The Most Powerful Evidence To Prove That Prayers To Saints Is Part Of Christianity

By Walid and Theodore Shoebat

The question I ask all is this: if you seek truth, will you land wherever truth in the Bible takes you or will you land on whatever the tradition of men teach you?

Theological differences and arguments never end and can at times be resolved by overwhelming evidence presented just in one single verse.

Yes, a single verse should at times resolve theological matters that cause division.

For example, Preterists argue that most of the prophecies in the Bible were fulfilled. They even write entire books to show how some of the biblical prophecies were fulfilled by bringing type of fulfillments to lure so many to accept their views.

But one verse shatters their theological arguments. The question that preterits can’t answer is why is it that a Jewish prophet named Amos predict that it would be impossible to uproot Israel even though the Arab world tried several times already? Amos stated:

“And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, says the LORD thy God.”

The question is to all the Preterists that say that they believe that the Bible was simply documenting ancient historic events pertaining to the Jewish people and that mostly everything prophetically in the Bible was fulfilled, we ask:

 

six-day-war-old-jerusalem

 

Amos says “they shall no more be pulled up”, so how can anyone explain this in a historic context, especially since Israel have been “pulled up” by the Romans and the Babylonians; how is it that this proclamation says this is impossible unless it pertains to our time? “They shall no more be pulled up”, is one half of a verse that settles centuries worth of arguments, for to denounce it would mean that the Bible erred, if the prophecies about Israel were all fulfilled, Israel must have been pulled up to never be replanted. Its impossible to refute this verse which sets the matter completely.

Such are God and Jesus, they always cause checkmate questions that only fools would question “Did God really say that they should not be ‘pulled up'”?

If you seek biblical truth you should land wherever truth in the Bible takes you or else accept the tradition of what men teach. I find another half of a verse which settles another matter so many opposed me on: Prayer and asking for intercession from the living saints in heaven which I had thought settled the issue, yet my detractors claim that intercession of saints constitutes necromancy since this would be “prayer to the dead”.

While prayers and intercession of saints or for saints is hardly “prayer to the dead” as in pagan practice, all such naysayers follow the tradition of men and not what God taught or what biblical traditions recorded from what was passed by the early church. In the Bible it clearly records St. Paul praying for one dead saint, Onesiphorus—a faithful Christian who cared for St. Paul while he was in prison and who took great personal risk to serve the apostle. He was such a good man that Paul writes:

“[Onesiphorus] often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains”

and

“he searched for me eagerly and found me” and “you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus” (2 Tim 1:16-18).

The amazing revelation in which almost all commentators concede that Onesiphorus had died—maybe even martyred during Nero’s persecution before Paul wrote Second Timothy. Paul speaks of him in the past tense and strangely asks for God’s mercy on him:

“May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day.”

Paul blesses his “household” without mentioning him, as though he was no longer here. Because Onesiphorus had served so well and was no longer alive, Paul not only prays for God’s blessing on his surviving family, but that Paul prays for him: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day” which is not just an expression of sentimental emotion—this is a prayer for a man who has died, it is prayer for the dead.

There is so much support for this interpretation amongst Protestant theologians that even the widely respected six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary which was composed by 1000 top Protestant and Catholic scholars agree (1) amongst myriads of Protestant scholars, who believe that the passage is written in such a way as to leave little doubt that Onesiphorus is no longer alive and that Paul “seems to be praying for him” as confirmed by Philip Schaff (2), Alfred Plummer (3) James Maurice Wilson (4) Sydney Charles Gayford (5) John Henry Bernard (6) Donald Guthrie (7), William Barclay (8), J.N. D. Kelly (9), John E. Sanders (10), Philip Schaff (11), Charles John Ellicott (12) and even Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown (13) all agree, Paul prayed for the souls of the saints who were dead.

“This, in this simple form, is a natural instinct; it was practised by some later Jews, cf. 2 Mac 12:43–45, and is found in early Christian epitaphs and in the liturgies; cf. Plummer, ad loc.; Gayford, The Future State, c. 4. Wohlenberg quotes the Acts of Paul and Thecla, § 28, which is a prayer that a heathen may be transferred after death to the abode of the righteous.” (Lock, W. 1924).

Any attempts to re-interpret the obvious verse differently tend to display a definite bias and an anti-biblical spirit against the intercession of saints, a practice of the very first Christians as testified to by the graffiti in the catacombs from as far as Christianity goes back in history, in the writings of the Fathers, and in the general practice of the primitive Church. So many today who desire to go to the first church and acquired Messianic and Hebraic roots fail to understand, that it was not the language (Hebrew) that constituted originality, but as was written on the Cross of Christ, the Church spoke not only Hebrew, but the language of Jesus, Aramaic and also Greek and Latin.

The verses are clear and reflect the type of prayers found in the Catacombs of the early church and here we find it clearly in Scripture:

“May the Lord show mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains. On the contrary, when he was in Rome, he searched hard for me until he found me. May the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the Lord on that day! You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Ephesus” (2 Timothy 1:16–18).

catacomb_intercession

Catacomb of St. Sebastiano with chards of prayers to saints

 

From as early as the second century (between 100 AD- 200 AD) to the fourth century the evidence from the catacombs make an overwhelming argument that such a practice stemmed from ancient Judaism and passed down by Peter and Paul, the prayers were very similar as in the Scriptures:

“Paul and Peter, intercede for Victor”, “Peter and Paul, remember us” (14)

They were usually short and to the point, as Paul wrote: “May the Lord grant that he [Onesiphorus] will find mercy from the Lord on that day!”

Paul, who was earlier known as Saul the Pharisee, was well immersed in the teaching and tradition of the Pharisaical Jews who historically and biblically prayed for the dead and Paul would not have seen the practice as egregious or unbiblical; rather, he would have viewed prayer for the dead as a proper practice for a Jew, and also now for a Christian who believes in the afterlife.

We also cannot ignore the testament of history. Ancient Christians gave their prayer requests “to the spirits of just men made perfect,” (Hebrews 12:23) and this was not something invented by the Church, but continued by the Church from ancient Israel. In the Second Book of Maccabees, which is Scripture (for it was in the Septuagint and was accepted into the Canon by the Church Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397)) the high priest Onias has a vision in which he sees the prophet Jeremiah praying for the warriors and the city of Jerusalem. Jeremiah then stretched out his hand and gave a golden sword to the holy warrior Judas Maccabeus. As the Scripture tells us:

 Now the vision was in this manner: Onias who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in his speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues, holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews:

After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty:

Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God.

Whereupon Jeremias stretched forth his right hand, and gave to Judas a sword of gold, saying:

Take this holy sword a gift from God, wherewith thou shalt overthrow the adversaries of my people Israel.  (2 Maccabees 15:12-16) 

Juda-Maccabaeus

Moreover, the holy Judas Maccabeus, great and gallant warrior of God and the True Path to Divine Light, ordered that prayers be done for the Jews who had died holding idols, since to partake in idolatry would hinder the soul from reaching eternal Paradise. Also, not only prayers but a sacrifice was also done to intercede for their souls, as the Scripture says,

So Judas having gathered together his army, came into the city Odollam: and when the seventh day came, they purified themselves according to the custom, and kept the sabbath in the place.

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchres of their fathers.

And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain.

Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.

And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,

 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,)

And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:38-46) 

King David himself fasted for the dead; he fasted for King Saul and Jonathan after they were slain in war, and all of those died in the battle. As read in the Second Book of Samuel:

Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: and they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword. (2 Samuel 1:12-13)

David fasted for the dead, was he then a pagan? Which Christians today fast for the fallen but the Catholics and the Orthodox?

Offering prayers to the souls of saints so that they could pray to God for you was practiced in the ancient Church. A day after St. Ignatius, a student of the Apostles themselves, was martyred, it is said that his fellow Christians saw him praying for them in a vision. As we read in the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius from as far back as the first century:

And being the night following watching, with tears, in the house, praying to God with our bended knees, that he would give us, weak men, some assurance of what had been before done, — it happened that falling into a slumber, some of us, on the sudden, saw the blessed Ignatius standing by us and embracing us; others beheld the blessed martyr praying for us; others, as it were, dropping with sweat, as if he were just come from his great labour, and standing by the Lord.  (Martyrdom of Ignatius, xiii)

St. Augustine (5th century) praised his mother for giving her petitions to the martyred saints in Heaven:

 And in lieu of a basket filled with fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the oratories of the martyrs a heart full of more purified petitions, and to give all that she could to the poor; that so the communion of the Lord’s body might be rightly celebrated there, where, after the example of His passion, the martyrs had been sacrificed and crowned. (St. Augustine, Confessions, 6.2)

St. Amrbose of Milan (4th century), the mentor of Augustine, and the one who brought Augustine into the Church, declared that the souls of the martyrs protect the Church, and that the relics owned by these saints bring miracles and heal the sick:

I do not say whether they have risen for themselves, for us certainly the martyrs have risen. You know — nay, you have yourselves seen — that many are cleansed from evil spirits, that very many also, having touched with their hands the robe of the saints, are freed from those ailments which oppressed them; you see that the miracles of old time are renewed, when through the coming of the Lord Jesus grace was more largely shed forth upon the earth, and that many bodies are healed as it were by the shadow of the holy bodies. How many napkins are passed about! how many garments, laid upon the holy relics and endowed with healing power, are claimed! All are glad to touch even the outside thread, and whosoever touches will be made whole. Thanks be to Thee, Lord Jesus Christ, that at this time Thou hast stirred up for us the spirits of the holy martyrs, when Thy Church needs greater protection. (Ambrose, letter 22, chs. 9-10)

It is said that God cannot use objects napkins and garments, but Jesus’ garment was physical, and when a woman who was subject to bleeding touched it, “immediately her bleeding stopped.” (Luke 8:43)

St. Peter’s shadow was physical, but this did not stop the earliest Christians when they “brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (Acts 5:15)

Aprons and handkerchiefs are physical objects, but this did not prevent the Apostles, since they “brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” (Acts 19:12)

 

The fourth century Spanish Christian scholar, Prudentius, described how the people of Spain went to the site where the ancient Spanish Christians, Cheldonius and Emererius, were martyred,

making petitions with voice and heart and gifts; and dwellers in the outside world too come here, for report has run through all lands publishing the news that here are patrons of the whole earth whose favour they may seek by prayer. No man here in making his requests has offered sincerely prayer on prayer in vain; from here the petitioner returns happy, with his tears dried, and conscious that all his righteous requests have been granted. (Prudentius, Crowns of Martyrdom, 1.5-10)

Perhaps a self-test might cure the issues of so many who claim to follow Scripture. Reality is that so many outrightly reject Scripture, we should all find truth regardless where it leads us:

1) Do you agree with Paul, to pray for a departed saints? Yes/No

2) Luther wrote: “May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the sake of His dear Mother Mary! Amen.”

Do you agree with Luther? Yes/No?

3) Are Saints Alive? Yes/No If Dead, do you accept the following verses which say that saints are living (Yes/No):

Mark 12:26-27, Hebrews 12:1, Luke 20:37-38, Luke 16:19-31, Luke 23:43, Revelation 4:4-11, Revelation 5:8-10, Revelation 6:9-11,Revelation 7:9-12, Philippians 1:23-24, 2 Corinthians 5:8, Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-10, Luke 9:28-36.

4) Do you agree that prayers to saints were left on the

epitaphs of the dead in the Roman catacombs from the earliest church? Yes/No.

If “Yes”, would you concur that the early church was not practicing a heresy? Yes/No.

5) “two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing in glory” (see Luke 9)

Moses and Elijah were dead. Did Jesus see 2 living saints? Yes/No?

6) “Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 “For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them.” (Revelation 7)

Was John having a two way conversation with saints?

Yes/No?

If you say “no” who is he speaking with then?

7) “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses

surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1)

Can saints see and hear us? Yes/No?

8) “When He had taken the book, the four living creatures

and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5)

Are the angels aware of the prayers of the saints? Yes/No

9) “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named

“ (Ephesians 3:15)

Are we one family, the saints in heaven as well as the

saints on earth? Yes/No.

If we are one body, one bride, one vine in Christ that is commanded to love one another (John 15:14) does that mean:

Saints in heaven care for us? Yes/No?

Pray for us? Yes/No?

10) “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;” (1 Timothy 2:1)

Many argue that “Christ is the only intercessor”. If so, was Timothy right to state this? Yes/No.

What is the need for Intercessors when I can pray directly to Jesus Christ?

Answer: “The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.”–James 5:16. Saints on earth are living, saints who departed are also living. I rest my case.

REFERENCES

(1) From The Anchor Bible Dictionary: “2 Timothy also includes greetings to the household of Onesiphorus (4:19) and a prayer that the Lord might grant mercy to his household because of his service to Paul (1:16). Onesiphorus himself does not seem to be included, suggesting that he was either not envisioned as present among the (alleged) recipients of 2 Timothy, was with Paul, or was already dead. The latter is most likely since the author of 2 Timothy writes: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day” (1:18). If Onesiphorus had indeed died, then this prayer is the earliest one for the dead found in Christian literature. As such it has been cited as clear scriptural support (especially among Roman Catholics) for prayer for the dead. (Jewish precedent for such prayer is found in 2 Macc 12:43–45.)”

(2) Philip Schaff (see #9) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV) May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus. 2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

(3) Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) (Anglican): The Expositor’s Bible (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll), The Pastoral Epistles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891, pp. 324-326: Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead . . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

(4) James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931) (Anglican): Truths New and Old, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1900, p. 141: We have, therefore, the sanction of St. Paul for remembering inn our prayers, and interceding for, those who have now passed into the other world . . .

(5) Sydney Charles Gayford (Anglican): The Future State, New York: Edwin S. Gorham, second edition, 1905, pp. 56-57:. . . the most satisfactory explanation is that Onesiphorus was dead. . . . And so we may hold with some confidence that we have in this passage the authority of an Apostle in praying for the welfare of the departed.

(6) John Henry Bernard (1860-1927) (Anglican), The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 114: On the whole then it seems probable that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul prayed on his behalf . . .

(7) Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) (Anglican): The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2nd edition, 1990, p. 148: Since it is assumed by many scholars that Onesiphorus was by now dead, the question has been raised whether this sanctions prayer for the dead. Roman catholic theologians claim that it does. Spicq, for instance, sees here an example of prayer for the dead unique in the New Testament. Some Protestants agree with this judgment and cite the Jewish precedent of 2 Macc 12:43-45 . . .

(8) William Barclay (1907-1978) (Presbyterian / Church of Scotland), The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 3rd edition, 2003, p. 175: . . there are many who feel that the implication is that Onesiphorus is dead. It is for his family that Paul first prays. Now, if he was dead, this passage shows us Paul praying for the dead, for it shows him praying that Onesiphorus may find mercy on the last day.

(9) J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) (Anglican): A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, London: A&C Black, 1963, p. 171: On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written, we have here an example, unique in the N.T., of Christian prayer for the departed. . . . the commendation of the dead man to the divine mercy. There is nothing surprising in Paul’s use of such a prayer, for intercession for the dead had been sanctioned in Pharisaic circles at any rate since the date of 2 Macc 12:43-45 (middle of first century B.C.?). Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs and elsewhere prove that the practice established itself among Christians from very early times.

(10) John E. Sanders (evangelical / open theist): No Other Name, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992, pp. 182-183: Some scholars contend that 2 Timothy 1:16-18 contains a reference to praying for the dead; they contend that the person for whom Paul prays, Onesiphorus was dead. Footnote 11: Among those commentators who understand Paul to be praying for the dead here are the following: W. Robertson Nicoll, The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951), p. 159; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. 3 (Chicago: Moody Pres, 1958), p. 376 . . . J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to Timothy and Titus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), p. 263.

(11) Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (Reformed Protestant), The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889, Vol. IV, The Catholic Epistles and Revelation, p. 587: On the assumption already mentioned as probable, this would, of course, be a prayer for the dead. The reference ot the great day of judgment falls in with this hypothesis. . . . From the controversial point of view, this may appear to favour the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome . . .

(12) Charles John Ellicott (1816-1905) (Anglican): A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, London: Cassell & Co., Vol. III, 1884, p. 223: There is but little doubt that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle Onesiphorus’ death must have recently taken place . . .

 

(13) Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (2 Ti 1:16). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.: The Lord give mercy—even as ONESIPHORUS had abounded in works of mercy. The house of Onesiphorus—He himself was then absent from Ephesus, which accounts for the form of expression (2Ti 4:19). His household would hardly retain his name after the master was dead [why this assumption? Seems like a false assumption based on a bias against prayer for the dead], as BENGEL supposes him to have been. Nowhere has Paul prayers for the dead, which is fatal to the theory [unless of course this is the one case where Paul does pray for the dead; bias revealed by his statement], favored by ALFORD also, that he was dead. God blesses not only the righteous man himself, but all his household.

(14) Christianity In Ancient Rome, The First Three Centuries, P.p. 189.ICUR IV 9521

print
  • Slowly, surely, steadily, people will learn the truth.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Few will Rudy, they are stuck in their traditions of men. As far as I see it, they now have one choice: disavow scripture.

      • Our Lord did warn us of this, after all!

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Have comment from ‘royal’ (above): ‘No comment’. Hum, figures.

          • royal

            Iam here

          • Lidia

            I’m sorry that you are hurt. I don’t hate you and I’m Catholic. I’m Ok that you pray to Jesus. I pray to him too! Don’t leave!

          • Woody

            Catholics are forbidden to hate…we must love all barring none

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Where do you get that we hate you?

          • susan

            Royal. Please stay!!! I love reading your posts!! You are too very special! No one can replace you if you leave! That’s how special you are to me, to God, to all of us! Julie is like a big sister. Do you have a big sister?

          • Kamau40

            “Iam here ..I throught my only enemy was Islam I can see thats not so , you Catholic hate me to”

          • royal

            Iam not a Sir. The name is gloria Royal. Your are right about Islam, read All the post of the last 6 mo, Then you can comment. Thank you. Iam no longer on the site , I am a believer in Christ ,and his crucifixion and resurrection that he is the only begotten of the father , God the Father , God the , and God the Holy Spirit. ” Is One” (Shema hebrew)not a “Protestant” I carry no label. get your facts straight

          • royal

            Julie I through we were friendly. I was wrong. Why do you dis like me becouse iam not a Catholic I love Jesus to.I will nolonger post on this site….Iam very sad.to think that you call yourself a Christian. I would never trought you this way.all have tried to do is call for peace between us

          • Lidia

            Royal, when I first started commenting on this website, some of the Protestants were very mean and hateful towards the Catholics. I was in shock at some of their comments. You think Julie’s comments are mean, you should read some of theirs. It hurts us when other Christians call us pagan worshippers. They say it all the time. I think this is why Walid and Ted write a lot about Catholics so that the Protestants will understand us better. The Protestants do not get this kind of education in their churches. I am learning a lot too. There are things I didn’t know about my own religion.

          • Lidia

            This is one of the prayers that my Catholic Church prayed yesterday in mass. Royal, I want to share this with you. I hope you like it. It’s called, “Our Parish Communion Prayer”
            O Communion of Love,
            Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
            Embrace us as your children in this family of faith. Welcome us
            to a place at your table in the wedding feast of heaven.
            O Father of Mercy, forgive us as we forgive. Reconcile us as
            one Body in Christ and make us instruments of your Peace.
            O Spirit of Fire and Light,
            Send us as your witnesses in daily life. Through our prayer,
            faith, and good works may we become welcoming doorways,
            inviting others to enter and encounter your Holy Communion of Love.
            We make this prayer, Father, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and through Christ our Lord.
            Amen

          • RodK1975

            That’s beautiful, Lidia, thanks for sharing it, it blessed me.

          • royal

            Number one . Start by reading the post .and stop , painting with such a wide brush. What happened to you , was not me. So to the point . I have been a beliver for over 30 years. I have studied over the years ..I don’t jump on anyones band wagon, be it Walid or his sons, my teacher is the Holy Spirit. ! If you check out all , you hear you will do will. Royal. (female.)

          • Lidia

            I did read your post and that’s why I felt bad for you. Read my previous comment.
            I knew you were a girl. I don’t know why everybody thought you were a guy. I wish you all the best in your life.
            God Bless you and your family.

          • royal

            You to Lida, tell Juile for me.God bless you all

          • shoebat

            And we write about it regardless of loss of donations and friends. Even trying to make peace is hated and objected to. We get accused of being Jesuit spies, agents of the Vatican, evil, heretical, pagan … an endless hatred towards us to the point we get daily inquisition style questions and remarks as if we live in the days of the Puritans. Royal has not experienced real hatred and even she is rejecting us without good cause.

          • ESRATLIFF

            I’ve only posted a few times, and have already been called some vile things. I can’t imagine what you get.

            I’ll limit my involvment to reading and giving. Thank you for keeping us informed.
            Love you, brother.

          • Woody

            Not the Julie I know

          • Julie LaBrecque

            If I had skin as thin as some of the people here I would already be dead of gangrene. They have no clue what we’ve lived through all our lives just because we are Catholic. She’s said nasty things before, when I called her on it, she said Disqus must have messed up.

          • I’d be translucent, so I can dig what you’re saying. Those with such epidermal issues should not be casting stones.

          • RodK1975

            Yeah, you’re right. I think 98% of the board population is in near complete control of their cerebral faculties and give out deliberate eye pokes and therefore deserves retaliatory eye pokes. That being said, there’s that 2% that may be somewhat challenged, in a cognitive sense, for any number of reasons (Not to mention compounding that with a complete void of syntax skills) and maybe need a little extra grace and mercy even though it’s difficult to give it to them at times. Sort of like when you’re standing in line at the grocery store holding a 3 year old, and the 3 year old says out loud about the guy in line behind you with a lazy eye “what’s wrong with that man’s ugly eye?”

            Am I in the ballpark? :-)) I have this problem in 3D where I talk to people and they look at me like I have turtles crawling out of ears and I can never figure out if the problem is them or me! Anyway, thanks Rudy!

          • I’d say you’re at home plate, Rod! And it’s my pleasure.

          • royal

            SO SORRY …Julie and I had mentioned fences, I said nothing about the Catholic Church or the Pope, Saints Mary , However Julie has taken some kind of offense, to a post of coming to geather under the banner of Christ , becouse the time is short. IAM NO LONGER ON THE SITE. so you have no need to throw any more rocks ..so put down your pitchforks

        • royal

          Before you tar and feather me read my post. On second thought I will no longer post . On this site your post is talking about me , you are a mean man.

          • Your post wasn’t up when I commented. Mean as I may be, it wasn’t directed at you, but commenting on Julie’s salient point.

          • royal

            Julie was talking about me , and you said that the Lord did warn us ect.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            I told Rudy that FEW would come to the truth, your post confirmed it; you just want to ignore the evidence. The saints in heaven are in the Body of Christ: does their love and charity end at death? Am I not allowed to tell my ancestors that I love and miss them just because they have left their flesh bodies? What else is RIP, but a mini-prayer for the dead? With all our Christian brothers and sisters being slaughtered and imprisoned and raped in the Middle East, we need all the help from heaven that can we can muster. Why are you closed to invoking the saints? Do you think that you are more righteous than them? I sure don’t think that I am. We are told to imitate those holy people who have gone before us. Please don’t be so thin-skinned.

          • shoebat

            Royal,

            Communicating by email or comment section is the worst medium. There is no eye contact. No personal touch. Just the dead silence of frozen letters written in haste. Such mediums would never be used to solve conflicts. At times the individual reads too much into certain things. Meanings get blurred and people get hurt.

          • Seth

            Amen to that.

          • Most people will forget what you say, some people will forget what you do, but no one will ever forget how you made them feel.

            My family and I will never talk to anyone about anything serious over text message or email. Way too many hurts and misunderstandings that way. Many here are biting an devouring each other. It’s not your fault.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Ted & Walid: I hope you’ve put on asbestos underwear. You could add a question to your list : Were the Corinthian Christians really having themselves baptized on behalf of the dead ( 1 Cor 15:29) YES/NO. Was Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer 31:15) of Rachel weeping for her children really fulfilled in Matthew 2:17-18. YES/NO.

  • True on both instances.

  • royal

    No comment….julie

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Why?

      • royal

        Becouse you posted that Ilook with magnifying glass ect…..

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Was it a valid statement or not?

  • royal

    I Corinthian 15:29……pagans were being baptize ….does not say we.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      You better read it again.

  • royal

    Mormon are bapaize for the dead

    • Julie LaBrecque

      So.

  • royal

    Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good after life (mentioned by homer in hymnto demeter478-79.

    • Mary Mennona Ventresca

      So what? Christian baptism had nothing to do with paganism. Christian baptism was an extention of the Jewish practice of the mikveh ritual purification bath, which goes back to the time of Moses.

  • royal

    Do we have to have this religious war over and over again….I dont care how you pray, if you pray to the saints or Mary its all good…”.for me” just Jesus. Whats the big deal

    • shoebat

      Royal,

      For centuries, the Orthodox and Catholic has been accused of necromancy and still do. No one said that this is the big deal, its the slander thats the big deal. We are simply explaining that Catholics asking for intercession is not blasphemy, but slander is an evil that needs to stop. Think about it. If folks accused you for years falsely, would you like it? When it comes to Catholic issues, the only thing we are allowed to do is to expose and talk about the homosexual and muslim infiltration and how the popes are sleeping with Muslims. Soooooo many are the websites that have all sorts of false slander, false history, prejudice … and now even here, you will not find one article which we write that clears the mud about Catholics unless we get attacked a hundred fold than you think. I think the problem is that you are not in our shoes. Put yourself in our shoes and go and read all the comments, or perhaps I can send you a MULTITUDE of deleted comments I get with not only vitriol, but evil things I cannot even begin to repeat. Yet I am steadfast. I do not lot that say me. I do not give up or give in. Perhaps someday we can all of us talk about it instead of typing on this keyboard. Communicating via comment section is the worst way. You should be careful, it causes lots of stress.

    • Woody

      But no one is preventing you from praying to Jesus so God Bless. I cannot think of any Christain that does not pray to Our Savior.

      • royal

        READ THE POST.why do people not read the post, No one is trying to stop me from praying ….read the post

        • shoebat

          All he is saying is that no one is stopping you so why stop others from even the discussion?

          • royal

            Iam not trying to stop any one from praying…my post was ….what does it matter if you choose to pray to Mary or the Saints ….I choose Jesus only…..what is wrong with this

          • Kamau40

            So, if you are praying to Jesus why wouldn’t your prayers include praying for Mary and the Saints?

          • royal

            Because he’s God and I pray in the name of Jesus….and he is alive

          • Kamau40

            You still fail to answer my question above as well as the questions in the article above. Yet, you make the claim that Catholics has hurt you.

          • royal

            I have a question for you why is the Pope making a statement saying Palestinians and Israel should find peace..why no combination, of the slaughter in the synagogue ..He makes a moral equivalent

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Are not we told to pray for the peace of Jerusalem?

          • royal

            Julie why has the Pope been so silent on the slaughter of the Christian in the Middle East. And now the terrible( murder )slaughter of the people and Rabbis in the synagogue in Jerusalem , the statement, that was made , had a moral equivalency “the Pope says both sides should find peace” and yes we should pray for the peace of Jerusalem . The Pope is the Leader of
            Christendom, and should have taking the leed on the genocide of Christians . I hope that this does not piss you off.I would ask St. PETER HIMSELF WHY.

      • royal

        Woody you need to start , reading all the post , “the thread “you have misunderstand.

        • Woody

          MINE ends with the word “deal” so haven’t changed my opinion; I pray to Jesus, too. St. Faustina walkeed with him almost daily for 3 years, and I thought their conversations so humorous,,,one day the Saint came out of her confessional and spotted Jesus and said, “Jesus. I don’t have to talk with you anymore!” And He said, “How so?” “My confessor told me … “Really. I’ll have to have a talk with him.” Then she said I have a small request. I want you to save all the souls in the world who are going to die today.” “You don’t want much do you?” And then He said, “For you I will do that.”
          God Bless, great Diary

          • royal

            I DONT CARE WHO YOU PRAY TO ……You seem to care ….not me

          • shoebat

            Woody, I enjoyed reading it. I cared.

  • susan

    You hit the nail on the head and drove it deep in the wood. I have seen pastors turn and begin to follow hebrew food laws such as no pork, no shellfish, no fish without scales, and no Christmas trees, no Easter eggs etc. But I’m finding my fulfillment in the Catholic church even though I am not allowed the Eucharist yet because of certain rules of the church. I’m enjoying my new American Bible with All the books included! Thank you for telling All the truth!!!!! I would like to add something that happened when I was reading Song of Songs Chapter 5. He was at the latch but I was not ready….now my hands, my fingers are dripping choice myrrh. And I sought him but found him not. Thank you both again.

    • disqus_eYvcSkOcNL

      Are these Hebrew laws no longer in play? Did your God erase them?

      • susan

        Great question!!!!!! I eat pork, shellfish, catfish and I don’t feel condemned by my Lord for doing so. There are others whom I greatly respect who are wonderful Christians that do feel it is condemning for them to eat these type of foods. I admit I am not wise enough to give you a good argument for or against. Perhaps you can! 🙂

      • Woody

        Some are some aren’t see the First Church Council of Jerusalem; where the whole thing is discussed. Circumsizm lost Ouch! Thank God wow that hurt!

        • susan

          Can I google it and find it?

    • Woody

      Welcome aboard and soon to enjoy the greatest gift the world has ever known – the Eucharist He did not want to leave us but the Father will was for Him to go _ so He did both – HE LEFT AND STAYED – THE CROSS AND The EUCHARIST.

      • susan

        Thank you Woody! The Eucharist is truly divinity. I didn’t know the teachings and confession I needed before the Eucharist. So I went up and partook of the Eucharist. I’ll never do that again!!! There is true power in it. Both physically and spiritually. I never would have believed it until I had experienced the Eucharist. Wow! What a difference! Thank you for your kind words! I’m looking forward to partaking of it properly.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Susan, glad to hear of your experience, I cry almost every time, what a gift. Remember those immortal words that the first Adam spoke: “This one, at last, is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.”

        • shoebat

          O Susan, you chose the road of thorns and a heaven with roses.

  • royal

    To Waild , I will no longer be supporting rescues Christian or post on your site . I will find another way to help, were I am welcomed and not treated badly because Iam not a Catholic. I dont remember reading what denomination you had to be to get into heaven.

    • Kamau40

      Royal-
      “Do we have to have this religious war over and over again….I dont care how you pray, if you pray to the saints or Mary its all good…”.for me” just Jesus. Whats the big deal

      • JulieB

        He is referring to the above article.

        • Kamau40

          I’m trying to figure out why Royal feels that Julie L and Catholics hate him. Instead of addressing the article he’s making these false accusations against people who never did any wrong to him.

          • JulieB

            It’s not just the “one” comment, but rather many others. There is much Christian infighting going on in within this board with Catholicism vs. Protestants and both sides are to blame, although Royal himself doesn’t protest with the different sects of Christianity. I see it on most, but not all days. Julie LaBrecque is one of the worst. At times, I agree with her statements and yet within others, she appears to scold and talk down to those that do not agree with her strict Catholic upbringing. I hold back my initial thought to inform her that I will see her in heaven someday whether she likes it or not. There is another male that posts hateful and mean pro-Catholic comments, but his name escapes me.

            This is “so” wrong! I usually just scroll down and try not to get into the individual preferences within our preferred religion, but many nights, I pray for God to please make it stop! I subscribe to this site because I believe it to be a pro-Christian site and at times am left with the impression that it is a pro-Catholic site. Since I am not Catholic, I, too, sometimes question whether it is my place to be here.

          • susan

            You’re right where God needs you. We know there’s a bigger foe we need to defeat together.

          • Kamau40

            “Julie LaBrecque is one of the worst. At times, I agree with her statements and yet within others, she appears to scold and talk down to those that do not agree with her strict Catholic upbringing.” So, when has Julie done these things? Can you site specific examples? I will tell you, I have noticed the stone throwers have been coming from the Protestant community.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Thanks Kamau.

          • Kamau40

            You’re welcome Julie.

          • JulieB

            Sorry, but I have been visiting this site for many months and I don’t keep a notebook to keep score. I refuse to waste my time in pulling up old comments. I also stated that both sides are to blame, but I’ve found that the Protestants that do throw stones are single posters who come on here, but don’t seem to come back. I’m guessing that they feel ostracized like others.

            Again, I just really wish that the Christian infighting would stop.

          • Kamau40

            “Now it sounds as if you are doing the scolding. You are no better than I or any of the other people posting on here.” Now, you accused me of scolding you, how so?
            “Again, I just really wish that the Christian infighting would stop.” How do you think the Catholics feel? When are you folks going to learn to be united instead of divided? Do you realize that ISLAM is your real enemy and the Catholics are our friends? Read latest article below, perhaps it will help you further to realize the realities we are all facing.
            http://shoebat.com/2014/11/17/shocking-video-isis-butchers-countless-people-send-message-americans-will-begin-slaughter-people-streets/

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Anything said that disagrees with them makes us a scolder. What do they think Jesus is going to do? Of course, they don’t believe His words that we can be sent to a prison and won’t get out until we’ve paid back the last penny, Matt 5:26, or some of his servants will receive lashes, Luke 12:47

          • Kamau40

            Absolutely!

          • Julie LaBrecque

            They recoil at the entirety of the gospel message.

    • shoebat

      I don’t recall once that I ever did anything against you. I was simply asking you where the insult you had from someone you said was rude so I can rectify it. You said that that person was rude to you and I read that post and did not find it in that specific post. Where was I wrong in trying to defend you?

      • royal

        I am not referring to that confused girl..the fact of the matter is the hostility.towards anyone that is not a Catholic, this is not the place for me , this makes me very sad.I have tried to come togeather , but Iam not Catholic. Ask Julie and Randy.. what is going on, I have said nothing about Catholics or the Pope

        • shoebat

          Who hurt you Royal? I? Julie? Randy? Please speak plainly so I can understand. I thought that I have always been kind to you.

        • FF

          Hi royal,
          I was “born Protestant”. Always on the same church, dealing with brothers (for 40+ years) who are like family in the flesh.
          I do feel the animosity towards “protestants”, but you have to understand that history have left scars on catholics and orthodox christians. If you have followed Walid articles for some time, you know what I mean.
          I also see the opposite, which is the constant attacks on Catholic and Orthodox beliefs, which are done in a not so christian way.
          Take it like a football match – sometimes we are kicked unintentionally. But even if it was intentional, don’t go back.
          I have persisted in coming systematically to Walid site because I need to learn what I’ve not been teached in. Maybe later in time this will be useful to others near me.
          Take this as a bad day. Tomorrow it will get better.

          • Steve Smith

            FF thank you for understanding us, what we deal with in America is ignorance about the Orthodox is that because we are not like them we are not Christian . take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gdB24gyu_M What I try to do is correct with love, the misinformation about what people think we are, not what we are.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            Most of the people don’t want the truth no matter how it is presented, just look at how people are turning on Walid for showing scripture and historical evidences.

          • Steve Smith

            Julie dear, they never think of the person in the chapter 3 verse 7 to 13 in apocalypse, as being a Sainted Bishop ” the angel of the church of philadelphia . Christ makes his slanderers bow down to him. it is clear this is a human not a heavenly being.

          • RodK1975

            Great video Steve! Thanks.

          • Steve Smith

            welcome Rod

          • FF

            Hi Steve,
            I must say this video is a jewel. I felt simultaneously smashed and relieved!
            I will highlight/comment with the sole intention to express some thoughts on it.

            The highlights:
            3:00 – 5:00 : The general panorama, very well described, and the point in common with our quest.
            8:30 : Protestantism was useful to bring him to Christ.
            9:10 : The importance of “injecting” orthodoxy in all denominations.
            16:50 : The “right glory” … (must see)
            19:30 : “preach the gospel always, sometime use words”.
            24:34 : “tired of sweet christians” – “be strong and courageous”.
            39:00 – … : A very good/important message to all of us: “If they love Christ, leave them alone” (I need help to translate the rest of the quote).

            (I could have sworn that tears were trying to get out of the eyes of the host)

            My thoughts:
            – Intolerance between christians comes from ignorance (interesting, since tolerance towards islamism comes from … ignorance…).
            – We must seek to introduce “orthodoxy” within each church/denomination (to the general reader: please understand what orthodoxy means).
            – Seeking wisdom/knowledge is (rightly) praised (that’s why we are here), but it must bear fruits – the “right glory”.
            This last issue should settle most “fights” in this forum.

            “[Take] my yoke upon you, and [learn] of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Matt 11:29

            Many thanks, Steve.
            God bless you.
            Filipe Feiteira.

          • dovari

            At 36:10 “We don’t pray to saints. We only direct our prayers to ……” He again repeats “We don’t pray to saints.”
            So Orthodox don’t pray to saints?
            What are the implications of his statement on what is being written here on this site regarding praying to sains?

          • FF

            I will leave a consistent answer to those with Orthodox/Catholic knowledge.
            Meanwhile, this is my understanding (it also brought my attention to it):
            In the views of Protestantism, “prayer to the saints” equates “paganism” (it’s a logical implication).
            This arises from the Protestant accepted definition of prayer (Matt 6:9…) and the general belief that in the celestial realm, except for God, all the others are unaware of our “physical” reality.
            That was implied in the question “AND do Orthodox pray to saints?”. The AND particle is meant for “if you say YES you’re a pagan, and nothing else you say will matter”.
            Fr. Seraphim Cardoza was avoiding a premature death of the speech, but this is just my opinion.

          • dovari

            Quote: “….”prayer” also represent the mean by which we may communicate with those in the spiritual realm.”
            This is the generic sense of the term as understood by all who pray be they pagan or otherwise.
            Be that as it may, however, Fr. Seraphim’s answer was straight forward and he repeated himself. He is a practicing priest. He is not practicing prayer to the saints, as his answer would clearly show. Why would he lie for the sake of an argument or for avoiding some undesirable consequence?
            This leaves me with an impression: Some orthodox practice and some don’t practice praying to the saints.
            I hope to find why some orthodox don’t practice praying to saints.

          • Steve Smith

            The Orthodox are not divided, our prayers are different directed to God, than those that are directed to the Saints in the heavenly realm.
            We don’t pray to Saints in the same way we pray to God. We don’t worship saints but we honor them because God has glorified them because they were faithful to him unto death.
            The church points to them and says see if the saints can do it you can too.

          • Steve Smith

            God is not the god of the dead but of the living, we are not separated by death, Christ trampled on death, did he not? We ask the saints to pray to God for us just as I would ask another brother in Christ to pray for me.

          • dovari

            Well, if Orthodoxy or Catholicism is indestructible continuation of Apostolic tradition still existing today, why some Orthodox do not practice praying to saints?

          • Steve Smith

            Pray, to address God with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving That only belongs to God, we ask the saints in our times of prayer to help us and pray to God for us in our suffering.

          • Steve Smith

            He spoke of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, ” If they love Christ, leave them alone.

          • FF

            Thank you.

      • Woody

        I asked him too to reveal the insults? Haven,t heard

    • Tom_mcewen

      But the Hebrew word, the word timshel—‘Thou mayest’—that gives a choice. the meaning of timshel, the word that God utters to Cain when exiling him to the lands east of Eden. Why Thou mayest choose exile, but why Royal

    • RodK1975

      Hi Royal,

      I just want to encourage you to stay. I’m new here and I don’t know how long you’ve been around and commenting but I can say that over the short time I’ve been here I always look forward to what you’re going to say, you definitely add a certain uniqueness to this board. Sometimes it can be very difficult to determine inflection, tone and intent when we read words on a screen and don’t have the luxury of hearing what was said. Sometimes hostility can come across as nice or neutral at the very least and sometimes nice and kind words can read as hostile if we’re having a bad day and read hostility into what is written. I find that, for my part, I’d rather err on the side of believing a person has good intentions in a reply to me even if they have bad intentions rather than making a mistake and assuming they have bad intentions if they really have good ones. I’m not perfect by any means but I’m more worried about being an offense than being offended.

      I don’t think anyone hates you here, Royal. In my short time here, I’ve come to see that there are a lot of unique personalities amongst the regulars. And, that’s a good thing or should be. It makes for sometimes lively debate and a lot can be gained from lively debate. I have a lot to learn and I learn a lot here. As far as the Catholic/Protestant thing, I’m Protestant and everyone has made me feel welcomed here. Mr. Shoebat, Koolmom, Susan, Billobillo, Julie, Rudy, you and everyone have been really nice to me. I really enjoy articles like this because I need to learn about Church history and Mr. Shoebat always documents his historical findings and it makes learning much easier because I wouldn’t even know where to begin doing it on my own. I don’t perceive the articles as anti-Protestant but pro-history and pro-Church and pro-healing a 500 year old wound in the church. And sometimes, in order for a wound to heal properly from the inside out, the scab on the outside has to be torn off and allowed to bleed a little. Mr. Shoebat and Ted and the whole Rescue Christians team always bring attention to both Catholic persecution and Protestant persecution, because it’s Christian persecution. I’ve come here and read articles about Catholics and Protestants being persecuted in Nigeria, Sudan and Indonesia and, of course, Syria and Iraq. This is one of the few places bringing attention to Christian persecution and the best at it as well.

      Don’t allow misunderstandings to cause you to leave and take your support for Rescue Christians. This place doesn’t just help persecuted Christians, it helps us by giving us a vessel by which to do the work Christ commands us to do. And, people in Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Iraq and Syria don’t care about Catholic help or Protestant help, they just need your help and all our help. This is such a unique charity and it gives us an opportunity to donate directly to the source of the help. We know where our funds are going and they’re being used wisely by Godly people. And to make it even better, we get to have one on one contact with Mr. Shoebat and ask him direct questions and get direct answers. Just take a deep breath, Royal and come back strong, sure there will be small disagreements, but view them as two siblings disagreeing on what to get dad for Christmas versus two enemies going head to head where one must be defeated. We aren’t enemies here, were brothers and sisters trying to build bridges so we can get to the same side. I mean my words in kindness and I hope they find you well.

      Thanks, Royal!

      • JulieB

        Thank you, Rod, for a very eloquent and kind response. I do understand where Royal is coming from since I, too, feel great despair over the comment boards on this site. There is nothing worse than a sanctimonious Christian. My prayer is for the Christian infighting to stop!

        I rather doubt that when we people reach the pearly gates of heaven that God will direct all Catholics to the East Wing and we Protestants to the West Wing. God never supported the divide and conquer theory within his plans for our lives but rather to love one another as his teachings support as we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

        There are many ways to get to heaven and one religion isn’t it. I am a Christian first and a Baptist second. It is similar to needing a new car. You go out shopping to find one that gets you to your destination. As long as it is a Christian religion which is founded and taught on Biblical scripture, whatever kind of car you choose due to personal preference will get you where you want to go, which is heaven. We all have our favorite brands and colors.

        We can argue theology until we’re blue in the face and I will never become a Catholic or those Catholics a Protestant and that’s okay, but I can assure you we will meet someday in heaven so everyone had better get over this. (this goes for both sides) This does not please our Father!

        • RodK1975

          I want to help, JulieB. I try to foster good will and peace wherever I can.

          • susan

            Yes you do and I am grateful for you!!

        • Julie LaBrecque

          I suppose as long as you are adhering to the binding articles of faith and morals that have been made by the Church, which have been bound in heaven, you will make it. I have been told that young engaged Baptists couples are encouraged to use birth control in their marriage until they are ready to have children, though I don’t know how widespread the practice is.

        • susan

          I can’t wait to meet you JulieB!!! 🙂

          • JulieB

            Thanks, Susan, same here!

      • Woody

        Yes, I’ve learned a lot on this site but I would not have if I had thin skin. In fact Rod taught me when I asked him a question and his answer meant a lot to me – he a Protestant and me a Catholic.

        • Kamau40

          Awesome Woody. Reading your blogs has helped me a lot. You’re insights have been very helpful for me. There are people who are looking up to you and learning all of the time. Thank you for your great comments.

        • RodK1975

          Thank you for that compliment and your encouragement the other day Woody, it means a lot!

  • Tom_mcewen

    It is in the bible Luke 20:38 : “For he is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live to him.” One should not put limits on God, he is the creator of all, space and time is His.

  • FF

    Hi Walid,
    Maybe it’s a translation barrier, but I didn’t get the statement in question 5:
    “If you rejected communion with saints and say No (which you have to)”.
    Why do we “have to” “rejected communion with saints”?
    Does the sentence follows from the rhetoric speech, in the sequence of the previous question, or is “communion with saints” wrong?
    Sorry to ask, but I’m new in this subject.
    P.S. – I’ve been wondering about all this during this weekend, which make this article a “just in time” delivery. Thanks.

    • shoebat

      The line was intended for a skeptic whom I wrote but forget to clean it up. Thanks for that, I took it out.

      • FF

        Hi Walid,
        Thanks for the clarification.
        It’s really nice you have found time to address it, in the middle of mile long threads, fighting some nasty speeches.

        As for the P.S., I was referring to my intellectual travel, although I had those thoughts. Unfortunately my father died almost 10 years ago, and “prayer for the dead” are uncharted waters to me. I really dont have a clue about “how”, or even “if”. I’ll keep searching.

        Thanks again Walid. You were most helpful, as usual 😉
        God bless you.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Paul was praying that God would grant Onesiphorus mercy on that day, i.e., judgment day.

  • shoebat

    Infidel72, Your making presumptions. You need to look at all the references that explain the verse which included thousands of theologians worth there salt more than me and you who concluded what was concluded. Now you come in as the one to refute everyone with a stroke of a pen as if God spoke through you?

  • shoebat

    Your making presumptions. You need to look at all the references that explain the verse which included thousands of theologians worth there salt more than me and you who concluded what was concluded. Also, there are many verses which you accept as conclusive written in Scripture because it was interpreted as so by many before us. For example, Isaiah 7 about “Almah” (Young Maiden) which simply means “young maiden” yet you accept this to mean “virgin”. While this interpretation is correct, many will scoff that its not, yet such scoffing is in error and we both agree. Why? Its because we have Genesis 3, the seed of the woman, not the man. And the question I ask you, how many biblical verses did it take for us to conclude that Mary was virgin in the old Testament? Answer: 2 little verses. God intended things that way so we can think, see, search and find.

  • shoebat

    Strange.

    “you failed in rejecting Luther so easily and it seems to me that you are going to get involved with catholic theology and doctrines.”

    While one can find thousands of Luther’s heretical writ, your come and give me the two typical links as if I support that?

    How do folks assume that I am blind when truth is, they are blind to what they think and say about me.

    Quite a strange observation indeed. I would suppose you will send me next all the homosexual infiltration of the Vatican as evidence for corruption of Catholic doctrine? You think the Catholics formulated their doctrine when they penned such errors and there is nothing in their history to provide a nugget? Everything is thrown away and written off by the stroke of your pen? Quite incredible. But what is more incredible is that there are millions roam roundabout as if they had infinite wisdom when truth is, they eat apple sauce, daily.

  • shoebat

    “It amazes me how somebody who has such a thorough understanding of biblical prophecy has such a weak understanding and a rather messed up view of Biblical doctrine.”

    I should say that it should amaze me that one writes an accusation and then instead of explaining where our “messed up doctrine” is, or try to even refute what was written goes on to tell us about his dream and how he has the Holy Spirit now and as everything he says is absolute truth.

    The Holy Spirit clearly said to “correct”, yet I am yet to see a “correction”. Are you a serious corrector or are you simply a blabber?

    • Sounds like INC crap. Man, these people are as ridiculous as the Calvies are.

  • shoebat

    Oh yes, I have been working very hard to delete your amazing comment but somehow it miraculously appears through some amazing powers.

    • Tom_mcewen

      You no doubt prayed to a saint for intercession for a miracle Walid, puff and the comment appears.

  • shoebat

    “1 timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”

    Wow, never knew that. How can I now delete this before everyone knows that you have refuted everything.

  • shoebat

    So one verse in Scripture is not enough? How many verses do you need to find in Scripture to prove that, lets say, “Jesus wept”? If you say more than one, you blaspheme. One blasphemes when he denies a single verse, for to deny a single verse is to call God a liar. Tell me, is there any single verse in the Bible that you reject?

    Now that you will answer with “No” (I know 100% you will say No), why then do you reject that verse we shared?

    You do.

    You say that you need more verses.

    Amazing.

    • Infidel72

      Walid , never does it say elijah died yet you say he did so you assume stuff not in the bible right ? So if you assume that is on you conjecture we are all guilty of ! But you say one verse should be enough ? Yet now im not 100 % sure since I think youve said before one verse can be twisted like in the rosh of gog magog example people think russia but we know the body of evidence shows different if im wrong im sorry forgive me now then if I choose not to pray to people and believe in purgatory or believe mary wasnt a virgin after jesus and if I dont believe mary went to heaven without dying who cares ? Catholics do you do does this mean you and the whole of catholics cant believe this nope ive never said you cant pray to whoever believe what you will does this mean your not saved nope thats between you and God why cant my not believing this be ok ? Do I go to hell because I wont pray to mary ? God forbid may it not be since its by God the fathers mercy that he sent jesus to die on the cross and be raised from the dead that I believe this through the Holy spirit I am saved being saved will be saved ! I have the faith and show the works because I have the faith ! So why thunder down on me ? So be it I speak clear go reread all you want I dont change my message ! So walid what now ? You guys make it hard to be apart of this website but have no fear I speak true and within the scriptures I rest so as ive said even if apostles did something so be it like paul not marrying even though we should he spoke against What God wants proving he is a man a sinner cause Gods plan is man woman marry in this world . Ill be waiting walid I wish you a good day try and relax abit friend .

      • shoebat

        “if I choose not to pray to people and believe in purgatory or believe mary wasnt a virgin after jesus and if I dont believe mary went to heaven without dying who cares ? ”

        A typical scenario during the days of John The Baptist

        Chaim: Why should I care Ezra if Maschiach comes on a donkey.

        Ezra: Because its in the Bible

        Chaim: Its only one verse. You need to show me many verses about Mashiach riding a donkey. You go and meet that clown riding on that donkey, I am waiting for the real Mashiach who rides into Jerusalem on a horse. Take your palm branch with you and buzz off.

        Infidel, what would happen to Chaim?

        What if Mary does show up as John said, and she says to go and mark your foreheads with the sign of the cross, and you said that this must be a demonic apparition, where will you end? You think you will go to Jesus and say “I healed in your name”? Think Infidel, think, everything in Scripture matters. The ones who keep a watchful eye get saved, the ones who don’t (and they are believers”) will NOT be saved. The story of the virgins proves that there is no pre-salvation, its a false sense of salvation.

  • shoebat

    makes sense.

  • shoebat

    “First of all: Only through JESUS we are saved.”

    Really? I didn’t know that.

    “Second: Jesus does not need “secretaries”.”

    Wow, didn’t know that either. You must be really astute.

    “Why pray to anyone else but Him?”

    Wow, how did you find out that we all here worship idols? Its a secret society ran by Jesuits. How did you get in?

    “Jesus is the Son of God, it does not get any more helpful than that.”

    Wow, we didn’t know that either.

    “Third: All are born sinners, there are no such thing as “saints” to pray for help for anything.” (Samuel Trovao Chapter 1 verse 1)

    I hope you don’t mind me putting the chapter and verse.

    “Fouth: Catholics are idolaters and have 0 credibility in terms of Biblical truth, so taking anything of what they say makes this site also have 0 credibility.” (Samuel Trovao Chapter 1, verse 2)

    “Fifth: This post reeks of apostasy.”

    Amazing refutation.

    “This “proof” is conjecture.”

    Another amazing correction.

    “We didn’t need to pray to “saints” …”

    Yes, we worship saints over here. We pray to them as gods, you know.

    “Do not stray from Jesus”

    Help us, we are drowning.

    “but misleading people from the truth of the Bible.”

    Its part of a Jesuit conspiracy, shshshshsh, lest anyone hears you.

    • Woody

      Wow I never knew dis i bet many Protestants and Catlics are now revitalized

  • shoebat

    Ricardo,

    I am still at a loss, you say:

    “But I wanted to challenge you.”

    Where is the challenge? And without changing the subject, where is the “error” I made and how would you “correct” it?

  • shoebat

    O there you are, you amazingly appeared again 😉 its the apparition of Issa.

    But Issa, was my verse I shared false? If so why? I mean don’t let me wallow in mud and error, help me, man.

  • shoebat

    “How do I keep a “watchful eye”

    By paying attention to everything as much as possible. When you cross the road, how do you keep a watchful eye? When you walk home, how do you keep a watchful eye? You become a little paranoid which is a good thing, sort of like defensive driving, do not trust strangers, listen to your parents, take good advise, watch out from liars and cheats. Be as wise as a snake. Always go for what is original and good. Always examine everyone by what they produce. Do they produce good fruit or do they produce bad fruit? Do not quickly trust, examine, try, see if it is gold or is it plated, beware to trust something just because it popular or has gloss all over it, looks are deceptive. Its the same way when you examine theology. The older the better. Theology is like aged wine. Anyway, welcome on board Mary Mennona Ventresca, enjoyed reading your comments.

  • shoebat

    “Going to run away again this time?”

    Yes, I am terrified, your light glows and shines so bright I can’t take it. I need to hide.

    “Your reply “(Samuel Trovao Chapter 1 verse 1)” shows you can’t refute even the most basic argument.”

    No I can’t, I failed, your intellect is so high that I am dumbfounded.

    “A saint gives the impression he is free from sin, which the Bible says is not possible since we are from birth sinners, and once one reaches heaven he is just another soul, not a “saint” to pray to.”

    So when God gives us a glorified body, we still sin, teacher?

    “Ridicule as a form of argument is the tool of trolls. Thanks for proving my point.”

    Always glad to be of service.

    “This post should be titled “How to justify idolatry 101”.

    Indeed, great suggestion, thank you, your highness.

  • shoebat

    “Do you pray to saints?”

    You see, folks read something into what we say that is not what we say, the reason they do this is because the traditions of men seeps through their soul. What we said is “pray for” and not “pray to”. Why then did you say that we said “pray to”? Its because there is more tradition of men that you need to get rid of Issa.

    • Owen Schumacher

      Walid, the headline of this article partly reads “prayers TO saints is a part of Christianity.”

      • shoebat

        “prayers to saints” is how its commonly used in culture, but its not praying to them as God, We’re praying to those who can ask God to help us in our various needs in accordance with His will. It should be termed intercession of saints, but the tradition says this. Its like in the old times, one would say to his boss “my lord”, does that mean he worships him?

        When you ask someone to pray for you are you worshiping that person? Of course not! It’s the same when we ask the saints to pray for us! In our prayers to saints we ask them to “put in a good word” for us with God in Heaven. They are not the focus of our worship, God is.

  • shoebat

    Issa, the verse I was asking about is in the article about Onesiphorus.

  • shoebat

    Agreed. Pray for not to. But also still petition for intercessory prayers.

  • richinnameonly

    Wow. I feel like I just walked into the middle of a great debate, with some taking differences of opinion in stride and others going ballistic. I’ve been around a little and I don’t know of any “religion” or individual that has 100% truth and nothing but the truth. At this point how would we know it anyway with 100% surety on everything? When Christ comes and establishes his kingdom rule, all who are present will start getting some lessons and then we will know where we were right and where we were wrong. The big rights and wrongs may be easier to see now, but the further we go into details the more elusive things may be. It’s all interesting. Establish your ground, but have the humility and sanity to understand that you may be wrong somewhere.
    I have enjoyed Royal’s posts and hope he reconsiders his reactions.

  • susan

    In the Methodist church I attend (yes, I attend both Methodist and Catholic and I love Baptists..all Christians) we have prayer chains. We call up one another and pray for one another. I also “call up” the mother of Jesus Christ and the Saints and ask for their intercession as well. I enjoyed your article because that is what used to concern me as well. So I attended Catholic church to see and hear for myself what was being taught. And here I am. Walid is correct about the criticism that one receives as a Catholic believer as compared to other denominations. LOL. I am helpless in directions and often cross myself in the wrong direction. The priest just smiles at me and jokes that I must have some Orthodox roots in me.

  • Kamau40

    Excellent response Amy!

  • RodK1975

    Jof, this is the first post can recall seeing of yours but I’m still new here. I think you should post more often. You’ve said so much in so little space. You’re right. Most Protestants don’t know about prayers for the dead and praying to Saint/the Virgin Mary. So when they see it, they do sort of freak out a little. Your whole post is excellent, I can’t add to it, you’re dead right.

  • susan

    I always get headaches when I haven’t eaten in awhile. Don’t forget, I’m looking forward to your reply!

  • Woody

    The early Christians are Catholics first known before 107 AD, the “People of the Way.”

  • Woody

    Yes, heresies were growing by leaps and bounds and that is why St Ignatius of Antioch in 107 where the true Church of Jesus was — he told them whereever the Bishop is there is his church – look to Rome (where Peter’s successor was then) Clement

  • Woody

    How much clearer doed Jesus have to be when He gave His Church the power to make changes “Whatsoever you bind on earth I WILL BIND IN HEAVEN’ whatsoever you loose upon earth I WILL LOOSE IN HEAVEN.” Pretty strong that He IS BACKING HIS CHURCH 100%

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Since all have sinned, I assume you have your baby baptized to wash away sin.

    • Tom_mcewen

      Bad, Jesus, bad, you have sinned

  • Woody

    If one prays to Jesus friends, the saints. and all prayers go to Jesus no one is saying that Jesus is not the mediator; Catholics agree that that is foolish.

  • Woody

    Huh Did not Jesus talk “to” Elihah after he was dead? Should He not have done that. I see prayer as “talking to” one e.g. God, Mary, Joseph?

  • Marco Vincent

    Read the entire 1 Timothy 2 first!!!
    Dont go pick one verse and twist its meaning.

    • Julie LaBrecque

      You’re taking away the marbles!

      • Marco Vincent

        His brain?balls?the gift?the bait?

        Sorry, English isn’t my first language, so I presume it was his brain. BTW read my other comment on this article about “Kedushah”. Or just go to this link:

        http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7815-holiness

        Because of this concept in Judaism that intercession is needed.
        You can use it as an extra ammo against anti-intercession crowd.–>because TO vs FOR arguments beginning to sound so childish.

        GOD bless you.
        Amen.

        • Julie LaBrecque
          • Marco Vincent

            Whoa, awesome….prayer.Thanks. This would clear the heads of those “uninitiated” in the historic tradition of the Jews and the Church.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            For sure. You should read “The Crucified Rabbi” by Dr. Taylor Marshall, the intro to the book is the story of why he converted to Catholicism based on his interaction with a Rabbi at the hospital bedside of a Jewish woman whom the Rabbi went to pray for and wanted the mother’s name to be invoked.

          • Marco Vincent

            I will do it…Thank you again. GOD bless you.

          • Julie LaBrecque

            God full of mercy who dwells on high
            Grant proper rest in the wings of Your Divine Presence
            in the lofty abode of the holy, pure and valiant
            who shine as the brightness of the heavens
            to the souls of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces
            who met their deaths in the wars of Israel, in actions of defense, retaliation and security on land in the air and at sea
            while carrying out their duty
            and to the souls of all the underground fighters
            the fighting units that took part in the nation’s battles
            and those of the intelligence community
            who gave their lives
            for the sanctification of God’s Name, His people and the Land
            and with the help of the God of Israel’s battles
            brought about the rebirth of the nation and the state
            and the redemption of the Land and the City of God
            Because we are at one with their memory
            and we pray for the elevation of their souls
            Their resting place shall be in the Garden of Eden.
            Therefore, shall the Master of mercy care for them
            under the protection of His wings for all time
            And bind their souls in the bond of everlasting life.
            God is their inheritance and they will rest in peace.
            And let us say amen.

          • shoebat

            Amen

          • Julie LaBrecque

            From the Jewish prayer book.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          “May God remember the souls of the righteous men and women of other faiths and backgrounds who have gone to their eternal rest. In tribute to their memory, I pledge to perform acts of charity and justice. May their souls be bound up in the bond of life as an enduring source of blessing.” This prayer was added to the Jewish prayer books a few years ago in remembrance of those gentiles that helped save Jews during the Holocaust.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why did Jesus build a Church?

  • Woody

    Getting goofy here. To ask the saints to pray FOR someone whithout asking him (pray and talking is the same) so does one turn their head the other way during the process; no Catholic when invoking the saints ever replaces Jesus as mediator. Jesus is GOD.

  • Woody

    Praying is speech – talking so do we use signing?

  • Marco Vincent

    False accusation wouldn’t get you anywhere. BTW ,you just broke the 9th commandment :

    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor

    — Exodus 20:16 ( NKJV )

    • AnthonyM

      I surprised he left out the Whore of Babylon accusation. I can’t count how many times I’ve been treated to that.

      • Marco Vincent

        Well, he tried something new, name calling and whining. Thats what you get from person that doesnt have the guts to stand up for the FAITH.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why does Rev 5 & 8 depict elders and angels interceding?

  • Woody

    The bible says quite the opposite; “Jesus said Whose sins ye shall forgive they are FORGIVEN THEM.”

  • Marco Vincent

    This comment section has officially become a WAR ZONE.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    And the mother of the king was seated at the right hand of her son, 1 Kings 2:19, this is why Jesus told us to “Behold, your mother”.

  • Woody

    At least this is ignorance not hatred

    • Steve Smith

      but ignorance can lead to hate.

  • Woody

    Getting nonsensical – why have I heard my Protestant friend say TO another of his friends pray FOR me.
    To much trivia for me

  • Woody

    Why would someone give up the BODY, BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY of Jesus and think he is on the right track?

    • Julie LaBrecque

      So they can be their own Pope.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Walid showed scripture, so what’s the beef? You have no authority to interpret the scriptures for whatever you want to make them say. The Church who has the authority to make the Bible is the Church that has the Authority to interpret THEIR book. You don’t understand that it is a CATHOLIC book. I don’t think Shakespeare would hesitate to call someone out for twisting or changing what the meaning and intent of his plays/books was according to HIM.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    We WERE ONE until Martin Luther and every other person since who thinks they can interpret scripture came along, everyone becomes their own Pope and their own Church. Not God’s plan.

  • Marco Vincent

    You have to realize the history behind the Nostra Aetate and similar documents that follows, because they were born out of HUGE political war inside the Vatican, between Pro Israel bishops and the Dhimmi/anti-semite bishops –>which includes A LOT of Middle Eastern prelates AND a number of MISGUIDED Catholic conservatives.

    The Nostra Aetate and similar document were the middle ground to prevent further schism.

    That is a historical fact. You can read and investigate further on old newspapers scans of that time about the news that leads to the release of that document. I’m sure libraries have them. Or you can read books and theses about the subject of Zionism and Catholic-Jewish relationship.

    Or many online Catholic archives about Nostra Aetate.

    OR.. you can read the condensed version in this excellent book :

    Zeal for Zion: Christians, Jews, & the Idea of the Promised Land
    By Shalom Goldman

    especially Chapter Six : Two Catholic Thinkers on Zionism page 200-202

    Judging the Catholics over Nostra Aetate without knowing the history and the very delicate situation behind it, would be very unfair.

    GOD bless and Amen.

  • shoebat

    I mean this is absolutely amazing discovery which it seems that thousand of scholars both Protestants and Catholics missed. Perhaps you can send your wonderful research to the Christian scholars mentioned and from now on we will be reading the Bible according to the brilliant Ken Jewett. Viva Jewett hooray.

    • Marco Vincent

      Just explain them this concept in Judaism–> Kedushah ( Holiness )…and all your detractors would be silent.

      http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7815-holiness

      In short :
      GOD’s Holiness is unapproachable–> the very obvious reason for intercessions in both Judaism and Christianity.

      Hope this helps. GOD bless you.
      Amen.

  • Marco Vincent

    Funny, your comment reads like the Atheist handbook for debating Christians.

  • shoebat

    Than point to us the “pure form”.

  • shoebat

    “Why pray for the dead? ”

    Do you see us asking that question? The questions are in the article, have you answered them?

  • shoebat

    Sure, we have a sufficient advocate. 100% true. But its like saying we have our local judge and he is 100 sufficient to care for the needs of our town, but that by no means he will not hear the case from the local district attorney either. You completely do not understand what is at hand 100% and are acting as if the early church taught that there are other advocates besides Jesus. So many are still in this mode of not being able to understand what was taught and explained. We did in two very long articles and you seem not to be able to study them or even try to refute them.

  • Marco Vincent

    Before ANY OF YOU start debating AGAINST intercessions, including the “TO vs FOR” arguments–which are linguistically limiting the entire meaning of intercession, I want to ask a simple question:

    Do any of you, anti-intercession crowd, understand the concept of “Kedushah” in Judaism?
    If yes, then you would understand the root teaching of intercession and why it is needed.
    If not, then look it up and open your eyes.
    GOD bless you.
    Amen.

  • shoebat

    I asked: “So when God gives us a glorified body, we still sin, teacher?”

    You responded with; “It doesn’t make us saints to have people pray to us either. Where is that in the Bible? Oh right, it’s not.”

    Ok, let me set the rules for dialogue, that when I ask a question ANSWER IT.

    So when God gives us a glorified body, do we still sin?

    Its a “Yes” or “No” answer.

    Until you start answering questions with “Yes” or “No”, I am not interested in baby sitting. I have wasted a lot of time in the past with ‘apple sauce’ baby Christians and to be frank, its not only a waste of time, I don’t have time to baby sit.

    Read the article and there are “?”, answer them.

  • Woody

    Excellent

  • Marco Vincent

    Seeing GOD in your dream so many years ago doesnt make you a “born again” Christian and doesnt even justify all your misguided views ( and maybe your behavior too?)
    No, it meant that GOD wants you to REPENT–no comma–no buts.

  • RodK1975

    You’re exactly right! I came to the conclusion years ago, call it an epiphany or what you will, I really believe God spoke it into my heart. That is, we can’t control what others say and do to us, but what we can control is how we react to it. We don’t always know what someone else is dealing with in life and some people react out of years old hurts that have nothing to do with the present situation. And, many times, a kind word when a violent reaction is expected can speak volumes and heal a small wound.

  • shoebat

    “Do you even own a Bible?”

    Very funny. She’s a walking Bible encyclopedia.

  • JulieB

    For what it’s worth, I couldn’t understand Royal’s offense about your remark, either. I found it very uplifting and another wonderful testimony about how the grace of God can do so much good in a person’s life. Thank you for sharing with the rest of us a perfect example of coming to the cross.

  • JulieB

    Thank you!!! My point exactly.

  • shoebat

    “This place is very bias, but it’s not like anyone hates you.”

    You will probably be shocked to know that when I write every mean comment I am smiling since I never mean it

    • susan

      You get attacked so very much and yet….you have so much supernatural love for us and that can only be from G-d!!!! It would be such an honor to meet you and your family. G-d is so good. He still sends us prophets!!!

    • RodK1975

      It is so hard sometimes being misunderstood. I’ve dealt with that my whole life. I sometimes wish I could download my understanding into other peoples brains so they could see. I am always being accused of being mean in my physical world and I’m as nice as they come. But, it is what it is. I identify with that in you Mr. Shoebat, it’s so plain to me, I wish everyone could see it.

  • shoebat

    ” I must admit that I agree with shoebat when he says that the prayer to saints are part of christianity…but the question is: what kind of Christianity? The true or the fake one?”

    Now Javier, tell us then, are the Catholics on this site who practice the intercession of saints are all part of “FAKE CHRISTIANITY”? Yes/No.

    And PLEASE NO SUGAR COATING YOUR ANSWER, no “IF this ” and “If that” They are all here, are you telling them that they are FAKE CHRISTIANS? Comon now, put the guitar aside for a minute, no hiding behind the bush. Tell them “YOU ARE FAKE CHRISTIANS”

  • shoebat

    Samuel,

    Then refute the article, line by line.

  • Kamau40

    It’s called CHRISTENDOM!

  • Kamau40

    After reading your comments, you have been throwing up all over yourself.

  • Tom_mcewen

    “I am a former Catholic myself and I only became a real Christian after a personal encounter with God in a dream.”
    That says it all, A REAL Christian, let us know when the conscious mind comes on line. The pews are full of former Catholics who are so ignorant that they could not state a doctrine of the catholic church to save their life. Faith and Reason, you had a dream, NO need for 16 years of education. Faith alone and dream alone, move over Luther. were is the Reason?

  • Tom_mcewen

    Define dead? metaphysically what is dead, either life is part of the physical world and when the body becomes non-functional the physical parts of life decay and life ends, that is death in a material world. Or life is independent of the material world and is not effected by the non-function of the body and the the metaphysical thing called life continues and there is no death. Next question does this life contain the pattern of personality or not? If it does not then it is only a spark, if it contains a personality, then life is independent of the material world could be defined as a soul and alive. therefor there is no dead, but living souls containing a personality, so you are not praying to the dead, but to a living personal soul guarded by the Holy Spirit who is the breath of life, which is the breath of God.. There is no Dead to pray to only the living. If you call up the dead and there is no dead, then who are you calling up? a soul with an intelligent soul with its own ends, not God’s.

  • Tom_mcewen

    Like I asked Amy define dead, how can a soul which is independent of the material world be dead, death is part of space and time. a soul created by God is not a prisoner of space and time, therefore death can not happen outside a material world existing solely in the construct of space and time. The Lamb was sacrificed before the foundation of the world.

  • Marcos Filipe Guerra

    I’ve found something interesting that would be nice to throw in here. A couple of verses in Revelation.

    “And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed {are} they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
    And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See {thou do it} not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

    Revelation 19:9-10

    I’ve always thought this was an angel, not a “fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus”. I read this about couple of months ago, but couldn’t fathom what it meant. Does that mean christian saints can speak to us? The person saying these things to John is a JEW CHRISTIAN, because he said “and of thy brethren” that have “the testimony of Jesus”. Wow. This is a clear one of a saint speaking to John.

    God bless

  • RodK1975

    Fantastic, Tom! I love when people talk about the physics, though I don’t have the mathematical expertise to understand it properly, I find it fascinating. God’s existence outside of spacetime makes it hard for some people to understand His Nature and how He acts on spacetime. His existence outside of spacetime is shown through in that He tells the end from the beginning. And, it explains so many misconceptions people have about “PERCEIVED” contradictions in the Bible that are NOT contradictions. It’s how you have both freewill and predestination at the same time as described in Romans Ch 8, and how God speaks of things past when they’ve yet to happen.

    • Tom_mcewen

      The Academy used to be mandated to be Atheist, but now Physics and Theology are both are to be seeked out, My friend who produced Fusion in Livermore, now eats and sleeps Augustine, If he was not married he would be off to a monk’s cell and read and read. his family rolls their eyes when he starts so he comes and sees me.The longest Q & A is always about the religious beliefs of the visiting Physicists, no matter what atheists have you believe.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Don’t they claim to go by the Bible alone?

  • shoebat

    Keep it up and this is why we have so many old geezers with few young a strong to care for them. We will end up with one child caring for two old complaining geezers who will elect the politician that will give them free meds. This is your rebellious theology in which you listen to a voice which says “did God really say to e fruitful and multiply and fill the earth?”

  • shoebat

    “God does not need secretaries to intercede.”

    Putting aside the issue of prayer to saints, this is absolute nonsense.

    Than asking your pastor to do intercessory prayers for you is also defined as “intercessory prayer” on your behalf, so now I can take your exact statement and apply it “God does not need secretaries to intercede” and by that you should never ask your pastor or anyone else to pray for you.

    And by that you just shot down intercessory prayer altogether by making your statement which makes it false. So don’t reply with a monkey wrench, admit that your statement is FALSE first, then explain away your next poorly constructed phrase. You loose. Good Day. I said Good Day.

    • Samuel Trovão

      I don’t need my pastor, a man, to pray for me when I can do it myself. Praying WITH someone, yes, praying FOR someone, no. Asking my pastor to pray with me makes sense and is supported. Just asking him without me doing my part , is not.

      Scripture does not support the idea his prayer is more effective than mine. Squirm some more, Mr Shoebat. Squirm.

      • shoebat

        “yes, praying FOR someone, no.”

        I have ran into all sorts of bloopers in my life, but this one tops them all.

        You have just banished intercessory prayers for even the living just in order to try to win an argument against the dead. I do not need to “squirm,” everyone reading your post here will chuckle.

        You can’t tell someone who is out to lunch that they are “out to lunch” for they do not understand what lunch is, they have been wallowing with the pigs believing themselves to be “saints”. Unless you acknowledge your foolish statement (which you won’t) please do not reply, I had enough dialogues with you. DONE. NO MORE. GOOD BYE.

      • susan

        You know I’ve never written anything like this before but you’re behavior is appalling. You’re acting like a jerk. Squirm?? Really? Squirm? Are you a worm? Or a man? Be quiet and learn.

        • shoebat

          O Susan, you have chosen the road of thorns and a heaven filled with the smell of roses.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        “Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sin, he will be forgiven. Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.” James 5:14-16

  • shoebat

    “the elders are therefore being prayed to and then praying for those on earth. ”

    “the elders are therefore being prayed to”

    Tell us then, who are these elders and why are they being prayed TO? Someone is praying TO them?

    “and then praying for those on earth”

    WOW. So you are saying that the saints in heaven are living not dead and are also praying?

    Thats a great start.

  • shoebat

    strange how you object an interpretation, yet offer none.

  • Kamau40

    It’s all about PARTNERSHIP!!!

  • shoebat

    I am not the Pope to answer and neither did I ever support this so why am I being inquisited on it?

  • shoebat

    “Walid, you speak like a terrorist who wants to behead those who think differently”

    Evil men slander and never answer a direct question and always show words of piety as if this excuses their slander.

  • Tom_mcewen

    I can not wait for someone like to ask me if I am saved and then I can ask if they are Christian? When the answer “Yes”, I can say “Great give me the all the Words of Christ and not a single verse from Paul on my salvation”,

    • Julie LaBrecque

      They can’t.

  • Tom_mcewen

    “what kind of Christianity?” I think it is the one who understands Greek and Latin.

  • Marco Vincent

    I understand what you’re trying to say, the problem is that your view clashed against the accepted view ( about the intercession and saints ) that has been held since before the birth of Christ by the Jews.
    ( I assume here since you left the Catholic Church you dont follow their dogma again ).
    What Mr. Walid is trying to do here in his article is to mend the gap by showing the connections based on solid evidence.
    I know a website and an online forum aren’t the most effective medium of discussion, because there are bound to be limitations that can lead to misunderstanding, rude words ( because the anonymity), and flame war. But what I asked you to keep an open mind and try to read his sources again and try to understand the “why” behind intercessions.

    I admit I’m not perfect, that I too make mistakes by sometimes appearing to be rude, but you have to trust me, that I’m trying my best to be civil here, because I want to have good solid conversation. If there’s still no agreement then fine, we can continue another time.
    Disagreement are not the excuse for a flak/flame war, thats why we have reasoning and deduction.

    Hope you understand my point, here.
    GOD bless you.
    Amen.

  • AnthonyM

    Why take powerful hormones that alter your body chemistry? Green up your life style and take the path God provided, Natural Family Practice.

  • shoebat

    Edwin,

    While your remark had truth, it eliminated the fact that the Church prior to reformation had much to offer in its history in doctrine and victories against the tyranny of Islam. I do not look at King David’s sin and judge that I need not to follow what He said in the Bible. Just as Jesus condemned the establishment at his time (which I do in this time) that does not mean He condemned its authority either.

  • shoebat

    What we said about “Piper” should be in context of what we said about Piper. Have you included them? What we said about “Puritans” should be included within the context of what we said about Puritans. What we said about “White” should be in context of what we said about White. But to remove the context is to offer a half-truth which is what brings disunity. While I myself at times watch White’s great debates with Muslims and agree fully with him, I watch other debates with Catholics and do not and see him to be quite the sophist. But that is said within the context of the arguments we mention. Yet you say nothing about such arguments. Why? Why did you eliminate the context All Milk? Is it because your All Milk and its time you add a little mushrooms and flower and make a more hearty soup for a tasty argument.

  • Walid,

    I will respond to your article below. However, I begin my thoughts by noting there is a big difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Is correct belief the only thing that matters in Christianity? It has a high priority, but if Jesus said you’d know a tree by its fruit and James said he’d show his faith by what he did, then certainly how we live out our faith is as important as having a correct faith.

    You said, “Paul prays for him: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day” which is not just an expression of sentimental emotion—this is a prayer
    for a man who has died, it is prayer for the dead.” It appears you are saying Prayer FOR the dead vs. Prayer TO the dead. But the tile of your article is, “The Most Powerful Evidence To Prove That Prayers To Saints Is Part Of Christianity.” You just said it yourself, Paul prayed for him not to Him. I’m just not sure why you titled your article this way.

    Then you said two paragraphs later, “Any attempts to re-interpret the obvious verse differently tend to display a definite bias and an anti-biblical spirit against the intercession of saints, a practice of the very first Christians as testified to by the graffiti in the catacombs from as far as Christianity goes back in history.” What is obvious?

    You titled your article “prayers to the saints,” then you use Paul as an example of “Prayer for the saints” then in the next paragraph you say “Don’t attempt to re-interpret the obvious” which you say is Intercessory Prayer. So what is your argument?

    If your argument is in regards to Intercessory Prayer, then you misused 1 Timothy in your “exegesis.” If it is regarding Prayer FOR the saints, then you rightly used 1 Timothy but then you are off base to then begin talking about “Intercessory
    Prayer” particularly in light of Paul’s prayer.

    Ok, maybe I’m splitting hairs. But why would Paul want God to show him this mercy? Certainly he would not expect it apart from Jesus would he? Read Paul’s remarks on Onesiphorus in light of Romans 9-11 and one quickly sees Paul understands the
    kindness of God in salvation and the seriousness of God in judgment. Paul knew
    anyone who put their trust in him would NOT be put to shame (Romans 10:11). If
    someone said, “Remember John Doe? May God rest his soul.” I don’t know that is
    intercessory prayer. However, I think everyone standing there listening would
    be struck by the thought, “Was John Doe a Christian or non-Christian” when in
    their heart and mind wondering if God would “rest” his soul.

    Paul’s prayer for Israel is that they would be saved, Romans 10:1. So which ones in Israel? Would not the rest of his discourse from that point in Chapter 10 be the salvation that comes on those who are living that call on him? Paul had unceasing love and anguish for Israel. He DOES NOT break into a long discourse of interceding for dead and deceased Israelites. Certainly Paul would want Mercy shown to them too, wouldn’t he? He breaks into a discourse of how the living Israelites would and could be saved.

    “There is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, unless it believes while it is still in the flesh. For it is an established truth that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges.” Tertullian, 210. I believe Tertullian agrees with Paul, I agree with them too (I’m sure you do too.)

    “We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers. For even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than to send them downwards to themselves, or to apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” Origen, 248.

    “Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who pray to God alone through Jesus.” Origen, 248.

    You said, “he would have viewed prayer for the dead as a proper practice for a Jew, and also now for a Christian who believes in the afterlife.” So I want to
    understand what you are saying, are you saying Intercessory prayer was short
    prayer for the dead? Not prayer to the dead? It appears to be prayer FOR not TOO. Am I wrong?

    You mentioned David fasted for the dead. You and I may mourn and fast for the dead too. Remember how David would not eat or drink while his baby laid sick? Then they were astonished he got up to eat and drink AFTER the baby died? They were astonished and asked him why he fasted when the baby was alive and now that the baby was dead he decided to eat? He responded he knew the baby was gone, he would go to his son but his son would not go back to him. That was the end of the story. David said nothing more! Was not David’s fasting for Jonathan a sign of sorrow they would have expected him to pay at the death of his son? Was David’s actions at the passing of the baby reflective of David’s assurance his son was with God and he need not fast or pray for him anymore? To me, the text on David does not support your thesis in anyway.

    In addition to these remarks, I believe scripture has made it clear Christ has opened the throne room to God and it is to Christ whom we pray. He is sufficient and capable. I do not believe we should pray to the saints (who yes, are alive.) It does not appear it was practiced by the ante Nicene fathers. I’ve not given much thought to praying for them. If they are saved, they are with Christ. If they are not saved … well I’m sure this is where Catholics and Protestants get into a long discussion.

    I am no expert on the ante Nicene fathers, but there work is so important to the faith of us all. I want to be careful not to selectively choose their quotations in order to make it believe they somehow believed exactly as we do. We all need to be careful of this. These men were close to the apostles in place and time. However, we should not assume every single time they spoke they were making dogmatic pronouncements. Their work is so important I believe not only to Orthodoxy but Orthopraxy.

    Most of their theological discussions were to explain to outsiders (non
    Christians) what Christians believed, such as to the heretics. They were NOT
    trying to convince other Orthodox believers what to believe. This is something
    we see so prevalent today.

    Wasn’t Orthodox itself a 5th century term anyway? The ante Nicene fathers
    understood orthodoxy in general concepts, they did not espouse it in the
    meticulous theological definitions as we have them today. It is certainly
    important for us today, but again we try to advocate the ante Nicene fathers
    into our own corners. I don’t want to do that! Although theology was important to them, it took a back seat to living it out (Orthopraxy). “Those who are particular about words, and devote their time to them, miss the point of the whole picture.” Clement of Alexandria.

    I would like to take your test now:

    1) Do you agree with Paul, to pray for a departed saints? FOR? Yes. TO? No.

    2) Luther wrote: “May Christ grant us this through the intercession and for the
    sake of His dear Mother Mary! Amen.”

    Do you agree with Luther? Yes, Christ grants all things!

    3) Are Saints Alive? Yes

    4) Do you agree that prayers to saints were left on the epitaphs of the dead in the Roman catacombs from the earliest church? Yes

    If “Yes”, would you concur that the early church was not practicing a heresy? I don’t
    really have an opinion, sorry.

    5) “two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who, appearing
    in glory” Moses and Elijah were dead. Did Jesus see 2 living saints? Yes. So
    did Peter. And when he talked to them A VOICE FROM HEAVEN TOLD HIM TO LISTEN TO JESUS! Don’t forget that! (Matt 17)

    6) “Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the
    white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?” 14 I said to him,
    “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the
    great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the
    blood of the Lamb. 15 “For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and
    they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will
    spread His tabernacle over them.” (Revelation 7)

    Was John having a two way conversation with saints? Yes

    7) “Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us
    also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and
    let us run with endurance the race that is set before us” (Hebrews 12:1)

    Can saints see and hear us? I am going to say No at this point. They were a great cloud of witnesses in the faith who went before us. I don’t see it as witnesses who are witnessing us and watching us. I am not sure this is what this verse is saying.

    8) “When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four
    elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full
    of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5)

    Are the angels aware of the prayers of the saints? Yes apparently

    9) “Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named “ (Ephesians 3:15)

    Are we one family, the saints in heaven as well as the

    saints on earth? Yes, remember in Ephesians 2 he already said you were seated there!

    If we are one body, one bride, one vine in Christ that is commanded to love one
    another (John 15:14) does that mean Saints in heaven care for us? In what way? You won’t even be married in heaven. I don’t know if they pray for us. I just don’t see that in scripture

    10) “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions,
    and giving of thanks, be made for all men;” (1 Timothy 2:1) Many argue that
    “Christ is the only intercessor”. If so, was Timothy right to state this? Yes. What
    is the need for Intercessors when I can pray directly to Jesus Christ? –
    Exactly. I am interceding for you. You, I hope, are interceding for me.

    God Bless you my friend.

  • shoebat

    Alright, let me come in as Jew who does not believe Jesus is Messiah and I will argue the same ways you do, I could destroy the types and analogies easily. This is why we trust on the ancient interpretations and it will take a millennia to correct your faulty approach as if you know Scripture better then lets say Cyprian or Augustine. All you walk around as if you have been gifted with knowledge. I have been through all sorts of this type of argumentations. I have spent lots of time with the world renown anti-missionary Jew Tovia Singer and these would use the exact type of argumentations you use on issues that have been decided for centuries on how Mary and Jesus fit this type and that. Ok, here I go as a Jew. You claim a Virgin Birth? The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an “alma” as giving birth. The word “alma” has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as “virgin.” This accords Jesus’ birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

    And as far as your claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the “suffering servant” in actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews (“Israel”) are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the “Servant of God” (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

    When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being “bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter” at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

    Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

    While at some points the Jew is correct, the devil covers the types, indeed Israel suffered as Christ suffered (Hosea 6) the types are crucial to understanding God’s mindset. Isolating the types is key for the devil, it stems from devils, and ends up with devils. You need to examine history of analysis from so many to comprehend the significance of why God chose a woman to enter earth. Its not as easy as you think.

  • shoebat

    The zeal of Russians regarding the Gay agenda in Russia:

    The Christian leaders in America:

    If I was a Russian Christian I would not want this in my country either.

    • Steve Smith

      Walid, brother we don’t wish to turn into America.

      Just see the vid it needs no translation you can see why we don’t like what was brought into Russia in the 90s

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Are you a disciple?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    The Catholic Church has forever made a lot of ALL the passages, you would do well to do likewise. The Davidic Kingdom is the earthly model for our kingdom, which is nothing less than the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. This is why Gabriel spoke thus to Mary, “The Lord God will give to him the throne of DAVID his father.”, and why Mary prophesied in her canticle “He has thrown the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.” The Davidic Kingdom had an office for the Queen Mother, aka, the Gebirah, the exalted lady. She sat on a throne next to her son and wore a crown, and interceded for the King’s subjects. The Davidic Kingdom also had a Royal Steward who ruled for the King, Isaiah 22:21-24 :”…He shall be a FATHER to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the KEY of the House of David on HIS shoulder, what he opens, no one can shut, and what he shuts, no one can open….On him shall hang all the glory of his family…” This is the prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus spoke thus to Peter: “I will give YOU the Keys to the Kingdom, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” Matt 16:19

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Water is always the cleanest and purest at its source.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    And how does that blood get applied to you?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    The real one with 73 books, not 66.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Do you pray to Jesus?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Then she needs to get her big girl pants on. My comment is 100% accurate. People hate truth.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    If that were true then the papacy would be in the East, not in Rome as Daniel prophesied in Daniel 7:27. The Eastern bishops were the only source of heresies, never from Rome.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    The Church that Jesus built is quite capable of remaining true to the faith, it has for almost 2000 yrs.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Guitars aren’t mentioned in the Bible, does that make you wrong? No, so stop.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    There have been living saints that could see the heart of men, read about Padre Pio and St. John Vianney. Hope you don’t pray to Jesus then because the Lord’s prayer was to the Father.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Explain all the apparitions of Mary for the last 400 years.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    It’s both: according to Hebrews 9:27, “It is appointed that human beings die once, and after this, the judgment.”. The Great White Throne judgment occurs at the end of time.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Tell me then, who or what they are.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Who do you think the ‘they’ is?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Only Priests in the Latin Rite take a vow of celibacy. Paul was celibate, as was Jeremiah at the command of God “You shall not take a wife, nor have sons or daughters in this place.” Jer 16:2, Elijah was also celibate. The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that some of the Essenes lived celibate.

  • shoebat

    “With regards to the Virgin Birth, you forgot that Genesis 3:15 also speaks of a Virgin Birth in that “her seed” is a peculiar phrase that speaks of a Virgin Birth.”

    You keep forgetting, I was in the grip of the devil. I can easily twist this. The passages in the Hebrew Bible that fall into this category utilize the notion of the “seed of a woman” in the generic sense, where no specific one individual offspring or descendant is clearly identified in the surrounding text. God increased Abrahams “seed”, a multitude of people, so in the same sense Eve’s offspring (Humanity) shall kill the snake by crushing its head and this is exactly how you kill a snake.
    Rebecca, Isaac’s future wife, receives in Genesis 24:60 “May you come to and may your seed inherit the gate of foes.”

    Genesis 22:17 the “seed” (of Abraham) will accomplish, clearly indicating a plurality and Genesis 16:10 Hagar’s seed will increase greatly and will not be counted for abundance “multiply your seed upon the sea shore”

    “As for arguing as a Jew against the Virgin Birth, you make a good point in that someone can choose to ignore Scripture or choose to understand it in a different way.”

    This would be YOU. This is why you need to see how Scripture was interpreted from time immemorial and its why we publish such articles in which you have all these supposedly smart guys (they are really not smart at all) who come in here and act as master of biblical interpretation.

    “You place much more faith in these early Catholic writers than I do.”

    There is your key word you have been brainwashed with “Catholic”, yet the Copt did the same interpretation Athanasios ws from Egypt. But the problem is a lack of education on how all these doctrines developed and you have folks who strike them with a pen in seconds wiping entire history and councils and wars over the doctrine that was established from Peter all the way down.

    ” I don’t say to dismiss them outright on all matters but I do not take their writings as inspired …”

    There you go with this. You were also brain washed to think that the early church had a lack of inspiration and guidance from the Holy Spirit. By this simplistic argument you just made here (which is irresponsible) you act as if God was absent for fifteen centuries, that Christ failed to build his church until a guy named Zwingli showed up. It wasn’t even Martin Luther who abolished this doctrine. He accepted it. But now going down all these generations we have walla, you completely rain washed to think that God messed up and guided no one until Zwingli.

    “just because they are ancient and Catholic.”

    There you go, the word that sparks all paranoias.

    “…early Christians and early Catholics believed, but just because they believed it doesn’t make it correct interpretation…”

    Uhhum, ya, sure.

    ” I’m sure you would agree there are many examples of early, mistaken interpretations that have turned out to be proven to be mistaken.”

    Ya sure.

    ” using 1 Kings 2:19 alone to justify calling Mary queen of heaven is an extremely flimsy basis.”

    Again, stroke of a pen, STRIKE and all is gone. If so, then refute the whole thing:

    http://shoebat.com/2014/11/06/ark-covenant-finally-discovered/

    “You may say “Oldyocholes wrote about 1 Kings 2:19 being a type of Mary, therefore Mary is queen of heaven”.

    NO NO NO, its also John, a woman with 12 stars and a crown is royalty not an incubator.

    “Bottom line …”

    Strike, strike again, reach quick conclusion, bottom line and its McDonalds fast-food style theology. Please Seth, spend some time studying.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why does Revelation 12:17 speak of the rest of her offspring, those who keep the commandments and hold the testimony of Jesus?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    If she isn’t a queen, why did John write that she was wearing a crown in Rev 12? Why did John see the “Ark of His covenant” in the Temple in Rev 11:19? Do you not know the Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and that her assumption into heaven was prophesied of in Psalm 132:8?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Timing, Timing, Timing. Stephen was stoned around AD 35, so your verse does not achieve what you think it does. John wrote Revelation around AD 90, by which time he writes that he saw Mary in heaven. Jesus was asked who would sit at his right and left hand, and he told them that it was not his to give, but to those for whom it was prepared, Mark 10:40. If we sit in heavenly places, how much more those who have died in Christ? Did not Paul state that to die was to gain? Bathsheba was not a one time event, all the sons of David had a Queen Mother. You should further know that it was through Bathsheba’s intercession that Solomon received the throne.

  • shoebat

    John,

    Good to hear from you. I had wondered what happened to you since my last response.

    You state that “There is no Biblical or historical proof that Onesiphorus was dead when Paul wrote.”

    Yet you seem to be debating the matter with me when you should be debating it with the multitude of scholars who have reached the conclusion I did.

    Then you state “At best this is deduction based on inference. If I am wrong, prove me wrong.”

    Ok, lets say your right, but all these are wrong, and if so, prove THEM wrong, there arguments are included for you to refute:

    (1) From The Anchor Bible Dictionary: “2 Timothy also includes greetings to the household of Onesiphorus (4:19) and a prayer that the Lord might grant mercy to his household because of his service to Paul (1:16). Onesiphorus himself does not seem to be included, suggesting that he was either not envisioned as present among the (alleged) recipients of 2 Timothy, was with Paul, or was already dead. The latter is most likely since the author of 2 Timothy writes: “May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day” (1:18). If Onesiphorus had indeed died, then this prayer is the earliest one for the dead found in Christian literature. As such it has been cited as clear scriptural support (especially among Roman Catholics) for prayer for the dead. (Jewish precedent for such prayer is found in 2 Macc 12:43–45.)”

    (2) Philip Schaff (see #9) 2 Timothy 1:16-18 (RSV) May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiph’orus, for he often refreshed me; he was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me eagerly and found me — [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day — and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus. 2 Timothy 4:19 Greet Prisca and Aq’uila, and the household of Onesiph’orus.

    (3) Alfred Plummer (1841-1926) (Anglican): The Expositor’s Bible (edited by W. Robertson Nicoll), The Pastoral Epistles, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1891, pp. 324-326: Certainly the balance of probability is decidedly in favour of the view that Onesiphorus was already dead when St. Paul wrote these words. . . . he here speaks of “the house of Onesiphorus” in connexion with the present, and of Onesiphorus himself only in connexion with the past. . . . it is not easy to explain this reference in two places to the household of Onesiphorus, if he himself was still alive. In all the other cases the individual and not the household is mentioned. . . . There is also the character of the Apostle’s prayer. Why does he confine his desires respecting the requital of Onesiphorus’ kindness to the day of judgment? . . . This again is thoroughly intelligible, if Onesiphorus is already dead . . . there seems to be equal absence of serious reason for doubting that the words in question constitute a prayer. . . .

    (4) James Maurice Wilson (1836-1931) (Anglican): Truths New and Old, Westminster: Archibald Constable & Co., 1900, p. 141: We have, therefore, the sanction of St. Paul for remembering inn our prayers, and interceding for, those who have now passed into the other world . . .

    (5) Sydney Charles Gayford (Anglican): The Future State, New York: Edwin S. Gorham, second edition, 1905,pp. 56-57:. . . the most satisfactory explanation is that Onesiphorus was dead. . . . And so we may hold with some confidence that we have in this passage the authority of an Apostle in praying for the welfare of the departed.

    (6) John Henry Bernard (1860-1927) (Anglican), The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge University Press, 1899, p. 114: On the whole then it seems probable that Onesiphorus was dead when St. Paul prayed on his behalf . . .

    (7) Donald Guthrie (1915-1992) (Anglican): The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2nd edition, 1990, p. 148: Since it is assumed by many scholars that Onesiphorus was by now dead, the question has been raised whether this sanctions prayer for the dead. Roman catholic theologians claim that it does. Spicq, for instance, sees here an example of prayer for the dead unique in the New Testament. Some Protestants agree with this judgment and cite the Jewish precedent of 2 Macc 12:43-45 . . .

    (8) William Barclay (1907-1978) (Presbyterian / Church of Scotland), The Letters to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 3rd edition, 2003, p. 175: . . there are many who feel that the implication is that Onesiphorus is dead. It is for his family that Paul first prays. Now, if he was dead, this passage shows us Paul praying for the dead, for it shows him praying that Onesiphorus may find mercy on the last day.

    (9) J. N. D. Kelly (1909-1997) (Anglican): A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, London: A&C Black, 1963,p. 171: On the assumption, which must be correct, that Onesiphorus was dead when the words were written, we have here an example, unique in the N.T., of Christian prayer for the departed. . . . the commendation of the dead man to the divine mercy. There is nothing surprising in Paul’s use of such a prayer, for intercession for the dead had been sanctioned in Pharisaic circles at any rate since the date of 2 Macc 12:43-45 (middle of first century B.C.?). Inscriptions in the Roman catacombs and elsewhere prove that the practice established itself among Christians from very early times.

    (10) John E. Sanders (evangelical / open theist): No Other Name, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992,pp. 182-183: Some scholars contend that 2 Timothy 1:16-18 contains a reference to praying for the dead; they contend that the person for whom Paul prays, Onesiphorus was dead. Footnote 11: Among those commentators who understand Paul to be praying for the dead here are the following: W. Robertson Nicoll,The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1951), p. 159; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, Vol. 3 (Chicago: Moody Pres, 1958), p. 376 . . . J. E. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to Timothy and Titus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871), p. 263.

    (11) Philip Schaff (1819-1893) (Reformed Protestant), The International Illustrated Commentary on the New Testament, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889, Vol. IV, The Catholic Epistles and Revelation, p. 587: On the assumption already mentioned as probable, this would, of course, be a prayer for the dead. The reference ot the great day of judgment falls in with this hypothesis. . . . From the controversial point of view, this may appear to favour the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome . . .

    (12) Charles John Ellicott (1816-1905) (Anglican): A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, London: Cassell & Co., Vol. III, 1884, p. 223: There is but little doubt that when St. Paul wrote this Epistle Onesiphorus’ death must have recently taken place . . .

    (13) Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (2 Ti 1:16). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.: The Lord give mercy—even as ONESIPHORUS had abounded in works of mercy. The house of Onesiphorus—He himself was then absent from Ephesus, which accounts for the form of expression (2Ti 4:19). His household would hardly retain his name after the master was dead [why this assumption? Seems like a false assumption based on a bias against prayer for the dead], as BENGEL supposes him to have been. Nowhere has Paul prayers for the dead, which is fatal to the theory [unless of course this is the one case where Paul does pray for the dead; bias revealed by his statement], favored by ALFORD also, that he was dead. God blesses not only the righteous man himself, but all his household.

    And you were saying “There is no Biblical or historical proof that Onesiphorus was dead”

    Then you write:

    “The ‘house of Onesiphorus’ argument holds no water either, e.g. Gen 20:18 ‘for the LORD had closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham’s wife.’ Presumably that was because Abimelech was dead, or maybe died after impregnation? Well try the previous verse: Gen 20:17 So Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, his wife, and his female servants. Then they bore children;’ Ooops! Other ‘house of’ examples include Abraham, Joseph, Pharaoh, Jude, Mary, Lydia, Justus, Jason, Philip, and of course God (Bethel or Bet-El) all of whom were very much alive at the time.”

    Would you like to see the Jewish argument for the “seed of Mary” not being Jesus as Jews argue? It goes right along the style of argument you make here saying that “seed” mean plural “seed” and not an individual seed and they site many many examples and it looks valid at face value, but it lacks uniqueness, he was asking for mercy on him. Its obvious he’s dead.

    “Oh but let’s split hairs”

    Absolutely. If one can split a hair, he has devised a genius instrument.

    “Even the Catholic Church, which does teach the doctrine, admits that it is not supported by the Bible.”

    Quote please. See how I provide quotes? Where are yours? It is not clear in the Bible, yes, but this by no means its not there, just as at times the Trinity is alluded to but not clear, yet its a doctrine. You know once we passed a guilty charge in the jury based on circumstantial evidence. In fact, most evidence is circumstantial and not direct. So what?

    “The RCC looks to the apocryphal 2 Maccabees 12:46 …”

    Just curious, do you believe 2 Macc is canonical? If so, then do you abide or reject it? You seem to imply that since its “apocryphal” that its “less important”? Macc is Scripture, if not then refute:

    http://shoebat.com/2014/09/17/prophecy-never-knew/

    “(which you cite) and the Council of Trent for the practice. Session XXV of the COT states “that purgatory exists, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar” (cf. The Catholic Encyclopedia).”

    Until one comes out of heaven, hell or purgatory, I am open to Purgatory, after all, everyone needs a shower before they can jump into the clean swimming pool. I learned that at the YMCA in Jerusalem. So, in Jerusalem, we had purgatory 😉

    “Do you really want to go there?”

    John John, we should always be willing to go where the truth takes us.

    “Doesn’t matter what Luther or Calvin or any of the reformers thought or taught in support of the subject: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.””

    John, the “law AND testimony” the word translated “testimony” is the Hebrew word te’uwd’ách, from the verb ‘uwd, or as we say in Arabic Yu’eed (repeat) or to “testify”, or “bear witness orally”. The reference here is clearly and unmistakably to oral testimony. Isaiah 8:20 actually affirms the mutual complementarity of scripture AND traditional teaching as was in the Catacombs. Do you not care that the Christians who were fed to the lions etched there inscriptions on walls with prayers of intercession to saints?

    With blessings to you and yours. Walid.

  • Pretty much destroys Protestant arguments.

  • shoebat

    Your stupid comment is right here, so much for false accusations. That plus we do not practice “free speech” here, we are dictatorial, pharisaic, legalistic, crusader, inquisition admirers, militant, zealot, bigoted, and whatever extra stuff you like to add. You hear?

  • shoebat

    Your of Satan.

    • If every post awaits approval by you, why don’t you just not approve useless and senseless comments that have nothing to do with the article? Those of us who want to learn and hear from the other commentators who think, have to wade through about 350 “posts” to read 20-25 useful comments.

      I’m not saying limit freedom of speech, but dang, “you’re the devil” .. “no you’re the devil” … “No, you are the devil’s spawn” … “No you are.” It’s a bit childish isn’t it?

      Paul said, if you have not love you are but a resounding gong or a clanging symbol. This type of bantering serves no purpose to the body of Christ. You, Walid, however are in the best position to moderate it. I hope you will do more to limit these types of posts so many others can get down to serious academic considerations of our church past and history. Your website is being updated hourly with horrific stories of persecution on our brothers and sisters and here are orthodox Christians sitting around calling each other the devil.

  • shoebat

    Toilet paper, Chick tracts? You wear a uniform and you feed on Chick tracts?

    Here is what Chick says and if you believe this crap your an idiot fool racist hate monger. Here’s all the stupid stuff Chick says:

    The Catholic Church keeps “the name of every Protestant church member in the world” in a “big computer” in the Vatican for use in future persecutions.[1]

    But the conspiracy is much broader than this, and it has been going on for a very long time. In the sixth century, for instance, Catholic leaders manipulated the Arabian tribesman Mohammed into creating the religion of Islam to use as a weapon against the Jews and to conquer Jerusalem for the pope.[2]

    The Jesuits instigated the American Civil War, supporting the Confederate cause and seeking to undermine the Union. When they failed, they arranged the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.[3] Later, they formed the Ku Klux Klan.[4]

    “Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin, and Stalin” to create Communism, and it was “believed that soon . . . Communism would rise up as the new strong daughter of the Vatican.”[5] It was Rome that instigated the Bolshevik Revolution and the murder of the czar’s family.[6] The Communist “liberation theology” movement also is a Vatican plot.[7]

    The Nazi Holocaust of the 1940s was a Vatican-controlled attempt to exterminate Jews and heretics.[8] Further, “Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were backed by the Vatican for the purpose of setting up a one-world government to usher in the ‘˜Millennial Kingdom’ under Pope Pius XII.”[9]

    The Vatican conspiracy is so extensive that, through the Jesuits, Rome controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement.[10]

    The Jesuits created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Unity, Christian Science, and other religious groups.[11]

    “Pope John Paul II has been a good Communist for many years”[12] and engineered a phony assassination attempt against himself in 1981 to shame Islam into warming relations with the Vatican, since the would-be killer was a Muslim.[13]

    Tracts are only one of the ways Chick spreads his messages of hate and paranoia. His website (www.chick.com) lists large-size comic books, posters, booklets, books, videos, and DVDs for sale. Still, it is the tracts for which he is most famous. According to Chick Publications, more than 500 million of them have been distributed.

    With shocking, sensationalist allegations such as these being distributed to hundreds of millions of people, you may be wondering . . .

    gram. Jack recalls, “God was already working on my heart, but when Fuller said the words, ‘˜Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,’ I fell on my knees and my life was changed forever.”[15]

    The scene of falling on one’s knees to accept Jesus is one repeated over and over again by characters in Chick tracts. But how did Jack Chick make the leap from being an ordinary Fundamentalist to the foremost Christian comic publisher in the world? For a time, he worked as a technical illustrator for an aerospace company in California, but he longed to be work for God:

    He wanted to be a missionary himself, but his new wife wanted no part of missionary life. Her aunt had been a missionary in Africa. While pregnant, she was being carried across a river on a stretcher, when one of those carrying her lost a leg to an alligator.[16]

    Eventually, Jack started combining his work as an illustrator with his passion for evangelization, producing his first published religious works, Why No Revival? and A Demon’s Nightmare. He became convinced of the effectiveness of this technique after using it with a group of prisoners:

    [Chick] was invited to present the gospel to a group of inmates at a prison near his home. He drew several pieces of cartoon art and prepared a flip chart to illustrate what he was saying. At the conclusion of his message, nine of the eleven inmates present trusted Christ as their Saviour. Jack became convinced that God had given him a method of reaching people with the gospel that worked. That art was later put into booklet form and became the tract This Was Your Life![17]

    Following this episode, Chick Publications became a full-time venture for Jack, and, in the more than forty years since it was started, his tracts, comic books, and other publications have reached hundreds of millions of people, spreading their message of simple Fundamentalist theology fused with elaborate conspiracy theories.

    In time, the art in the tracts received an upgrade—not because Chick changed his own style of drawing but because he hired an artist with much better skills. Yet he did not announce this fact and did not put the new artist’s name on the works he produced. Instead, they continued to carry the credit “by Jack T. Chick” or simply “by J.T.C.” The difference between the two drawing styles was so dramatic that it was immediately noticed by readers, and rumors circulated about who the “good artist” might be. It would be some time before Chick disclosed that the man’s name was Fred Carter.

    In 1972, he hired Fred Carter, an African-American painter and illustrator from Danville, Illinois, who had studied at Chicago’s American Academy of Art. Carter’s realistic illustrations and distinctive inking style made him a perfect fit for the [Crusaders comic book] series’ action sequences and exotic locales. Witch burnings and ritual murders are captured in gleefully visceral detail, while the books’ sexual overtones—as well as scantily clad biblical sirens like Eve, Delilah, and Semiramis—have led critics to describe Carter’s work as “spiritual porn.”

    At once, the artwork improved tenfold. Chick, however, kept Carter’s name off all of the comics. Rumors and speculation about the identity of the so-called good artist at Chick Publications began to spread. For years fans theorized that Carter’s work was produced by a team of illustrators or an unknown Filipino man dubbed “Artist J.” Chick finally revealed Carter’s identity in 1980, claiming that the artist is “rather shy and declines to put his name on his art.”[18]Jack Chick’s art in The HitFred Carter’s art in The Deceived

    Through the years Chick also became associated with others who had an impact on his publications. The conspiracy angle in his works jumped significantly through his involvement with two men in particular.

    One was John Todd, an evangelist who claimed to have been raised in a “witchcraft family” and supposedly was part of a gigantic conspiracy of witches called “the Illuminati.”[19] According to Todd, numerous political and religious figures were part of the conspiracy. He claimed that as a “Grand Druid High Priest” he was given a thirteen-state territory and that “over 90 percent of politicians in that thirteen-state area received financial support from him and took orders regarding political decisions from him.”[20] The religious figures allegedly part of the witch conspiracy included Jim Bakker, Billy Graham, Walter Martin, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson. Also involved were C. S. Lewis, Pat and Debbie Boone, and a number of Protestant denominations, “from Assemblies of God to the Southern Baptists.”[21]

    One way the Illuminati spread their occult tendrils through society was through rock music. Songs in this genre often “contained coded spells or incantations that the listener wasn’t aware of.”[22] Based on Todd’s claims, Chick issued a number of publications, including the large-format comic book Spellbound? (against rock music) and the tract Dark Dungeons (against fantasy role-playing games).

    Todd was exposed as a fraud in publications such as Christianity Today[23] and Cornerstone. He later was convicted and sent to prison for rape. Nevertheless, Chick is still publishing materials repeating his claims and thanking him openly for providing the information.[24]

    The other major figure hyping Jack Chick’s conspiracy theories was the late Alberto Rivera, and he is important enough to Chick mythology to deserve his own section.

    Who Was Alberto Rivera?

    Alberto Rivera and His Comic Book Namesake

    Aside from Jack Chick’s own name, the name most familiar to readers of Chick comics is that of Alberto Rivera (1935—1997). He is mentioned in numerous tracts and serves as the central character in six issues of Chick’s The Crusaders full-size comic book. Chick even devotes space to him in the handful of books the house publishes.

    Alberto Magno Romero Rivera was born in 1937 in the Canary Islands. He claimed to have been a priest who served as an undercover operative of the Jesuit order to infiltrate and destroy Protestant churches and institutions. He maintained that he was so successful that he secretly was made a bishop. Yet he turned his life over to Christ and became a Fundamentalist evangelist. He claimed to have rescued his sister—a nun—after she nearly died in a convent in London.

    In the 1970s he met Jack Chick, who publicized his story with much fanfare. It added immense amounts of detail (and implausibility) to Chick’s global Catholic conspiracy theory. The Alberto series included some of the wildest claims found in Chick’s publications—that the Vatican started Islam, Communism, the Masons, and the Klan; that it controls the Illuminati, the Mafia, and the New Age movement; that it created the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, and is databasing the name of every Protestant church member for a future inquisition.

    The Alberto series started a controversy that resulted in Chick being unable to sell the comic books in many Protestant bookstores. Following a complaint from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, the Christian Booksellers Association began considering whether to expel Chick.[25] Soon afterward, Chick withdrew from the CBA.

    The protest against the Chick Alberto series was waged by both Catholics and Evangelicals. Many Catholics, naturally, protested the lurid and inaccurate depiction of their faith, and many Protestant bookstore owners who saw their point removed the series from their stores.

    In response, Chick published My Name? . . . In the Vatican? in which he repeated many of Rivera’s sensationalistic claims and gave grudging acknowledgement to the ability of Catholics to get his works taken out of Evangelical bookstores.

    While it is natural to expect Catholics to be upset over Chick and Rivera’s outrageous claims, many Evangelicals were upset as well, and they began to investigate Rivera. Prominent Protestant publications, including Christianity Today, Cornerstone, and even Forward—a publication of Walter Martin’s Christian Research Institute—did investigations leading to exposés of Rivera as a fraud.

    From My Name? . . . In the Vatican?

    Christianity Today’s story by researcher Gary Metz revealed that:

    He is being sued in a Los Angeles court at the present time [1981] by a man who said that Rivera, on behalf of the Hispanic Baptist Church, which he started, borrowed $2,025 with which to invest in property, but never purchased the land. When the man asked for his money back, he received a receipt acknowledging his “contribution” of $2,025.[26]

    The Christianity Today investigation further reported:

    In October 1967, Rivera went to work at the Church of God of Prophecy headquarters in Tennessee and began collecting money for a college in Tarrassa, Spain. When the Church of God of Prophecy wrote the college to ask if Rivera was authorized to receive donations for the college, it received a reply stating the college had given him a letter to collect funds only during the month of July. The college later discovered that while “he claimed to be a Catholic priest . . . he had never been one.” The college reported that he left debts he had acquired in the name of the parish of San Lorenzo and that Spanish police were seeking him for “authentic swindles and cheats.” Finally, they said that no funds had ever reached the college from Rivera. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, Charles Hawkins of the Church of God of Prophecy said Rivera’s bank had contacted them because he had written a check on a closed account.

    In 1969 two arrest warrants were issued for him in Florida. One was for the theft of a BankAmericard: The criminal division of the Bank of America reports that he charged over two thousand dollars on the credit card. The second warrant was issued for unauthorized use of an automobile. Rivera abandoned the vehicle in Seattle and went from there to southern California, where he started a number of organizations.[27]

    Concerning Rivera’s alleged liberation of his sister from a convent, Christianity Todayreported:

    The sequel [to the Alberto comic], Double-Cross, devotes its first nine pages to a description of how Alberto flew to London and contacted an Anabaptist church, whose people helped him rescue his dying sister Maria from her convent. Actually, the person he contacted was not an Anabaptist but Delmar Spurling of the Church of God of Prophecy. Spurling said in an interview that Rivera did not rescue his sister, because she wasn’t a nun but rather a maid working in a private London home.[28]

    Concerning Rivera’s claim that he had been a priest, Christianity Today noted:

    The Catholic Church denies Rivera’s most important claim, that he was a priest. To substantiate the claim, the Alberto comic book carries a picture of an official-looking document from the Archbishopric of Madrid-Alcala in Spain, dated September 1967. It identifies Rivera as a priest and gives him permission to travel abroad in his ministry. There is no other church documentation, such as an ordination certificate, shown in the book. An individual in California, who grew suspicious of Rivera in 1973, wrote to the archdiocese office in Madrid-Alcala to ask if Rivera were really a priest. The response was that no diocese in Spain had any record of Rivera as a priest. The archbishop’s office concluded that he was not a priest, and that the travel document, which was little more than a form letter, was “acquired by deceit and subterfuge” to enable Rivera to get a passport.[29]

    Christianity Today further discovered that “that not only was Rivera not a Jesuit priest, but also that he had two children during the time he claimed to be living a celibate life as a Jesuit.” It explained:

    Although Rivera claims to have been raised and trained in a Spanish Jesuit seminary, his hometown friend, Bonilla, said Rivera was living at one point with a woman in Costa Rica named Carmen Lydia Torres. (Alberto says Rivera was sent to Costa Rica to destroy a [Protestant] seminary and that a woman named Carmen was with him, posing as his girlfriend. The seminary was not named.)

    Rivera later stated on an employment form that he and Torres were married in 1963. Their son, Juan, was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1964, while Rivera was forking for the Christian Reformed Church there. Juan died in El Paso in July 1965, after his parents had fled New Jersey leaving numerous debts and a warrant for their arrest on bad check charges. The couple had two other children, Alberto and Luis Marx. The first two children were born during the time Alberto claimed to be a Jesuit priest in Spain.[30]

    Concerning Rivera’s claim to have been made a bishop, Metz reported in Cornerstone that:

    Alberto now claims that he was once a Jesuit bishop. None of his former associates remember this being part of his testimony until early 1973. Former associate Rev. Wishart (once a pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Fernando), who questioned Alberto about this, reported that Alberto admitted that he had never been ordained a bishop but used the title for prestige. He continues to call himself the bishop of his own church, the Hispanic Baptist Church (Oxnard, California).[31]

    In Alberto, Rivera claimed that his conversion to Protestantism happened while he was being detained in a sanitarium following a public break with the Church. YetChristianity Today’s piece noted that:

    His later accounts of his conversion are contradictory. While speaking at the Faith Baptist Church in Canoga Park, California, Rivera pinpointed his conversion as March 20, 1967, after three months in the sanitarium, and he said he immediately defected from the Catholic Church. Five months later, however, he gave a newspaper interview in his home town of Las Palmas [in the Canary Islands], in which he was still promoting Catholicism. He said in the interview that he was doing ecumenical work for the Catholic Church in Tarrassa, Spain, during the previous six months, from February to August 1967. According to Alberto, he was in the sanitarium at the time.

    Rivera, who now [1981] lives in California, was asked for an interview to discuss the discrepancies in his tale, but he posed so many restrictions before he would agree that a legitimate interview was not possible. He did say that any wrongdoings prior to his conversion to Christ in 1967 were done under the orders of the Catholic Church and that any wrongdoings since his conversions are fabrications by conspirators.

    Of course, if Rivera had been a secret Jesuit agent bent on conspiratorial acts, such deception and subterfuge might well have been part of his mission. Yet his fantastic tale lacks credibility. The numerous legal entanglements suggest that he was a simple con man. There are the contradictory accounts of his conversion, his admission that he was married, and the fact that he was the father of two children during his alleged time as a Jesuit priest. And then there is what was uncovered by the Christian Research Institute in its investigation of Alberto:

    Bartholomew F. Brewer, a former Catholic priest who is now director of Mission to Catholics International in San Diego [a man long known to Catholic Answers supporters for his anti-Catholic activities and an authentic ex-priest] . . . related to us that several years ago Rivera wanted to work in conjunction with Mission to Catholics. Dr. Brewer did interview Rivera and decided not to use him in his ministry. Over a period of time, however, Dr. Brewer got to know Rivera better and he eventually concluded that Rivera was not only unfamiliar with Catholic theology, by obviously had never been a Catholic priest, let alone a bishop.

    In examining the two Chick comics, one finds that statements are made that would seem to substantiate Dr. Brewer’s views. Rivera is apparently unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine, church history, and other factual information.

    For example, in Alberto, Rivera seems to imply that celibacy is a sacrament. Also, he states that students studying for the priesthood were not allowed to read the Bible. He also claims that, in Catholic doctrine, Mary is co-equal with God the Father. These are all misrepresentations of the truth.

    Rivera further calls his reliability into question by stating that the masterminds behind the Inquisition were Jesuits. This is an impossibility, since the Inquisition began around a.d. 1200, and the Jesuits were not established until the 1540s.[32]

    CRI also discovered Rivera inaccurately quoting sources:

    Rivera’s believability becomes still more questionable in Double-Cross, when he claims that [suicide cult leader] Jim Jones was secretly a Jesuit deacon and an agent for the Vatican. He says that the Jonestown massacre was part of the Roman Catholic Church’s “diabolical conspiracy.” For support of this contention, he refers to Dr. Peter Beter’s Audio Letter #40, November 1978 (Beter is a self-proclaimed “conspiracy” expert). But, on listening to the tape, one discovers that Dr. Beter believes that Jones was a manipulated dupe of the CIA! Thus, the authority Rivera cites for supportive evidence is opposed to his view.[33]

    Rivera’s response to this investigation was to call CRI “a ‘˜tool’ of the Jesuits and its director [Walter Martin, at the time] an ‘˜agent’ of Rome.”[34] He subsequently claimed that Martin “was working with the Vatican and stated that his name was on a secret Jesuit list.”[35] CRI further reported:

    After our initial research gave us reason to question the comic’s reliability, we attempted to contact both Alberto Rivera and Chick Publications’ founder Jack Chick. With no success in contacting Rivera by mail, two certified letters were sent to Chick Publications. In them, we conveyed our concern over some apparent discrepancies in Rivera’s story and asked for answers. When no reply was made to our letters, follow-up phone calls revealed that Jack Chick would make no reply whatsoever. He said that he was not answerable to any man and that the comic books could stand on their own.[36]

    Alberto Rivera went on to found the “Antichrist Information Center” or AIC (which later explained its initials as meaning “Assurance in Christ”[37]). He died in 1997 of colon cancer, and his ministry was carried on by his widow, Nuzy Rivera.

    The impact of Alberto Rivera on Jack Chick’s universe is difficult to underestimate. It was Rivera that provided Chick with his most sensationalistic, most anti-Catholic claims and allowed Chick’s conspiracy theories to grow increasingly complex and bizarre.

    Jack T. Chick’s Gallery of Anti-Catholic Tracts[38]

    It’s hard to judge a book—or a comic book—by its cover. You can tell that some of Chick’s tracts are clearly aimed at Catholicism just by looking at them. Others you have to read before you discover the anti-Catholicism buried within them. Here is a brief guide to Chick’s anti-Catholic tracts and what they contain.

    Are Roman Catholics Christian?

    Unlike most Chick tracts, this one is not primarily a story. It is an essay intended to prove that Catholics are not Christian. To show this, it tries to walk through the life of a typical Catholic woman—”Helen”—from the time of her baptism to the time of her death. At each stage, Chick takes swipes at Catholic doctrine and practice.

    Themes[39]: Anathema, Anointing of the Sick, Baptism, Clergy & Religious, Confession, Divided Loyalties, Eucharist, Inquisition, Mary, Other Christs, Paganism/Idolatry, Pope, Purgatory, Whore of Babylon

    The Attack

    Chick’s defense of the King James Version of the Bible. According to this tract, the devil and the Catholic Church vigorously opposed the KJV and even murdered some of its translators. In its place they have sought to provide modern translations based on corrupt manuscripts for their own evil ends. All modern translations except the KJV are evil and the product of a Catholic conspiracy. A key objective of the conspiracy is to insert “the Apocrypha” (i.e., the deuterocanonical books of Scripture) into the Bible.

    Themes: Anathema, Bible Corruption, Inquisition/Death to Non-Catholics

    The Beast

    A look at the end times, á la Jack Chick. In the near future the Rapture will occur. Afterward, the pope will be revealed to be the Antichrist and will compel all to take the number 666 on their foreheads or right hands. The world will become a gigantic, occult “witches’ coven,” in which true Christians are persecuted. The battle of Armageddon will be fought, leading to a 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth. Then, God will condemn the wicked—including those who remained faithful Catholics—to hell and reward Protestant Fundamentalists with heaven.

    .

  • Steve Smith

    All Milk, haven’t you ever given it a thought why?

    Evangelicals came to us not as brothers but as wolves.

    You don’t see us as Christians, we are backward pagan idol worshipers, why do they think that our 2000 year history is not good enough? Evangelicals have only been around 400 or 500 years what a bout the other 1600.how do you think Christians worshiped.

    I and my fathers took this over a religion devoid of a human soul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH4eZou6wpc

    • Julie LaBrecque

      What evangelicals, and protestants in general have done, is to remove anything that appeals to the bodily senses that God gave us: they do not bow or kneel, no incense to appeal to our sense of smell, nothing beautiful to remind of how beautiful heaven is, etc. In other words, no matter to be used, near gnostics.

      • Steve Smith

        My dear Julie, they are gnostics and polytheists.
        The elevation of the cross is one I love, As the bishop raises the cross, water is poured on it and Lord have mercy is chanted 75 times, Then we bow down before it. Yes you are right they will never understand it because they reject God’s creation that he redeemed by the cross and resurrection.

        • Julie LaBrecque

          Miserere Nobis

  • shoebat

    spamming

  • shoebat

    more spamming

  • shoebat

    more spamming.

  • shoebat

    And more spamming… I am not your private janitor to be sitting here to pick up your spam.

    You either apologize or you will be thrown out.

  • shoebat

  • shoebat

    ..

  • Tom_mcewen

    No, I made perfect sense.

  • Tom_mcewen

    The Bible is more powerful then Nuclear weapons, and protestants lets you monkey with the Theology of God. Amazing/

  • Tom_mcewen

    Protestants do not seem to accept the communion of saints, It is just Jesus and Me, so when you die and you are with Jesus, you can ask since you two are alone, is my mother here, Jesus can say, yes, she is, but you cannot see her because it is just Jesus and me, sorry. your rules not mine

  • shoebat

    “I completely disagree, there has always been a faithful remnant ”

    Why can’t anyone find that remnant? Name me one Christian name who is “remnant” that existed after the New Testament until the fifteenth century. If you can’t produce a name, then there was no remnant and the whole of Christendom was corrupt. Is that what you are saying? Now please no spin and answer the question carefully. Name please. No name is a shame.

  • shoebat

    “You rest your case, very well.”



    Yep



    “Cases have rebuttals, the other side: What does the Bible say?”



    Your rebuttal is not “what the Bible say”. You see, this is what your type of people do all the time, instead of saying thats
    this is their own rebuttal USING the Bible, they say that “this is what the Bible says” and start belaboring silliness. It sort of gives you an edge, an authority. Its the nature of the so-called Christian of today, he says “God told me to tell you …” sort of like God speaks through them, its all fake Christianity. What you say is NOT what the Bible says even if you argue using verses for your use of verses are unrelated.

”Why does your evidence not present the below scriptures? You have shown an “a
    priori” to tradition of Catholicism; nothing more.”

And then your
    type loves to throw the magic word “Catholicism”, its like a
    “boogie man”. Why not say Copt? Are Copts not Christian? Are
    Catholics not Christian?

”I submit that your assertion is mislabeled and sets too broad a claim to Christianity. It may exist, but your evidence fails on showing it is the thing to do.”

Your still belaboring.

”What does the Bible say?”

Stop talking, wants your point.

”Jesus and the Saints prayed to God and scriptures tells us so. “

Ya, so?

”You rely heavily on extra Biblical writings like the Apocrypha books”

Maccabees is not Scripture?

When I first read “All Scripture is inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:15-17) I had thought that this meant the New King James Bible in my hand I purchased in 1993 for $10. Then two decades later, as I was perusing the web, I read the following:

“For if the just one be the Son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”— Wisdom 2:12-20

It was from the Book of Wisdom which I never heard of and was not easy for me to refute, that here in one verse, Wisdom was speaking of the “Son of God” being delivered into the hands of his enemies to be killed. I know of the prophecy of Isaiah 53 which speaks of the suffering servant, but this prophecy written way prior to the New Testament has it all in one verse, that besides a reference to a suffering servant, whom we debate constantly about with the Jew claiming that
    the suffering servant was Israel, yet here we have a single verse in which it clearly states that it was “the Son of God” who will be tortured and killed.

Which began my quest: what then is “All Scripture”? And why is this not in my Bible?

Eastern Orthodox and Catholics have 7 extra books from the Septuagint,
    so which one is “all Scripture” and what did Jesus and his apostles consider to be “All Scripture”?

The last question is not easy to dismiss. If the Holy Spirit breathed the prophecy about Christ in Wisdom and I denied it, it would be a major issue. If Jesus thought that by “All Scripture” He meant that Wisdom
    is included and if I say “no”, this would be an incredible denial, and if I say “yes”, this would entail that I obey what is written in the whole Book of Wisdom.

So my quest for truth which will never cease until the Lord takes me away began my search.

What I first found was that Protestants call the “extra” 7 books “apocryphal” meaning “doubtful”, “not genuine”, or even “not
    inspired”.

So they said “no” and if they are wrong, it would be an incredible denial, and if they are correct, it would mean that the Catholic and Orthodox would need to be exposed.

I found out that Luther said “no”.

But since I was a plain-Jane Christian and never was a protestant—I never liked Martin Luther—I
    wondered, should I or should I not use these 7 books?

Then I found out that the Early Church used the Septuagint as did Jesus Himself as I looked up Peloubet’s Protestant Bible Dictionary which says of the Septuagint:

“was manifestly the chief storehouse from which both Christ and the Apostles drew
    their proofs and precepts” (pp. 604-5).

Whoa, now thats a whopper!

 And I began to ask; if Jesus used the Septuagint who am I to say no? Would one sit in a Bible study with Jesus and argue with Him that He should not quote it and that He should follow the Puritan and the Lutheran since they knew better than
    Him? That would constitute blasphemy, especially when the Boss, God in the flesh, has a Septuagint in His hand.

The chief Himself favored the Septuagint as the “chief storehouse”?

Indeed, He did. As I began to find out, for example, in John 10: 22-36 Jesus and the Apostles observed the key Feast of the
    Dedication (Hanukkah), which celebrates events only recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. By treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father.
    That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from what we called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself.

  • shoebat

    And who is man to throw Maccabees as “doubtful” when Jesus referred to it? These are some very serious issues, not just for Jews, but also for the Messianic.

    Just who do you think you are?


    The Apostles and New Testament writers quoted principally the

    Septuagint. In fact, of the three hundred and fifty Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament, about three hundred are taken straight from the Septuagint.

In fact, the Book of Wisdom was St. Paul’s favorite volume. The Epistle of St. James – to take another example – shows an acquaintance with the Book of Sirach. If the Apostles and New Testament writers used some of the additional books, did they not thereby approve the entire Septuagint collection?

The oldest Christian Bibles in existence, the Codex Vaticanus and others contain the additional 7 books.

Even the Christian art of the first four centuries – especially that found in the catacombs and cemeteries – furnishes among others the following illustrations from the additional books:

1—Tobias with the fish is from Tobias 6.
2—Susanna is from Daniel 13, which is removed from Protestant bibles.
3—Daniel and the dragon (Daniel 14) and Habakkuk and Daniel in the lion’s den (Daniel 14:35), both chapters 13 & 14 of Daniel removed from the Protestant bibles.

And to anyone who thinks of scoffing I ask; who is Luther that I may serve him? The moment I was introduced to Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies” I spewed him out.

Martin Luther showed great hostility to St. James’s Epistle because of its doctrine of the necessity of good works and
    contemptuously called it an “epistle of straw”.

Protestants have always argued that these 7 books were neither prophetic or are inspired. However, this is not true. For example, the Book of The Wisdom of Solomon, in less than fifty words, sums up the entire purpose of the Incarnation of the Son of God and why God
    became man:

“While all things were in quiet silence, and the night was in the midst of her swift course,

Thine almighty Word leaped out of Heaven out of Thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war, into the midst of a land of destruction.” (Wisdom of Solomon, 18:14-15)

Here is the Word who was with God who became God and then leaps from heaven to earth in His second coming to fight. I was dumbstruck. How could a manmade declaration like this be void of the breath of
    God?

Other classic examples in support for the 7 books;

1—Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children (Matt. 2:16) was prophesied in Wis. 11:7.

2—The ‘desolating sacrilege’ (Mt 24:15) Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Mac 1:54 and 2 Mac 8: 17.

3—Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women
    (Luke 1:42) follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

One main objection I read is this flimsy argument; that both Jews and Protestants have rejected the seven books as Holy Scripture.

But this is not exactly true, today’s Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p.
    1147), not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Yavneh, which is not identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles.

Here is how all this happened. When the Jews in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, they abandoned the Greek Septuagint and adopted the mid-sized Pharisaic Hebrew canon and eventually the vast majority of Jews adopted this version.

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says:

“When the Canon of the Bible was established, in the 2nd century, Akiba played a large part in determining
    its final form … He declared that he who reads aloud in the synagogues from the non-canonical book [Septuagint], as if it were canonical, would have no share
    in the world to come” (Vol. I., p. 148).

It is a shame that we follow someone who believed in a false Messiah be one who dictates what volume of Scripture we read. Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, the father of Rabbinic Judaism of the Christian
    era, which centered against accepting Jesus as the predicted Messiah preferred a Messianic pretender, Bar Kokba who was also nicknamed Bar Koziba (son of the liar) (Vallentine’s Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 20); whom he hailed as “King
    Messiah,” which the Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge praises Rabbi Akiba for “having had the courage to accept Bar Kokba as military leader and the Messiah”
    which resulted in the razing of Jerusalem (foretold by Daniel). Thus Bar Kokba, assisted by Rabbi Akiba, became a famous, or rather an infamous, fulfillment of the prophesy of Jesus, that “false Messiahs and false prophets will arise” (St.
    Mark 13:22).

Is this whom we follow? Do we follow the man whom Christ predicted as the false Messiah? This is a question that no Christian should or can ignore lightly after reading this.

Vallentine’s Jewish Encyclopedia says, in an article written by Dr. Joseph Reider, professor of Biblical Philology, Dropsie (Jewish) College, Philadelphia:

“The definitive act of canonization of
    the complete Scriptures is known to have taken place at the Synod of Jabneh [Yavneh] (near Tel Aviv), soon after the destruction of the Temple, at the instigation of Rabbi Akiba” (p. 94).

So the question becomes is this: can councils of non-Christian religions like Judaism have the authority to define
    the Christian canon?

The Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Septuagint, which included the seven books deleted by Martin Luther.

Another main objection is that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the seven books or mention them and neither are they prophetic or inspired.

But this is also blatantly false. In Matthew 27:42-43:

“He saved
    others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”.

This came from what was prophesied in Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part:

“For if the
    just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

That plus, it was the same councils Protestants point to as
    authoritative (Rome 382 A.D., Hippo 393 A.D., and Carthage 397 A.D.) in settling the New Testament were also used and considered authoritative to settle the Old Testament canon; the Septuagint. “All Scripture” then includes the 7 missing books.

Also, where in the Bible does it say that Christ or the Apostles have to quote from a book of the Old Testament in order to mark the book as inspired scripture? If this is the measure of canonicity then many of the books of the Old Testament would need to be discarded; Christ and the New Testament writers didn’t quote all of the Old Testament books that even the
    Protestants regard as canonical. Additionally, using such reasoning we would need to add the books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (they are quoted in Jude) to the Old Testament canon.

What I found out was that at the time of
    Christ there was no consensus on a canon of scripture. Instead there were competing Jewish communities with different lists of books they regarded as inspired. In other words, no Jewish council had defined a canon of books. The Pharisees revered 39 books, the same 39 found in Protestant Bibles today. Two
    other groups, the Sadducees (1) and the Samaritans recognized only the first 5 books of Moses known as the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy). The Essenes
    were a Jewish sect that held to a third list. The complete list of their revered books is not known; we only know that the list was different (2).

It should be noted that the groups mentioned here, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans and the Essenes were geographically centered in Judea. This is in stark contrast to our last Jewish group that was not only located in Judea, but
    also dispersed throughout the known world. They therefore had a more far-reaching influence in their practices. This group was known as the Hellenists, the Greek speaking Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. The Scriptures revered by this group were in the books contained in the Greek
    Septuagint.

The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was transcribed by 72 translators in Alexandria, Egypt and completed about 150 B.C. This Greek translation of the scriptures was needed,
    as over the centuries the Hebrew language had become a dead language. And as such the Jews of the dispersion needed the scriptures in their vernacular language, namely Greek. The result was a new translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint. This Greek Bible contains all of the books found in the Catholic
    Old Testament with some additional books (3).

I read a comment yesterday on my website of one Evangelical responding to a Catholic with a litany of accusations, one of which “you added 7 books” when in reality he should have asked: why is our Bible minus seven books that formed part of Israel’s Canon of
    Scripture during nearly three centuries of pre-Christian Jewish history? When one see another firing accusations, they do not realize that every bullet needs a scholar to explain. The lazy fool always shoots the lip while it takes ten
    wise men to correct him.

Calvinist theologian R.C. Sproul summarizes the issue in the following manner:

“The Catholic Church believes in an infallible list of infallible books while the Protestant churches believe in a fallible list of infallible books”. (4)

“Fallible list” of “infallible books”? What then becomes of God’s declaration when He says “all Scripture,” the collection of which is “fallible”?

Then you write something of an uneducated person, you state:

”that even the Catholic Church admits are not inspired writings (not part of the Canon),”

The Catholic Church said that Maccabees is not Canon? Are you smoking something?

”Most importantly neither Jesus or the Saints ever quote the Apocrypha in scripture.”

Really?

Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.

Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – what you hate, do not do to others.

Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.

Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 – Jesus’ description “Lord of heaven and earth” is the same as Tobit 7:18 – Lord of heaven and earth.

Matt. 12:42
    – Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus’ reference to the “power of death” and “gates of Hades” references Wisdom 16:13.

Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.

Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Matt. 27:43 – if He is God’s Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

Mark 4:5,16-17 – Jesus’ description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

Mark 9:48 – description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.

Luke 1:42 – Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

Luke 1:52 – Mary’s magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.

Luke 2:29 – Simeon’s declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.

Luke 13:29 – the Lord’s description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.

Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

John 1:3 – all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.

John 3:13 – who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.

John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 – Jesus’, Luke’s and Paul’s usage of “signs and wonders” follows Wisdom 8:8.

John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.

John 6:35-59 – Jesus’ Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.

John 10:22 – the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.

John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

John 15:6 – branches that don’t bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 – Peter’s and Paul’s statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.

Acts 17:29 – description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.

Rom 1:18-25 – Paul’s teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.

Rom. 1:20 – specifically, God’s existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.

Rom. 1:23 – the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.

Rom. 1:24-27 – this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.

Rom. 4:17 – Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.

Rom. 5:12 – description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.

Rom. 9:21 – usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.

1 Cor. 2:16 – Paul’s question, “who has known the mind of the Lord?” references Wisdom 9:13.

1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 – warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.

1 Cor. 8:5-6 – Paul acknowledging many “gods” but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.

1 Cor. 10:1 – Paul’s description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.

1 Cor. 10:20 – what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.

1 Cor. 15:29 – if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

Eph. 1:17 – Paul’s prayer for a “spirit of wisdom” follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.

Eph. 6:14 – Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.

Eph. 6:13-17 – in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

2 Tim. 4:8 – Paul’s description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.

Heb. 4:12 – Paul’s description of God’s word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.

Heb. 11:5 – Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.

Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Heb. 12:12 – the description “drooping hands” and “weak knees” comes from Sirach 25:23.

James 1:19 – let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.

James 2:23 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 – it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

James 3:13 – James’ instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.

James 5:3 – describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.

James 5:6 – condemning and killing the “righteous man” follows Wisdom 2:10-20.

1 Peter 1:6-7 – Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.

1 Peter 1:17 – God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 – God judges man according to his deeds.

2 Peter 2:7 – God’s rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.

Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.

Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 – power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.

Rev. 2:12 – reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God’s Word in Wisdom 18:16.

Rev. 5:7 – God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.

Rev. 8:3-4 – prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.

Rev. 8:7 – raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.

Rev. 9:3 – raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.

Rev. 11:19 – the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 – description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:1 – the cry “Hallelujah” at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.

Rev. 19:11 – the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 – description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 21:19 – the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.

Exodus 23:7 – do not slay the innocent and righteous – Dan. 13:53 – do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.

1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.

2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.

2 Tim. 3:16 – the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that you so conveniently said that Jesus never used. What you said, you said in absolute ignorance, now don’t get mad, get straight with God. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.

”You listed are Carvings in tombs, modern writers, but you leave out scriptures that a plain reading tells you to pray to God.”

So archeological evidence is unimportant? What about discovering Ai and Jericho which helps prove the Bible, should we ignore all that? You need some serious help.

”Jesus himself tells us to pray to the Father in Matthew 6:5-6″

Ok then, STOP asking anyone for prayer requests since Matthew 6:5-6 is not speaking of praying for one another.

”Paul tells us the Holy Spirit will act as an intercessor in Romans 8:26″

Alright then, will you say that intercessory prayers should be stopped since Romans 8:26 says that the Holy Spirit is an intercessor? 

Good luck on trying to answer this one.

You see what you are doing? If someone says that your grand mother advised you to eat eggs for breakfast, you would say that grand pa said to eat chicken for lunch and if your grand father says eat chicken, you will argue that grand ma said to eat eggs. Your kind of a silly guy.

  • shoebat

    So this is your refutation to my refutation of your chick tract? I thought you were trying to prevent people from going to hell? So why are you silent when you should be speaking? You only speak through pictorials? Sort of like sign language?

  • shoebat

    But could it be that you have an astounding ignorance of David Cloud? Just as you had an astounding ignorance of Jack Chick? Have you refuted what I responded to you?

  • shoebat

    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

  • Tom_mcewen

    I thank you for your comment. Some of these theological understanding are not small, it impacts on how we view God, the Sacrifice, how we even view the science of the universe, which and who is God the father is He a God of Wrath or a God of Love, The meaning of grace, since we are saved by grace, this difference is important, who has authority to instruct us, in the end the most important thing we can do is to understand the mind of God, which is it, faith and reason or faith alone, is the Eucharist real, are we called to be partners with God or bond servants, does our free will matter, does God see our sin, are we responsible and judged or is all the sins paid for by Jesus, do we have a part with free will in our salvation or it just belief and not obedience, then obedience to what, then we must define the what, is a verse a universal truth or it a thread of truth in its place and none other, are we alone on our journey or we part of a greater community outside space and time, this journey is it a lifetime or an event, does 2+2=?

  • shoebat

    “Look I don’t need to prove or disprove anything.”

    I did not expect this from a man with such wisdom as you who types “evidence evidence evidence” thrice, then thrice he denied the evidence presented.

    “When the KJV speaks of ‘proving all things’, it means the same as ‘proving an ox’, i.e test or discern. The Bible doesn’t tell us whether Onesiphorus was dead or not. Nor apparently does history.”

    You repeated the same mantra John, the evidence was presented from several experts. To accept this argument that “The Bible doesn’t tell us whether Onesiphorus was dead or not” would also mean we drop Bible commentaries, church authority, and we are then left with nothing … just a Bible.

    Would you give a Bible to savages and come years later to see them deciding theology, or would you give them extra few books to aid them with it?

    And if you only gave the first, what would you find when you come back to check on that tribe years later?

    Answer: Chaos.

    God’s guidance uses human beings. But this type of reasoning you use, you use it only to win an argument not realizing you lost the war. Such approach is the approach of someone who wants to make it in the stock market but loose it where it matters the most.

    You state:

    “In a criminal case a person must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases a much lower level of ‘proof’ is required, also usually known as the ‘balance of probability’. In other words you won’t be hanged on the balance of probability, but it might cost you in reparations (e.g. OJ Simpson). Which one should we apply to Biblical truth? Eh?”

    I would say that the story of Messiah foretold by Zechariah to be riding on a donkey would be an argument in a civil case court between the Rabbis who said he comes as a conquering Messiah while others argued He comes on a donkey. While such a case could be unimportant to you had you been living at the time, yet it had great implications on ancient Israel, for the ones with the ‘conquering Messiah theory’ ended up outside of heaven and the ones with the ‘donkey theory’ ended guiding others to heaven.

    So answer me, did it matter if Messiah rode a donkey vs. conquering on a white horse?

    You state:

    “On such a serious doctrine as praying for the dead (with it’s implications e.g. Purgatory and all that jazz), I’m sorry but a very high standard of proof is required, and it simply isn’t there.”

    I can show several theological issues resolved from a verse or two. So here is my question: Does a verse in Scripture matter not? It is perhaps why you failed to study the link I provided which gives Maccabees and it DOES address this issue we are arguing. Is Maccabees unimportant?

    “Moreover one of the tenets of the Reformation …”

    So tell me: who is Luther that I might serve him? The Author of “The Jews and Their Lies” dictates how we deal with theology?

    And why should I care about Luther dictating the tenants of the reformation? Its not in Scripture and some of it is not Scripture. I find no Martin, Zwingli or Calvin in Scripture and neither do I find Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide in Scripture.

    Now we’re back to square one: Authority. What authority interprets Scripture on issues we differ? To each his own? Or has God appointed an authoritative body to interpret? If you take Sola Scriptura, its like we have no need for judges and courts, each can interpret the letter of the law and the world is chaotic. As to following a specific authority, we have some sort of order. Which doth ye choose?

    “and its aftermath is ‘sola scriptura’ (by Scripture alone). ”

    There you go with the typical. Yet in Joel God says that He sends visions, dreams and prophecies in the last days. Yet the revelation of such prophecies are not in Scripture. Does God appoint ONLY what’s on paper to reveal His truth? Would you tell Mary if she appeared that “her visit is not in Scripture”? Do you tell the children whom in the last days will see dreams that “your dream is not in Scripture”?

    Or do you weigh what you see with Scripture and with the logic Christ gave us; does the devil fight the devil? Does it produce good fruit?

    So if the vision or message produce good fruit it then must be from God.

    And where does Scripture say that we only use Scripture alone?

    Now you will be digging for a verse and I will argue the same way you argued: “On such a serious doctrine as Sola Scriptura (with it’s implications e.g. Bible alone and all that jazz), I’m sorry but a very high standard of proof is required, and it simply isn’t there.”

    Checkmate.

    Your move.

    “That came to be stated in opposition to the RC Church’s position that ‘salvation and holiness’ depended on church tradition, either in addition to or instead of.”

    You have a problem with Church tradition?

    Indeed you do because of Luther’s tradition.

    Search the Bible for the word “tradition” and you will find that is what Paul used: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS that you were taught by us, either by our SPOKEN word or by our LETTER.”

    You state: “We can also bring in the Canon of Scripture. The Apocrypohal and Pseudographical writings can be very helpful and interesting, but they are not considered Scripture either by the Jews (OT/Tanakh) or Reformed Christianity.”

    Now lets go to court on this one, I would win the lawsuit hands down.

    My first expert witness would be the Protestant Bible Dictionary which says of the Septuagint that included the 7 books in question: “was manifestly the chief storehouse from which both Christ and the Apostles drew their proofs and precepts” (pp. 604-5).

    Now thats a whopper!

    My second expert witness would be John. in John 10: 22-36 Jesus and the Apostles observed the key Feast of the Dedication (Hanukkah), which celebrates events only recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees. By treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from what we called “apocryphal” books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob’s Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12)— as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself.

    It was Judas Maccabeus, a type of Christ who fought to liberate the Temple from Antiochus Epiphanies and thus preserved the faith and the faithful from utter destruction.

    Other classic examples in support for the 7 books;

    1—Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children (Matt. 2:16) was prophesied in Wis. 11:7.

    2—The ‘desolating sacrilege’ (Mt 24:15) Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Mac 1:54 and 2 Mac 8: 17.

    3—Elizabeth’s declaration of Mary’s blessedness above all women (Luke 1:42) follows Uzziah’s declaration in Judith 13:18.

    And as to your witnesses, you will bring the Jews who rejected the seven books as Holy Scripture.

    But upon cross-examining your witnesses, they would admit that today’s Ethiopian Jews still use the Septuagint version (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147), not the shorter Palestinian canon settled upon by the rabbis at Yavneh, which is not identical to the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles.

    Then in my closing arguments I would shout: When the Jews in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, they abandoned the Greek Septuagint and adopted the mid-sized Pharisaic Hebrew canon and eventually the vast majority of Jews adopted this version.

    Yet the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says:

    “When the Canon of the Bible was established, in the 2nd century, Akiba played a large part in determining its final form … He declared that he who reads aloud in the synagogues from the non-canonical book [Septuagint], as if it were canonical, would have no share in the world to come” (Vol. I., p. 148).

    It is a shame that we follow someone who believed in a false Messiah be one who dictates what volume of Scripture we read. It was Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph, the father of Rabbinic Judaism of the Christian era, which centered against accepting Jesus as the predicted Messiah preferred a Messianic pretender, Bar Kokba who was also nicknamed Bar Koziba (son of the liar) (Vallentine’s Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 20); whom he hailed as “King Messiah,” which the Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge praises Rabbi Akiba for “having had the courage to accept Bar Kokba as military leader and the Messiah” which resulted in the razing of Jerusalem (foretold by Daniel). Thus Bar Kokba, assisted by Rabbi Akiba, became a famous, or rather an infamous, fulfillment of the prophesy of Jesus, that “false Messiahs and false prophets will arise” (St. Mark 13:22).

    Is this whom we follow? Do we follow the man whom Christ predicted as the false Messiah? This is a question that no Christian should or can ignore lightly after reading this.

    Vallentine’s Jewish Encyclopedia says, in an article written by Dr. Joseph Reider, professor of Biblical Philology, Dropsie (Jewish) College, Philadelphia:

    “The definitive act of canonization of the complete Scriptures is known to have taken place at the Synod of Jabneh [Yavneh] (near Tel Aviv), soon after the destruction of the Temple, at the instigation of Rabbi Akiba” (p. 94).

    So the question becomes is this: can councils of non-Christian religions like Judaism have the authority to define the Christian canon?

    The Old Testament canon recognized by Ethiopian Jews is identical to the Septuagint, which included the seven books deleted by your great reformer Martin Luther.

    In your closing argument you would argue that Jesus and the Apostles never quoted from the seven books or mention them and neither are they prophetic or inspired.

    “Objection”, I would cry out. This is also blatantly false. In Matthew 27:42-43:

    “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”.

    This came from what was prophesied in Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part:

    “For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”

    That plus, it was the same councils Protestants point to as authoritative (Rome 382 A.D., Hippo 393 A.D., and Carthage 397 A.D.) in settling the New Testament were also used and considered authoritative to settle the Old Testament canon; the Septuagint. “All Scripture” then includes the 7 missing books.

    Also, where in the Bible does it say that Christ or the Apostles have to quote from a book of the Old Testament in order to mark the book as inspired scripture? If this is the measure of canonicity then many of the books of the Old Testament would need to be discarded; Christ and the New Testament writers didn’t quote all of the Old Testament books that even the Protestants regard as canonical. Additionally, using such reasoning we would need to add the books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (they are quoted in Jude) to the Old Testament canon.

    What I would argue is that at the time of Christ there was no consensus on a canon of scripture. Instead there were competing Jewish communities with different lists of books they regarded as inspired. In other words, no Jewish council had defined a canon of books. The Pharisees revered 39 books, the same 39 found in Protestant Bibles today. Two other groups, the Sadducees and the Samaritans recognized only the first 5 books of Moses known as the Pentateuch (Genesis – Deuteronomy). The Essenes were a Jewish sect that held to a third list. The complete list of their revered books is not known; we only know that the list was different.

    It should be noted that the groups mentioned here, the Pharisees, Sadducees, Samaritans and the Essenes were geographically centered in Judea. This is in stark contrast to our last Jewish group that was not only located in Judea, but also dispersed throughout the known world. They therefore had a more far-reaching influence in their practices. This group was known as the Hellenists, the Greek speaking Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire. The Scriptures revered by this group were in the books contained in the Greek Septuagint.

    The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. It was transcribed by 72 translators in Alexandria, Egypt and completed about 150 B.C. This Greek translation of the scriptures was needed, as over the centuries the Hebrew language had become a dead language. And as such the Jews of the dispersion needed the scriptures in their vernacular language, namely Greek. The result was a new translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint. This Greek Bible contains all of the books found in the Catholic Old Testament with some additional books.

    “But I don’t intend to start studying into Purgatory and Dante or Pope Whoever’s meanderings to try to figure it all out.”

    You sound like the folks who said that a conquering Messiah or a donkey riding Messiah does not matter. “But I don’t intend to start studying donkey, white horse, conquering …”

    You might win the stock market, but you might also loose heaven.

    Sorry that my reply is too long, but as I said, one man can fire a bullet, but it might take ten wise surgeons to remove it.

  • RodK1975

    Firstly, disqus must be screwed up, I keep finding replies to my comments that Disqus isn’t alerting me to. But, yes, we shall live. BTW, I was reading your conversation on the other article in relation to your misunderstanding… If everyone on this planet showed the kind of kindness and mercy you do, this world would have no problems.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Then Jesus is of Satan in your world.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Since we can prove by historical documents that we are the one and only Church that Christ built, then you have to conclude that Christ’s body, the Church, isn’t Christian.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    That is for rebels like you.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Those who refuse to believe that Christ’s flesh and blood is in Holy Communion are following the father of lies.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    “Amen, Amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise HIM up at the last day. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD and my blood is TRUE DRINK. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.” John 6:53-57

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Solomon was a sinful man, are you saying that he is the type of Jesus?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You forget that Mary and Jesus had to flee into Egypt. Secondly, Israel does not have the testimony of Christ. Thirdly, the virgin was a ‘sign’, Isaiah 7:14. John tells us that he saw a great ‘sign’ in heaven.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    No I don’t. God would not have commanded the building of graven images if it was an absolute prohibition. I can come to your house and find many graven images and take coins out of your pocket and show you graven images that you carry.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You should be the disciple standing by His mother.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Here is a little wisdom from ancient rabbis: ‘we now worship in imitation of the angels. When the Messiah comes, we will worship with the angels.’ I’m not in a place where I can quote the source, but it is there. As Catholics we believe that when we attend Mass, like Jesus and the disciples at the Last supper, we go to the real ‘upper room’, heaven.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Why did David pray for the dead?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Is that all you have to do?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    It is the Truth that they are repulsed at but blame the messenger. Look how many have turned against Walid. Look how many turned against Jesus and left Him because they didn’t want to eat His flesh or drink His blood. Nothing new.

    • shoebat

      All Milk is that, all milk, you can add apple sauce, but a teething baby cannot identify with “suffering”.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Here is some evidence of people praying for the dead: 1 Samuel 31:13, 2 Samuel 12-27, Acts 9:40. Even Orthodox Jews pray for the dead and believe in purgatory. Ponder why Jesus speaks that we can be sent to a prison and that we won’t get out until we have paid back the last penny. Why did Jesus speak about some servants receiving a severe lashing, and some a light lashing. Why did Jesus go to a prison of disobedient spirits? Why does Peter state that love covers a multitude of sin? Why does Paul speak of judgment day and people suffering loss by going through the fire but they are saved? Why are we told that without holiness no one will see the Lord? Why are we told that nothing unclean will enter heaven?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Where in scripture does it say ALONE. No works done in obedience are dead works, all accounts of judgment day indicate works as the defining of who goes to heaven and who doesn’t. The guest that showed up at the wedding feast without a garment is thrown out.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Then Jesus is a liar.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So glad you brought up the beatings, sounds like Jesus gave us a model for purgatory.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    If you were living by the book of Acts you would have a successor of Peter as your head.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So is doctrine not important?

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You didn’t answer the question.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You have made the Bible spam.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Easy. The garment (tilma) that Juan Diego was wearing was made of agave fibers which have a life span of 20 years at most, it still exists almost 400 years later. Flower petals were put into the tilma and when Juan went to the bishop to show him the sign that he had insisted on, the petals fell out to the ground, but an image of Mary was left on the tilma. The natives of Mexico converted in mass from the worship of the serpent god after Mary’s appearance. Ophthamologists have studied the eyes in the image and can see the reflection of people in her eyes. She appeared in the same manner as John’s vision in Rev 12.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Take it you are a protestant which didn’t exist until the 16th century and it has been a never ending splintering into sheer chaos. We have an unbroken line of successors of Peter.

  • shoebat

    “Delete away, Mr Shoebat.”

    Ok, good bye.

  • shoebat

    Sometime the real “bullying” comes by slander and accuse.

  • shoebat

    “1 Sam 31:13 – fasting in mourning for the dead”

    Well John, do you believe in “fasting for the dead”?

    Ooooooo wah oooooo wah ooooooo wah

    Why do fools not fast for the dead? Ooooo way OOooooo wah

  • shoebat

    Remember what I wrote, yet you like other milks, have a habit of not paying attention. I responded to you with:

    “What we said about “Piper” should be in context of what we said about Piper. Have you included them? What we said about “Puritans” should be included within the context of what we said about Puritans. What we said about “White” should be in context of what we said about White. But to remove the context is to offer a half-truth which is what brings disunity.”

    Where is the context of what I said? Have you brought a quote we wrote, then lay down your objection? No. You failure not to bring an issue in the proper manner, is your fault, not mine.

    Until you do that, I cannot comment on the rest of your post, which I am glad to respond to it in full, but right is right, you accuse, bring forth your proof. Walid.

  • Kamau40

    May the Lord rebuke you heavily. The things you say is extremely vile and sickening.

  • Kamau40

    You are a minion of the Anti-Christ!

  • Marco Vincent

    Your entire comment is a blind accusation to Walid Shoebat . Where is the bias? Did he “exploits the riches of freedom and weaknesses of democracy”? He is just telling the truth.
    If you cannot stomach the truth, then leave…nobody is asking you to stick around!!

    BTW, tell me when did the Catholic Church alter the Ten Commandments?
    Your slander is very obvious!!

  • Tom_mcewen

    I spend too long in Germany, it is like Mark Twain said, German the mother of English, tries to get the history of the world in one word. On authority John 3:36 Believe and disbelieve is actually obey and disobey, so I need an trusted authority to teach truth to me on what conditions we are to obey. Jesus did not believe in God the Father but obeyed Him. Faith and reason, these are teaching of the church, and reason is not my reason but the reason of the church, in science I stand on the Shoulders of better men, in faith and reason, this I also do, I have studied Catholic theology for 30 years and there is so much and so deep, a lifetime is not enough. Science of the universe, I spend my time with physicists from the Academy, so I look for the mind of God in his creation. Science is not the enemy of theology but its hand maiden. The Church teaches that God is rational, there for his creation is rational and we as rational beings can see God’s mind in his creation the Universe. No, the meaning of Grace is not secondary, but a key to God’s relationship with a son or a bond servant. If we are to see God at the end it, will only be through Grace. Nice talking to you.

  • RodK1975

    Yes, same with me… I felt like you noticed the same thing I did in that situation and you handled it so well. One of my brothers is like that. He’s not dumb by any means, he’s just very naive about evil and very fragile, with a heart as big as the moon. He says things sometimes the come out in an offensive manner and truly can’t understand why people get offended and at the same time you can say something to him in as nice a way as possible and it hurts his feelings because he’s really self-critical to an almost incapacitating degree, so I generally pick up on that quickly, whereas most people miss it or don’t understand it. He’s emotionally needy and will cling tight to anyone that shows him any kindness, unfortunately wolves spot that and take advantage of him and it destroys him when it becomes apparent, then he feels he’s done something wrong or wasn’t good enough, it’s heartbreaking at times, I’ve spent the last 39 1/2 years picking up his piece and putting him back together and it gets exhausting but it’s a job i must do.

  • Steve Smith

    All Milk, let me take time to answer you.
    1) I know first hand that American Evangelicals poach the weak Orthodox. the last time I was in Russia,

    • shoebat

      Steve,

      If I may chime in, answering this should be a breeze. Its not an issue of seeing each other as “brothers”. All Milk says:

      ” Evangelicals have only been around 400 or 500 years what a bout the other 1600.”

      Evangelicalism came from a European factory, it drove the Orthodoxy out and now how is it doing? Only 5% today in Europe drive this model, its clunking and fading away there, while Orthodoxy withstood in Russia, Egypt and other places withstood two millennia of hardship and persecution and the engine is still running like a charm. Now pay close attention, in Europe the Evangelical engine DIDN’T HAVE NO PERSECUTION and it faded away.

      Question: Which of the two is the better product? The Orthodox or the Evangelical?

      And why should Russia then allow such an import?

      Keep in mind, the product is being mostly pushed the most at nations that have no persecution for Christianity. Why? Why focus so much on Orthodox nations to convert them? Who is truly not considering the other brothers? Its the Evangelicals who sees Orthodox as “pagan” “icon worshippers” “incense users” “Altar worshippers” and all sorts of falsities.

      If I was Putin, I would stop such imports because what happened in Europe will also happen in Russia. So long live Putin whom the Evangelicals say the he is “Gogesq” sort of a good candidate for being “Gog” which is absolutely false. They have all the facts upside down, Russia is not Magog. And you expect Putin to allow an import painting him to be a devil?

      But of course, everything I said here, while true, they will always refute, because they know everything and like the Muslim, they can never be wrong.

      • Steve Smith

        My brother, my fear is real Christian persecution is coming to America, how the churches smile at islam. Do you think Russians are stupid as to allow a moslem to pray in our Church. We know what will happen. Problem is that evangelicals have tossed out Tradition and the Christian culture it was based on. They always talk about ” traditional values” but how can you have that without ”Tradition” you see the fruit of that in ” gay weddings” and all religions are the same path to God. I see the modern western way as rootless, so when the storm passes over they are blown over and up rooted.
        W

    • Julie LaBrecque

      C:UsersPublicDocumentsAnti-Catholic protesters with bullhorns appear at several D_C_-area parishes – The Washington Post.htm

      • Steve Smith

        This kind of thing makes me sick. My heart goes out to them,

    • Julie LaBrecque

      Anti-Catholic protesters with bullhorns appear at several D.C.-area parishes

      .hideText{position:absolute;left:-10000px}

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share on Google Plus

      Share via Email

      More Options

      Share on LinkedIn

      Share on Pinterest

      Share on Tumblr

      Resize Text

      Print Article

      Comments 117

      By Michelle Boorstein November 5 Roman Catholic leaders have sent e-mails of warning to dozens of Washington and Maryland priests after protesters with bullhorns yelling anti-Catholic slogans appeared at several parishes and in a couple of cases “stormed the inside of the church just before Mass,” a bishop-administrator wrote in the e-mail.

      A spokeswoman with the Archdiocese of Washington, which oversees 139 parishes in the District and suburban Maryland, said Wednesday that “really small” groups of protesters have appeared on the property of three or four parishes in the past couple of weeks near Mass time. They were shouting at parishioners going in and out and were handing out “fundamentalist” Christian literature, said Chieko Noguchi.

      She would not identify the parishes or share the literature or what it said, saying it was unclear whether the protesters had created it or were using something they got elsewhere.

      “It was disconcerting,” she said, that protesters would use a worship service as a time to protest.

      Police were called Oct. 25 to at least one of the parishes, St. Pius X in Bowie, but the police chief there said no information was available about the group. Messages left with St. Pius staff were not immediately returned.

      But the Rev. Mike Jones, pastor at St. Pius, described the incident in the parish’s Nov. 2 bulletin.

      “We don’t have to go to the other side of the world to experience religious extremists,” wrote Jones, describing parishioners leaving Saturday’s 5 p.m. Mass. “We were assaulted by shouting and hatred being spewed by protesters standing at both our driveways. Armed with megaphones and brandishing signs, these ‘christians’ ranted for more than 30 minutes about everything they view as ‘evils’ of our Catholic faith. They attacked our dogmas, teachings, practices and leaders, including Pope Francis! Who are they? We don’t yet know.”

      Sponsor Generated ContentThe color of urine and what it means for you

      By Cleveland Clinic

  • RodK1975

    I have an older sister and two younger brothers, the fragile one is 1.5 years younger than me. My youngest is 8 years younger than me and just the opposite, he is very smart and strong minded, he’s 31 and already a Sgt on the Sheriff’s department here. Smart cookie. My sister is 4 years older and the type that she insults everyone and doesn’t care what you think about it, so, you can imagine the time I’ve had with those 3 my whole life! LOL

  • shoebat

    John John John,

    When we were children, we would ask questions like, mom, where did we come from? and by the time we continue to ask, it ends up that our parents can’t explain the being fruitful and multiplying, so by the time we ask them what is sex, they tell us that its something as sweet as honey. It takes years for us to catch up and finally interpret the allegory. The problem with the complex man is that he always tries to comprehend the mystery while he pays little attention to the simple and obvious. If you see an old lady burning a candle at the icon of Mary, you might think, ahhh more superstition, yet you strive to unravel Arius, the Trinity and God.

    You see, to me the secret to happiness both in life and spiritually is to be like a child, I do not want to know and unravel the complex, I want to find more secrets from the simple.

    And now I see you (while I still have an IOU note from you, you haven’t showed up for the last lawsuit regarding the Canon, and it seems by law, if no show, the judge will rule in my favor (have you responded to anything I presented? So far No, are you willing to settle out of court or continue?)

    And no you are trying to unravel Purgatory as a child wanting to understand sex. (no pun intended). I think your problem with it is the name Purgatory, it has been so made fun of in comedy that when the word is said, its as if your teacher in kindergarten is threatening you to be locked up in the dog house. You are 90% if I estimate, a product of your culture, you know, more than a product of your “seek and you shall find”. You know Purgatory comes from Purge. Now when you use that term “purge” in Scripture, since you insist on your triune, “evidence evidence evidence” is found.

    And where do you ever find such purging of sin to have Hitler and Stalin qualify? Such purging is NOT for the unredeemed but for the redeemed, its not for the unsaved but the saved. No unlearn will enter heaven.

    Now if you were God, would you allow any smudge to enter?

    This message in fact is all over Scripture, and ion fact, its the WHOLE of Scripture.

    Not only is it in Scripture, but it is also in your own life; if you had a surgery, would you expect the surgeon to purge out every single germ by washing his hands, or do you allow some filth to enter your temple and defile it and possibly killing you with an infection?

    I can and will get into the matter later, after you fulfill your obligation on the IOU. I want to help you win your case against me by settling out of court in which both of us come to terms on what God wants. I believe I have some answers. But I can’t seem to stop thinking about one issue Julie brought up to you asking: “Why are we told that nothing unclean will enter heaven?you brought up with Julie”.

    Yet you never responded to her? Why not? Didn’t God say ASK and you SHALL receive? She asked, and she did not receive, not even a crumb out of the table of King Longshanks.
    Why have you not responded? For if you had made that quest to respond, you would have found.

    You see the difference between us? When someone, even a child asks, I answer and if I can’t I seek, and I will find. You on the other hand, thinks you have found and you know when you don’t.

    One more thing, I am not yet done,

  • shoebat

    You know not all who carry the “N” icon are the same. I will remember you Bran. Remember me in your prayers. God bless you.

  • shoebat

    “You are still relating to God under old testament law.”

    Such a strike with the pen is a strike of death, mayhem, lawlessness and oblivion.

    For example, can we eat shellfish? Yes. Can the Jew in the Old Testament eat shellfish? No.

    Why?

    Moral law and Levitical law are two separate issues and the sooner you recognize that the better.

    If what you say is true, then go drink, commit adultery, party like an animal, for God is done with the law. Right? No. Wrong.

    Lets stick with the shellfish argument, some Messianics insist on not eating shellfish, its failure to distinguish between the moral law and the levitical law, which is a interpretive key that is fundamental to understanding the Old Testament.

    The Old Testament is full of laws. The rabbis say there are 613 of them, to be precise. Some of these laws are very general and apply to morality and human relations as such, while others are of a ceremonial nature and have to do with the requirements of the Levitical law of Old Testament Judaism.

    The moral laws are binding on all men everywhere and at all times; examples of the moral laws are “Thou shalt have no other gods besides me”, “honor thy mother and father”, and “Do not hate your brother in your heart.” The ceremonial or Levitical laws, on the other hand, are binding only on Old Testament Israelites and pertain to the nature of Old Testament worship and discipline. Examples of levitical law are “Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk”, “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material”, and “Make tassels on the four corners of the cloak you wear”. [1]

    Since the moral laws have as their subject human nature as such, they are not abolished with the coming of the Lord and the inauguration of the New Covenant; in fact, they are elevated and perfected. Our Lord demands stricter adherence to the moral law in the New Covenant than in the Old: “You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [2]

    The ceremonial laws, on the other hand, have as their subject the worshiper of the Old Covenant (i.e., pre-Christian Jews), not human nature as such. These laws necessarily pass away with the ending of the Old Covenant. These laws are transitory by their very nature and reflect the temporary character of the Old Covenant itself. Thus, when the Old Covenant passes away after the coming of Christ, these ceremonial laws no longer have a purpose and are no longer binding on Christians. This was the approach the Apostles took at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) when they judged that Gentiles did not have to observe circumcision or Jewish dietary law.

    Another classic example of this is the Old Testament prohibition against eating pork and shellfish. Since this pertained to the ceremonial law, Christians have always been considered free from these prohibitions. This is why St. Paul says “Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths” (Col. 2:16) and why our Lord teaches “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matt. 15:11). This is why Christians have always eaten pork and shellfish with a clean conscience, despite Old Testament prohibitions. It has always been understood that these prohibitions lost their force with the passing away of the Old Covenant.

    The crux of the whole issue is whether the Old Testament prohibitions of homosexual actions belong to the moral or the ceremonial law.

    In short, the prohibition against lets say eating shellfish belongs to the ceremonial law, which is no longer binding on Christians, whilst prohibitions on moral laws belong to the moral law and are always binding. Please remember this whenever you run across the ignorant.

    NOTES
    [1] Ex. 34:26, Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:12
    [2] Matt. 5:27-28

  • RodK1975

    Exactly, and yes, sarcasm runs deep in mine too :-))

  • shoebat

    Walid, my friend

    You are also a bit of a ‘card’, and I can appreciate that 🙂

    People say I am a bit old-fashioned, but reality is I am ancient fashioned and what I find is its not me who is “bit of a ‘card'” but the world that considers itself the ‘norm’. My son is watching TV as I am typing here and I never once watched the raucous; a bunch of giants in what seems like a Roman gladiatoral arena dressed up in leotards slamming each other over an egg shaped leather thingie. Don’t you think that thats a little bit too odd?

    “I think I could probably stay longer in a room with you over a cup of tea than I could with Richard Dawkins.”

    Ahhh, tea, I am speaking to an Englishman. Sorry about that Dawkins story, I test everybody by throwing an insult, if they stay, they are worthy, if they leave then they are fickle. I have been to England a few times and spoken at the Oxford Union debating the son of Benazir Bhutto. He was in defense of Islam saying that Islam was not the cause of the death of his mother (terrorists blew her up) while I argued that Islam imprisoned my mother for 35 years having visited the Middle East and was not able to return. Some people sell their own mother for a cult. I can’t say that I blame him, I was in that cult too.

    But talking to the English, they are a bit odd, so when they say “I think I could probably stay longer in a room with you over a cup of tea” they speak allegorically, we from the Middle East, we make friends in light speed and we take an invitation to tea literally. But we also make enemies in light speed too.

    But your right, we are a bit ‘odd’. You don’t think I reached all the way to Pakistan to purchase Christian slaves, rescue thousands of Christians, and then release them to freedom, you think we do this because I simply admire Jesus by reading about Him in a book?

    Jesus is serious business to us. We are willing to be martyred, put our heads on the chopping block, literally rather than denying Christ. Yes, its the fanatics who always end up crucified. I meant it when I surrendered to Him. I really did. The English think we go a bit too far. I don’t agree, its the bad fanatic who go too far and is what I did when I was Muslim.

    I have also been on your BBC with millions listening. Sorry to say, but England is in need of a miracle. Perhaps the real wakeup will happen when Europe is in danger.

    “You have a very direct, but IMHO confused, approach in some areas, albeit tinged with your obvious humour. You are no mug, nor am I.”

    Sounds like someone describing a dish or a wine. I see it. I am not the best of wine, a little fruity but pungent, a little on the sweet side but not too dry … I take that for a compliment Englishman 🙂

    Ok, so lets see who is a little confused here. Hmm, let me see, “I feel Rome/Europe will be the king of the north which spawns Antichrist.”

    O Englishman, your confused. If Antichrist is from Europe, Daniel tells us that Antichrist will have bad news from the north. What is north of Europe but an ocean. Antichrist has to be King of the North, yes, north enough, but not too far north. Your theory falls short and you loose another case.

    “For the record a considerable amount of your site is worthy of praise for your tough stance against Islam and the daily chicanery we witness – otherwise known as PC.”

    We are controversial. Controversy is the key.

    “I don’t agree with your ‘Muslim Antichrist’ idea, I think radical Islam more equates to the king of the south.”

    Lets have four teas, four hours of your time, and you shall be healed of that confusion. First, name me one nation that God names which He also destroys in end-times which is not today Muslim? Name me one nation even Christ fights while on earth and that nation is mentioned by name, name one that is not Muslim. Isaiah 19, He fights in Egypt, Isaiah 10, He fight in Lebanon, Habakuk 3, He fights Median (Arabia).

    The Turks are coming and they will soon knock on the gates of Europe. Laugh, but soon no one will be laughing. 20 years ago I have written about this during the days when Turkey was friendly with Israel. They were laughing at me then, saying I was a bit ‘odd’, now no analyst would deny that Turkey is turning Islamist. John, this is a mighty army, the second largest in Nato after the U.S.

    Before world war II, would the Englishman suspect that Germany would try to invade England? I wasn’t born yesterday, my great grand father was a close friend to sir Winston Churchill.

    By the way, King of the South is Egypt. King of the North is Turkey. Turkey will invade Egypt (Also see Daniel 11, he invades Egypt, Libya and Sudan)

    “But the whole thing is still unravelling. Europe, the daughter of Rome, whose heritage goes right back to Canaan/Babylon is not done yet either.”

    Now that sound like a far-fetched theory, but I am all ears. Any links to this theory?

    “The other prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7, and Revelation 13 tend to support this …”

    O Englishman, why must you always reference the allegorical references for evidence. What about Ezekiel 28-39. Thats a whole section of Scripture which names literally who the enemy is. It names them one by one.

    Lets talk this over four teas and a couple falafel sandwiches and I guarantee you Englishman, you will be Shoebatized.

    “There are problems with the Gog/Magog theories”

    You have spoken wisely.

    “but we see the ‘kings of the east’ forming before our eyes.”

    Who are they?

    “Plus if Putin is ‘Gog’, he has a pile of Russian Orthodox bishops on hand, well-versed in Scripture, to advise him what to do and not do. …”

    Here, I must say, you have also spoken wisely.

    “Yes I was a tad sarcastic, maybe tinged with humour, with Julie. She quoted scriptures that did not support her point.”

    Yes I know, but she deals with so many rascals and she is one of a kind person. I had hoped she did not think you were one of those rascals. We have many desert rats, rascals and roughnecks come to my falafel stand and harass the ladies. I like the Catholics and Orthodox who order falafels at my stand, some of the Evangelicals are fine, but there are so many who order apple sauce and it drives me nutts since apple sauce is not on my menu; I serve falafel with hot sauce, Hummus and flame broiled Nandos chicken.

    “You see I’ve heard a great deal of ‘theological drivel’ over the years.”

    Your right.

    “At the same time I do know an elderly RC lady, a widow and a good friend of many years, who lights candles for whatever she lights candles for. In many ways a better Christian than I.”

    Ahhh, I had thought my grand mothers knew nothing, it took me decades to know that they almost knew everything, but only the things we needed; how to earn 3 meals a day, give to God what is God’s and to caesar what is ceasar’s. Ask her to pray for me, will you? It seems that God listens to old ladies better than many who think their saints.

    “Now this is not a criticism, but an observation. I gather English is not your first language, but you have an excellent grasp of it. Nevertheless the way you ‘put things’ is a tad ‘foreign’ to me, and probably therein lies a degree of misunderstanding.”

    Again Englishman, you have spoken wisely. I am a stuttering Moses in need of an Aaron.

    “Thus I am unclear what ‘evidence’ I am supposed to provide, or why any ‘IOU’ exists.”

    Figure of speech Englishman. You owe me nothing, unless you order a dozen falafels to go and that will be $3.50.

    “Expert witnesses … the ‘experts’ in question are dead.”

    The expert witnesses are saints, therefore, living 😉

    “My further difficulty is that I have limited time to spend on what is essentially a debating forum. That is not an excuse on my part, it is a simple fact — I do not have the time to write copious posts like this. But I do try to give a reasonable cogent answer.”

    Your are excused. I fully understand. I wasn’t expecting you to write long tirades. I seriously wanted to make a dent in some of your beliefs, I must admit.

    As far as how many fairies one can put on the tip of a needle, I must say, its important, I think of how many Christians I can rescue in a week. How many can I fit in a bus, how many can I purchase for $100, $200 … Hitler thought how many Jews he can fit in a cart. He was evil. We take evil and switch it around. It is what we do in life what matters English, not how many scriptural verses we play with gymnastically and throw at each other back and forth.

    “Now I’m sure that floating these ideas (whether you subscribe to the or not, and I suspect not always, since you are a strategist) keeps up the interest level on your website.”

    Always open to ideas. Keep it coming.

    “I don’t accept prayers for the dead”

    When I am martyred Englishman, I will pray for you, in heaven.

    “for reasonably sound Biblical reasons, and I am unlikely to be persuaded.”

    You think too much Englishman. Just think in the last decades, you believed in things, and you changed your mind later.

    “It becomes an oblique metaphysical brain-teaser and as such I do not wish to ‘go there’. It does not ‘profit’.”

    What then profits Englishman?

    “One ‘day’ hopefully we will have an eternity to muse on the likes of Purgatory — albeit we will already know the answer.”

    Indeed.

    “Tempus fugit””

    Except in heaven, there is no time, Englishman 😉

    , so ‘Adieu’.

    Salam

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Other Queen Mothers of Davidic Kings: Naaham 1 Kings 14:21, Maacah 1 Kings 15:2, Azubah 1 Kings 22:42, Athaliah 2 Kings 8:26, Zibiah 2 Kings 12:2, Jehoaddan 2 Kings 14:2, Jecoliah 2 Chron 26:3, Jerusa 2 Chron 27:1, Abijah 2 Chron 29:1, Hephzibah 2 Kings 21:1, Meshullemeth 2 Kings 21:19, Jedidah 2 Kings 22:1, Hamutal 2 Kings 23:31, Zebidah 2 Kings 23:36, Nehusta 2 Kings 24:8, Hamutal 2 Kings 24:18.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    What do you consider angels to be? Besides, it included things on earth and under the earth.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    It means not to worship them. DUH

  • Julie LaBrecque

    You want to call Jesus a Liar? He said “this IS my body”. We have miracles to prove it, but you won’t care to investigate because you are jaundiced. Light cures jaundice.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    If you don’t believe Jesus’ words are true about the bread becoming his body and the wine his blood and want proof, then read about the Miracle of Lanciano, among others.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    2 Samuel 1:12-27

    • shoebat

      I hope you don’t mind the interjection. But looking in to this, I want to personally thank you and Julie for bringing this up. For after I looked up the Hebrew/Aramaic language it confirmed to me even further. I lived in Bethlehem and the colloquial language as well as the classical Arabic really is super close to the biblical and the Aramaic is vey much like the colloquial Palestinian we were so used to:

      וַֽיִּסְפְּדוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיָּצֻמוּ עַד־הָעָרֶב עַל־שָׁאוּל וְעַל־יְהֹונָתָן בְּנֹו וְעַל־עַם יְהוָה וְעַל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נָפְלוּ בֶּחָֽרֶב׃ ס

      WOW. I can even read that:

      Aramaic: Ukafadu Ubaku
      Arabic: Ua’zu Ubaku
      English:They mourned and cried

      Aramaic: Wisamu (and they fasted)
      Arabic: Wisamu
      English: And they fasted

      Aramaic: Ed-Haereb
      Arabic: I’nd-Maghreb
      English: Until the evening

      Aramaic: Ala-Saul Wu-Ala Yehunathan U-Benu
      Arabic: Ala Saul Wu-Ala Yehunathan U-Ibnu
      English: UPON Saul and UPON Jonathan

      Aramaic: W-Ala Umat Yehwa w-Ala-Israel
      Arabic: W-Ala Umat Yehwa w-Ala Israel
      English: And UPON the Nation of Yehweh and UPON Israel

      WOW. You just confirmed that the prayer and fasting for the dead is biblical.

      John, Islam is a heresy that stole much of Catholic and Hebrew tradition. Even as Muslims we did our prayers so similar to this “Allahumma Sali Ala(UPON) Sayidina Muhammad Wa-Ala (UPON) Al-Sayyidina Muhammad, Kama Sallayta Ala Sayyidina Ibrahim wa Ala Al-Sayyidina Ibrahim”

      English: O Lord pray UPON our master Muhammad and his family as you pray UPON Abraham and his family”

      Is part of every prayers Muslim do every day in every prayer 5 times in every time they kneel.

      Whenever you use “Ala” its upon, your absolutely right, but your also absolutely wrong as to the interpretation of it using “because”. This would be nonsense in my little village were we passed this type of language from father to son all the way from ancient times. Such fasting and praying upon dead folk is for the sole purpose of redemptive cause and appeal to God on the person’s behalf. Your dialogue here leaves no doubt in my mind that the Catholics are right. When you write:

      “Follow the construction of the verse, i.e. ‘they lamented/wept for [because of] Saul…’ and ‘[they] fasted till evening’…’because they were smitten with the sword’.”

      This “because of” is absolute nonsense. It is fasting UPON/FOR on BEHALF just as we did when we were Muslim when we prayed for the dead (Abraham) as well as the Jews and as well as the Christians did from time immemorial.

      Some Bibles even translated it more correctly “over” instead of “for”:

      King James Bible

      And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:

      Darby Bible Translation

      And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son;

      World English Bible

      David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son

      Young’s Literal Translation

      And David lamenteth with this lamentation over Saul, and over Jonathan his son;

      John, we are from the land, originals. I hope this helps, God bless.

      • Julie LaBrecque

        Thanks for all you do. I hope your efforts will change John’s mind, but I doubt it will matter because he made a mockery of Peter praying for Tabitha and restoring her to life.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    So is it the name that you have problem with? Then you should disavow the “Rapture” and the “Trinity”. Matt 5:25-26 “Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison (phulake). Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid back the last penny.” 1 Peter 4:19-20 “In it, he also went to preach to the spirits in prison (phulake) that had once disobedient while God patiently in the days of Noah…” Luke 12:47-48 “That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly.” 1 Cor 3:13-15 “…the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built on the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss, but the person will be saved.” 1 Peter 4:8 “Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins.” Hebrews 12:14 “Strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord.”

  • Julie LaBrecque

    Then crash the party because I have big girl pants on, have been taunted by the likes of you and royal all my Catholic life. She has made crude comments before, she doesn’t fool me with her implied piety. Admit it, by your theory where everyone is their own interpreter of scripture, you claim for yourselves what you deny the Pope and the Church are: Infallible interpreter of the scripture.

  • Julie LaBrecque

    “…to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source…” Cyprian of Carthage, ‘Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome 59’ “…and know that you are in communion with him, that is, the Catholic Church….by the college of venerable priests and good men…which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair.” ‘Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus of Numidia’ AD 252. “In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter, in mighty Rome, commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold.” Poem against the Marcionites. AD pre 325.”You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter…the one chair in which unity is maintained by all.” Optatus of Milevis, ca AD 367

  • Julie LaBrecque

    No I am not. Jesus is the lawgiver, and He gave His law on the Sermon on the Mount. If you think God is going to allow those who have not followed the precepts taught by the Saviour into heaven, then you will be sorely displeased. PLEASE READ WHAT JESUS SAID: then make Paul’s teachings adhere to those of the Master’s. Paul did not die for our sins.

  • shoebat

    “Let me answer for you, no we don’t. Fact of the matter is, Walid Shoebat defends Catholics/Orthodox even when they are blatantly mocking Protestants. I’ve read everything here–sham church, no real martyrs, religion devoid of human soul, cult (Ted said this about Reformed people), and not one word from Walid. Sometimes he even qualifies the intolerance that you Catholics and Orthodox show towards Protestants.”

    You ramble without showing exact quotes. There are Protestants and then there are also Protestants. Some of the Calvinists accused us of being militant as ISIS. Now that is ok? Indeed, there are many elements within the anti-Catholic movement that do adhere to certain things similar to how Muslims views things, such as being anti-Crusader and calling the Catholic Church “harlot”. I am no fan of the reformers, but this by no means I paint every Evangelical as crude like you are. Apparently your here allowed to even comment against us. Now if I tried to go to some of your buddies blogs and face books I am thrown out, so kindly knock it off and next time you throw an accusation do what the Bible mandates providing EXACT QUOTES. Its the signature of accusers to always make blanket statements which reveals clearly your spirit.

  • shoebat

    I had thought theology is a matter of dialogue not censorship! But your comment is much appreciated.

  • shoebat

    “you have not understood grace. Grace is not a license to sin, but grace is the power God gives us to overcome sin.”

    This is exactly what I was saying.

    Yet you accuse me of not.

    But you read into what we say instead of reading WHAT we say.

    • hope40

      You accuse me of being under some false doctrine, when all I did was quote scripture. Perhaps you should re read what I wrote for I was simply drawing your attention back to Christ and living through Him, not the law, Why have you so misunderstood me and accused me of being in some false grace camp. For the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. I and those I walk with are some of the most purest loving people I know. And they are from the grace camp.

      I agree we live in a messed up world. The truth is that Christ died for sinners and we need to welcome them in as they are. People are a mess for a reason. Yes divorce is rampant. The family unit has broken down and many are just very broken people. This is why Christ came, to heal the broken hearted and many of them are in the church. We can’t judge outward manifestations alone because God goes deeper to look at the issues of the heart. Homosexuals in general come from very messed up backgrounds. Many are just falling into the lifestyle because they feel accepted there. Christ can reach their hearts and pull them out but the struggle isn’t over after conversion. Are we just going to judge them because they are not conforming outwardly in their behaviour. No we need to walk along side people as they walk out wholeness in Christ.

      I also find that this article is building a doctrine based on assumption. You are fitting scripture into the catholic doctrinal beliefs that you appear to adhere to. I don’t believe we should be praying to saints and whether they are interceding for us is a wild guess and a long winded argument on your part. According to scripture it is a non essential in the Christian experience.

      • shoebat

        “I agree we live in a messed up world. The truth is that Christ died for sinners and we need to welcome them in as they are. ”

        So let me ask: if a bus load of pedophiles, terrorists, drug dealers and child molesters want to come every sunday to your church, you will allow them in? If Yes why Yes and if No why No? Can they also become members of your church?

        I mean these are all sinners, right?

  • shoebat

    All Milk,

    Let me tell you how it works, you talk, talk, talk, I weed weed weed until I find a quote:

    “Actually Tom, if I may correct you, they are not “fools”, they are simply an evil bunch, white tombs, carcasses infused with demons … I hate these who say that killing Hitler would be wrong.”

    This is the only quote I got from you. I delete “talk”, since I am not interested in how you came to your conclusions but only the EVIDENCE that you used. Get it? I have little time for squabble.

    Now if you look at “I hate these who say that killing Hitler would be wrong.”

    And its this type of Christian that I do not like. By the way your James White condemns bombing Dresden. This type of nonsense is appalling. Do you condemn bombing Dresden All Milk? Its funny how most who come here, there icon names matches their personality.

  • shoebat

    “Your bullying tactics …”, you see, your always being bullied, yet you never bully. Right? Or is it possible that you love to accuse others of the very thing your guilty of?

  • shoebat

    ” am afraid Walid, that you have let your wife influence your thinking”

    Do you recommend I divorce her? She woos me with her beauty. Her luscious spanish lips and her rosy cheeks and her faith that marriage is a sacrament so no matter what I do she holds firm to the marriage. This she inherited from her Catholic background and is why they have so little divorce in comparison to the Evangelicals who are plagued with it, I must say. Is it possible that we could learn about marriage and the rejection of birth control from them damned Catholics? Have you ever had a Mexican wife? If you had, you would know exactly what I mean. And the enchiladas, O my, if you could only taste the enchiladas cowboy.

    “A Sun god cult that has taken the Name of God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and bastardized the Trinity with their sun god cult ideals.”

    “Wake up Walid..”

    Well Ron, help me out then, perhaps you can start by showing me how the Catholic is a “Sun god cult”?

    You condemn a drowning brother, but you do not send the life preserver? How is that Christian, cowboy? You have the rope which you use to catch the cattle with, cowboy, but you extend it not for a drowning soul?

  • Steve Smith
  • shoebat

    “You plainly called Piper a carcass infused with a demon, Walid.”

    Again, you intentionally failed to show the quote. The quote needs to have its context, especially after I asked you do do so. This is the traits of slanderers.

    Ok, James White says that he would not have bombed Germany and John Piper said that he would not kill Hitler and you want me to call these anything besides white-washed tombs and sepulchers? We live in a time where pastors say that we should accept homosexuals and while you pussy-foot with cobras your entire country has been robbed by devils.

  • shoebat

    Wow Ron, that was some big pile of myth you sent.

    The Greek writers introduce into history the fabulous names of Ninus and Semiramis. [However,] the direct study of the Assyrian monuments and inscriptions, enable us now to assert positively that neither Semiramis, nor her husband [Ninus] ever existed, that their history is entirely mythical—a fable with no real foundation.”

    Most of what you wrote came from the mythical assumptions of Alexander Hislop who has been long discredited.

    Dr. F.F. Bruce concludes “It comes as no surprise then that modern Assyriology does not cite Hislop’s Two Babylons; it is a discredited source.”

    F.F. Bruce is one of the most reliable sources ever and he is Christian. Look him up. Also Rawlinson. In fact, take your essay and try to find a single historian in the world to approve of it, you can’t and you won’t. You bought into a pile of myth by Alexander Hislop.

    For example, you can never even prove either from Scripture or Assyriology that Samiramis and Nimrod were even from the same era and there is ZERO evidence they were mother-husband-wife.

    Nimrod and Samiramis are from different time in history. All the long stuff you wrote pertaining to historical accounts is a pile of dung with no basis either from Scripture or history.

    It has been debunked by real scholars, here examine this link:

    localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=52

    Its like the Mormons who write myth, its the same with what you are buying into here, pure myth.

    In fact, not one Scripture verse you wrote has anything to do with the subject matter of your argument.

    You wrote: “Come learn the true story of Easter, it has nothing to do with our Lord and Savior.. In fact, it is an abominating unto him.”

    Ok, so from your proposal in that quote, you want to show me verses that pertain to Easter, yet not one verse pertains to Easter:

    “Paul Warned Timothy of this..
    2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after
    their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
    2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    To the Corinthians he said.
    2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

    2 Corinthians 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye
    might well bear with him.

    Galatians 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

    Galatians 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”

    NONE OF THESE VERSES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND.

    The idea that icons were introduced by Roman paganism by Constantine is a myth developed by Alexander Hislop in his Two Babylons. In fact, it was Islam that forbade icons a millennia before Hislop invented his myths.

    It was the Muslim Abd al-Jabbar was the first to propagate these myths in his “Critique of Christian Origins,” which is considered the first Islamic history on Christianity in the late tenth century. Without knowing that the author is Muslim, quoting some of al-Jabbar writings is similar to what anti-Constantine Messianic and Evangelicals say:

    “Constantine was wicked and calculating … he made an external show of venerating Christ and the Cross. Yet he confirmed the Roman religious practices as they were, including praying to the East and other things that have been mentioned. He removed nothing other than the worship of the planets, espousal of his [Christ’s] divinity and veneration of the Cross.” (Abd al-Jabbar in his “Critique of Christian Origins”, Part III, 213-214, trans. Gabriel Said Reylonds)

    That Constantine invented Christmas, he states:

    “The Romans and the Greeks had a holiday which they called the “Birth of Time.” It was at the return of sunlight in December. They made it the birthday of Christ, adding and subtracting [things from it]. This is the great holiday for them, which the Chritsians celebrate and call Christmas or Christmas Eve. The Christians in the time of Christ, and his companions after him, did not know this holiday and did not celebrate it (Ibid, 244-247)

    Pertaining to Lent, he writes:

    “The Romans and the Sabi’un [Sabians] had a day on which they fasted, the days of the planetary perigees, during which they [Christians] refrained from eating meat. When they began to espouse the divinity of Jesus, they confirmed [these fatsts], and then added to them in some ways and subtracted from them. Today they fast fifty days, until the zenith of the sun, then they break their fasts on some days.” (Ibid, 248-250)

    Al-Jabbar even claimed that incense, icons, veneration of Mary and the Apostles, all came from pagan origins:

    “The Romans and the Sabi’un [Sabians] used smoke and incense in the temples of the planets and idols. This continues to this day among the Christians who have not annulled it … the Romans, along with their worship of the planets, venerated idols, erected representations of them in the temples. They continued in this way even after they accepted the veneration of the Cross, without any decrease, with Christ, his mother, and his companions [desciples] in the place of those idols.” (Ibid, 279-284)

    The hatred of Constantine and icons in the church is a modern manmade tradition that goes in line with Muslim views, which I had to endure listening to for two decades in my church and Messianic circles. It was as if my new evangelical faith needed to have something in common with Islam; they denounced Constantine’s vision of the cross in the sky, they even circulated throughout the nation, a mythical scenario I learned fairly quickly which goes like this; it was the evil Constantine who founded the Catholic Church and was its first pope. He established it after he suppressed the original church that comprised of true Bible believing Christians. He prohibited the Bible from being read, changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and mixed paganism with Christianity and that is why Catholics in reality worship The Queen of Heaven, saints, pagan icons, the Sun Disk (Eucharist) and statues.

    The church bought into Cumont’s popularized idea that Constantine founded the Catholic Church. But this assertion, like al-Jabbar, came as a result of his anti-Christian perspective and was not accurate history. He wrote that Christianity took from its opponents their own weapons, and used them; the better elements of paganism were transferred to the new religion. (Cumont, The Oriental Religions, intro, p. xi)

    And before Cumont, Alexander Hislop, the Scottish ‘ordained Anglican minister’ who wrote The Two Babylons, that many evangelicals, especially Messianics refer to pointing the pagan origins in the Catholic practices.

    But the ‘sheep’ were unaware that Hislop attacked the Trinity, which is an issue that both Evangelicals and Catholics agree on.

    His pitfall was a self-defeating claim. He falsely pointed out the antiquity of the theological concept of the Trinity by Roman Catholics as pagan in origin and definition. Hislop by giving examples of pagan trinities in Siberia, Japan, and India made the Trinity as a “universal in all the ancient nations of the world”. He went so far as to say that, “the supreme divinity in almost all heathen nations was triune”. (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Neptune, NJ: Loizeau Bros, 1959)

    But were all these assertions the truth stated by promoters of truth, or is this a mythical description and a slanderous fabrication of history?

    I was a man acquainted with slander, so I decided to fight this with the same passion and vigorousness as I fought the promoters of the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.

    Hislop’s fallacies on the Trinity can be demonstrated by simply exercising his methods ourselves. If we have an agenda, it is possible to contrive any number of links between two entirely disparate religious systems. Odin, for example, is the father of the gods in the Nordic tradition. He sits upon a throne called “High Seat”, from which he can observe Midgard (the realms of men.) Two large ravens (whose names are “Thought” and “Memory”) roost upon opposite shoulders of the throne. Each morning they leave their perches and fly down to Midgard, where they spend the entire day. At evening they return, and whisper everything they have seen and heard into the ears of Odin.
 Sometimes the father of the gods will visit Midgard in person. On these occasions he manifests himself as a one-eyed man attended by two large wolves.
 The Vikings believed that Odin, Vili and Ve (three divine brothers of equal power) were responsible for creation. Later, Odin became Father of the gods, while his brothers vanish from the narrative.

    When King Gylfi (a mortal man) makes his way to the home of the gods, he is met by three divine entities, who impart a series of prophetic revelations. The names of these entities are “High”, “Just-as-High”, and “The Third.” At the end of his audience, Gylfi realises that he has spoken to none other than Odin himself, manifested in three equal persons.
 Odin’s wife Frigga has a magic ring, which creates nine other rings of equal value every ninth night. The numbers “3” and “9” are powerful symbols in Norse mythology, because three is the number of Odin and nine is the cube of three. They occur many times throughout the Nordic tradition. (Burk, D. The Two Babylons – Hislop’s hypothesis debunked)

    Here we have more than enough material from which we might fabricate a “Norse Trinity” and claim that the Vikings themselves were Trinitarians. (Ibid).

    We can even use Frigga’s nine rings, and if we wish to attack Judaism, we would attribute it to the nine candle Menorah. Then we package our findings in a book as it is a new discovery into debunking the entire Judeo-Christian history and it becomes a bestseller that when the truth responds as “Hislop’s hypothesis debunked,” no one reads it.

    And that is how sheep are taken to the slaughterhouse after they have consumed their last meal; a concoction that ‘builds on similarities while ignoring volumes of differences’ is a lethal meal.

  • shoebat

    “Your question is quite loaded. If I say invite them in, you might accuse me of being irresponsible. If I say no way, don’t let those sinners in, well how will they hear the transforming power of the gospel.”

    You see what I mean? You do not answer the question because you contemplate on my answer instead of simply telling what is on your heart. You heart operates on making sure you save self-image in order to win a little dialogue between us. Listen Hope, I’d rather loose the dialogue with you and be corrected if I am wrong in order to win souls, yet you chose to try to win a dialogue more than trying to win souls.

    You think I was born yesterday? You thing I am not interested in winning souls? Want to compare which one of us won more souls Hope? Millions were reached by what we do through Christ.

    Now kindly answer my question.

  • shoebat

    John,

    I wasn’t sure if you do or do not believe in the rapture, but if you do, you have one word “harpazo” to build the doctrine, yet it seems that a few verses from out other subject (saints in heaven) did not suffice according to you to make the doctrine of intercession of saints. Or is it perhaps we are more creatures of tradition rather than the word of God?

  • shoebat

    John,

    So that box the Israelites carried around did not have amazing miracles? And the Shekina Glory, the Roach Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) was it God who was in the pillar of smoke who dwelt in that box? Did God dwell in a box John? Yes/No?

    Or was that also all “myth”?

  • shoebat

    I hope you don’t mind the interjection. But looking in to this, I want to personally thank you and Julie for bringing this up. For after I looked up the Hebrew/Aramaic language it confirmed to me even further. I lived in Bethlehem and the colloquial language as well as the classical Arabic really is super close to the biblical and the Aramaic is vey much like the colloquial Palestinian we were so used to:

    וַֽיִּסְפְּדוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיָּצֻמוּ עַד־הָעָרֶב עַל־שָׁאוּל וְעַל־יְהֹונָתָן בְּנֹו וְעַל־עַם יְהוָה וְעַל־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי נָפְלוּ בֶּחָֽרֶב׃ ס

    WOW. I can even read that:
    Aramaic: Ukafadu Ubaku
    Arabic: Ua’zu Ubaku
    English:They mourned and cried

    Aramaic: Wisamu (and they fasted)
    Arabic: Wisamu
    English: And they fasted

    Aramaic: Ed-Haereb
    Arabic: I’nd-Maghreb
    English: Until the evening

    Aramaic: Ala-Saul Wu-Ala Yehunathan U-Benu
    Arabic: Ala Saul Wu-Ala Yehunathan U-Ibnu
    English: UPON Saul and UPON Jonathan

    Aramaic: W-Ala Umat Yehwa w-Ala-Israel
    Arabic: W-Ala Umat Yehwa w-Ala Israel
    English: And UPON the Nation of Yehweh and UPON Israel

    WOW. You just confirmed that the prayer and fasting for the dead is biblical.

    John, Islam is a heresy that stole much of Catholic and Hebrew tradition. Even as Muslims we did our prayers so similar to this “Allahumma Sali Ala(UPON) Sayidina Muhammad Wa-Ala (UPON) Al-Sayyidina Muhammad, Kama Sallayta Ala Sayyidina Ibrahim wa Ala Al-Sayyidina Ibrahim”

    English: O Lord pray UPON our master Muhammad and his family as you pray UPON Abraham and his family”

    Is part of every prayers Muslim do every day in every prayer 5 times in every time they kneel.

    Whenever you use “Ala” its upon, your absolutely right, but your also absolutely wrong as to the interpretation of it using “because”. This would be nonsense in my little village were we passed this type of language from father to son all the way from ancient times. Such fasting and praying upon dead folk is for the sole purpose of redemptive cause and appeal to God on the person’s behalf. Your dialogue here leaves no doubt in my mind that the Catholics are right. When you write:

    “Follow the construction of the verse, i.e. ‘they lamented/wept for [because of] Saul…’ and ‘[they] fasted till evening’…’because they were smitten with the sword’.”

    This “because of” is absolute nonsense. It is fasting UPON/FOR on BEHALF just as we did when we were Muslim when we prayed for the dead (Abraham) as well as the Jews and as well as the Christians did from time immemorial.

    Some Bibles even translated it more correctly “over” instead of “for”:

    King James Bible
    And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son:

    Darby Bible Translation
    And David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son;

    World English Bible
    David lamented with this lamentation over Saul and over Jonathan his son

    Young’s Literal Translation
    And David lamenteth with this lamentation over Saul, and over Jonathan his son;

    John, we are from the land, originals. I hope this helps, God bless.

  • shoebat

    Indeed, I knew you were not English but an American its obvious but I nick named you Englishman, why else would you invite me to tea instead of coffee unless in someway or another you link to living as the English. Ever been to England?

    As to you saying that my writ is “drivel” I must charge you with the very thing you accuse me of for two reasons:

    You err by making the Bible to focus on migratory path instead of geographic since Phut is Phut the nation during the time when the text was written. This is obvious that since in Daniel 11 its clear that he enters the territory of Phut, Cush and Egypt.

    Thats one thing.

    And you NEVER answered, what is north of Europe? You seem to ignore a question that does not take much writ to respond to, so I ask what is North of Europe? Remember, Antichrist gets bad news from the north. North of Europe is ocean.

    Aso, you said that “people of the prince” is Roman, being European.

    So here is a bunch of “drivel” refuting your presumptions:

    The argument for the Roman Antichrist stems from an incomplete analysis of verse 26, which assumes that “the people of the prince” must be Romans. After all, the Romans were the ones who destroyed the Temple, were they not?

    While it is certainly understandable how a quick reading of this verse could lead one to conclude this, when one scratches below the surface, this verse actually drives a nail in the coffin of this theory. The first things we need to analyze are the identities of [1] The People of the Prince [2] The prince [3] He, the one that confirms the covenant for seven years.

    1) Who is this “prince”? When did he come? Has he come yet? If so, when?

    2) Who are “the people of the prince”?

    Once you answer these questions and read the text again, you will get it.

    Many Western students of prophecy assume that the prince has already come, because Titus the Roman general was the one who destroyed the Temple. Thus Titus is often identified as “the prince” who was to come.

    But, this can never be so because the “he” in verse 27 (“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week”) cannot refer to Titus who never engaged in a seven-year peace treaty.

    Neither did Titus commit an abomination of desolation. “And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation.”

    Some even go so far as to place an unjustified break, concluding that the “he” is indeed the Antichrist and destroyer of the Temple, but the prince must be Titus.

    Titus can never be this “he”.

    The only way for this interpretation to be accurate would be for Titus to come back from the dead. Is that what these interpreters wait for?

    This would be utter nonsense. The “he” pertains to the prince. Period. We cannot ignore the grammar. The prince must be the one who established this seven-year peace treaty. There is no way to escape this.

    So the correct and only answer to the question is that the prince is the Antichrist.

    He has not yet come.

    Now we come to the second part of this riddle. Because the prince must be the Antichrist, then who are his people? When did they destroy the Temple? Once you begin to put this puzzle together, the picture is quite amazing.

    The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Who were the “people” that destroyed it?

    Remember, there is a reason why the text says “the people of the prince.” God wants you to find out who these people are, for they will be “the people” of the Antichrist. Also, there is a reason why the text says, “who is to come”—it speaks of the future. These people will destroy the temple, shortly. They are of the same lineage of the Antichrist, the prince—they are the “people of the prince.” His lineage, and his predecessors. So who were these people that destroyed the Temple in 70 AD?

    Yes, they were Roman legions and Roman citizens. Therefore, many scholars erroneously conclude they are of European descent and heritage, as well.

    But there is more to this picture than is immediately apparent. If we look deeper, we quickly find that while the people who made up the Roman legions that destroyed Jerusalem were mostly Eastern Roman Citizens, they were not Europeans. In fact, they were primarily from the Middle East—Arabs, Syrians, and Turks.

    It is crucial to note that Titus led the Eastern Legions of the Roman Empire, not the Western. After Vespasian emerged as the head of the Eastern Legions to challenge Vitellius, Julius Alexander, the Prefect of Egypt, then proclaimed Vespasian to be Emperor. He and Titus became consuls in 70 A.D.

    So, lets read the passage in context, “the people (ancestors) of the Prince (Antichrist) who is to come (during the Tribulation), will sack Jerusalem and the Temple.” In other words, the people are the ancestors of the prince who will bring a seven-year peace treaty.

    In 70 AD, Titus, the Roman General who led the armies that attacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple, surrounded the city with three legions on the western side and a fourth on the Mount of Olives to the east.43 Titus put pressure on the food and water supplies by allowing thousands of pilgrims to enter the city to celebrate Passover, and then refusing to allow them to leave. Many of the citizens fought hard, and at one point, Titus was nearly captured. But in the end, much of the population was killed, dispersed or enslaved. The city was significantly broken down and the Temple was destroyed. The four specific legions under Titus were: Legion XV Apollinaris, Legion V Macedonica, Legion XII Fulminata, and Legion X Fretensis.

    For some reason, possibly due to the fact that the capital of the Roman Empire was in Rome—and thus in Europe—many seem to forget that the Roman Empire also included a vast portion of the Middle East. Because most of the Roman soldiers were recruited from the provinces where their garrisons were located, the legions that were stationed in the Middle East were also primarily Arab and, most specifically, Syrian and Turkic.

    Commenting on the predominant Syrian makeup of the Roman garrisons in the region, the Jewish historian Josephus stated, “The greatest part of the Roman garrison was raised out of Syria; and being thus related to the Syrian part, they were ready to assist it.” 44 “So Vespasian sent his son Titus from Achaia, where he had been with Nero, to Alexandria, to bring back with him from thence the fifth and. the tenth legions, while he himself, when he had passed over the Hellespont, came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings in that neighborhood.” 45

    The historian Tacitus recounts the destruction of the Temple: “early in this year Titus Caesar, who had been selected by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea…He found in Judaea three legions, the 5th, the 10th, and the 15th, all old troops of Vespasian’s. To these he added the 12th from Syria, and some men belonging to the 18th and 3rd, whom he had withdrawn from Alexandria (Egypt). This force was accompanied by twenty cohorts of allied troops and eight squadrons of cavalry, by the two kings Agrippa and Sohemus, by the auxiliary forces of king Antiochus, by a strong contingent of Arabs, who hated the Jews with the usual hatred of neighbors, and, lastly, by many persons brought from the capital and from Italy by private hopes of securing the yet unengaged affections of the Prince. With this force Titus entered the enemy’s territory, preserving strict order on his march, reconnoitering every spot, and always ready to give battle. At last he encamped near Jerusalem.” 46

    Josephus recounts how the armies were collected: “But as to Titus, he sailed over from Achaia to Alexandria, and that sooner than the winter season did usually permit; so he took with him those forces he was sent for, and marching with great expedition, he came suddenly to Ptolemais, and there finding his father, together with the two legions, the fifth and the tenth, which were the most eminent legions of all, he joined them to that fifteenth legion which was with his father; eighteen cohorts followed these legions; there came also five cohorts from Cesarea (Cappadocia Turkey), with one troop of horsemen, and five other troops of horsemen from Syria. Now these ten cohorts had severally a thousand footmen, but the other thirteen cohorts had no more than six hundred footmen apiece, with a hundred and twenty horsemen. There were also a considerable number of auxiliaries got together, which came from the kings Antiochus, and Agrippa, and Sohemus, each of them contributing one thousand footmen that were archers, and a thousand horsemen. Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of which were archers; so that the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen as footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand, besides the servants, who, as they followed in vast numbers, so because they had been trained up in war with the rest, ought not to be distinguished from the fighting men; for as they were in their masters’ service in times of peace, so did they undergo the like dangers with them in times of war, insomuch that they were inferior to none, either in skill or in strength, only they were subject to their masters.” 47

    Again, speaking of the great enmity the Syrians had for the Jews of Jerusalem, Josephus recounts that the Syrians and the Arabs who were camped outside of the city of Jerusalem actually disemboweled more than two thousand Jews who had escaped, in order to search for gold that they might have swallowed. “The multitude of the Arabians, with the Syrians, cut up those that came as supplicants, and searched their bellies. Nor does it seem to me that any misery befell the Jews that was more terrible than this, since in one night’s time about two thousand of these deserters were thus dissected.” 48

    Indeed, the majority of the “Roman” soldiers that destroyed Jerusalem were Arabs, Syrians, and Turks. When we look at the four Roman legions that were under Titus during the siege against Jerusalem, we see that they were from the Eastern portion of the Empire and were primarily from Syria or eastern Turkey. Below are the four legions that were under Titus during the Jewish Roman war and the locations that history records for their garrisons:

    Legion 10 Fretensis : Turkey, Syria

    Legion 15 Apollinaris: Syria

    Legion 12 Fulminata: Melitene: Eastern Turkey, Syria

    Legion 5 Macedonica : Moesia: Serbia, Bulgaria

    These four legions were all involved in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The legion, in particular, that went through the wall breach and set fire to the Temple was known as X Fretensis or the Tenth Legion. It was this particular legion that actually pulled down the entire Temple and made the Temple Mount its new base. The map below reveals where the tenth legion was garrisoned and where the soldiers were from. 49

    Legion X Fretensis: Garrisoned near Antioch

    It should also be pointed out that each Legion was composed of several smaller “cohorts.” Below is a list of the actual cohorts that comprised the tenth legion and where they originally came from:

    A – Thracum: Syria (Syrians)

    B – IV Cohort Thracia: Bulgaria and Turkey (Turks)

    C – Syria Ulpia Petraeorum: Petra in Edom (Nabatean Arabs)

    D – IV Cohort Arabia (Arabs)

    Again, these were a mixture of Syrians, Turks and Arabs. While the people who destroyed the temple were indeed Roman Citizens, they were not primarily Europeans or Italians, but rather the peoples that lived in Syria and Eastern Turkey during the first century. This verse is concerned with the heritage and lineage of the people as restricted by the text “people of the Prince” and not their allegiance to Rome. This is why the text is written in this way. It insists on this connection. Once again, the Bible has led us to the same region. In context, the “people of the prince” are simply the people of the Antichrist; the Hebrew “Am” for people is persons, members of one’s people, compatriots, countrymen, kinsman and kindred. (Strong’s 5971)

    Even if we take the meaning of “Am” as “nation”, how will the construct of this verse with such meaning be logical? “The nation of the Antichrist” That is entirely futuristic. How can someone conclude that the Antichrist is Roman with this interpretation? It proves nothing, since the nation of the Antichrist would not be known from such a construct. The only logical construction for the context of “Am” is “the kindred” of Antichrist—his ancestors, his kinsman.

    The Antichrist will be from among the people who still live in the Middle East—those who destroyed the city and sanctuary in Titus’ time. This is the natural way to read the text, especially since connecting the people with the prince is widely accepted.

    Now, can you pour me a cup of tea? I have spewed much “drivel”.

  • shoebat

    11:37 וְעַל־אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין וְעַל־חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַֽל־כָּל־אֱלֹוהַּ לֹא יָבִין כִּי עַל־כֹּל יִתְגַּדָּֽל

    John,

    You erred, The Hebrew in Dan 11:37 NEVER says Elohim, the Hebrew says U-Ala Ilahi אֱלֹהֵי (not Elohim) and since there is no vowels some thought it said Eloha (gods) but its NEVER Elohim. Check the Hebrew again and you will see that I am correct.

    Walid

  • shoebat

    When I dialogue, I look for only the answer to my question first and if it is not there, I do not entertain the rest:

    “Now to answer your question, the types of people you mentioned need Jesus. Honestly, Im not sure …”

    This is waffle and its typical from the type of folks who adhere to a 4 spiritual laws in a booklet type of Christianity.

    Yet you keep repeating the same mantra, we all know that gays need Jesus and we are to tell them the truth, but there is a difference between the drug addict and the drug pusher. What you can’t see is the simple difference between a demonic agenda and the sinner who suffers its results. Your type talks of balance when there is no balance.

    You ask if I am “Catholic”? Why? Is this an Inquisition?

    I was a Baptist and now I am more inclined to be a Coptic Christian. Now, do you have a problem with that?

    Yet you revealed your inner heart in which you seem to prefer the homosexual over the Catholic or put these two on the same par. Quite revealing. You see, your inner heart says differently than what you profess.

  • shoebat

    “You make a lot of assumptions — and get them wrong. ”

    No.

    At the falafel stand I talk to all sorts of customers giving them the opportunity to express who they are. Its sort of like at the Ben-Gurion airport, they look at your passport and as they flip the pages they could say “o, so you visited Kabul” to see the response “No I was never in Kabul” just to make sure this person knows what is stamped on his passport.

    So I say “O your English” and you were supposed to say “no I am Irish by origin but live in England”. Relax Mr. Thornton, I know about you more than you think.

    “You do not check when in fact you could.”

    You make a lot of assumptions Mr. Thornton — and get them wrong.

    I screened you when you first commented.

    I usually like to screen most who come in here to make sure they are Kosher and I try to watch closely who are not. Lets just say that your interest in Hebrew Roots and The Ten Tribes of Israel should prove my point. I spent some time in these studies in boot camp.

    “how much time to you have to write all this stuff? I certainly don’t.”

    I have a huge database I wrote so its easy to cut and paste and I also research. Although I am not as complex as you.

    So tell us more about yourself Mr. Thornton? 😉

  • shoebat

    Let me tell you what is a cult. When a Mormon says that he comes from the Lamnites and the Nephites we ask them to prove it via history and archeology, they can’t, they say that the Book of Mormon said so, so you ask them, how do we know that the Book of Mormon is true? They say because the Book of Mormon says so.

    This is circular reasoning.

    You made the charge that Samiramis was married to Nimrod. I asked, where is your proof? Your answer is, “I said so”. I even gave you the source of where this myth came from, and what did you do? You said its “true” and if I ask “what evidence do you have”? You will say “Its true”.

    This is circular reasoning and its the method of cults.

    Your trying to paint me as “Catholic”. Okay, I went to Baptist Church and I am more inclined to being a Coptic Christian. I listen to a teacher by the name of Daud Lam’i, a Copt.

    Now what do you say? I am a cult? and you are the only brand of Christian that is true? When in fact you cannot even defend Hislop’s works which you got that information from? You didn’t even know who Alexander Hislop was. And now you come in here acting as if you figured it all out? I’d say that’s pride in its purist form, Mr. Cre.

  • shoebat

    Mr. Thornton,

    I am a falafel maker. You had me look up “scraping the barrel” and I still don’t get it. What does it mean? You speak in an allegory that a Bethlehemite shepherd is not familiar with.

  • shoebat

    Put aside transubstantiation for a moment and once in a blue moon, answer the question: So that box the Israelites carried around did not have amazing miracles? Yes/No?

    And the Shekina Glory, the Roach Ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) was it God who was in the pillar of smoke who dwelt in that box? Yes/No?

    Did God dwell in a box John? Yes/No?

    Or was that also all “myth”?

    Its three three letter words “Yes” “Yes” “Yes” or “No” “No” No”, it shouldn’t be difficult to type 😉

    Then we can discuss my scraping at the end of the barrel to find if there is any more ground garbanzos to fry a batch of falafels. You should try some but make sure you find a good restaurant. You do have Nandos chicken don’t you? Send me a batch of that good stuff while your at it. God bless.

  • shoebat

    “You have a view. Fine. You are entitled to one.”

    Indeed, we all have views, but we should always seek to better them.

    “Perhaps a ‘stubborn score-draw’ then, Walid?'”

    Fine.

    Keep in mind, in my view, this man of sin, is not atheist as some think and while he does not honor the god/gods of his fathers, he does honor “a god” of fortresses (war) and “a god” whom his fathers did not know and he also advances “its” (that god’s) glory. Three times this mention of a god, should be crucial, he is religious and believes in a singular god.

    Agree?

    The trouble many have is that he proclaims himself to be god and this would collide with him honoring a “god”, but I try to address this to simply show that while Islam claims to not worship a man, they nevertheless title their prophet and Mahdi with elevated titles that only belong to deity. In reality Islam fits better than any other religion.But of course, you have your view which you are “entitled”, the question is who has the “correct” view, the falafel man or the Indian food connoisseur?

  • shoebat

    Yes I heard 🙂