What Every Christian Needs To Answer Regarding The Great Apostasy of The Church

By Walid Shoebat (Shoebat Exclusive)

Would having a bust of Obama constitute apostasy? No, so long you do not worship Obama.

When I speak of the Great Apostasy, most think that I am speaking of the “falling away” mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2.

No.

I am speaking of the claim that the Church went apostate right after the New Testament. That claim of “Great Apostasy” on the one side says that the Church veered extensively from the original doctrines and went into practicing water sprinkling instead of full emersion, Mary Worship, veneration of icons, and the veneration of saints and even praying to them and that the Eucharist is definitely adding pagan practices to what was clearly not in Scripture.

Rather than get into the details of each issue many present as “apostasy,” lets ask some serious questions, after all, these issues form the centerpiece of one of the most prevalent interpretive frameworks for understanding the history of the Church, that at some point in time, the Church before the reformers showed up, went apostate and is why we had to have Luther and Zwingli.

The dilemma in this proposition is that the restorationist movements, including the Churches of Christ and Seventh-Day Adventists, The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses which were sects that originated as part of the same movement, base their doctrines on similar claims, that since this is a fact, there is much in common between orthodox evangelicals and such rejected cults.

This view, regardless of what is presented from history, is convinced; despite that they could never find a historian who would agree with them, that from the inception of Christianity and throughout history there is no evidence either archeological or historic to support the claim that the Church evolved into what they deem pagan practice.

So the traditionalist, both Catholic and Orthodox argue that from the very earliest of the Church Fathers — stemming from the Didache (c. A.D. 70s), talk of Baptism by effusion (pouring) as a valid alternative to immersion. Clement of Rome (c. A.D. 70s) argues for authority by apostolic succession; or Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107), who clearly states his belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and unequivocally places local authority in the hands of a single, pastoral bishop.

But even then, proponents of the “Great Apostasy” theory still, argue that this alone demonstrates that the Church had already fallen away from “biblical truth,” even that the historic evidence that is presented is within the lifetimes and memories of the Apostles and within the era of New Testament authorship.

To combat that volume of evidence, the promoters of the “Great Apostasy” theory would then even reject such writings or re-interpret them, arguing that, since these doctrines does not fit the correct biblical interpretations, that they too prove that apostasy began as soon as the New Testament was complete or closely after when Constantine took his office.

The other side contends that such understanding, is such, because these contenders of this “Great Apostasy” theory use ‘private’ interpretation of Scripture, and that this has nothing to do with contradicting Scripture, and the cycle of debate still goes on issues from Peter being the Rock to Purgatory which was in the Book of Maccabees since they differ on the canon.

But the dilemma is that, what about Christians like us, who came out of Islam. It did not matter to us when we either spoke to Lutheran or Catholic regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, both presented the Bible to refute us.

But when we said that the Bible was corrupt, both asked: produce to us an original Bible that we may compare?

We couldn’t.

And since our minds were infused with this claim of “corruption” etched into our psyche, the Christian, both brands, Protestant and Catholic, presented us with primary sources or eyewitness testimony, of the early Christian to support the view that Christianity has always taught this since it was also practiced throughout Christian history.

One can never claim a practice of any faith if one cannot find a historic or an archeological reference to such faith. And if such faith was only practiced purely during the writ of its sacred text, it becomes an obscure cult that is void of the miraculous hand of God, who failed to see to it that it succeeds. Judaism succeeded and is why it’s from God. Christianity succeeded in the same way.

Yet we as Muslims still maintained that the “apostate” Catholic Church altered and corrupted documents and falsified all the historical evidence to support many false theologies, including but not limited to the Crucifixion and the Trinity.

quran-bible

And today, the proponents of this “Great Apostasy” theory practice the same technique as does the Muslim, he would say to the Catholic that the “apostate” Catholic Church altered and corrupted documents and falsified all the historical evidence to support sprinkling instead of full emersion, Mariology, icons, and the veneration of saints and even praying to them, and they added the practice of the Eucharist which is definitely adding pagan practices to what was clearly not in Scripture.

The Muslim view of the Great Apostasy vs. the anti-Catholic Protestant view of the Great Apostasy, while they differ in that Islam included much more in doctrinal issues, fully agrees with the Muslim, that Catholic history was corrupted.

While to the Muslim, the Bible itself got corrupted, to the Protestant, the correct interpretation was corrupted, and if the Muslim says the history was corrupted, many on the Protestant camp would agree, including but not limited to Christian militarism, the justification of Crusades and the authority of Rome.

But then we have another dilemma and a question that is not easily answered; Christianity is such a faith that follows the pinnacle of logic and evidence what I was first introduced to when I reviewed Christianity was what I term as MAHPS (Manuscript, Archeological, Historical, Prophetic and Scientific) evidence.

These five pillars is a concept that blew Islam out of the water and every cult that goes with it. So now that instead of the five pillars of Islam we argued with the Muslim, until of course, we showed no allegiance to certain denominations and many of us hated Martin Luther viewing him as a lunatic. Anyone who would study the historic Luther instead of the Church taught Luther would be abhorred to read The Jews and Their Lies or to see his table talk foulmouthed heresies.

And this sets a major dilemma to the x-Muslim in which we ask; have we fled from the pit of faith without historic evidence to enter a faith that is also void of historic evidence, lost, manipulated, corrupted and changed? That now we must believe that the true Church was lost to perhaps glean it from the Cathars and the Albiginsians who were historically knows for their heresy of Manichaeism?

Delusion stems from assertions and assertions are unfounded because they do not follow the most basic laws of evidence and authority. Such is the Muslim, the Pagan, the Mormon, the Seventh Day Adventist and the Jehovah’s Witness, and so it was with us, the Muslims, but should this also seep into the Orthodox Bible believing Christian? Unfortunately, it does.

So I ask the world, is there a response? When and how did this “Apostate Church” apostatize from “biblical truth”? Who conspired throughout the centuries to falsify all the historical evidence to support Rome, and why did Rome then not also alter the biblical texts to support such doctrines when we had Paul write an entire Epistle to the Romans when right in chapter 1 Paul addresses “to all that be in Rome beloved of God destined to be saints” (Romans 1:7)? It was Rome that was destined not Geneva. Was this verse added by Rome?

Better yet, as the Muslim argues, that Jesus was not the Son of God, why then did the Jews not alter the verses pertaining to the Son of God to shut the mouths of Christians?

Even the Quran itself and whomever was its luciferian author, knew that such logic accusing the Bible of corruption will not stand, it never once alluded to the Bible as textually corrupted, but interpretively corrupted, which is exactly what the proponent of this “Great Apostasy” theory promoters believe. “The Catholic” they say corrupted the message but not the text. At least this is what the more educated and seasoned Muslim debaters would argue, which is much of the same arguments of the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

So the issue is an issue of interpretation and not corruption.

My detractors tell me day and night with comments like “stick with refuting Islam” and “stay away from this divisive talk”, and I ask; isn’t clearing error suppose to be unifying? Wasn’t Jesus focused on sin while everyone else were focused on defeating the Romans?

Yet we ask: Should we concentrate on the Romans [Muslims] and forget that slander is one of the gravest sins?

Such an admonition only comes from the “Great Apostasy” proponents.

By their own logic, which by the way the Muslim would also have to confront another major question that is not easily answered: Did the Holy Spirit, fail to preserve the Church whom the Holy Spirit Himself promised would guide His people into all truth (John 16:13), especially since that the Bible itself says that the Church will be “the pillar and foundation of truth” of 1 Timothy 3:15?

Is this why we are in such a mess in which everyone is a theologian and a bishop? And if we do not like something, we find ways to rebel and write it off. So we categorize everything we reject, as “this is Old Testament” accept of course, the pastor on the pulpit would insist that the 10% tithe traveled miraculously to the New. We say “this doesn’t count” and that is “only for a specific time” so then, lets keep trimming from the bread of life until there is hardly anything left but crumbs, so that the faith is all settled in the Four Spiritual Laws, a booklet, as the Muslim would do, who says “recite this formula,” and “repeat after me and live forever”.

And if some pastor makes grave sins and utters heresies, he is has a “sin problem”, he “fell” he “made a mistake”, but if the Pope makes a mistake, is because he is Antichrist.

I did not become a Christian from a Billy Graham Crusade. I was not one who answered an altar call, I followed “seek and you shall find” “knock and the door will be opened …”

I spent decades seeking, still yet even seeking more and I find, apiece here, the fountain Christ that He provided never ends and I am always quenched when I seek, and never thirst.

It was after all us, the Muslims who contended that there was an amalgamation of Christian truth that was mixed with elements of paganism like sun worship which started with Constantine who embraced Christianity merely as a political ploy to declare himself the head of the Roman Church and introduced worship of images — both icons and statues to substitute for pagan idolatry through Mariology and the Eucharist to replace sun disk worship. While these remained in me when I continued my faith attending the Baptist and the non-denominational, these remained, not because I was told by some loon on TV to believe this, but that this was an etched signature of a cult that is so demonic we called Islam.

I have much to repent from.

And then I challenged the best apologists to prove that the Catholic Church committed mass murder in Europe, wiping out as many as 50 million Christians. I presented my challenge to the best debaters they can offer, Mr. James White. He of course, retreated. Never have I seen such a debate take place. Why? Its because White knows its a false claim.

These would look like fools advocating that the Catholic Church massacred millions of Bible Believing Christians.

This is history’s greatest slander, ever.

Of course, there are the mad who lump the Manichaeans, Arians, Cathars, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Bogomiles, Waldensians, Albigensians, Lollards and Hussites as ‘Bible believing Christian’. Eliminate these and the “millions” figure is not supported by any serious historian.

The beauty of history is that while it goes through revisionism, it’s difficult to manipulate without notice and is why such authors resort to theologians proclaiming them as historians.

I had even tracked countless self-ordained historians and their publications who write historic fabrications to only find out they were theologians guised as historians. Its a free country and there are no watchdog who would execute you for lying. Peter De Rosa (aka Neil Boyd) was not a historian but an X-priest, novel writer and Professor of Metaphysics. John Wesley was not a historian but a theologian. Alexander Hislop was not a historian but a Pastor of East Free Church of Arbroath in Scotland and the core of information that accuses the church of paganism stems from this man who was totally refuted by one who followed him Ralph Woodrow. When Woodrow wrote his “Babylon Mystery Religion” so many consumed the fabrications and when he later repented and recanted these errors, he wrote “The Babylon Connection?” so few read it and many even gave it a low review.

Then you have Schmucker was not a historian but a Professor of Theology. William Craig Brownlee was not a historian but a reverend and an American clergyman and professor of languages. Joseph Martin McCabe was not a historian but an x-Catholic priest. Charles Buck was not a historian but a reverend and author of Theological Dictionary. Vergerius was not a historian but a religious ‘reformer’. Thomas Armitage was not a historian but a Protestant theologian. George Bourne was not a historian but a pastor. Cushing B. Hassell was not a historian but a writer.
Dr. M. Geddes was not a historian but a Chaplain. John B. Wilder was not a historian but a writer. Taylor Bunch was not a historian but a Prophecy author.
Nathaniel Crouch (pseud. Robert Burton) was not a historian but a writer. Henry Southwell was not a historian but a reverend. John Wylie was a not a historian but minister of the Free Church of Scotland. J. M. Carroll was not a historian but a Southern Baptist minister. Avro Manhattan was not a historian but a British writer.
Charles Chiniquy was not a historian, but a Canadian x-Catholic priest who was twice suspended from his priestly ministry (for moral turpitude). R. W. Thompson, was not a historian but a politician. John William Bowden was not a historian but theologian. Walter j. Veith is not a historian or a “world acclaimed international lecturer” but a zoologist. Frances L. Carroll, was not a historian but simply a Jehovah’s Witness and a housewife. All that funneled into a guy named David A. Plaisted who is not a historian but a professor in the Department of Computer Science.

Do any of these gain recognition from real historians? No.

The very ones who accused the Church of fabrication, provided the fabricated books to make a grand claim of “Great Apostasy”.

And here we are, instead of fighting Islam we fight over an icon, a two-dimensional image (portrait), or a three-dimensional image (statue) depicting Jesus, Mary, Saints and Angels. The “icon” comes from the Greek word “εἰκών”,
 which simply means “image”.

Whether one argues that these are worshipped or not is not the issue here. The Church throughout history has banned icons when they noticed it went too far and then brought them back. People go too far on everything and we have Holy Spirit madness with false healings and manifestations of the Holy Spirit on stages galore. I veer from all nonsense.

But as far as the icon issue, Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who was known for writing the monumental universal history Bibliotheca historica, much of which survives, between 60 and 30 BC. Gives us a look into the Temple when it was desecrated by Antiochus:

“Antiochus therefore abhorring this, their contrariety to all other people, used his utmost endeavour to abrogate their laws. To that end he sacrificed a great swine at the image of Moses, and at the altar of God that stood in the outward court, and sprinkled them with the blood of the sacrifice.” (Diodorus Siculus. The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian in Fifteen Books Volume 2, Page 544)

An icon, a statue of Moses on a donkey, you might ask?

Yes.

donkeyjesus

 

The icon stems from the Hebrew version of Exodus 4:20 reads:

“And Moses took his wife and children, mounted them on an ass, and set out for Egypt with the staff of God in his hand”.

And isn’t our Messiah also known to have rode the donkey:

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, He is triumphant and victorious, lowly and riding upon an ass: even upon a colt, the foal of an ass.” (Zechariah 9:9)

Would it be prohibited to have a statue of Jesus in a church if Moses riding on a donkey in the Temple was not? And should such prohibition include the brazen serpent on a pole and the angels on the Ark of the Covenant as idols?

So they say that those images are exemptions created by God’s order. Would God allow an exemption of an idol, indeed if an image always constitutes an idol?

Would Moses riding a donkey not constitute an idol and only a Mary statue does?

And why didn’t Jesus crack the whip over such images as Moses in the Temple or for the Pharisees having a tradition of the “seat of Moses” which by the way was God ordained and these were never even mentioned in the Old Testament Scripture?

These were not even written about in the Old Testament, yet Jesus spoke of it. Jesus also never condemned the Temple and yet they had icons of Moses when nowhere in the Bible does it discuss such icons. Jesus was busy whipping corruption and the ones who worshipped Caesar and not the icons; Jesus did not condemn the image of Cesar, He prohibited worshipping it.

Not everything needs to be in Scripture but that everything we do must agree with Scripture.

Prior to the 1930`s, most scholars were convinced that ancient Jewry were iconoclast and had produced no art. As a result, the discovery in 1932 of the biblical wall-paintings decorating the third century synagogue of Dura Europos, Syria stunned the academic world.

wall-with-torah-niche

They had the Torah ark, Abraham standing firm before the altar, knife raised, his back to the viewer. The Early Church emerged from Israel, and we inherited the Israelite’s ancient love for icons. Like the early Jewish synagogues, the catacombs and the most ancient Christian Churches were filled with holy icons.

While the Messianic wants to reflect to the original Church, he worships in Hebrew, but then what does he do with Israelite icons?

Even three-dimensional icons can be traced all the way back to the Tabernacle and the Temple in ancient Israel, and their beauty continues to the present day within Orthodox Christianity.

In ancient Israel, during the time of Moses, God commanded His people to fill the Tabernacle with icons of angels, both 2D and 3D. The Ark of the Covenant was adorned with three-dimensional cherubim, while two-dimensional images of angels were woven into the tapestry.
Approximately 1000 years before the birth of Christ, the first Temple in Jerusalem was built by King Solomon. This holy construction project included some impressive golden statues:

“Inside the inner sanctuary, he made two cherubim standing majestically, each ten cubits high. One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub, five cubits. It was ten cubits from the tip of one wing to the tip of the other. The other cherub was ten cubits; both cherubim were of the same size and shape. The height of one cherub was ten cubits, and so was the other cherub. Then he set both cherubim inside the inner room; and they stretched out the wings of the cherubim, so the wing of one touched one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall. Their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. He also overlaid the cherubim with gold.” (3 Kingdoms 6:22-27. The Orthodox Study Bible
[p. 395]. Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.)

In the United States, images of Moses and the tablets of the Decalogue also claim biblical roots to U.S. law (as on the pediment of the Supreme Court building in Washington).

Yet only the Catholic and the Orthodox are idol worshippers when fact is, many make idols and even worship them, from money to lousy holywood icons to even lousy presidents, like the one we have. Its alright to have the bust of Mary, so long you do not worship her.

print
  • Golden, though I expect the normal culprits to ramble in moments.

    • shoebat

      No they won’t, they are like the folks who came to heckle, they sit in the back and shout in the end.

      • That would be a pleasant surprise. This place is wonderful when the grownups are free to discuss worthy things. Much gets done.

        • Steve Smith

          Brother, I found this vid it is by a new film co in Russia.

          Just think of all the Atheist and Zapadniki (WESTERN) secular crap we had forced on us, it is an out of season PASKA.

      • Steve Smith

        Walid, I found this guy on Provoslavie dot ru here a link he writes well he has a blog his name is Gabe Martini.

        http://onbehalfofall.org/christian-iconography-and-the-art-of-rewriting-history/

      • Okay, okay, okay. I confess! I am one of those “culprits” and a “nutter” that Rudy and Walid describe. However, I am a “saved” culprit/nutter through my faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ, my personal Lord and Saviour, High priest and Redeemer since 1976. For this, and to Him, I give thanks each day. 🙂

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Mike, baptism is how one enters into the New Covenant, including babies. Eating His flesh and drinking His Blood in the Eucharist is renewing/keeping the covenant. What you describe did not appear in Christianity for almost 1600 years, an adulteration of the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints.

          • Thank you, Julie. I believe that the “Baptism” Jesus spoke of is the Baptism by the Holy Spirit, when one is spiritually regenerated and Born-Again, as Christ said one must be. As far as water baptism, My wife and I were baptized, full immersion, in 1976. 🙂

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Mike, here you go, doing what Walid has fully exposed, making an interpretation that is totally contrary to what the early Church believed and practiced. You suffer from lack of knowledge. Why do refuse to study early church history? If you will read the account of Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descended. If you will read the OT, God used ‘water and spirit’ many times to ‘save’ and to create ‘new things’.Just because we don’t ‘see’ the Holy Spirit above the baptismal waters does not mean He isn’t there, same with the Eucharist which, according to Jesus, is an absolute command, yet people like you spiritualize the meaning away. Do you even know what a covenant is? God has always worked through covenants. He didn’t change just because He became flesh. Ezekiel 36:25 ” I will sprinkle you with clean water to make you clean.” Water baptism washes away sin. Babies need baptism because they have the stain of original sin, and that is a sin that you can’t repent of or ‘declare’ it gone. The Church is authoritative and has all the power of heaven, what they bind on earth is bound in heaven.

          • Thanks, Julie. You will accept what you have been taught and that’s understandable. So, let’s agree to disagree here because my Salvation is secure through my faith in Christ. As you may have read in one of my posts, my marriage was saved through God’s Divine Intervention back in 1976 and that’s when my wife and I became Born-Again Children of God through faith in the New Testament Jesus Christ. My life was changed from the type of guy I had been before and, again, I praise the Lord for His Mercy and Faithfulness to those who call upon His Name. If you would like to read a bit of my testimony of God’s Divine Intervention in my life, it has been posted for several years at:
            http://www.christian-faith.com/testimonies/mike-ramirez.html

            🙂

          • Julie LaBrecque

            What you believe is an adulteration of the faith. I accept what the Church who holds the Keys to the Kingdom teaches and always has about baptism, and all Christians likewise did until the great reformers who saved Christianity showed up. I do not and never have questioned your commitment to our Savior. In case you care to know, one of the debates amongst the early church was to whether or not baptism (which replaced circumcision as entrance into God’s covenant) was administered on the eighth day or prior to the eighth day. The consensus was the sooner the better.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        “The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for fifteen consecutive centuries. No one can halt at the end of those 1500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve Apostles, who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.” Former Rabbi Zolli, Jewish convert to Catholicism after the holocaust. Quote from ‘Eugenio Zolli’, Judith Cabaud, p.109.

    • Steve Smith

      So true, the nutters will soon start flinging muck.
      zotrules had a temper tam-trum when I presented hard facts, he could not explain Dura Europos. All he could say was how, I hurt him presenting him with Orthodoxy, then all the nasty came out, Whore of Babylon Idolaters and several other nice words.

      • Rapheal Sebastian

        And some new names too. I bet he spends a lot of time thinking up such things, when clearly no Catholic cares about his beliefs. Really, how many Catholics go to daily Mass and discuss what this or that Protestant said? Yet these are the same people so eager to hear what the Pope has to say and the teachings of the Holy Church through their charlatan snake oil peddling pastors and “reverends” when they do not believe in Papal Authority or belong to the Catholic Church and follow her teachings.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          So glad you said that. I know of no Catholic in my parish or others I know personally that endeavors to scroll the news (or just make some up) looking for crap on a protestant pastor or one of their members so it can be spewed around. Look at the post below that spoke about the telescope named Lucifer and he states that it belongs to the Vatican and is run by Jesuits, while the truth is that the telescope named Lucifer is owned by a German consortium and is near the Vatican Observatory in Tucson which is manned by Jesuit astronomers. I so tire of having to fight trash info and conspiracy theories.

          • Rapheal Sebastian

            I saw that post, it’s so ridiculous I had to go google who actually owned the telescope too and realized they were separate. I live in AZ now, and I have flown near the observatory down in Tucson and I know for a fact that the VATT is the name of the telescope used by the Vatican, it’s just these loons trying to tie the two separate telescopes as one. Nice try, though.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      No they won’t. Roaches run from light.

  • disqus_eYvcSkOcNL

    Wow do I wish there was a 10 Commandment comparison on this page.

  • AnthonyM

    Good article. Wouldn’t it be grand if we were all united?

    • richinnameonly

      Yes, but unfortunately I don’t think it will happen until Jesus returns Right now we seem to be united on the surface. Underneath, some seem to be a stones throw away.

  • Steve Smith

    mary. don’t think that you are alone, they hate us Orthodox too.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      They only disparage Mary in attempt to overthrow original Christianity.

      • Steve Smith

        Yes, and do you think Jesus is happy with them, when they trash his mother? I don’t think so.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Not at all. They might as well be plucking hair from HIs face.

  • Kamau40

    Great article. I really to do wish that all of us as Christians would all be united instead of divided.

  • shoebat

    Here they come Rudy, the nutter is here.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Most roaches run from light. Guess this one has cataracts.

  • shoebat

    Usually the demons speak out of context, there utterings are fragmented and are always accusing without presenting evidence. Do you see the exit door, or do I need to drag your behind there myself by using an icon to cast you out?

  • shoebat

    The verse is for you, for even demons use Scripture.

  • 1Bobby8

    “Those who know history cease to be Protestant.”~Bishop John Newman. Thank you Mr.Shoebat for being so knowledgeable on history… God bless you

  • Loyal Catholic

    Great article. Pray that the protestants may be led to the fullness of truth.

  • Stephen Dalton

    Silly heretic, scriptures are for us, not you!

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Perhaps their (Pope & Patriarch) soon meeting will produce much fruit.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    But they think they are on the ‘right’ path.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Would you care to share your beliefs? You are probably one of those being destroyed from lack of knowledge.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Many people hated and were prejudiced against Jesus in His day, expect no less for His Church.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Would you please quit reading conspiracy theorists? The telescope Lucifer (owned by a German company) is in close proximity to the Vatican Observatory on Mt. Graham in Tucson. If you at all trust Popular Science, read their article dated 4-23-10, unless you think they are in cahoots with the Jesuits.

    • shoebat

      I deleted the post you responded to, they always come in here and change the subject instead of dealing with what is said in the article.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Is this all they do? I get sick and tired of fighting crap, made-up, trash these people believe in and spew forth Job’s patience is wearing thin.

        • Steve Smith

          It did with me, now I have to go to confession this afternoon after vespers.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Lucky you. Mine is a mission parish. Would have to drive 30 miles to go to confession

          • Steve Smith

            Yes, I am lucky. Have a vid up of a young Priest in Russia opening missions, at the top of the page.Don’t have time to translate BUT THE MESSAGE COMES ACRSOSS.
            For over 80 years the Atheist State tried to crush God from us.
            But look at Russia now, we held on to what was handed down to us. People are forgiven, nothing is forgotten.

          • Rapheal Sebastian

            We pray for the consecration of Russia, Steve.

    • Rapheal Sebastian

      Sheesh! The things these nutjobs come up with is astounding!

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Are you allowed to ‘mediate’ for someone?

  • John Sobieski

    Great article, Walid.

  • shoebat

    Allen, you should listen carefully to the debate I had with your top Mormon apologist Martin Tanner. His arguments were found rather wanting since he, in order to defend your false prophet Joseph Smith, ended up accepting that Prophet Muhammad was a true prophet of God. Why he had to do this? It was simple, Smith praised Muhammad as a prophet of God. Now, are you also, as did your false prophet Mr. Smith, say that Muhammad is a true prophet?

    Go ahead, make my day and challenge all you want. But try to first answer the dilemma here.

  • shoebat

    I deleted your crap from Tom Horn and the “alien invasion”. If you like to bring Horn for a debate, I will be glad to show you the man is completely nuts, sort of like what you are doing at this stage. Here, first read this on the “alien invasion” garbage:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/tom-horn-profiting-from-false-prophecy

    Then read this. The man concocted a “false prophecy of St. Malachy”. Here is an excellent article exposing one of his false claims, read it carefully three times daily before and after meals and check with me tomorrow to see how your mental state is doing.

    Tom Horn and Cris Putnam have written the book of books demonstrating Pope Francis to be the last pope. Yes, folks, the end of the world is upon us. The book is called Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here, published in 2012. This is not to be confused with their sequel, Exo-Vaticanus, published in 2013, which exposes a secret plan of the Vatican to usher in the arrival of a savior who is actually an alien a la E.T. I suppose now that the end is here and all, we need to know just what the end is going to look like. Explaining that one would require another post.

    The 2012 book is based on an increasingly popular alleged prophecy, which is really more of a litany of prophecies, of the great reformer Bishop St. Malachy (1094-1148), who served as bishop of Conner, then Down, and finally as archbishop of Armagh, all in Ireland. The authors claim St. Malachy predicted the final 112 popes beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143), not by name, but by a short epithet, or motto, for each, leading us to the final pope before the Apocalypse, who is none other than our own Pope Francis.

    The “prophecy” in question is real in the sense that it exists and is claimed to be written by St. Malachy. But when examined critically, it turns out neither to be true (meaning it contains things that don’t hold up the level of scrutiny required of a true prophecy) nor actually written by St. Malachy. At least, that is what the overwhelming majority of modern scholars believe. The so-called “prophecy of St. Malachy” appears to be a fraud.

    There are multiple takes on the “prophecy” itself, and not all who believe it also believe a space alien is going to be revealed as “savior” by the Vatican, either. Over the centuries, it has been believed by Catholics of note, Cornelius a Lapide among them. So it is not as though its fraudulent nature is self-evident.

    From what I have read from those who believe the prophecy to be of supernatural origin today, they generally agree on three central points: Francis is the final pope, the end is therefore upon us, and St. Malachy proves it to be so.

    Problems with the Prophecy

    While there are more problems with this prophecy than we have space to address in this post (I recommend Jimmy Akin’s blog for more of these problems), perhaps its major problems, or categories of problems, could be broken down into two: 1. The prophecy was not penned by St. Malachy; therfore, it is a fraud. 2. The epithets, or mottos, that describe each of the 112 popes are fraught with ambiguities to the point that some are impossible to defend as true prophecy.

    Who Wrote the Prophecy of St. Malachy?

    The prophecy was first published in AD 1590-1595 by a Benedectine monk named Arnold Wion in a book titled Lignum Vitae, which was a history of the Benedictine order. Critics say Wion did more than publish it; he most likely created it. This is evidenced by the fact that the alleged prophetic mottos were remarkably accurate when the popes from Celestine II (pope when St. Malachy was alive and when the “prophecy” was allegedly given to him) until Urban VII (pope when Wion published it) are mentioned. After these popes the epithets become ambiguous and, as we’ll see below, some of them virtually impossible to tag to the popes they were supposedly referring to.

    When you couple these facts with the facts that St. Bernard of Clairvaux—a close friend of St. Malachy, who wrote the biography of this great saint—never mentions anything of this prophecy, and, indeed, nothing that we know of was recorded about it for the roughly four hundred years between St. Malachy’s time and the publication of the prophecy, this is a definite problem.

    Proponents argue the prophecy was lost and only rediscovered by Wion, but this hardly answers the problem of why St. Bernard, in whose arms St. Malachy died, would have known nothing of it.

    Prophecies Not Prophetic

    Perhaps the most damning evidence against the claims of the prophecy can be seen by examining the actual prophetic epithets themselves. The epithets of the popes between Celestine II and Urban VII are generally related to their birthplaces, family names, their coat of arms, or to some title they held before each became pope. And they are generally quite obvious. However, the subsequent popes . . . let’s just say their mottos get very interesting at times. Here are some of my favorites.

    Pope Benedict XIV is referred to as “rustic animal”—in Latin, animal rurale. This means something akin to what southerners might call a “country boy.” But Benedict XIV was anything but a country boy. He was a brilliant scholar educated in Rome at the Collegium Clementium, which he entered at the age of 13! He was well-known for his learning in science as well as theology, philosophy, and canon law. He was also an exceptional administrator and a man of many talents, respected within and without the Church. He was anything but animal rurale!

    Proponents of the prophecies attempt to say this could refer to his “plodding determination” like an ox in a field. Can anyone say “Weak?”

    Pope Clement XIII is referred to as “Rose of Umbria.” Supporters of the prophecies attempt to say this is a reference to the several Franciscans this pope canonized. You know. . . roses . . . St. Francis. The “Rose of Umbria.”

    Really?

    Clement IV is referred to as “Swift Bear.” Proponents claim his family, the Ganganelli family, had a running bear on their coat of arms, but there is no evidence for this.

    Pius VII is referred to as “Rapacious Eagle.” There is nothing even close to this in relation to the Pope himself, so supporters claim this may be a reference to the arms of Napoleon who reigned during the time of Pope Pius. It definitely seems as though we are stretching things here in Jonathan Edwards-esque fashion.

    John Paul I is referred to as “of the half moon.” Your guess is as good as mine.

    And finally, we should mention our present Pope Francis. He is referred to as “Peter the Roman” in the prophecy. The best the proponents of the prophecy have been able to do is point out that our good Cardinal Bergoglio took the name of St. Francis, whose father’s name was Pietro. Of course! Plus, even though he is Argentinian, his parents are Italian. Huh? Huh?

    There are many more examples we could cite here demonstrating the overwhelming evidence that the so-called “prophecy of St. Malachy” is a hoax, but perhaps it would be best to close now with a word to the wise.

    We must always be careful with private revelations—and that is essentially what this is—whether approved or not. The “prophecy of St. Malachy” has not been approved by the Church, but the Church teaches us that we must never place divine faith in any private revelation even if it is approved. Their role is to lead us to Christ in his Church and to the divine faith that is able to save our souls. They are means and never ends in themselves.

    • GN4GN.COM

      actually his book is document that is what the vactican is saying. So you denying falling angels disgusting themselves as aliens or another beings to be the saviour of mankind. You deny the existence of giants and their return.
      http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802629.htm

    • GN4GN.COM

      i would love to see steve quayle and tom horn crush you, scripture is on their side, i’ll debate you, i have the word of God backing me. What happen in the days of noah?

      • shoebat

        You are already debating and so far, your not doing very well. Secondly, the debate is over the article written on this post and not your alien invasion. Now, you either refute what is written in the article, (this includes you post the quote you intend to refute) or I will have to throw you out. Which is it? Do you not as a “Christian” respect the rules of the site where you are a guest, or are you like a bull in a china store? This is the last warning.

  • shoebat

    genesis, its usually demons who speak in fragmented talk. Please learn first how to construct statements with proof.

  • shoebat

    Yona,

    The trouble with your comment is that it does not address what was written at all. Please look at all the question marks in the article and give us an answer.

    I am also surprised that a bust of Mary is more problematic than Luther getting busted. You say:

    “As for Luther we shouldn’t expect 100% for he is a human, I believe he made many mistakes us we all do but he believed in the truth of the bible and studied and brought more knowledge of the bible to the people.”

    Here, take a look at Luther’s quotes and tell me if they are simply “mistakes” or blasphemies:

    “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly … as long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin … No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.” (1)

    Had this been an instruction of mine, the church would definitely condemn me, but since this is an instruction of someone respected by millions, the moment I will give his name, you might not condemn him, but you would instantly condemn the messenger instead, or better yet, even try to re-interpret the man.

    The man who said this is Martin Luther, our Protestant reformer, and since he said it (and not I), many will try to explain it away.

    But how can one explain away “Be a sinner and sin boldly,” that “sin does not separate us from God”?

    How can we accept a statement like this that does not advocate repentance and turning away from sin?

    One theologian, David Clines attempts to clarify our confusion lest we misunderstand the pious Luther:

    “Luther here is far from advocating ‘the power of positive sinning’ he is warning from over scrupulousness and charging the young Melanchthon to recognize only genuine sin can be forgiven; he is making a distinction between sin and ‘sin’. (2)

    And another writes in Luther’s defense:

    “Luther was prone to strong hyperbole. It’s his style.”

    And another writes:

    “Luther’s point is not to go out and commit multiple amounts of gleeful sin everyday, but rather to believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly despite the sin in our lives.”

    So how should I interpret Luther’s troubling statement here?

    Well, I don’t.

    I simply look at the rest of the evidence to see what Luther really meant. Anyone can find clear statements in which Luther was clearly promoting sin and debauchery:

    “Do not ask anything of your conscience; and if it speaks, do not listen to it; if it insists, stifle it, amuse yourself; if necessary, commit some good big sin, in order to drive it away. Conscience is the voice of Satan, and it is necessary always to do just the contrary of what Satan wishes.” (3)

    Ok, we might try to explain this away. But how about:

    “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come.” (4)

    That might sound good for a Saudi Muslim, but a Christian?

    How about:

    “Suppose I should counsel the wife of an impotent man, with his consent, to give herself to another, say her husband’s brother, but to keep this marriage secret and to ascribe the children to the so-called putative father. The question is: Is such a woman in a saved state? I answer, certainly.” (Ibid)

    I guess we can be saved regardless if we commit the most horrendous acts of debauchery.

    And then this:

    “It is not in opposition to the Holy Scriptures for a man to have several wives.”(5)

    Isn’t this polygamy? Can I have a harem and still am saved? Maria my wife would kill me.

    Luther then says:

    “As to divorce, it is still a debatable question whether it is allowable. For my part I prefer bigamy to it.” (6)

    We each have to ask; who is Luther that I should care to interpret his interpretation of Scripture; the Bible should be sufficient without Luther, shouldn’t it?

    The question isn’t Luther’s statements, but why so many theologians defend him, especially that there are countless obvious immoral statements in his writings? I gave only three references from some of Luther’s defenders (there are hundreds) who re-interpret Luther’s statements. Many are simply Luther’s sycophants.

    We cannot avoid that Scripture has been interpreted in the first century up to the sixteenth and after, without Luther. Why then do we insist on erecting websites and writing books in defense of Luther?

    I had lost respect for Luther the day I learned he was an anti-Semite. He wrote regarding the Jews:

    “My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…Second, that all their books—-their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible—-be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted … Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…The rulers must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs.” (7)

    This sounds more like the works of the Muslim Al-Ghazali rather then a true Christian. Al-Ghazali wrote:

    “Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle [-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…” (8)

    How can someone re-interpret Luther here without sanctioning Al-Ghazali?

    Whenever I brought up all the negatives of Luther, especially his anti-Semitism, the response was that these were residues he had picked up from his background in the Catholic Church. But whenever we find all the good about Luther (his genius in translating Scripture) it was because he revolted against the Catholic Church.

    But it was from the God of the Jews—-whom Luther hated His people–that was the origin of our faith.

    I concluded that I didn’t need the Hitler-like speech with an Islamic tone anti-Semite Luther to teach me issues on faith, which to me having come from the Middle East were simple; tested faith is faith indeed.

    By now, you might think “why should I care” “I do not follow Luther”, or you might object, “do not throw the baby with the bathwater”.

    But the two, Martin Luther and the Protestant, regardless if he was called evangelical, Messianic, Charismatic or whatever, they are inseparable from Luther’s teachings. It was Luther who coined our two most important theological principles; Sola-Fide and Sola-Scriptura. Dare any of us argue these?

    Throughout the years, I asked tons of questions to my mentors, that if we were so intertwined to Luther, the other issue for me was; does my salvation depend on my acceptance or rejection of Luther or my acceptance or rejection of Jesus?

    And how could we accept such analogy “do not throw the baby out with the bathwater”, especially that when such a slogan comes from liberals defending Darwin? It was that freak of nature Darwin who penned racist remarks that the “negro” was still evolving?

    While the liberal defends Darwin’s racism by countering that we need not throw the baby (evolution theory) out with the bathwater (Darwin’s racism), which Protestants rebuke such an analogy; nevertheless, Protestants make the same arguments in defending Luther.

    And we always argue that Protestants are not liberal.

    One would counter this argument that while Darwin’s theory was all “bath water,” Luther’s is not.

    Indeed, but the bathwater is drowning once we examine the volumes of statements made by Luther from promoting adultery to clear blasphemies.

    I hated reading Luther’s interpretations; to me they were the tradition of men. He had convoluted ideas that stemmed from his hatred of Jews, works, and obedience to God. He introduced easy believism and promoted sin. To Luther the matrimonial act is:

    “a sin differing in nothing from adultery and fornication.” (9)

    What then is the purpose of marriage for Luther you may ask? Luther affirms that it’s simply to satisfy one’s sexual cravings:

    “The body asks for a woman and must have it”

    “To marry is a remedy for fornication.” (10)

    Even when it comes to Christ, Luther blasphemed Him:

    “Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (11)

    Luther was a liberal. If Luther was here today, he would probably have written The Da Vinci Code. Even when it came to Christ, Luther himself would not throw Jesus with the non-existing bathwater:

    “It does not matter how Christ behaved—what He taught is all that matters.” (12)

    Sure, I could understand it, if such statements came from some lunatic Nazi, but to be the Moses of the Protestant movement who had brought us all crossing the Red Sea to flee the bondage of the Pharaoh who was the Pope, was too much to bear.

    I could understand that Muhammad married A’isha when she was six, sure that was some sinner, but for that pedophile to be a prophet?

    Can one accept a Bible interpretation by an anti-Semite madman?

    Also, according to Jesus the main instruction He gave us to recognize a true believer was the “fruits of the spirit”. Jesus clearly said that we shall “know them by their fruit”.

    Had tyrants written the volumes of Luther’s works, can we expect to follow the Bible According to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mussolini?

    How could it matter not what one feels about Luther, all Protestant denominations adhere in someway or the other to Luther’s interpretations using sola scriptura and sola fide which the evangelical, the messianic, charismatic … no matter what species of Protestant, this is the most major doctrine, which without, you become an anathema.

    I must then say that Sola Fide is not Luther’s discovery, it was in fact used all along before him.

    To do away with Luther is to have to ignore all Protestant Bible interpretations from the sixteenth century onward and only read commentaries and interpretations from the first century to the fifteenth before Luther showed up at the doorstep challenging Pharaoh to “let my people go”.

    Some might argue, “let the one with no sin cast the first stone”.

    But we are not speaking of sin, but heresy and blasphemy of the worst kind.

    Why not then read the old aged wine; Polycarp, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, Ignatius, Origen, Clement, Jerome, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil and Ambrose instead of Luther?

    And so what if these were considered Catholic? Can anyone show me these men’s blasphemies? I know that the Catholic Church of today with all its corruption is not the Catholic Church of yesteryears, but I also see many great Catholics who are fighting a good fight. Do I alienate these just because Luther said so?

    And so what if some writers were Protestant; can anyone show me the blasphemies of C.S. Lewis?

    And so what if I read the Deuterocanonical books? Should I not read these because Luther decided to take them out?

    Prior to Luther, all Christians read these as the Word of God.

    What about the Didache? I read this wonderful work, which is the oldest Christian writing after the New Testament. From it I saw how the first Christians conducted their practices and there are many things that have been excluded as a result of Luther and Zwingli. And who is Zwingli anyway that I must obey him? For how long will man elevate man instead of Christ?

    And why can’t I use the Didache as a support document with Biblical texts to understand more about 1st Century Christianity?

    Must we as Christians be strict Sola Scripturist, to the point that we cannot learn from the ancients on how they viewed Scripture?

    Most Evangelicals steer clear of Patristic study since they exercise a strict “Sola Scriptura” that was acquired from Luther. But this I fear is to our detriment in the long run, we should be interested in how those Christians closest to the apostles understood the teaching of the apostles. Isn’t that the reason Evangelicals are attracted the Messianics?

    And if Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, why can’t I nail 95 of Luther’s blasphemies on my blog?

    REFERENCES
    1) Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521, American Edition, Luther’s Works, vol. 48, pp. 281-82. Von Loewenich Walther, Martin Luther: The Man and His Work, P.p. 204. Placher William Carl The Domestication of Transcendence: How Modern Thinking about God Went Wrong, P.p. 89. Bayne Peter Martin Luther, His Life and Work, Volume 2, P.p. 156-157.

    (2) Clines David J. A On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, P.p. 560-561

    (3) J. Dollinger, La Reforme et les resultants qu’elle a produits. (Trans. E. Perrot, Paris, Gaume, 1848-49), Vol III, pg. 248*.

    (4) Luther, On Married Life

    (5) From De Wette, Vol. 2, p. 459

    (6) From “On Marriage

    (7) Luther, On The Jews And Their Lies

    (8) See 53 Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi’i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190-91; 199-200; 202-203. [English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.].

    (9) Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654. Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145.

    (10) Grisar, “Luther”, vol. iv, pg. 145. Weimar, Vol 8. Pg. 654.

    (11) Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107. – What a great blasphemy from a man who is regarded as “great reformer”

    (12) Erlangen Vol. 29, Pg. 126

    • Rapheal Sebastian

      Thank you!

  • shoebat

    Thomas, try to answer the questions that are presented in the article.

  • shoebat

    You are NOT a Bible believing nothing. You believe more in conspiracy theories and you are so filled with slander its not even funny. Now, you are welcome to answer the “?” in the article or else please leave.

  • shoebat

    qbertbertqbert, first if you can, please answer my questions in my article and then I will be glad to answer yours.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    My simple explanation for the Immaculate Conception can be summarized with these 3 questions. IS God Almighty? How can the Word Incarnate be in a sinful body? IF God is Almighty, why can He not have already chosen the Blessed Mother of Jesus and made her sinless?

    Anyway, even Martin Luther accepts the Immaculate Conception as correct teaching. It’s only the recent Protestants that changed even the teachings of the founder of their religion.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    By your own admission, you said, “I know a little about Catholics.” The operatibe phrase here being ” a little”. Yet you do not heed God’s warning in Hosea 4:6 My people perish because of lack of knowledge. That in itself should give you a clue that maybe you should go find out more, perhaps?

  • shoebat

    27th,

    You always do this. You barge on the article, and instead of addressing what is in “?”, you froth. Unless you start addressing instead of complaining, I will have no choice but to let you go. You stated continually how much you so wanted to leave, yet you are still commenting saying that you want to “leave”. Is there perhaps an addiction to keep at it? Now you want to discuss “two creeds”, sort of like Islam, make so kiss and simple, that one can easily fall prey to evil. I am not interested in your diversions.

    Now, you are welcome to refute and answer what we have in the “?” in the article or else, silence, please.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Jude admonishes us to contend for the faith that was delivered once and for all delivered to the Saints. You would have to read the writings of the disciples of the Apostles to find out what they believed and how they practiced. I can tell you it does not resemble Protestantism as it exists today. Most protestants today ditched a lot of what their forefathers the reformers believed. Do you eat His flesh and drink His blood as even the Bible commands you to do? You can decide whether or not you have the fullness of truth.

    • Steve Smith

      Julie, how can they partake of the Holy Mysteries when they do not have access to them? they reject that it is real and come up with their own Bar-B-QUE Ho-down.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        It is quite simple: They DONT’ BELIEVE IN THEM! Even with all that Paul writes in 1 Cor 10 & 11, 1 Cor 4:1 “Thus should one regard us; as servants of Christ and stewards of the MYSTERIES OF GOD”, all that Jesus said in John 6, Matt, Mark, and Luke’s accounts of the Last Supper, Hebrews 13:10 “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat “, Genesis 3:22 “Now, what if he also reaches out his hand to take fruit from the Tree of Life, and eats of it and lives forever.” Short of using a sledge hammer to bust up their indoctrinated heads, I don’t know.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    If you believe that Mary was born in sin then you would are diametrically opposed to almost all the protestant reformers. Martin Luther: “There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know” ”
    “The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart”
    Heinrich Bullinger: “For this reason, we believe that the Virgin Mary, Begetter of God, the most pure bed and temple of the Holy Spirit, that is, her most holy body, was carried to heaven by angels.” Funny how these reformers not only believed in her immaculate conception, but also of her assumption into heaven. Read Rev 12

    • Rapheal Sebastian

      And that is why these modern day Protestants have totally lost it, they think they can continue to sin with impunity and still believe they are saved. The delusion that God can tolerate sinfulness is a romanticized version of salvation. With such stains of sin on their souls they somehow think they can be in the presence of God.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Some of them (once saved always saved), when the error of their theory is debunked, then defer to the stance that once someone is saved they never sin or transgress. Wish I were perfect like they are.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Do you realize that the Passover that the Israelites celebrated for millenia never involved a resurrection? Should we call our churches synagogues? Why does the label given Easter bother you? If you want to celebrate the old Passover, then stay on the Jewish calendar. Are you also bothered with ‘Christmas’? We do consider you brothers, ‘separated brethren’ I believe the official ‘term’ used.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You are so far off tune it is utterly amazing. How in creation do you arrive at your slanderous conclusions? Catholic AND Orthodox are the ONLY faiths that abide 100% in His command to eat His flesh and drink His blood, and each have validly ordained priests that can confect this miracle, yet you conclude that we allow Him ‘only a small part in redemption’? If God’s free will doesn’t come in to play in the Catholic Church, why don’t you tell me how we have hundreds of bodies of Catholic saints totally uncorrupted? How and why does the Catholic Church possess scientifically documented miracles of the Eucharist?

  • AnthonyM

    Terrenceor – Actually, the Immaculate Conception refers to the fact the Mary’s was conceived without the stain of original sin. This was accomplished by God who infused sanctifying grace into her soul so that she would be a fitting mother for Jesus.

    You meant to say Assumption, when Mary was taken up into heaven by God, vs the Annunciation? Since Mary was Immaculately conceived, it would follow she would not suffer the corruption of the grave, which is a consequence of sin. God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to behold.

    When Fundamentalists claim that the doctrine was “invented” at this time, they misunderstand both the history of dogmas and what prompts the Church to issue, from time to time, definitive pronouncements regarding faith or morals. They are under the impression that no doctrine is believed until the pope or an ecumenical council issues a formal statement about it.

    The magisterium (the Church in its role as Teacher) will define doctrines formally to correct error, or if the faithful can be helped by emphasis being drawn to some already-existing belief. The later was the reason for the Papal documents in this case.

    You say you were a Catholic, but it seems you did not fully understand Church teachings, and possibly you were unable to defend your faith due to lack of knowledge. May I suggest you do some investigation and return to the Catholic Church Jesus founded, which has the Fullness of Truth.

  • shoebat

    When you read “When” its asking for dates and facts and detail. Sir, you need to answer the “?” in the article, your rambling your opinion. Whether your opinion is right or wrong, you need to justify it with historic fact.

  • shoebat

    Yona,

    Apparently you are either refusing to answer my questions or your not understanding my questions, So I ask the world, is there a response? When and how did this “Apostate Church” apostatize from “biblical truth”? Who conspired throughout the centuries to falsify all the historical evidence to support Rome, and why did Rome then not also alter the biblical texts to support such doctrines when we had Paul write an entire Epistle to the Romans when right in chapter 1 Paul addresses “to all that be in Rome beloved of God destined to be saints” (Romans 1:7)? It was Rome that was destined not Geneva. Was this verse added by Rome?

    Better yet, as the Muslim argues, that Jesus was not the Son of God, why then did the Jews not alter the verses pertaining to the Son of God to shut the mouths of Christians?

    Even the Quran itself and whomever was its luciferian author, knew that such logic accusing the Bible of corruption will not stand, it never once alluded to the Bible as textually corrupted, but interpretively corrupted, which is exactly what the proponent of this “Great Apostasy” theory promoters believe. “The Catholic” they say corrupted the message but not the text. At least this is what the more educated and seasoned Muslim debaters would argue, which is much of the same arguments of the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    So the issue is an issue of interpretation and not corruption.

    My detractors tell me day and night with comments like “stick with refuting Islam” and “stay away from this divisive talk”, and I ask; isn’t clearing error suppose to be unifying? Wasn’t Jesus focused on sin while everyone else were focused on defeating the Romans?

    Yet we ask: Should we concentrate on the Romans [Muslims] and forget that slander is one of the gravest sins?

    Such an admonition only comes from the “Great Apostasy” proponents.

    By their own logic, which by the way the Muslim would also have to confront another major question that is not easily answered: Did the Holy Spirit, fail to preserve the Church whom the Holy Spirit Himself promised would guide His people into all truth (John 16:13), especially since that the Bible itself says that the Church will be “the pillar and foundation of truth” of 1 Timothy 3:15?

  • shoebat

    Jerry,

    In whose interpretation should we “Speak the word of God”?

  • shoebat

    And how do I know which one of you is God’s children? You decided that you are a child of God and Julie isn’t, just because she is Catholic? What kind of pride filled attitude is this?

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    You know what is evil and slander? People that come on here, make and pass “end times” like judgment like you have and think you are saved. You count yourself as God’s children but post your thoughts that sounds like it’s coming from one of satan’s minion. What is worse, you wallow in your own cesspool of delusion and lies thinking you are saved because you followed the concoctions of a man and his heretical reformation. That man who thought he had some authority from God. Funny that you think the founder of your faith, Martin Luther, being an adulterer, a liar, sacrilegious corrupter of scripture, hater of Jews, promoter of violence and murder of the Jews and blasphemer against Christ Himself seems to have God’s authority for some reason in your eyes.

    Julie is merely quoting from scripture, teaching what Jesus’ Church has taught for close to two millennia (history) and refuting Protestant lies, slanders and blood libels, scripture twisting and distortion and false self interpretation.

    And before you say you are not Lutheran or any denomination, if you are not Catholic then you are Protestant and therefore your religion finds its roots and foundations in Luther’s heresy which is all those 40000 derivatives of authentic Christianity.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    False teachings but nice try.

  • shoebat

    I don’t discern correctly? You chose that a mormon is Christian and you discern? Do me a favor, follow the red line and you will find the exit door.

  • shoebat

    Why would you say that “people on this site” hates you? Have we at Shoebat.com showed you any hatred?

    • gloria royal

      You would have to read all the post for yourself , but this is the jsat of it ,Protestants is very wide brush stroke….are demons, faithless, lost, with out the truth…ect..when I came to this site I felt as if I was coming to talk to my family, that changed very quickly. All this division and discord is not Christ like, and that is why I think you hate me becouse I am not a Catholic..even though when I realized that most of the people were Catholic I would have been able to stay… but my post are not posted my replys are not posted some are days late the post makes no sense …this is starting to make me feel and sound like a baby , bless you shalom. ( Try going back and read some of the post)

      • shoebat

        Just take a deep breath Royal, I have posted a comment for you which I would like you to respond to regarding Athanasius.

  • shoebat

    Like here, you tell Jerry that what he said was through the “Holy Spirit”.

    Are you aware how serious this is? I mean, you are claiming that Jerry here is speaking through the Holy Spirit. The question I have, where did this type of talk come from? Is it biblical, historical or such? Or is it purely the tradition of men from a very modern era in which folks who attended some charismatic movement church with a feel good about yourself and the talk of uttering, manifestations and talk of the Holy Spirit in a very slanderous way is what molded people to talk like that. “The Lord told me” is in every other sentence as if they are in a continual talk with God. If so, how come most of what they say is false?

  • shoebat

    And here again, you ask “why do we stay on this site”? Well, the question should be directed to yourself. You are the only one who knows the answer. You complain about this site saying that you are “not welcome here” when in fact, you act is if you entered a restaurant, you go to every table where the customers are enjoying a meal, you barge and grab a roll from here, drink off a glass of soda from the other table, and grab the tip from another and you take a quick look at the menu and say “food is too expensive” and you walk out complaining “we are not welcome over here”, this place is not for the “royal”!

    If you don’t like it here, there is a lighted exit sign.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    Hear and Eat are two different things. If you like to put words in the mouth of Jesus then you are twisting scripture to suit your agenda, whatever that may be. You allegorize the literal and literalize the allegory. The people around Jesus new he meant it literally that is why many of them turned and walked away. People that do not EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD do the same. For Jesus is the bread of life.

    John 6: 41-59 The Bread From Heaven

    41 Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They were saying, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?” 43 Jesus answered them, “Do not complain among yourselves. 44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly, I tell you, whoever believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. 50 This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

    52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

    My question to you is the above literal or allegory?

    The Words of Eternal Life

    60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

    66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.67 So Jesus asked the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” 70 Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil.” 71 He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    I admire Danny Trejo and is story. His testimony is amazing.

  • shoebat

    “You are very sarcastic”

    Thats true. Its my nature.

  • shoebat

    See what I mean? The pearl was thrown to a pig. I rest my case.

  • shoebat

    “Yes, Muhammad was and is a prophet in the Islamic faith. I believe that God has prophets to all of his children on this earth according to their needs and understanding, who are searching for the truth.”

    See how fast you converted to Islam?

    “The problem with Islam, is that after the death of Muhammad, there was not a prophet to follow him. The same circumstance occurred after the death of the Apostles and Prophets that Christ established with His church, when He was on the earth. The authority and teaching of Christ was changed after the death of the Apostles and Prophets, because they were not replaced with new Apostles and Prophets, but with others who changed the doctrine of Christ. This era is called the Apostasy from Christ’s true church.”

    And this is to all you folks who believe that the Church went astray and that we had a “Great Apostasy”.

    And no, I did not have a vision.

    Now:

    1-you need to answer all the questions in the article. Try to refute the arguments, piece by piece and line by line. You can’t and you won’t.

    2-Where was your church prior to Joseph Smith?

    3- The New Testament is clear, to test the spirits. You deny the Trinity.

    Therefore, you are a cult.
    P.S, I expect you to refute the entire article in order to continue the debate. Good luck.

  • shoebat

    When someone writes “bashing Martin Luther” without quoting what my statements were, is in itself bashing. If you love Martin Luther so much, why not refute what I wrote about him instead of making generalized statements? You see what I mean about babysitting? I don’t have the time for it. Now kindly, make intelligent statements or go and eat somewhere else if you do not like the food.

  • shoebat

    Sure, stick around and talk less and listen more, this way you can get off eating baby food and to start eating real meat for a change. Look up the man I sent you who debated Arius. Who is Arius Gloria? What was the controversy? You can go to google and stop being lazy and look the name up and learn how to seriously discern, a thing you claim you have when you have not. I am not trying to put you down, I am trying to help you, but you refuse to be helped.

    tell us; how did the people know that when Saint Athanasius of Alexandria ( القديس اثناسيوس الاسكندرانى; /ˌæθəˈneɪʃəs/; Greek: Ἀθανάσιος Ἀλεξανδρείας, Athanásios Alexandrías; c. 296–298 – 2 May 373), also called Athanasius the Great, Athanasius the Confessor or, primarily in the Coptic Orthodox Church, Athanasius the Apostolic, the chief defender of Trinitarianism fought Arius in which Athanasius the people were able to decipher that he spoke through the Holy Spirit while Arius was not. How did people then decipher when the Holy Spirit spoke in comparison to when you claim that the Holy Spirit spoke?

    • gloria royal

      Thank you for your teaching , I will look it up , it will take some time as my eyes are not as good as when I was young I dont read as much as I did , mostly my big letter Bible…..I must ia not a debater and never with a man

      • shoebat

        Please do, and when I tell you to leave my restaurant, I am being sarcastic, ok? Don’t get all offended. Its like saying “time out”. I will await your answer with patience Royal. Sorry if we got a little argumentative. My goal is to show you that Church History matters, and the way people believed is not as you think it is. Discernment was not as easy as you think.

  • shoebat

    The Muslim says the same thing you say here. But what about the verse that says that Mary will be called blessed throughout all generations. Have you called her “blessed” lately?

  • shoebat

    Gloria: Do you believe in Faith Alone for salvation?
    Do you believe that Scripture ALONE is the yardstick?

    If so, you learned this from Martin Luther.

  • shoebat

    Well Gloria, one side (the Protestants) make your argument. The Catholic says that Mary was without sin.

    Why not study both sides, take a position and refute? Instead of making a blunt statement.

    Here, I will give you their view:

    The Catholic asks, how could God (Jesus) dwell in a sinful person (Mary), if Mary was sinful?. That amongst other arguments that the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was “saved.” Indeed, Mary needed a savior! However, Mary was “saved” from sin in a most sublime manner. She was given the grace to be “saved” completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. Protestants tend to emphasize God’s “salvation” almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact:

    Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing, to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and for ever. (Jude 24-25)

    But what about “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and “if any man says he has no sin he is a liar and the truth is not in him” (1 John 1:8)? Wouldn’t “all” and “any man” include Mary? On the surface, this sounds reasonable. But this way of thinking carried to its logical conclusion would list Jesus Christ in the company of sinners as well. No faithful Christian would dare say that. Yet no Christian can deny the plain texts of Scripture declaring Christ’s full humanity either. Thus, to take 1 John 1:8 in a strict, literal sense would apply “any man” to Jesus as well.

    The truth is Jesus Christ was an exception to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. And the Bible tells us he was in Hebrews 4:15: “Christ was tempted in all points even as we are and yet he was without sin.” The question now is: Are there any other exceptions to this rule? Yes—millions of them.

    Both Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:9 deal with personal rather than original sin. (Romans 5 deals with original sin.) And there are two exceptions to that general biblical norm as well. But for now, we will simply deal with Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8. First John 1:8 obviously refers to personal sin because in the very next verse, John tells us, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins . . .” We do not confess original sin; we confess personal sins.

    The context of Romans 3:23 makes clear that it too refers to personal sin:

    None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of.asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. (Rom. 3:10-14)

    Original sin is not something we do; it is something we’ve inherited. Romans chapter three deals with personal sin because it speaks of sins committed by the sinner. With this in mind, consider this: Has a baby in the womb or a child of two ever committed a personal sin? No. To sin a person has to know the act he is about to perform is sinful while freely engaging his will in carrying it out. Without the proper faculties to enable them to sin, children before the age of accountability and anyone who does not have the use of his intellect and will cannot sin. So, there are and have been millions of exceptions to Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:8.

    Still, how do we know Mary is an exception to the norm of “all have sinned?” And more specifically, is there biblical support for this claim? Yes, there is much biblical support.

    The Name Says it All

    And [the angel Gabriel] came to [Mary] and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.” (Luke 1:28-30)

    Many Protestants will insist this text to be little more than a common greeting of the Archangel Gabriel to Mary. “What does this have to do with Mary being without sin?” Yet, the truth is, according to Mary herself, this was no common greeting. The text reveals Mary to have been “greatly troubled at the saying and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be” (Luke 1:29, emphasis added). What was it about this greeting that was so uncommon for Mary to react this way? We can consider at least two key.aspects.

    First, according to biblical scholars (as well as Pope John Paul II), the angel did more than simply greet Mary. The angel actually communicated a new name or title to her. (cf. Redemptoris Mater, 8, 9). In Greek, the greeting was kaire, kekaritomene, or “Hail, full of grace.” Generally speaking, when one greeted another with kaire, a name or title would be found in the immediate context. “Hail, king of the Jews” in John 19:3 and “Claudias Lysias, to his Excellency the governor Felix, greeting” (Acts 23:26) are two biblical examples of this. The fact that the angel replaces Mary’s name in the greeting with “full of grace” was anything but common. This would be analogous to me speaking to one of our tech guys at Catholic Answers and saying, “Hello, he who fixes computers.” In Hebrew culture, names and name changes tell us something permanent about the character and calling of the one named. Just recall the name changes of Abram to Abraham (from “father” to “father of the multitudes”) in Genesis 17:5, Saray to Sarah (“my princess” to “princess”), in Genesis 17:15 and Jacob to Israel (“supplanter” to “he who prevails with God”) in Genesis 32:28.

    In each case, the names reveal something permanent about the one named. Abraham and Sarah transition from being a “father” and “princess” of one family to being “father” and “princess” or “mother” of the entire people of God (see Rom. 4:1-18; Is. 51:1-2). They become patriarch and matriarch of God’s people forever. Jacob/Israel becomes the patriarch whose name, “he who prevails with God,” continues forever in the Church, which is called “the Israel of God” (Gal. 6:16). The People of God will forever “prevail with God” in the image of the patriarch Jacob.

    What’s in a name? According to Scripture, quite a lot.

    St. Luke uses the perfect passive participle, kekaritomene, as his “name” for Mary. This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has another tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past resulting in a present state of being. “Full of grace” is Mary’s name. So what does it tell us about Mary? Well, the average Christian is not completed in grace and in a permanent sense (see Phil. 3:8-12). But according to the angel, Mary is. You and I sin, not because of grace, but because of a lack of grace, or a lack of our cooperation with grace, in our lives. This greeting of the angel is one clue into the unique character and calling of the Mother of God. Only Mary is given the name “full of grace” and in the perfect tense, indicating that this permanent state of Mary was completed.

    Ark of the (New) Covenant

    The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant was a true icon of the sacred. Because it contained the presence of God symbolized by three types of the coming Messiah—the manna, the Ten Commandments, and Aaron’s rod—it had to be pure and untouched by sinful man (see 2 Sam. 6:1-9 and Ex. 25:10ff; Num. 4:15).

    In the New Testament, the new Ark is not an inanimate object, but a person: the Blessed Mother. How much more pure would the new Ark be when we consider the old ark was a mere “shadow” in relation to it (see Heb. 10:1)? This image of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant is an indicator that Mary would fittingly be free from all contagion of sin to be a worthy vessel to bear God in her womb. And most importantly, just as the Old Covenant Ark was pristine from the moment it was constructed with explicit divine instructions in Exodus 25, so would Mary be pure from the moment of her conception. God, in a sense, prepared his own dwelling place in both the Old and New Testaments.

    The Ark of the Covenant contained three “types” of Jesus inside: manna, Aaron’s rod, and the Ten Commandments. In Hebrew, commandment (dabar) can be translated “word.” Compare: Mary carried the fulfillment of all these types in her body. Jesus is the “true [manna] from heaven” (John 6:32), the true “High Priest” (Heb. 3:1), and “the word made flesh” (John 1:14).

    The glory cloud (Hebrew Anan) was representative of the Holy Spirit, and it “overshadowed” the Ark when Moses consecrated it in Ex. 40:32-33. The Greek word for “overshadow” found in the Septuagint is a form of episkiasei. Compare: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The Greek word for “overshadow” is episkiasei.

    David “leapt and danced” before the Ark when it was being carried into Jerusalem in procession in 2 Sam. 6:14-16. Compare: As soon as Elizabeth heard the sound of Mary’s salutation, John the Baptist “leaped for joy” in her womb (cf. Luke 1:41-44).

    After a manifestation of the power of God working through the Ark, David exclaims, “How can the Ark of the Lord come unto me?” Compare: After the revelation to Elizabeth about the true calling of Mary, who was carrying God in her womb, Elizabeth exclaims, “Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:43)

    The Ark of the Lord “remained in the house of Obededom . . . three months” in 2 Sam. 6:11. Compare: “Mary remained with [Elizabeth] for about three months” (Luke 1:56).

    The New Eve

    It is important for us to recall that New Covenant fulfillments are always more glorious and more perfect than their Old Testament types, which are “but a shadow of the good things to come” in the New Covenant (Heb. 10:1). With this in mind, let us consider the revelation of Mary as the “New Eve.” After the fall of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, God promised the advent of another “woman” in Genesis 3:15, or a “New Eve” who would oppose Lucifer, and whose “seed” would crush his head. This “woman” and “her seed” would reverse the curse, so to speak, that the original “man” and “woman” had brought upon humanity through their disobedience.

    It is most significant here to note “Adam” and “Eve” are revealed simply as “the man” and “the woman” before the woman’s name was changed to “Eve” (Hebrew, “mother of the living”) after the fall (see Gen. 2:21ff). When we then look at the New Covenant, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the “last Adam,” or the “New Adam” in 1 Cor. 15:45. And Jesus himself indicates that Mary is the prophetic “woman” or “New Eve” of Genesis 3:15 when he refers to his mother as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26. Moreover, St. John refers to Mary as “woman” eight times in Revelation 12. As the first Eve brought death to all of her children through disobedience and heeding the words of the ancient serpent, the devil, the “New Eve” of Revelation 12 brings life and salvation to all of her children through her obedience. The same “serpent” who deceived the original woman of Genesis is revealed, in Revelation 12, to fail in his attempt to overcome this new woman. The New Eve overcomes the serpent and as a result, “The serpent is angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God, and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev. 12:17).

    If Mary is the New Eve and New Testament fulfillments are always more glorious than their Old Testament antecedents, it would be unthinkable for Mary to be conceived in sin. If she were, she would be inferior to Eve who was created in a perfect state, free from all sin.

  • shoebat

    Gloria, how did you reach to this conclusion? I can bet you believed in the past that the Pope was Antichrist. But now you don’t. Its because you studied a little. So you need to study more. Good point.

  • shoebat

    Than tell me, where and when did the Catholic Church go astray? What year? And who were the true Christians while the Catholic Church was becoming corrupt? If Christianity is not Catholicism, what then is Catholicism? When was the Church historically void of Catholicism? Give us the Christian group that did not have Mariology, Eucharist and such during Church History that was not Catholic? What are these groups names? In other words, find me a “Yona” style believer in the history of the Church?

  • shoebat

    Your always welcome, but you have to put up with my sarcasm. When you read my “mean spirited” statements, take them with a grain of salt, ok?

    But she it comes to Luther, trust me, there is much more that you follow of Luther’s than you think.

    Here is my question to you, where was the church from the first century to the fifteenth when Luther showed up? What would Gloria be doing prior to Luther? Had you lived in these times, what Church would you have attended? Historically, how was the church operating? What did the Church believe in? These are some serious questions to ponder, Gloria.

  • shoebat

    No Gloria. All I am saying is that I have better discernment. I can tell when someone speaks if they are speaking truth or falsehood. I point it out at times. And many get angry. The “Pearls” and the “Pigs” is a metaphor used by Jesus. Its not an insult, but a metaphor.

  • shoebat

    “they [Mormons] are so deeply in love with jesus love Jesus”? This is blasphemy. Its not Jesus. You don’t even know the basics of doctrine or the basic of heresy. Its not the same Jesus you knuckle head.

  • shoebat

    As I expected, short line, no thought put into the note I sent you and same old same old. And you even failed to answer the question, that is, to show us that there were “believers” who believed like you do who say what you wrote above, from the time that the Apostles departed to the time that Protestantism showed up. This is the heart of the article which you completely ignored. Can you tackle the question? I doubt it and is why your comments are seen as someone who is blowing in the wind. For example: Show us “believers” who did not believe in the Eucharist the way the Catholics did. Show us a group of Christians who did not believe that the bread was the literal body of Jesus from 100 AD to 1500 AD? Can you do that?

    Now, what is the point of keep repeating yourself with the same comments: “she has hand piked by God” …”to bring into the world the messiah” .”mary is from the priestly bloodline the messiah would have to be bought King and Priest”……”BLOODLINE…. OF THE MESSIAH”.

    WE ALL KNOW THAT. ITS NOT AS IF WE ARE ALL DUMMIES HERE. TEACH US SOMETHING WE ALL DO NOT KNOW. GET IT?

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    Why, once again, take allegory to mean literal? You need to go find out what the Lord said in allegory and what He meant literally. We can go on and on, you posting allegory to make it literal and I post what He said in the literal.

    The Samaritan woman was being literal when Christ was being allegorical. But the water that Jesus was talking about is a spring of the Holy Spirit within oneself that prevents us from sinning, the woman had had 5 husbands and was living with another man at the present, but Christ didn’t chastise her for her adultery but offered her salvation instead IF you deny that Jesus meant to EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD literally, then why did people get offended and turn their backs and walk away? Wouldn’t have Christ then said, Hey! Wait a minute, I was not being literal! No He said what He said because HE knew this was going to happen, HE knew it was going to turn people away and HE knew that one among them would betray Him.

    John 4:1 – 42

    Jesus and the Woman of Samaria

    4 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” 2 —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized— 3 he left Judea and started back to Galilee. 4 But he had to go through Samaria. 5 So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. 6 Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.

    7 A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.” 8 (His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? 12 Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well, and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?”13 Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, 14 but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

    16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!” 19 The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you[c] say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”

    27 Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?” 28 Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, 29 “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?” 30 They left the city and were on their way to him.

    31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.” 32 But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.” 33 So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?” 34 Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. 35 Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. 36 The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. 37 For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ 38 I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

    39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. 41 And many more believed because of his word. 42 They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.

    • Terrenceor

      Raphael, I appreciate your responses to my comments, but we will not see eye to eye on this. I wish you the best.

      • Rapheal Sebastian

        I am afraid it is not about seeing eye to eye but what is the truth. The truth is not biased, the truth has no malice. It’s people that take and skew truth into something more palatable for themselves. I hope you do ask yourself questions and not rely on what people tell you. I hope you do your own research and come to the truth. I know you are unwilling but I would recommend you listen to people like Dr. Scott Hahn and is testimony.

        • Terrenceor

          I listened to all of Scott Hahn’s testimony of converting from Reformed Presbyterian to Catholic and also listened to Scott debate a Catholic who became a Reformed Presbyterian which was interesting and informative. With Hahn’s background he would make a good Pastor.
          . I spent over 3 hours listening to these two videos.
          If you have ever attended a Presbyterian service, it is not that different than Catholic in style. Alot of ceremony and about 15 min sermon.

          Wasn’t impressed.

    • Steve Smith

      And her name is Photini, St Photini

  • Julie LaBrecque

    ??

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Since when is quoting scripture point-scoring? You don’t consider Baptism as fundamental to salvation? Then you include a verse that says ‘One Baptism’? If you truly took heed to ‘unity’, then you would despise what Martin Luther and the reformers accomplished.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    Adam, was made without sin. Eve too was made without sin. They were creatures created by by God, not through sexual intercourse.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So our ancient Christian ancestors weren’t Christians because they had no Bible to Read. If Jesus was speaking of accepting him as Savior, why did his own disciples leave him over this teaching? Why did He say “And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh”? Why did He say “My flesh is true food and my blood is true drink”? Why did the earliest Christians (and all the remnant of them since) believe they were eating His flesh and drinking His blood? Was the Last Supper a sacrifice?

    • Steve Smith

      The word eat translated here is gnaw in Greek to gnaw something like a wild animal. Some of the people walked away they understood him perfectly.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        They sure did, how can people read that and make mincemeat of Jesus’ words. He is going to be coy when speaking of eternal life.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    How did an 8 day old baby boy have the cheap ability to enter the Old Covenant? Did anyone ask him if he desired to be circumcised? God was going to slay Moses for him not circumcising one of his sons, Zipporah did it and stayed the hand of God. The parents stand in the gap for the child. Jesus said “Forbid not the little children to come unto me.”

  • Steve Smith

    WHO, told you that silliness. The Greek word Christ used is φάγω (FAG’-O) TO GNAW. LIKE A WILD ANAMAL, the people understood perfectly what Christ said, why do you think they walked away.

  • Steve Smith

    The Russian women still do.

  • AnthonyM

    Mary was conceived without sin thru the power of God.
    You ask why? So that Mary would be a more perfect, or better place for Jesus to be conceived by the Holy Spirit and to grow as fully human and fully divine. Protestants claim to believe in God, but often deny the power of God. As though God should not do anything unless Protestants approve.

  • As if you would know.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    You are welcome. I am glad you listened to it. Some have come away with not the conclusion that a man seeking truth and God giving up all that he had going for him and laid that down to not be disobedient, instead, made the comparison of how easy it was to convert from Presbyterian Protestantism to authentic Christianity. God Bless.

  • Rapheal Sebastian

    They still do in most of Europe and Asia and South Africa. I have not been to the other parts of Africa so I don’t know. It’s only in America where they have stopped this humility.