Boycott the Pope's Visit to USA

[Book of Jeremiah]

The case of transubstantiation proves that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches reliance on "church tradition" is invalid:

When the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach the false doctrine of transubstantiation, they are teaching something quite "unorthodox and uncatholic". Christ, the apostolic tradition and the early church up to 200 AD universally taught the symbolic view. But even if we accept their claim that transubstantiation is the view that church tradition verifies, we ask, "Then why do you disagree with each other?"

Remember, communion is a most basic and fundamental ordinance. In fact, since the earliest Christians gathered together for the express purpose of "breaking bread" (Acts 20:7) it obviously proves transubstantiation a non-biblical doctrine, because had it been taught by the apostles, the fourth century fight over the liturgy of the Lord's Supper would never have occurred.

"No consideration of the nature of consecration or the precise moment when it was effected appears in the early sources. In the fourth century, however, the idea of a conversion of the elements finds expression. When that occurred, it became important to define the moment of the change." (Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107)

The western church (which later developed into the Roman Catholic church, headed out of Rome) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was when the words "This is my body ... This is my blood" were spoken.

The eastern church (which later developed into the Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople) believed the precise moment the unleavened juice and bread changed literally (transubstantiated) into the blood and body of Christ, was in the prayer of thanksgiving.

Obviously then, "church tradition" does not lead to unity because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are irrevocably and bitterly divided over the Eucharist. Using the scriptures alone is the only way to settle all doctrinal matters.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches are not in "communion" with each other because they have huge differences over the "Eucharist". Christians use this as proof that "church tradition" is an invalid way to determine truth because both claim their different practices are based upon a traditions that date back to the Apostles.

Only Christians use the correct "Liturgy" of the Lord's supper.

ntx-communion-transubstantiation

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

ntx-communion-transubstantiation
Conclusion:

Transubstantiation is as much an assault against scripture and the earliest apostolic traditions of the church, as it is an assault on reality and common sense. It is not taught in scripture, the language of the church up to 200 AD unequivocally rejects transubstantiation. They not only taught the symbolic view, they defeated the Gnostics on the basis of the symbolic view. Transubstantiation is an assault on reality because "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, smells like a duck and tastes like a duck", it must be unleavened bread and grape juice! Transubstantiation also illustrates a classic case of failure of church tradition to be a standard bearer of doctrinal unity and divine truth. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are bitterly divided to this very day over the Eucharist, both claiming their own "church tradition" is the correct one. (My don't they sound rather Protestant the way each one says they have the right tradition!)

While Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches rely on "man made tradition", Protestants rely upon their various human creeds. Of course true Christians rely upon what the Bible says alone, to the exclusion of all tradition and all human creeds. Sola Scriptura leads us to the symbolic view, which is in keeping with Christ and the earliest post-apostolic tradition.

Transubstantiation is a false doctrine because:

1. Mt 26:28 proves transubstantiation wrong because Jesus calls the cup "fruit of the vine" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Jesus a liar by calling the cup "fruit of the vine" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Blood.
2. 1 Cor 11:26-27 proves transubstantiation wrong because Paul calls the loaf, "bread" after both Roman Catholics and Orthodox say the "change" was supposed to take place. Catholics make Paul a liar by calling the loaf "bread" rather than what Catholic false doctrine claims it was: Literal Flesh.
3. Tertullian clearly rejects the idea of "real presence" and had never heard of transubstantiation since he taught the true symbolic view of the bread and juice, just as Jesus and Paul taught!

By Steve Rudd




The following From: Early Christians Speak, Everett Ferguson, 1981, p 107

The Language of the Real Presence About the Lord's Supper: "This is my body"

Some New Testament Texts: Mark 14:22 and parallels; John 6:35-65; 1 Corinthians 10:16; 1 Timothy 4:4.

SOURCES

IGNATIUS: [The Docetists] avoid the eucharist and prayer because they do not confess the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in his goodness resurrected. (Smyrnaeans 7)

1 will make plain to you the dispensation in the new man Jesus Christ, by his faith, his love, by his passion and resurrection. Especially will I do so if the Lord should show me that all of you, to a man, come together in the common assembly in grace from his name in one faith and in Jesus Christ, "who was of the family of David according to the flesh," son of man and son of God. The intention is that you obey the bishop and presbytery with undisturbed mind, breaking the one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote in order that we should not die but live forever in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 20)

JUSTIN: And this food is called by us eucharist. It is not lawful for any other one to partake of it than the one who believes the things which have been taught by us to be true, and was washed with the washing for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and lives in the manner Christ taught. We receive these elements not as common bread and common drink. In the same manner as our Savior Jesus Christ was made flesh through the word of God and had flesh and blood for our salvation, even so we were taught that the food for which thanks have been given through the prayer of the word that is from him and from which our blood and flesh are nourished according to the bodily processes is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles in their memoirs, which are called Gospels, delivered what was commanded them, that Jesus took bread, gave thanks and said: "Do this for my memorial; this is my body." Likewise taking the cup

IX. and giving thanks, he said: "This is my blood." And he gave it to them alone. (Apology I, 66)

IRENAEUS: How can they (Gnostics) be consistent with, themselves when they say the bread for which they give thanks is the body of their Lord and the cup his blood, if they do not say he is the Son of the Creator of the world? . . . How can they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body of the Lord and from his flesh comes to corruption and does not partake of life? Let them either change their views or avoid offering the bread and wine. But our view is in harmony with the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our view. We offer to God his own things, proclaiming rightly the communion and unity of flesh and spirit. For as bread from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread but the eucharist, consisting of two things-one earthly and one heavenly-so also our bodies when they partake of the eucharist are no longer corruptible but have the hope of the resurrection to eternity. (Against Heresies IV.xviii.4, 5)

But if the flesh is not saved, neither did the Lord redeem us with his blood nor is the cup of the eucharist a participation in his blood nor the bread which we break a participation in his body. . . . He acknowledged the created cup with which he moistens our blood as his own blood, and he confirmed the created bread from which our bodies grow as his own body. Since therefore the cup that has been mixed and the bread that has been made, from which things the substance of our flesh grows and is sustained, receive the word of God and the eucharist becomes the body of Christ, how do they say that the flesh which is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord and is a member of him is incapable of receiving the gift of God which is eternal life? (Against Heresies V.ii.2, 3)

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Yup...still a Roman Catholic. lol

Keep reading. You'll learn the truth and then you can either decide to follow Jesus Christ or continue to follow a false religion that will take you to hell. I pray you choose Jesus Christ, mdk.

No thanks. I am pretty good. Besides, it doesn't matter what faith I hold dear as all of them already condemn me to hell.

Jesus Christ did not come to condemn you but to redeem you from the condemnation you are already under - read Romans 10:9,10. You can repent of your sins and receive Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior - and have your name written in the Lamb's book of Life today. You can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - directly - you do not need a church or a pope for salvation - that is a false teaching and it has you trusting in a man made religion for your salvation instead of Jesus Christ, mdk. You need to be born again. Read John Chapter three.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Roman Catholic Doctrinal evolution:

Introduction of New doctrines not found in The Bible

The key-word that describes the doctrine of Roman Catholics is: CHANGE

Pre-Roman Catholic False teachings

200 AD

Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)

250 AD

North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.

257 AD

Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.

300 AD

Prayers for the dead

320 AD

Special dress code of the clergy in worship

325 AD

At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

325 AD

The date for Easter was set.

379 AD

Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)

385 AD

In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

389 AD

Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

400 AD

Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)

416 AD

Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)

430 AD

Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus

502 AD

Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.

500 AD

The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)

519 AD

Lent

526 AD

Extreme Unction

593 AD

The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great

600 AD

First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I)

Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.

607 AD

First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.

608 AD

Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

670 AD

Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian

709 AD

Kissing of Pope Constantine's feet

753 AD

Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.

787 AD

Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea)

787 AD

Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.

965 AD

Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII

850 AD

Burning of Holy Candles

995 AD

Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV

998 AD

Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden

1009 AD

Holy water

1022 AD

Penance

1054 AD

Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church

1054 AD

Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.

1079 AD

Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII)

1090 AD

Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit

1095 AD

Instrumental music

1190 AD

Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed)

1215 AD

Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council

1215 AD

Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council)

1215 AD

Mass a Sacrifice of Christ

1217 AD

Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)

1230 AD

Ringing bells at Mass

1251 AD

The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock

1268 AD

Priestly power of absolution

1311 AD

Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)

1414 AD

Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance)

1439 AD

Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD)

1439 AD

Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed

1480 AD

The Inquisition (of Spain)

1495 AD

Papal control of marriage rights

1534 AD

Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola

1545 AD

Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent)

1545 AD

Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent)

1546 AD

Justification by human works of merit

1546 AD

Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD)

1547 AD

Confirmation

1560 AD

Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed

1864 AD

Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned

1870 AD

Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)

1908 AD

All Catholics should be christened into the church

1930 AD

Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)

1950 AD

Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)

1950 AD

Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)

1954 AD

Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII

1995 AD

The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties

1996 AD

Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II)

By Steve Rudd

Introduction of New Catholic doctrines not found in the Bible

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

1. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
2. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
3. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
4. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
5. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
6. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
7. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
8. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
9. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
10. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
11. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
12. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
13. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
14. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
15. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

 

[Care4all]

True that fundamentalists on this site, never seem to preach the Gospel, the 'Good News' and rarely, if ever, quote Jesus Christ, they quote their fundamentalist preachers, and fire and brimstone, but not usually the four Gospels of Jesus Christ....

you never see them discussing, The Sermon on the Mount- Beatitudes, The parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the Good Samaritan Parable, etc etc etc.....

It's always the, I'm going to Heaven and you all who don't believe precisely as I do, are going to burn in Hell....it's as if they don't even believe God Himself, who said He was a merciful God...

I personally, am not drawn to that kind of divisiveness....Nor was Christ himself...and He admonished His apostles for wanting to stop another man preaching in Jesus's name, because he was not preaching as one of the Apostles would preach, and Jesus said, whoever is not against me, is for me....and he stopped His disciples right in their footsteps from preventing this strange man from preaching about Him.

There are so many inspiring parables in the 4 Gospels of Jesus Christ, learning moments, guides for human nature of all times, now and back then...

Like this one:

Luke 10:25-37New International Version (NIV)

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”


26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”


27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’a]">[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’b]">[b]”


28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”


29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”


30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denariic]">[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’


36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”


37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

And Samaritans were looked down upon by the Jews during this period....so Jesus chose a Samaritan man....a man from a tribe NOT accepted by the Jews, to be the hero....to outshine those that were suppose to be religious and who claimed to be followers of God's Law, the Priest and the Levite.

How does this relate today with how we treat the downtrodden, the Mexicans here looking for a better life for their families and their children, or the Syrian refugees, or Muslim refugees, or the children refugees from South America, or poor people here who are hurting and struggling to make ends meet, or who are sick, or who are in prison for menial crimes?

All this pope was doing, was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ....

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Outrageous Claims Made For The Pope!

Not only are outlandish claims, such as those above, made regarding the authority of the pope, but he is addressed by various terms (Supreme Pontiff, Holy Father, etc.) which belong only to God. No such terms were given to a mere man in the holy Scriptures. The term "Holy Father" is used only once in God's word. It is used by Jesus in John 17:11 as He prayed to God the Father. For a mere man to assume the authority and titles which belong only to God, is surely the height of arrogance and blasphemy. If not, why not?

1. The New York Catholic Catechism, under: Pope, says, "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by one, God himself on earth."
2. In his encyclical, "The Reunion of Christendom" (1885), Pope Leo XIII stated that the pope holds "upon this earth the place of God Almighty."
3. The Council of Trent declared: "Sitting in that chair in which Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, sat to the close of life, the Catholic Church recognizes in his person the most exalted degree of dignity, and the full jurisdiction not based on constitutions, but emanating from no less authority than from God Himself. As the Successor of St. Peter and the true and legitimate Vicar of Jesus Christ, he therefore, presides over the Universal Church, the Father and Governor of all the faithful, of Bishops, also and of all other prelates, be their station, rant, or power, what they may be."
4. The Catholic book, "My Catholic Faith" which is based on the Baltimore Catechism, on page 251, says, "The Pope can make and unmake laws for the entire Church; his authority is supreme and unquestioned. Every bishop, every priest, every member of the Church is subject to him."

By David J. Riggs
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Pope Offers Catholics Time Out Of Purgatory By Y2K Indulgences

The above was the headline of a recent article in the HOUSTON CHRONICLE (Nov 28, 1998, p. 26A).

The article said:

"Pope John Paul II announced Friday that throughout the millennium celebration, penitents who do a charitable deed or give up cigarettes or alcohol for a day can earn an 'indulgence" that will eliminate time in purgatory...

"The medieval church sold indulgences, a practice that drove Martin Luther to rebel, leading to the Reformation...

"The pope said individual sinners would be granted 'plenary indulgences," a full pardon for sins as opposed to a shortening of the time spent in purgatory...He included personal acts of penitence or local charity as a way of earning an indulgence.

"Throughout the period, believers will be offered a wider selection of ways to receive a plenary indulgence. They may follow tradition and attend a Mass in one of several designated churches and perform such devotions as the rosary or the stations of the cross. Or, as an appendix to the pope's letter explains, they may visit the sick, the imprisoned, or the handicapped, or give to the poor. Or they may choose an act of private sacrifice...This would include abstaining for at least one whole day from unnecessary consumption (for example, from smoking, or alcohol, or by fasting)."

Wouldn't that be nice? Wouldn't it be great if we could receive "a full pardon for sins" by simply going to see someone in prison or on their sickbed, or ... imagine this Christian brothers and sisters ... if we could give up our sinful practice of drinking alcohol for only a day!!! Wow! Think about it. That would mean we could avoid the painstaking instructions given by the INSPIRED JOHN when he said, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Too, we could ignore James' admonition to "confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another that you may be healed" (Js 5:16). "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).

Please don't misunderstand, we are for doing good deeds (Mt 25:31-46). We are for people giving up their sins, but for more than a day (Col 3:5-10). However, when you read the Bible "from cover to cover" you will never read of a thing called "indulgences." It is purely a tradition of man, established by man's authority, not from God in heaven (Mt 15:1-9; cf., Acts 8:18-24; 1 Jn 1:10; Js 5:16).

Moreover, there is no such thing as purgatory. Again, we submit that nowhere in God's inspired word will one find the doctrine that says people leave this world and enter purgatory to cleanse themselves before they get to heaven. Rather, the Bible teaches that upon our death, we will either go to paradise or torments, and can never cross over to the other, to await the final judgment (Lk 16:19-31).

Further, the article mentioned "rosary" and "stations of the cross," two things which are not as the oracles of God (1 Pet 4:11).

It is worth noting that Martin Luther was right to rebel against the Catholic church and its teachings, but he went FROM BABYLON PAST JERUSALEM TO EGYPT. His disgust for Catholic perversions drove him to an equally sinful extreme--faith only. The Bible teaches that one must OBEY, DO, FOLLOW, and WORK in order to be pleasing to God (Heb 5:9; Mt 7:21-27; Jn 10:27; Mk 8:34-38; 2 Pt 1:10-11).

God's word foretold of those who would set themselves up as God and teach perversions of truth (2 Ths 2:3-4, 9-12; 1 Tm 4:1-3). These men and their doctrines are to be rejected (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Jn 9-11). Therefore, let us abide only in the doctrine of Christ!

(S. F. Deaton)

 

[Care4all]

Yes Jeremiah, we got you!

It was Kim Davis's duty to disobey the SC, and the Judge, and force the citizens of her county to go elsewhere for their marriage certificates, because her supposed new found Christian values....according to you...

But it's not okay for a Bishop from the Vatican or the Pope to simply ask Fiat, if they would consider closing on Sunday as a day of rest...not forcing them to follow the 7th day of rest, as Kim forced her employees and citizens to follow her will....but simply asking them to consider such, if they can.

sigh.................

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!

Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?

Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:

• "If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
• "If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
• "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
• "It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
• "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).

The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

 

[OZman]

we allow our pastors to marry so they dont feel the urge to rape kids

Bullshit!

"25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS": Pastors Charged With Sex Crimes - Awkward Moments Children's Bible

​

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This information exposes the lie that the Catholic Church gave us the bible. No, it did not. Read this:

Notice, again, the following from Catholic sources:

• "Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up, selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some, which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).
• "And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of Millions, p. 10).

In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
• 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
• 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
• 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
• 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
• 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
• 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
• 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
• 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
• 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Please notice further quotes from Catholic sources:

• "During those early times parts of the Bible were scattered among the various churches, no one of which had the complete Bible as we have it now. Then in A.D. 390, at the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume and THAT is the Bible as we have it today. The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today." (From a magazine advertisement published by the Knights of Columbus bearing the title, "Who Gave the Bible to the People?"
• "It was not until the Council of Hippo in 390 that the Church gathered these gospels and epistles, scattered about in different churches, and placed them within the covers of a single book, giving the Bible to the world." (The Faith of Millions, p. 152).
• "Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68).
• "When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405." (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).

Thus, Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).

Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

• 326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
• 315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
• 270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
• 185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
• 165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
• 160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
• 135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
• 100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
• Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.

Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time.

Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources.

A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament.

Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.




Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London.

It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood.


The Bible is not a Catholic book.


Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks.

The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D.

The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is.

The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church.

Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

We have studied, therefore, that the Catholic Church argues that since one of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. (3) It is a mere assumption that the Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the church which is now the Roman Catholic Church. (4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils. (5) The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. (6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. (7) Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still remains that it is not following the Bible today.

The Catholic Church did not Give the world The Bible!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Roman Catholic view of Marriage is flawed, incomplete and destructive


Prohibition against church leaders marrying is a satanic doctrine:

By ignoring what scripture says about one of the purposes of marriage being to alleviate sexual lust, the Pope has done damage to the institution of marriage. Remember, it wasn't until about 1070 AD that Catholic priests were first officially forbidden to be married. That's 1000 years too late to be part of Bible Christianity.

In fact the Holy Spirit prophesied this apostasy: "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. " 1 Timothy 4:1-3
In fact the Bible specifically commands that Bishops/Elders be married:

"It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. " 1 Timothy 3:1-7
V. Sexual abuse scandals

Most of the sexual abuse problems within the Catholic church could have been prevented if they had not adopted the false doctrine that church leaders cannot be married. Orthodox leaders have always been allowed to be married and the statistical facts speak for themselves: Sex abuse scandals are dramatically reduced when church leaders are permitted to marry.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Reasons why the Apocrypha does NOT belong in the Bible!


21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
   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 sepulchers 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 drachmas 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 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

Continued on link.........

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible?

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible?

Catholics will tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." This can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These false Catholic additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.
What is the Apocrypha anyway?

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*


*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel 13."

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible?

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
   Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
   
   2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
   
   Salvation by works:
   
   Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
   
   Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
   
   Magic:
   
   Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
   
   Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
   
   Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
   
   
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
8. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
9. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read."

King James Version Defended page 98.

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."

King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

QUESTION:
I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?


ANSWER:
No.




EXPLANATION:
King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.

At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.

James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to Tobacco",which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.

Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650,twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.

The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern" translation.

It seems though, that Weldon's false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.

It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.

In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.

It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is such a great Q & A - I decided to include it to give the readers here more clarity on why we must hold fast to the King James Version Bible. God does not want His Word to become "Lost in Translation" and to be clear - there are many putting forth a great effort to do just that!

The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

QUESTION:
Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a modern translation to eliminate them?


ANSWER:
Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No, we do not need a modem translation to eliminate them.




EXPLANATION:
That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"

The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common speech with the word "market place", Indeed we can be certain that "shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed from common use.

Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which removes " shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"?

No, what we should do is turn to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice and see what the Bible practice is concerning archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect Bible will want to follow the Bible's practice concerning archaic words.

In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite,a mighty man of power.

2 And he had a son whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.

3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.

4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.

6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.

7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?

8 And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.

9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.

11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9 we are not only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for handling it.

We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5).They decide to go to see Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).

In verse 11 we are going to run into an archaic word. But, before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer".Thus we see that, between the time that this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely recorded the word " Seer" had passed from common use to be replaced with "Prophet". "Seer" was now archaic.

BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.

"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer". It does not say "Is the prophet here?".

Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did not change the holy text!

So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called 'shambles' is now called 'market place"'. But we should leave the archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words than God has.

So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic words in the Bible but No we do not need a modem translation to eliminate them. God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.