please keep your assumptions to yourself they really don’t add to the discussion.

        And again we are talking about RCC history not the history of the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

        In the list of Churches, is Rome mentioned in the book of Revelation?

        By the way what I’m learning many people in the Middle East know exactly what the US is doing in the Middle East. We are furthering the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood. We are doing the bidding of S.A. I suspected this for a long time Walid has confirmed my suspicions. I also was contemplating a Islamic antichrist before I ever heard of Walid or Joel R. I watched a video series called the “Wake Up Project”. I was like is it that simple a Islamic antichrist? When we have all the books and stuff trying to figure it all out.

        Bill Jr

        John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

        • sumsrent

          Things just don’t click with you Bill… do they?

          The problem with you… is you’re like MacArthur…

          You spew the distorted propaganda bent on discrediting Christianity and don’t take the time to research the facts and truth!

          Your hero says he rather be “called a devil”! <<< Do you get that!?

          Now tell me… what person really and truthfully puts forth any sort of "extreme" effort to consider saying such a thing!? Obviously NOT MacArthur!

          Especially if you give any credence to the brainwashing of those who carry "PHD's"…

          Face the fact… the only way anyone can accuse the Catholic Church of killing 50 million people is by conjuring up false figures and playing on the emotions of those who would rather view satanic Islam as a victim of Christianity! <<< Think about that before you waste your time spewing more garbage and dig yourself further in a hole.

          Just because a Christian stands in any war… doesn't mean it's a Christian movement. On the flip side… every move a muslim makes is a move for satanic Islam… a religious government move.

          Also the MB is jack squat! Just a tool for satanic Islam. So stay focused!

          PS… You might want to take a few days… study up and figure out what the New Testament says about who is a Christian. Because the Catholic Church has had and does have many Christians!

          • sumsrent

            Besides… ask yourself… why would the idiot MacArthur put so much effort into talking about the Catholic Church when Islam’s atrocities are so much worse? Some estimates state that Islam is responsible for the deaths of over 270 million people! Others say… 600 million!
            So… why did MacArthur not take that pathway instead?
            IMO… he’s a discredit to the Christian world.

  • PoliticalConnection

    You speak as a Jesuit dissembler under oath, Ted Shoebat. You speak like the devil and the devil’s children will therefore hear what you say, but those with the Spirit will see through your lies. Your works will be repaid you at the Great White Throne Judgment for your lies against GOD’s servants and your perversion of history and whitewashing of Rome. It’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living GOD.

  • Pingback: Christian Holy War Is Coming Back, And God Wants A Crusade | Pitts Report

  • Pingback: Hating Catholics--America’s ONLY Accepted Prejudice | Walid ShoebatWalid Shoebat

  • 1Bobby8

    How can the Bible be Catholics worse enemy when it was the Catholics who put together the New Testament Bible??