Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Over Half of South Jersey's Catholics Believe That Jesus Sinned
Christian Post ^ | 05/07/2012 | Jeff Schapiro

Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Although the sinless life of Jesus Christ is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith, a study recently released by the Diocese of Camden found that 60 percent of practicing Catholics in southern New Jersey believe Jesus sinned during his time on Earth.

"The number of Catholics who have a very flawed, a seriously flawed, understanding of who Jesus is, that's troublesome," Bishop Joseph Galante of the Diocese of Camden said during a press conference, USA Today reports. "We've got to re-focus on how we teach and inform people. Jesus is the foundation of who we are as Catholics."

The study was commissioned by the diocese with the hope that the results would help it to better evangelize the communities it serves. The study was conducted by the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research organization, which surveyed 612 adults living in the six New Jersey counties within the diocese.

Of those surveyed, 34 percent identified themselves as Catholic, but there are some discrepancies between what the church teaches and what some of them believe.

For example, the study showed that four out of ten of these Catholics disagree with the idea that sex should be reserved solely for marriage. While 38 percent of the total residents living within the Camden Diocese agree strongly with the idea that the Bible is "totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches," only 28 percent of Catholics in the diocese believe the same.

Another major issue Galante discussed during the press conference was the high number of Catholics in his diocese who simply don't attend Mass. One-third of lapsed Catholics said they have other priorities or are too busy to attend, while others said they just aren't interested in church (27 percent).

"What intrigued me in particular was the high number of people who don't attend Mass simply because they have other priorities," said Galante.

"One of the things we need to do is emphasize that worship time can also be part of family time as well. These findings are both troubling and a challenge as we begin to deepen our evangelization efforts."

Peter Feuerherd, director of communications for the Diocese of Camden, told The Christian Post on Monday that another thing that struck him from the study was the low percentage of Catholics who invite others to church. The study found that Catholics (33 percent) were half as likely as Protestants (66 percent) to invite someone to visit their church.

"I find that the 'ask' is so important, and Catholics are not in the habit of the 'ask.' Even our parishes are not in the habit of the ask," said Feuerherd.

He also indicated that a major issue all churches have to deal with is the tendency for people to want to always be productive in the American culture. Those who don't take time off from work on the weekends are honored in our society, he says, and other "distractions" like youth sporting events and various forms of entertainment can sometimes take away from church attendance.

"I think we have lost ... the idea that whatever that Sabbath day is, it is valuable. It's important that people have it," he said.

Other interesting findings from the study:

-Of the Catholics surveyed, 38 percent favor attending church only on holidays.

-Among all of the adults surveyed, 51 percent said churches are "too involved" in opposing abortion or same-sex marriage.

-Nine out of ten (89 percent) adults said they know about the clergy abuse scandals that have occurred within the Catholic Church. Among those who are aware of the scandals, 89 percent consider it a "major issue."

-Only 18 percent of Catholics strongly agree that it is their personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others, as compared to 40 percent of Protestants and 36 percent of people who believe in non-Christian faiths.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; jesus; sin; southjersey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 next last
To: SeekAndFind
RE: I do not advocate that the Roman Catholic Church is the only pathway. I believe that the Catholic Church is the only pathway that our Lord has indicated.

Well, I am there’s something we agree on. Other than the second sentence above, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Then we disagree to a major extent. The Nicene Creed is a basic profession of Christianity. If you cannot recite it in toto to the meaning that the writers meant it, then I do not believe that you are Christian.

201 posted on 05/12/2012 12:57:01 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

RE: The Nicene Creed is a basic profession of Christianity. If you cannot recite it in toto to the meaning that the writers meant it, then I do not believe that you are Christian.

But I agree with the Nicene Creed. How does that make me not a Christian?


202 posted on 05/12/2012 1:14:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
but I was surprised to learn that many people had the gift of healing back then

Moses encountered this with the plagues. The priests could match many of his acts so the proof escalated.

203 posted on 05/12/2012 1:21:32 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit (School is prison for children who have commited the crime of being born. (attr: St_Thomas_Aquinas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: The Nicene Creed is a basic profession of Christianity. If you cannot recite it in toto to the meaning that the writers meant it, then I do not believe that you are Christian.

But I agree with the Nicene Creed. How does that make me not a Christian?

The Creed professes a belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It does not sound as if you profess that belief, based on your prior post.

204 posted on 05/12/2012 1:35:54 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

This is where we disagree on the understanding of the Nicene Creed ( and even the older Apostle’s creed).

I do not equate “catholic” with “Roman Catholic.”

To avoid this misunderstanding, some even prefer to say “holy Christian church.”

While there is nothing wrong with this term, I am not be embarrassed by the older wording and the use of the original word — catholic because I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.

The word catholic was first used in this sense in the early second century when Ignatius of Antioch declared, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, as well as its Lord. I understand the church to be the body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space, the whole company of God’s redeemed people through the ages.

The original word catholic simply means “general, universal, concerning the whole.”

Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father are one, so that the world might believe. I think it is right to pray and work for the “full visible unity” of Christ’s church on earth which we know for sure will be completely realized when Jesus comes again. When we say that we “believe in the holy catholic church,” we are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

It’s as simple as that.


205 posted on 05/12/2012 1:44:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; MarkBsnr

“Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.”

This is true,dear friend,perhaps you have never read the following?

How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
Excerpts..

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.

In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these “non-Roman” rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.


206 posted on 05/12/2012 2:42:06 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

That’s right - thanks. And again, it was control of nature that the priests couldn’t match - Nile turning red, locusts, frogs, boils, etc. My pastor mentioned when Elijah (?) brought down the lightening on the pile of water-soaked wood as one other rare example. (Oh, and that whole parting of the sea thing Moses did!)


207 posted on 05/12/2012 2:45:23 PM PDT by 21twelve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“”William Webster and cut and paste “”

I noticed this as well.

I think it’s possible that someone like William Webster could have been faced with realizing he was wrong about how he quotes the Church Fathers out of context and psychologically convinced himself that what he is doing is right because his life’s work is anti Catholic and regardless of truth it is money he makes off of falsehoods that means more than truth to him.This is the type of false teachers our Lord warns us that it would be better to have a millstone around their neck.

I pray for a Marcus Grodi type of conversion of William Webster!


208 posted on 05/12/2012 3:56:13 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Excellent reply, my friend.

I could not have put it any better.


209 posted on 05/12/2012 5:25:46 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
This is where we disagree on the understanding of the Nicene Creed ( and even the older Apostle’s creed). I do not equate “catholic” with “Roman Catholic.”

The dudes who created the Creed understood it to be the Faith of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic identifies the particular jurisdiction of a particular bishop. No more.

To avoid this misunderstanding, some even prefer to say “holy Christian church.”

And homosexual men may prefer to be 'married'. Liberals prefer Obama. So?

While there is nothing wrong with this term, I am not be embarrassed by the older wording and the use of the original word — catholic because I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. The word catholic was first used in this sense in the early second century when Ignatius of Antioch declared, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.

The term Catholic Church is specific, to be sure. It means the Church descended from the Apostles, not any particular concoctions of men over the millennia.

Jesus Christ is the head of the church, as well as its Lord. I understand the church to be the body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space, the whole company of God’s redeemed people through the ages.

I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles. Else, the doctrines are completely man-made and fabricated from the whole cloth of Reformational desire and Restorationist whim.

Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father are one, so that the world might believe. I think it is right to pray and work for the “full visible unity” of Christ’s church on earth which we know for sure will be completely realized when Jesus comes again. When we say that we “believe in the holy catholic church,” we are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

Then diverging one's self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?

It’s as simple as that.

Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.

210 posted on 05/12/2012 5:38:11 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

RE: The dudes who created the Creed understood it to be the Faith of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic identifies the particular jurisdiction of a particular bishop.

But that IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE OTHER CHURCHES.

Each churches were independently led by their own Bishop who were charged to be faithful to the gospel.

There was NO POPE.

While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at the time of the Council of Nicea, no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority.

This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.

While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.” (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15)

RE: And homosexual men may prefer to be ‘married’. Liberals prefer Obama. So?

Your analogy between the corruption of the word “marriage” by militant gays and the alleged corruption of the word “catholic” is a false one. MINE is the correct understanding of the word. Yours is the LATER INNOVATION.

RE: The term Catholic Church is specific, to be sure. It means the Church descended from the Apostles, not any particular concoctions of men over the millennia.

PRECISELY. Therefore it should not solely be owned and appropriated by ROME.

It is a good term that is understood to refer to all who are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church ( Not only Roman Catholics).

RE: I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles.

And who are these people but those who believe and obey SCRIPTURES. For it is in the SCRIPTURES where we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I see no reason why non-Catholics who obey scriptures should be excluded from the church of Jesus Christ.

RE: Then diverging one’s self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?

Again who is diverging from the catholic Church? Only those who refuse to believe in Jesus and those who refuse to obey His teachings are the ones who are diverging. You have not shown that non Roman Catholics fir that description at all.

RE: Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.

Yes, and I don’t think you get to decide that.


211 posted on 05/12/2012 6:22:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I pray for a Marcus Grodi type of conversion of William Webster!

Your prayers have been answered. Webster has never left the catholic church. He has returned home to its true roots.


212 posted on 05/12/2012 6:23:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Since we are into cutting and pasting articles, I might as well cut and paste one I agree with too (one that conforms to scripture).

http://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html

To understand the difference between the local church and the universal church, one must get a basic definition of each. The local church is a group of believers in Jesus Christ who meet in some particular location on a regular basis. The universal church is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ worldwide. The term church comes from at least 2 words. One of the words has to do with the meeting together or “assembly” (1 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1).

This word is one that pertains to the work of God in saving and sanctifying believers as “called-out ones.” When the word church is found in the English Bible, the word used is this one. The second word is one that speaks of ownership and literally means “belonging to the Lord.” This is the word that is transliterated into the actual word church. This Greek word is only used twice in the New Testament and is never used directly naming the church (1 Corinthians 11:20; Revelation 1:10).

A local church is normally defined as a local assembly of all who profess faith and allegiance to Christ. Most often the Greek word ekklesia is used in reference to the local assembly (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 11:8). There is not just one specified local church in any one area necessarily. There are many local churches in larger cities.

The universal church is the name given to the church worldwide. In this case the idea of the church is not so much in the assembly itself but rather in those constituting it. The church is the church even when it is not holding an official meeting.

In Acts chapter 8 and verse 3, one can see that the church is the church even when they at home. When examining the actual text of Acts 9:31; one can observe that the King James rendering of the word churches should actually be the singular church which describes the universal church not just the local churches. Some may try to describe the universal church as the invisible church. Be careful not to do this. The universal church is never described in scripture as invisible, and surely it was not meant to be invisible. Here are more verses that talk about the universal church: 1 Corinthians 12:28; 15:9; Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18.


213 posted on 05/12/2012 6:29:25 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I think it’s possible that someone like William Webster could have been faced with realizing he was wrong about how he quotes the Church Fathers out of context

Maybe you can show me where he quotes the fathers out of context because I don;t see it between the classic back and forth he had with Steve Ray. In fact, he seems to be the one quoting the fathers IN CONTEXT.


214 posted on 05/12/2012 6:35:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: The dudes who created the Creed understood it to be the Faith of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic identifies the particular jurisdiction of a particular bishop.

But that IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE OTHER CHURCHES.

Each churches were independently led by their own Bishop who were charged to be faithful to the gospel.

The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.

There was NO POPE.

The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.

While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at the time of the Council of Nicea, no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority.

That's not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.

This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.

We who? I am Roman Catholic. I do not consider my Orthodox brethren to be any less Catholic than I am. The pope is the first among equals, nothing more.

RE: And homosexual men may prefer to be ‘married’. Liberals prefer Obama. So?

Your analogy between the corruption of the word “marriage” by militant gays and the alleged corruption of the word “catholic” is a false one. MINE is the correct understanding of the word. Yours is the LATER INNOVATION.

Negative. The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.

RE: I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles.

And who are these people but those who believe and obey SCRIPTURES. For it is in the SCRIPTURES where we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I see no reason why non-Catholics who obey scriptures should be excluded from the church of Jesus Christ.

Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.

RE: Then diverging one’s self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?

Again who is diverging from the catholic Church? Only those who refuse to believe in Jesus and those who refuse to obey His teachings are the ones who are diverging. You have not shown that non Roman Catholics fir that description at all.

By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.

RE: Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.

Yes, and I don’t think you get to decide that.

Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.

215 posted on 05/12/2012 8:40:03 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.

To whom did he report?

He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?

In fact in Galatia ( as Paul himself wrote in his epistle ), it was PAUL HIMSELF exercising the authority based on the word of God ( the gospel ) who PUBLICLY REBUKED Peter in Antioch for his hypocrisy. See Galatians 2:11-16.

In fact, when Paul wrote about the pillars of the church to the Galatians, he said this:

“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)

Notice any supreme authority given to Peter in the above passage? I don’t. I do notice these:

1) He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?

2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?

So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.

RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.

And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.

If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?

Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.

Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.

But no such thing existed.

In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.

RE: That’s not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.

You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15:

“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Which leads to 2 questions:

1) What church was Timothy pastoring then? Answer the EPHESIAN CHURCH. Where in this passage did he refer to Rome?

2) When Paul used the term church? What was he referring to?

What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word.

How do we know this? Because Paul said so.

He said this to Timothy in another letter:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

This is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with his advise to Timothy and the Ephesians church he pastored — THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH IN THAT IT MUST AND SHOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORD OF GOD.

So, where does it mention the Church of Rome in the above passage? If Rome and the Pope were so important in this context, I find it strange that Paul failed to mention it at all.

RE: The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.

Yes he did in his writings AGAINST HERESY, but again what did he mean by “catholic”? Did he mean a church headquartered in Rome with jurisdiction over all churches? Or did he mean the universal body of true believers everywhere?

If you say it is the former, maybe you can quote the exact explanation he gave for me....

RE: Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.

Let’s see what the Lord Himself said concerning who His brothers and sisters are:

Matthew 12: 46-50

46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.

I do see Him requiring OBEDIENCE to God (which of course requires adherence to HIS WORDS ).

RE: By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.

But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.

However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).

That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.

RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.

Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.


216 posted on 05/12/2012 9:57:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide."

We each have to decide for ourselves whether we are Catholic or not. However, just like Salvation, we cannot simply pronounce our Catholicity and have it be a fact. We have to live Catholic by being in Communion with the Church and its doctrines and dogmas. The Early Church Fathers knew this, preached this, taught this, wrote this and lived this. Those who oppose the Catholic Church at every turn and are openly hostile to its teachings are not Catholic.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." - Matthew 7:21

217 posted on 05/13/2012 9:35:16 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If you can pronounce in the personal pronoun 1 John4 you have the Holy Spirit within you. Which I believe you stated you have him.

I have personally met an occultist who tried to declared she was a Christian. I am a Charismatic Catholic. What I am about to tell you Do not try this unless very heart felt pray in Holy Hour.

After she declared she was a Christian ,I looked at her while I under the Holy Spirit told her Noooo. I asked her to repeat the Apostles creed or Nicene creed or that Jesus came in the flesh. She could not do it. She had contortions and stutterings when it came to the the born of the Virgin Mary/ remember this means flesh. She could not even say Jesus born of the Flesh. Her husband flipped out. She declared that there was "many Gods "at the key moments to pronounce Christ in the Flesh.

What God was showing me is his word in 1John 4 is a real test to know a real Christian. If we continue in the life. Amen.

But the point is if you (seekand find)can declare Christ came in the Flesh this is because you truly believe in Jesus. This is the Holy Spirit. Do not let anyone fool you.

God does not care about us being 100 percent right on theology more than just knowing him in Love. His Divine Mercy is greatly beautiful in perfect love.

Today's Catholic Mass reading has a great example of Peter and others being surprised too in their beliefs:

Reading 1 Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.

Peter, however, raised him up, saying, “Get up. I myself am also a human being.”

Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.

Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.”

While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.

The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit

should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God.

Then Peter responded, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,

who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?” He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

PRAISE JESUS!! AMEN!

218 posted on 05/13/2012 11:36:54 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

Well thank you very much for the Bible passage you just quoted. Couldn’t have said it better myself.


219 posted on 05/13/2012 1:05:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: We have to live Catholic by being in Communion with the Church and its doctrines and dogmas. The Early Church Fathers knew this, preached this, taught this, wrote this and lived this. Those who oppose the Catholic Church at every turn and are openly hostile to its teachings are not Catholic.

________________________

Let’s not equivocate on the word “church” once again.

The Roman Catholic Church’s teachings (be it by the Bishop or Pope ) ALSO have to be discerned and judged in the light of scripture. Opposition to what a Pope or Bishop proclaims does not automatically make one in opposition to the church of Christ.

Conversely, it is also possible to oppose Popes or Bishop AND BE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.

How does one judge then? Here’s the simple answer:

Every individual is required to study God’s word for himself and examine what he believes in light of what the church ( the church as founded by Christ and His word as taught by the apostles ) to see if what he believes is right or wrong.

The PLUMB LINE or the standard by which I compare my belief IS SCRIPTURE. If I follow what scripture teaches, I AM IN HARMONY with what the apostles and the early church taught.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” - Matthew 7:21

True. But the more important question is this -— how does one make sure that he does the will of the Father in heaven?

Here’s a simple answer — OBEY HIS WORD. And where do we find his word? Answer: SCRIPTURE.

And as I said to the other poster, whether an individual is in obedience is for God to decide, not anyone posting in this thread.


220 posted on 05/13/2012 1:13:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.

To whom did he report?

The Council in Jerusalem.

He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?

Acts shows that the Council had authority over him. Peter was the head of the Council James was the specific bishop. Peter had general authority.

“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)

And if you trace Paul's journeys and actions, you find that he ministered mostly to the Jews.

He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?

2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?

So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.

Paul is the best indicator in the NT of the hierarchical nature of the Church.

RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.

And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.

It didn't. It became that way after the behaviour of the other bishops.

If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?

Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.

Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.

But no such thing existed.

In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.

And this invalidates the Creed how?

What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word. How do we know this? Because Paul said so. He said this to Timothy in another letter: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”

We might keep in mind what 'useful' means. It does not mean sufficient, as a hint.

So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.

I fail to see how this reflects on our conversation. If you do not believe in the commandments of God, or in the authority of the Church that Jesus Christ the Lord Almighty created for us, or wish to hedge or shade those commandments, that is up to you.

But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.

However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).

That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.

Either you acknowledge the Pope's authority or else you do not.

RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.

Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.

If I had the responsibility to Judge people to their everlasting salvation or damnation, I would be unable to carry it out or even bear it.

221 posted on 05/13/2012 1:28:04 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Not surprised by this one bit. I’ve always maintained at most 10% of those who self-identify as Christians in the US would actually qualify as one based on their beliefs.


222 posted on 05/13/2012 1:37:11 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles."

"The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;" - Acts 15:6-8

223 posted on 05/13/2012 2:26:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Here is a more complete rebuttal with Ray. Unless someone is completely in denial it is not possible to realize how wrong Webster is
http://www.davidmacd.com/downloads/Papacy_early_fathers_debate.pdf
Stumbling “Upon this Rock”

Steve Ray Responds to Bill Webster’s “Rebuttal” of his Book UPON THIS ROCK and Critiques Bill’s Use and Abuse of the Patristic Witness regarding the Primacy of Peter and the Petrine Primacy of Rome

William Webster is aiding satan!Something will come out soon exposing him unless he recants the damage he has caused


224 posted on 05/13/2012 4:55:49 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
Photobucket

Webster knows Fashion not the Early Church Fathers.

225 posted on 05/13/2012 5:28:42 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

RE: Council of Jerusalem.

Let’s look at what the Bible teaches about that Council and see whether what you claim ( that the council had authority over Paul and consequently Peter had authority over him ) is correct.

To summarize, The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Mosaic law, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals not properly slain, and on fornication and idolatry. Descriptions of the council are found in Acts of the Apostles chapter 15.

It says in the Bible: “the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

However, Paul and his companion Barnabas argues thusly: “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.”

The Bible says in verse 7,

“After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them:

“Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

So, Peter addresses the council and like Paul and Barnabas, he posits as proof that Good had already accepted the Gentiles.

Now here is the important part not to be missed — THE APOSLTLE JAMES, THE HEAD OF THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM says (quoting from the Catholic Bible ):

“19 ‘My verdict is, then, that instead of making things more difficult for gentiles who turn to God,
20 we should send them a letter telling them merely to abstain from anything polluted by idols, from illicit marriages, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
21 For Moses has always had his preachers in every town and is read aloud in the synagogues every Sabbath.”

WHOSE VERDICT? ANSWER: JAMES ( not Peter ).

Peter was stating his view like Paul and Barnabas in an attempt to win adherents, nothing more !

James MADE THE FINAL DECISION.

Paul was a MEMBER of this council stating his experience and his opinion while everyone listened.

So, where in this passage does it tell us that Peter had authority over all the other apostles?

It was JAMES who made the decision, the verdict. Not surprising since he was the head of the church of Jerusalem.

I don’t see ANY HINT of Peter being the Pope in this passage at all.

RE: And if you trace Paul’s journeys and actions, you find that he ministered mostly to the Jews.

He did minister to the Jews of course. However, the “mostly” part I am not sure of.

After all, Paul himself said the following:

“Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.” Romans 1:5

“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.” Rom. 1:13

“I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Messiah Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Therefore I glory in Messiah Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Messiah has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done.” Rom. 15:15-18

“You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.” 1Cor. 12:2

“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.” Gal. 4:8 “they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.” Gal. 6:13

“Therefore, remember that formerly you, who are Gentiles in flesh and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (that done in the body by the hands of men)...” Eph. 2:11

“For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Messiah Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles – Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you...To me, the least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Messiah...” Eph. 3:1-2,8

“So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the rest of the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking.” Eph. 4:17

“To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Messiah in you, the hope of glory.” Col. 1:27 “In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the flesh, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Messiah...When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Messiah. He forgave us all our sins.” Col. 2:11,13

” ...They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.” 1Ths. 1:9

“And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle ...and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.” 1Tim. 2:7

So, based on Paul’s own testimony, there is ample proof ( unless you believe he is lying ) that he ministered to the gentiles as was his call.

RE: Paul is the best indicator in the NT of the hierarchical nature of the Church.

Paul taught Timothy how churches ought to be led and ordered in his first letter to Timothy (Chapter 3)

1 Here is a saying that you can rely on: to want to be a presiding elder is to desire a noble task.

2 That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher;

3 not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious,

4 a man who manages his own household well and brings his children up to obey him and be well-behaved:

5 how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own household take care of the Church of God?

6 He should not be a new convert, in case pride should turn his head and he incur the same condemnation as the devil.

7 It is also necessary that he be held in good repute by outsiders, so that he never falls into disrepute and into the devil’s trap.

8 Similarly, deacons must be respectable, not double-tongued, moderate in the amount of wine they drink and with no squalid greed for money.

9 They must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

10 They are first to be examined, and admitted to serve as deacons only if there is nothing against them.

11 Similarly, women must be respectable, not gossips, but sober and wholly reliable.

12 Deacons must be husbands of one wife and must be people who manage their children and households well.

13 Those of them who carry out their duties well as deacons will earn a high standing for themselves and an authoritative voice in matters concerning faith in Christ Jesus.

The New Testament speaks of the rulers in the church by the designations of elders, overseers, and shepherds. While these different terms are used, they all refer to the same office: that of the elder.

The terms in the Greek New Testament are presbuteros(elder), episkopos (overseer), and poimeen (shepherd). The words are used interchangeably in the Bible (see Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-4).

Can you tell me where the Pope comes into the picture?

Peter, in his own epistle to the churches said this:

“I urge the elders among you, as a fellow-elder myself and a witness to the sufferings of Christ, and as one who is to have a share in the glory that is to be revealed:
2 give a shepherd’s care to the flock of God that is entrusted to you: watch over it, not simply as a duty but gladly, as God wants; not for sordid money, but because you are eager to do it (1 Peter 5:1).

Since Peter calls himself a FELLOW ELDER, where does the Pope come into the picture?

RE: And this invalidates the Creed how?

It doesn’t invalidate the creed, but it calls into question your statement that Rome has jurisdiction over all the churches and other churches must bow to its authority.

RE: We might keep in mind what ‘useful’ means. It does not mean sufficient, as a hint.

In his letter to Timothy Scripture is God-breathed, and hence represents God’s very voice speaking, it is profitable for the work of the ministry in the Church of Jesus Christ.

We are told that the work of teaching, and rebuking, and correcting, and training in righteousness, can be undertaken due to the nature of Scripture as God-breathed. What is Paul’s point?

The Church is not left without the voice of God. For when the Church listens to Scripture, she is hearing her Lord speaking to her. The authority of the Church then, in teaching, and rebuking, and instructing, is derived, despite Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, from Scripture itself.

Paul here asserts that the man of God can be complete, capable, proficient, and qualified because he has available to him, always, God’s inspired Scriptures. Surely, here Paul would have to direct us to any and all other rules of faith that we would need to be complete but, he does not.

But, Paul was not satisfied to merely state that the man of God may be a[rtios”, “complete,” but, he goes on to define what he means. “Fully equipped for every good work.”

Paul teaches that the man of God is thoroughly or completely equipped for every good work. Now, what does it mean to say that one “is fully equipped,” if not to say that one is sufficient for a task?

Hence, we see the following:

Number 1: Paul here teaches that the Bible is A rule of faith. For he says the Church’s function of teaching and rebuking and instructing is to be based upon God-inspired Scriptures.

Number 2: We see that this passage teaches the sufficiency of the Scriptures to function in this way.

And, number 3: We see that Paul not only does not refer us to another rule of faith, but implicitly denies the necessity of such a rule of faith by his teaching on the ability of Scripture to COMPLETELY equip the man of God.

RE: Either you acknowledge the Pope’s authority or else you do not.

I acknowledge the Pope’s authority IN SO FAR AS HE TEACHES DOCTRINE COMPATIBLE WITH SCRIPTURE.

If he does not, NO, I do not.

RE: If I had the responsibility to Judge people to their everlasting salvation or damnation, I would be unable to carry it out or even bear it.

I’m glad you acknowledge that.


226 posted on 05/13/2012 7:35:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

And here is Webster’s response(s) to Steve Ray in his website:

http://christiantruth.com/articles/stephenray.html

And here:

http://christiantruth.com/articles/ray2.html

And here:

http://christiantruth.com/articles/ray3index.html

Now, since Steve Ray and William Webster are not present in this forum, maybe you can tell me where Bill Webster errs and in what way he is “aiding satan”.

We have all the time and bytes in the world...


227 posted on 05/13/2012 7:39:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Webster loses completely in all your links,
Even worse he denies that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.

With all my heart I know for sure that Webster is satanic.


228 posted on 05/13/2012 7:42:31 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: “The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us;” - Acts 15:6-8

___________________

Don’t stop there now. Read the rest of the passage:

12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.

Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,

17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’

18 things known from long ago.

19 “IT IS MY JUDGMENT, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

So, Paul and Barnabas ALSO gave their testimony and opinions as part of the council, as did Peter.

BUT WHO MADE THE FINAL JUDGMENT? (the Roman Catholic Bible uses the word — VERDICT).

ANSWER: JAMES, NOT PETER.

Where in this passage does it show us that the Pope, Peter made the verdict? It was James, who was the Bishop of the church of Jerusalem (where the council was held ) who made the verdict.


229 posted on 05/13/2012 7:44:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: With all my heart I know for sure that Webster is satanic.

Saying it and showing it SCRIPTURALLY are two different things.

Your words mean nothing to me if you cannot back it up with God’s word. So please, show me.


230 posted on 05/13/2012 7:45:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I am not afraid to say and I stake my own Salvation and proclaim that William Webster is a tool of satan


231 posted on 05/13/2012 7:49:02 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I can tell you 100 percent that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist(valid only in the catholic/orthodox church)-Body Blood Soul and Divinity. I have witnessed Eucharist Miracles and have seen prayers answered in the lives of people during prayer at Eucharist Adoration.

I will die in this belief


232 posted on 05/13/2012 8:16:03 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I wonder what they think the sin was?

Most catholics pray to Mary and other dead people, and that is a gross sin (necromancy) so maybe misery just seeks company.


233 posted on 05/13/2012 8:48:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"BUT WHO MADE THE FINAL JUDGMENT? (the Roman Catholic Bible uses the word — VERDICT)."

James offered Peter his advice as he judged it. As for the Catholic Bible, none of my Catholic Bibles, my Douay Rheims, my Revised Standard Version (2nd edition) or my New American Standard Bible use the word "verdict". They all use the word "judgment".

You appear to be attempting (unsuccessfully) to argue two anti-Catholic points; that Peter was not an Apostle to the Gentiles and that Peter was first among equals, the first Pope. The first point is perfectly established by Acts 10 and 15. Peter's primacy is established extensively throughout the Scriptures.

Peace be with you.

234 posted on 05/13/2012 8:59:10 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I have read the original sources this Webster guy goes to try as an example just to cherry pick at times. Things totally out of context. He really looks for a gotcha verse in the Early Church Fathers writings then takes it to turn it into what obviously the text never was really stated in context.

It only comes to our realization when going back to the text he presumes to have read. He is either an idiot or a liar. Just read his footnotes. He never has you go to a complete text source. He pumps up alot of nonsense like a lawyer who does not care for the truth.

if you want to see just go to what said writing outside of his so called source/ sites then match up the whole writing you will be truly amazed.

I am not kidding it's that bad.

235 posted on 05/13/2012 10:39:55 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

So, let’s pick just one particular so called “cherry picked” example.

Since we have been discussing Augustine’s view of Matthew 16 ( Peter as the Rock of the church ), maybe we can start with that...

Tell me in what way Webster misrepresented Augustine, and please don’t put another link in your reply.

Just use your own words to describe how he misrepresented Augustine.


236 posted on 05/14/2012 6:12:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I will die in this belief

What you want to do is what you want to do, it’s your life and you are free and responsible to live it. Just as I personally am.

I personally stand by the WORDS of Christ and the Apostle as revealed in God’s word — SCRIPTURE.


237 posted on 05/14/2012 6:14:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I am not afraid to say and I stake my own Salvation and proclaim that William Webster is a tool of satan

Well, then it would not be hard to show in what way he is, right?

So please show me, via documented evidence.


238 posted on 05/14/2012 6:16:05 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

RE: Most catholics pray to Mary and other dead people, and that is a gross sin (necromancy) so maybe misery just seeks company.

Actually it is not accurate to say that Catholics worship Mary or the Saints.

They VENERATE ( as oppose to Worship ) Mary and the Saints.

In the case of Mary, they HYPER-Venerate her above the other saints.

I should know this because I actually went to a Catholic school (taught by Jesuits). Fortunately, they taught me to use my mind and as I did that, I had to conclude that I can be a believer in Christ and the apostles but I cannot be Roman Catholic ( it would be hypocritical of me to be one if I do not accept all her tenets ).

Anyway, in Catholic teaching,The highest honor that is possible is given to God alone, and that is called in Latin “latria.”

The second highest honor that is given is “hyperdulia,” and that is given to the Mary alone.

The third type of honor is “dulia,” and that is given to all the angels and saints in heaven. After that there are various grades of honor.

So, let’s not attack a red herring. Catholics ARE NOT TAUGHT to worship Mary and the Saints and if Catholics do (and many do unfortunately), it is a result of POOR RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.


239 posted on 05/14/2012 6:21:57 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: James offered Peter his advice as he judged it.

Where in the text does it say that James gave Peter advise and where in the text does it say that Peter gave the final judgment?

I was quoting from the Roman Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE. Are you saying that their translation is misleading?

RE: You appear to be attempting (unsuccessfully) to argue two anti-Catholic points; that Peter was not an Apostle to the Gentiles

Let’s correct that, Peter and Paul BOTH are apostles to Jews and Gentiles (how does one pick and choose who one wants to share the gospel with?).

The question is what was the MAIN work of either one at the start of their ministries?

However, Paul says this (NASV):

7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised 8 (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)

This tells me that Peter’s work was MAINLY (not SOLELY) to the Jews and Paul’s was MAINLY (Not SOLELY) to the Gentiles.

Nothing wrong with that. A division of labor goes a long way towards increasing the cause of the Gospel.

We have missionaries right now preaching the gospel MAINLY in Africa and others preaching MAINLY in the middle east. That does not mean that when a middle easterner is encountered by the African missionary he is going to withhold the gospel from him. That would be foolish. Same principle applies to both Peter and Paul.

Also remember this, just because one mainly works to preach the gospel to Jews at the early part of one’s ministry DOES NOT MEAN that at the LATER part of one’s ministry, the focus will not be on gentiles as they start to expand.

Peter can and does expand on Paul’s work in Europe in the later part of his ministry.

I see no contradiction in what I wrote whatsoever.

RE: and that Peter was first among equals, the first Pope.

The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one rank, but of faith and confession:

“As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, p. 174).

The first point is NOT established at all in Acts 10 or 15. In the case of Acts 15, It was JAMES who made the final judgement or verdict ( as the New Jerusalem, Bible used the word ).

In fact, Paul PUBLICLY states thathe is equal to even the most eminent apostle.

See here:

2 Corinthians 11:4-5 (NASB): “5 For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. 6 But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made this evident to you in all things.”

HE REPEATS IT TWICE IN FACT:

2 Corinthians 12:11: “ Actually I should have been commended by you, for in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody.”

So, NOPE. Peter’s primacy of jurisdiction or rank is IN NO WAY TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE.

He is honored, YES, he is in many ways the leader, YES. He is in many ways the most outspoken, YES.

YET, IN NO WAY DOES SCRIPTURE PUT HIM ABOVE ANY OTHER APOSTLE. THEY ARE EQUALS.

Paul himself attests to it.

Peace be with you too.


240 posted on 05/14/2012 6:45:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Prayer (an attempt to contact) to the deceased is denounced completely in God’s word. No exceptions are given, and none are appropriate.

We have no way of knowing who really is a saint; we cannot see into their spirit to know, and God’s word says that they “sleep” anyway. Necromancy remains necromancy.

We are instructed by Y’shua to only pray to the Father, and that he being the good Father will give to us abundantly, so there is no valid reason to violate God’s word by praying to the dead.

As for the question of worship, you are tap dancing on the head of a pin. Catholics in general Worship ‘Mary’ and merely acknowledge the Father and Son.


241 posted on 05/14/2012 7:59:23 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Did you ever read the whole documents of the early church fathers that he claims to have read in context? If you did not how can you argue about Webster.

When you read all of Augustine's or any Early Church works first before you get to Webster then get back to me. If I know I do not have to prove to you. You have to prove it to yourself.

To go back to a misinform site all the time is ludicrous. Just look at all the early church fathers on their own writings without a Protestant or Catholic prejudging the writing. When you do you will see it for yourself but be honest to yourself. He claims to point out what they are writing about. Well just read it for your self. Cut out the misinformed middleman presenting it to you. You will then see how Catholic in writing by itself.

If some one keeps getting it wrong. All you have to do is read Augustine or any early church father.

Also you wrote please no link. I never did put a link. You are thinking of the other replies.

242 posted on 05/14/2012 9:24:23 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"I was quoting from the Roman Catholic NEW JERUSALEM BIBLE. Are you saying that their translation is misleading?"

First, the New Jerusalem Bible is not the "Roman Catholic" Bible. The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible. The New Jerusalem Bible isn't intentionally misleading, it is simply flawed. The word used by James, translated as "judgment" by the New American Standard, the RSV, and the Douay Rheims and "sentence" in the King James Version is krino (κρίνω). The word has many idiomatic meanings including to prefer, to opine, and to choose. One has to contextually interpret it. If your context is to diminish Peter you will see krino and think verdict. The Church sees it otherwise.

"The question is what was the MAIN work of either one at the start of their ministries?"

I can't recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.

All of the Apostles were tasked to preach the Gospel to all of the nations of the world. All struggled with that, yet all preached to gentiles. St. Andrew preached to the Scythians and Thracians. According to Hippolytus and Eusebius, St. Bartholomew preached in India. St. James preached in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). St. Matthew preached in Parthia which is near modern day Tehran. St. Peter was the first to preach to Gentiles in Caesarea. His travels are well documented in Acts and was martyred in Rome, where he was its first bishop. (Note: St. Peter is always listed first for a reason). St. Philip preached in Phrygia and Eastern Turkey. St. Jude preached to , preached to the people of Edessa, and to all Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). St. Thomas covered considerable ground having preached to the Parthians, Medes, Persians, Hyrcanians, Bactrians, and Margians. He was martyred in Calamene in India.

"The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal:"

All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals. Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

"Abbe Guettee, p. 174."

Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest. The work you cited is on the Index of Forbidden Books because it is completely false and heretical. (Before anyone begins shrieking that this is another example of Catholic censorship a "Forbidden Book" does not mean that it is to be burned and made completely unavailable, it is a way of labeling it for what it contains. It is the the Catholic equivalent of Free Republic's Jack Chick policy) When you resort to citing sources like this you lose all credibility.

243 posted on 05/14/2012 9:33:43 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: The New Jerusalem Bible

The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Roman Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985 by Darton, Longman & Todd and Les Editions du Cerf, and edited by the Reverend Henry Wansbrough OSB, MA (Oxon), STL (Fribourg), LSS (Rome), a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar.

You write as if the translators have sinister motives in translating the Bible just because you don’t like the way this specific passage was translated.

Are you a mind reader? Do you know who the translators are?

My context is NOT to diminish Peter, but to put him in his rightful place. If someone is other than who he really is, then all talk of trying to diminish him is rubbish.

He is what he is and I am simply reading what scriptures describe him as.

In the council of Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas were sent to the meeting to speak to the apostles and presbyters (v2) - no distinctions were made among the apostles. If Peter was the head, why doesn’t it say they went to confer with “the Pope, the apostles, and the presbyters”? Surely an important position would have been emphasized... but I see no such thing.

Peter did not speak first. There had been long debate before he spoke (v7). And his speech did not settle the issue. People kept silent after he spoke only so they could listen to other speakers (v12)! The final course of action was suggested by James (v13,19ff). And the whole procedure was directed by the Holy Spirit (v28), which led all apostles as we have already shown.

There is more very interesting evidence in the eighth chapter. Philip the evangelist had been preaching the
gospel in Samaria, and God had wonderfully blessed.

In the fourteenth and fifteenth verses we read: “When
the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” (I’m using your favorite NASB)

How plain it is from this narrative that there was in the church at Jerusalem an authority greater than either
Peter’s or John’s.

This authority was in “the apostles which were at Jerusalem.” It is a true axiom that the sender is greater than the sent, and Peter acknowledged this authority in going down to Samaria.

Would it not be inconceivable that the cardinals of the Roman Church would send the pope on some mission? And
would any pope allow himself to be sent?

Yet, here you are insisting that Peter has higher authority that the rest of the apostles.

Please understand, this in no way diminishes Peter. I already said many times that Peter is first in many things. But I DO NOT FIND ANY PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT SUGGESTS HE WAS ABOVE ALL OTHER APOSTLES.

It does however, question YOUR INSISTENCE that these passage proves that he was Pope. It does no such thing.

RE: I can’t recall anyone ever arguing that on these threads, including you. The Protestant argument is always that St. Paul was THE Apostle to the gentiles and therefore St. Peter copuld not have been. That is a specious argument.

Hey, you’re dealing with me. I speak for myself, I don’t speak for anybody else.

I quote Paul when he says what he said. So please deal directly with what I said and not others ( I do not speak for them and they are very well capable of explaining what they themselves meant ).

As for all mention of other Apostles preaching and being martyred everywhere, I am not sure what your point is... I want to know how that shows that Peter is Pope. I’m not getting your point in bringing this up.

RE: All bishops are equals, the Bishop of Rome is first among equals.

Where in scripture does it tell us that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals?

If this is so important a doctrine, I would expect it to be codified in scripture and Peter himself to tell us that. Where in Scripture does it tell us?

RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

More than the church fathers, I will give HIGHER CONSIDERATION to what scriptures teach.

I give greater weight to what Scriptures say and Paul CLEARLY STATES he is NOT inferior to ANY eminent apostle ( See the passage I just presented in his letter to Corinth).

Your term — First Among Equals is NOT a scriptural term. I will acknowledge that it is a term that is historically used BUT NOT BY THE EARLY FIRST CENTURY CHURCH.

Historically, The Bishop of Rome was considered by many to be the first among equals, mainly because the governing of the Roman Empire was centered in Rome.

THAT’s ALL THERE IS TO IT. And that came MUCH LATER. The modern notion of the papacy gradually developed due to various historical circumstances, BUT IT WAS NOT SO IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

Early on, the Bishop of Rome was never considered the PONTIFEX MAXIMUS of the entire church of Christ scattered all over the world.

In fact, Significantly, the Council of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451, granted Constantinople equal status with Rome, because of its status as the new capital of the Empire.

RE: Will you give equal consideration to the Early Church Fathers who attest to the fact that St. Peter was the first pope?

Can you quote for me a church father BEFORE the 3rd century BC who tells us that the Bishop of Rome had authority and jurisdiction over all other churches?

If Peter’s position was so important for everyone, in the following lists, he is NOT named first: Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44.

Does this prove the people listed before Peter had authority over him? Being first in a list does not prove one is a Pope.

The lists where Peter is named first clearly state the office to which he was appointed - like other men, he was chosen to be an apostle (Luke 6:13-16; Matt. 10:2ff). If Peter was chosen to the office of Pope, a VERY IMPORTANT POSITION, why is this never stated anywhere?

And if you can, please explain this to me — when Peter was writing his last two epistles, where did he address himself as Bishop of Rome?

RE: Vladimir Guttee is a discredited 19th century former Catholic priest.

Sure you dislike him because of what he wrote. The question is this — DID HE WRITE THE TRUTH OR IS IT FALSEHOOD?

You have to establish first that this particular passage he wrote is wrong. Where have you done that other than to rant against him?


244 posted on 05/14/2012 10:28:29 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

RE: When you read all of Augustine’s or any Early Church works first before you get to Webster then get back to me. If I know I do not have to prove to you. You have to prove it to yourself.

You seem to be a knowledgeable fellow regarding the works of Augustine...

Maybe you can tell me where Augustine was DEAD SURE about Peter being the Rock that Christ was referring to in Matthew 16.

That was the point of his exchange with Steve Ray.

So please, cite me the passage and we can discuss it...


245 posted on 05/14/2012 10:31:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible.

I find it interesting that the Vatican prefers to use a Bible translated by scholars from a variety of denominational backgrounds (non-Catholic) instead of one translated by Roman Catholics.

Here are a list of the NASB’s translators:

http://www.wholesomewords.org/nasbtran.html

MOST OF THEM ARE EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS.

The NASB is a project of the LOCKMAN FOUNDATION.

Dr. Samuel H. Sutherland (1900- ), President Emeritus of Biola University (an Evangelical School), is President of The Lockman Foundation.

Maybe you might want to ask these translators if they recognize Peter as the first Pope or the Bishop of Rome as having jurisdictional authority over the church they attend...


246 posted on 05/14/2012 10:46:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"The translation that is found on the Vatican website is the New American Standard Bible."

Sorry - I misspoke. The Bible found on the Vatican site is the New American Bible, not the New American Standard. It translates Acts 15:19 as follows

"It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God" Peace be with you.

247 posted on 05/14/2012 11:28:05 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
You still did not answer?

So you read all the early church fathers works before you go to other sites? Or what whole texts of early Church Fathers have you read alone?

Brother go to the unvarnished original. This is so faulty it is wrong unless we see the original writing.

To adopt another man 's opinion about an original document is not being fair to yourself.

248 posted on 05/14/2012 11:29:54 AM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God” Peace be with you.

OK, It is the NAB, but where in the text does it say that Peter made the final judgment? It was still James who made the final judgement. Most of all, nowhere in the text does it even INSINUATE that Peter was the head of the council of Jerusalem.


249 posted on 05/14/2012 12:11:09 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: johngrace

RE: To adopt another man ‘s opinion about an original document is not being fair to yourself.

Sigh, I despair of ever getting you to even discuss the source that you wish me to look at.

What are we to do? Do you want me to cut and paste the ENTIRE work of Augustine?

For our edification and for the purpose of this discussion, let’s limit it to one of Augustine’s writings which was in dispute — Whether or not Augustine was SURE as the sun rises in the East that the passage of Matthew 16 truly refers to Peter as the rock that Jesus Christ was referring to.

Could you point me to the EXACT Augustinian passage that shows this? You can cut and paste the exact passage from your source.

Better still, let me help you -— here is a compedium of the works for the church fathers:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Scroll down to the part that says : St. Augustine Volumes

You can start by cutting and pasting for me the exact Augustinian passage you think I misunderstand concerning Peter.


250 posted on 05/14/2012 12:17:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson