Free Republic

The Japanese should have won Leyte Gulf—but they backed off before they scattered the invasion fleet.

The reason they didn't win, the reason they backed off, was because of the famous "Taffy 3," a few tin cans (destroyers) going up against gigantic battleships and cruisers, with some baby flattops, their planes not having the heavy ordinance they needed to be attacking heavy armored ships like these.

A David and Goliath battle if ever there was one, and they pulled it off, David won. The most heroic action in US Navy history. A good read on it is, "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors."

American warplanes sank the Musashi on October 24, 1944, at the height of the Battle of Leyte Gulf, regarded as the largest naval encounter of the war in which US and Australian forces defeated the Japanese.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Australian Navy (nor the British Navy for that matter) had anything to do with the sinking of the Musashi... a US Navy vs Japanese Navy event.

The Papists are at it again, slamming Protestants...in their usual arrogant backhanded way.

Protestantism is a effort to wrench ourselves past the spiritual darkness of the middle ages Papacy, back to the true faith and beliefs of original Christianity...the true “catholic” (meaning universal) faith.

“The Writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers”, of which there were about 20 father’s quoted, shows that not one of them believed that the Church was going to be taken before the 70th Week of Daniel.

Agreed. But what of Pseudo-Ephraim, used by Ice and others, which they claim is proof for an imminent rapture? Wasn't Pseudo-Ephraim one of the 20?

What you said here deserves repeating:

Ted Cruz is the only one I trust to take meaningful action on the key issues that face this country, issues that conservatives want to see the needle moved.

He gets my vote.

Thanks for your post, good info.

Re: the German 88 mm, my comment was based on how the allies rated it. They seem to have unanimous respect for it, whether as a flak gun, field gun, or on the tiger tank. Many of them, downright terrified of it.

But, like you said, the allies had the edge in quantity.

The German Army outgunned by the US Army? The Germans had the best tanks, not to mention their 88 mm howitzers, hands down the best gun of WW2.

Don’t want to start a war between the states here, but I do think the part of the country a candidate hails from means a lot. There is no comparing Wisconsin with Texas when it comes to conservative issues.

Were he president, I don’t think Ted Cruz would stand any different on the issues than he has already abundantly shown. He reflects Texas values in that regard.

When it comes to unions, we know Walker has done an outstanding job. But there’s a lot more hot issues than that out there - issues that mean a lot to some of us.

Were he president, what do we really know about how he will come down on other issues? Would he reflect only his home state’s values? Which, as I mentioned, are not nearly as conservative as Texas.

There is a lot of unknowns about Walker, not so with Cruz.

This is no time for somebody mediocre representing us, nor someone you are not sure what they will do if elected, WE NEED A FIREBRAND! Ted Cruz is that man.

How can any real conservative doubt it, after listening to him at CPAC.

Whether one confesses their sins to a priest, or to Jesus Christ is no small matter. But to you, it is throwing mud like a bunch of mountain gorillas to have strong convictions on this.

People sin, when they do, what do YOU recommend they do? Go to a priest, or go to Jesus? Inquiring minds want to know.

Since you have a higher and loftier ethical position than either Catholics or Protestants, what on earth do YOU do when YOU sin?

You said:
I did, fool. I said I was CHRISTIAN. One can be a Christian and not be 100% Protestant or 100% Catholic. Indeed, a Christian can be either or neither, or any combination of the two… please explain to the thread your visceral hatred of Catholicism.

Me:
I, too, am concerned for those who read this thread. Which is why I am going to post what this fellow says… shortened and edited a bit here and there by me. This piece is about the kind of liberal “half-way house” system of belief, you, and so many others nowadays have bought into:

“You may not like this. You may think me uncharitable, narrow-minded, bigoted, and so forth: be it so….I feel it a duty to bear my solemn testimony against the spirit of the day you live in.

It is not the system which says nothing is true, so much as the system which says everything is true that will damn people’s souls;

it is not the system which says there is no Saviour, so much as the system which says there are many saviors and many ways to God that will damn people’s souls.

It is the system which is so liberal that it dares not say anything is false; it is the system which is so charitable that it will allow everything to be true that will damn people’s souls.

It is the system which honors others as well as our Lord Jesus Christ, class them all together, and speaks well of them all. Confucius and Zoroaster, Socrates and Mohammed, the Indian Brahmins and the African devil-worshippers, Arius and Pelagius, Ignatius Loyola and Socinus, — all must be spoken of respectfully: none are to be condemned, that will damn people’s souls.

It is the system which bids us smile complacently on all creeds and systems of religion: the Bible and the Koran, the Hindu Vedus and the Persian Zendavesta, the old wives’ fables of Rabbinical Judaism and the rubbish of Patristic traditions, THE PAPACY AND ITS TRADITIONS and the book of Mormon of Joseph Smith, — all are truth: none are to be denounced as lies.

It is the system so liberal, so scrupulous about the feelings of others, that we are never to say it is wrong; it is the system that calls a man a bigot if he dares to say, “Let the word of God be true, and every man a liar.” This is the system which I desire emphatically to testify against and denounce.

What is it but a bowing down before a great idol called liberality? What is it all but a sacrificing of truth upon the altar of a caricature of charity? Beware of it, reader, beware that the rushing stream of public opinion does not carry you away.

Beware of it, if you believe the Bible… Has the Lord God spoken to us in the Bible, or has He not? Has He shown us truth plainly in the Bible, or has He not? Has He declared to us the dangerous state of those who bow at the altar of liberalism?

Gird up the loins of your mind, and look these questions fairly in the face, and give them an honest answer. Tell us that there is some other inspired book beside the Bible, and then we shall know what you mean; tell us that the whole Bible is not inspired, and then we shall know where to meet you.

But grant us for a moment that the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is God’s truth., and then I know not in what way you can escape the doctrine of the text.

From the liberality which says everybody is right, from the charity which forbids you to say others are wrong, from the peace which is bought at the expense of truth, — may the good Lord deliver you!

I FIND NO RESTING PLACE BETWEEN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY AND INFIDELITY, whatever others may find. I SEE NO HALF-WAY HOUSE BETWEEN THEM.

I can see consistency in an infidel, however much I may pity him; I can see consistency in the full maintenance of Evangelical truth: BUT AS TO A MIDDLE COURSE BETWEEN THE TWO,—I CANNOT SEE IT; and I say so plainly.

Let it be called illiberal and uncharitable. I can hear God’s voice nowhere except in the Bible. Outside of it, I hear none.”

Heb. 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

The great salvation "first spoken by the Lord" was the great commission spoken by Christ to his disciples, faith in Christ and baptism at the heart of the commission, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," etc.

"Confirmed unto us by them that heard him" - Christ spoke the great commission, not to the world at large, but to his 12 apostles, and they CONFIRMED it on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Back to Heb. 2:4, "God also bearing them witness...with gifts of the Holy Ghost, etc." - the gift of the Spirit was given at Pentecost to those who responded to Peter's preaching (Acts 2:38)

Obama says he’s Christian, if he was truly was, he wouldn’t be making the statements he makes for Muslims.

Similarly yourself, if you were a true Protestant, you wouldn’t be saying such squishy things as, “I am more Protestant than Catholic.” And you wouldn’t be flaming me for saying the things I did against the Papacy, rather, you would be agreeing with me.

Obama can’t come out clearly for one or the other, Christianity or Islam, he can’t be both. Likewise yourself. Why is it you can’t say you are one or the other, Protestant or Catholic?

If I had any doubt as to which, Cruz or Walker, Walker’s response settles it. Everything Cruz says or does agrees with what Guilliani said. Even Guilliani is more conservative than Walker.

You are so filled with hate for Protestants (your latest post a dead giveaway) that you can’t even see straight. (From your post 23)

I agree with you on the Islamic “seething hate for Christianity.” That’s the clear and present danger, the centuries old in house fight within Christianity between the Papacy and Protestants, not being the subject of this article. The author of this piece, however, couldn’t stay on subject, for he, or she, thought it necessary to slip in a hit against Protestants. It is the author of this piece you should direct your grievance to, not me.

Cruz control!

Of all the troubling things of this comrade’s time in office, and they are many, this is the worst. If this almost 50% figure is anywhere near the truth, then the situation is far worse than any of us imagine. With all that has happened under the comrade, it should be no more than about 20%, if even that much.

Let’s see, a Papist makes a hit on Protestants on a thread that is supposed to be about Obama and the Dems, someone calls them on it, and he is “full of hate.” I get it.

Standard fare for Papists, anyone who refuses to bow the knee to the Pope, be subservient to him, including this latest Marxist one, is a “hater.”

Anyone that utters the word, “Papist,” is also a hater, never mind that the Papacy has always been at the center of the dispute between Roman Catholicism and the Reformers: Protestants holding to Christ alone as the head of the church, Papists having the Pope of Rome the head of it.

“Papist” is not derogatory, it’s what you are... until such day that you denounce your Pope as head over the rest of us Christians, that is. If such should happen, then, and only then, will I no longer think of you a papist.

You are determined to hijack this thread in the name of the papacy, I see.

They can’t have a world wide dictatorship with a free moral America

I'm with you 100%. Many FReepers tend to put the most focus on the political and economic side of this battle, setting aside the moral. You can't do that. When you surrender the moral high ground, you've lost the war.

Like at Gettysburg, for instance, when the Union troops blocked Lee from taking the high ground, the battle - and ultimately the war - was over for the south. The high ground had to be held at all costs.

On, what we would think to be a thread against Obama and the Dems, the Papists couldn’t resist the chance to take a shot at Protestants.

I call them on it, enter fellow Papists “subterfuge” and “ought-six” to defend the burning at the stake precedent set by their fellow Papists in the middle ages...and with typical Papist twisted logic.

Now, the Papists apparently want to hijack this thread, it wasn’t my intent, my intent was only to raise an objection to the shot taken against Protestants...something they tries to slip in there. That’s all I have to say, have a good day.

Sorry, I can’t let you get by with this. I am with you 100% in the general anti-Obama, anti-Democrat sense of what you posted. However, when you characterize Protestants as knowing more about Martin Luther King than Martin Luther, while saying things like this:

Somehow I find the will to go on living without beheading people, without putting them to the torch

It shows you are the one who doesn’t know your history. It is YOUR institution that is famously known for putting “people to the torch.” If the Pope could have gotten hold of Martin Luther, they would have put him to the torch. Like they did John Huss, William Tyndale, and thousands of others who refused to bow the knee to Rome.

It is not ISIS that is famously known for burning people alive, it is your tyrannical institution. ISIS is copying the precedent set by the RCC.

You can only wish Protestants are ignorant of history.

If it becomes a shooting war in that region, no US carrier would ever make it into the Black Sea. Like I said, it is a very narrow entrance from the Med into the Black Sea, easy to block any carrier trying to come through it. With their advanced carrier killer weaponry you mentioned, or whatever.

I think we all want to help Ukraine, but I think, for the US to enter the fight militarily it would be disastrous.

For starters, how could our Navy enter the Black Sea to come to their aid? The Russians own the Black Sea, for heaven’s sake, its a Russian lake crawling with Russian Navy vessels. The entrance into the Black Sea from the Med is a very narrow slot, easy to close.

And that’s just the Naval side of this. The land mass of Asia on on the side of the Russians, the Ukraine is their back yard.

The writer of the Hebrews takes us to the day of Pentecost to find who the original Christians were, and their "great salvation."

Heb. 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect SO GREAT SALVATION; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

So great salvation "first spoken by the Lord" - the great commission recorded near the end of the gospels.

"Confirmed by them that heard him" - Christ spoke the great commission, not to the world at large, but to his chosen 12 apostles, and they confirmed it on the day of Pentecost:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

God also bearing them witness...with gifts of the Holy Ghost - the gift of the Spirit was given at Pentecost to those who responded to Peter's preaching (Acts 2:38)

Correction:

following the paradigm set by our founder (Christ’s crucifixion), true Christians are the persecuted, not the persecutors.

Yes, I am aware of the middle ages persecutions, by church-state political systems, primarily Rome, which I am absolutely opposed to.

Reading some of the history of those who lived back then, the persecuted Jews came to identify “Christianity” with Roman Catholicism. And, except for some, such as yourself, having read some of their modern literature, most still do. Maybe that was the mindset of this Jewish woman in the article.

True Christians do not believe in persecuting anybody, Jews or Gentiles, following the paradigm set by our founder (Christ’s crucifixion), true Christians the the persecuted, not the persecutors.

Sounds very curious to me.

First thing I thought, too. Either the "Christian" woman is off her rocker, or the Jewish woman has put a certain slant to all this. Purposely slanting what happened to make Christianity look bad.

I have never known, nor heard of any Christian anywhere, any place, any time, doing what this woman is alleged to have done. I wonder. Are there any other witnesses to this altercation? or is it just the Jewish woman's side of the story?

Spiritual discernment is still paramount along with the guidance of the Holy Spirit with study of scripture.

Amen that

The article leaves lot’s of questions. The 12 apostles and Paul are not the only ones called apostles.

It appears to me, that the early church considered there to be three kinds of apostles.

1. Christ Jesus, Heb. 3:1. Definitely a kind of its own.

2. The twelve

3. Paul and Barnabas, Acts 14:14

Neither Paul or Barnabas were of the twelve, yet they are called apostles...which would indicate the early church must have seen the original twelve as a special class, they being personally taught by Christ during his time on earth, then being sent by him.

While others, such as Paul and Barnabas, not taught personally by Christ during his time on on earth, yet were apostles, they being "sent" by the Spirit and by laying on of hands in the church at Antioch:

Acts 13 (KJV) 1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

4 So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost...

It, thus, seems to me, the early church considered being "sent," whether by the Father, as Jesus was, or by Jesus, as the twelve were, or by the Holy Ghost, as Paul and Barnabas were, the primary determinant as to the meaning of "apostle."

Again, it seems to me, that if the Holy Ghost could send Paul and Barnabas, with a Spirit filled church having lain hands on them, as at Antioch, this opens the door for others of this kind of apostle.

Of course, this leads into the bigger cessationist issue. Since most FReepers on this thread seem to believe the Spirit no longer can operate like it did in the early church (as at Antioch), then, of course, no apostles of the Paul and Barnabas class.

I notice that one of the ringleaders of the Bolsheviks was somebody named Axelrod. Is D. Axelrod his descendant?

Britain is not America. UKIP takes stands for same sex marriage, abortion, etc., that is more akin to US libertarianism than US conservatism. This conservative gathering will probably, as usual, set aside social conservative differences to accommodate Farage.

You must have went to a lot of trouble formulating this, great maps, etc., but what you are driving at is beyond me. Unless you are an amillennialist, preterist, or postmillennialist, that is. If so, it would explain the apparent befuddlement about the prophetic expectancy of the Apostles.

The apostles weren’t followers of Plato, pagan philosophy, nor were they gnostics, they were of the Jewish hope, who believed in “this world, and the world to come” eschatology. The “world to come” being the “regeneration” Jesus spoke about, Matt. 19:28, a purged earth, to be ushered in at the 2nd coming.

So Aquila and Priscilla were expelled - as Christians - from Rome by the edict of Claudius around 49 AD, and then they meet with Paul, Acts 18. Verrry interesting.

It would be nice if we had some insight from history, as to what these folks believed about praying to Mary and the saints, purgatory, Rosary Beads, etc., and most significantly, whether they interpreted the rock the church is founded on, Matt. 16, to be Peter...and not Christ.

I look forward to part 3 of this series. I’m learning some stuff. Keep up the good work, RnMom.

“Papacy built on pious fiction and forgery”

All we hear around here, is how Rome is built upon true history, Protestant history traces only to Luther, Calvin, etc. Truth is, as someone has posted on the RF recently, the Roman “house” is built upon a pebble (Peter), the true universal/catholic house is built upon bedrock - Jesus Christ and the word of God (Sola Scriptura).

It’s high time somebody start a series on the false foundation of Romanism. I can think of no subject needed more. RnMom, you are my hero.

I suspect you won’t be among those to bow the knee to Rome. Likewise here. I’ve read somewhere, the toes on Peter’s statue in Rome have worn away from so many bowing and kissing his feet. The real Peter rolls in his grave.

Re: my post 29. For anyone interested, and who goes to the Tony Palmer-Ken Copeland-Pope Francis you tube link, I spare you, rather than you having to suffer through the painfully long Anglican Bishop Tony Palmer’s introduction, you can cut to the chase, beginning at about 39:00 on the video, and hear the Pope talking about Joseph and his separated brethren.

Correction:

I find it interesting, observing what the Jesuit Francis has been doing in the world ever since this revealing speech he gave at the Copeland meeting.

Concerning the title of this thread, “bowing the knee to Rome,” and the Tony Palmer-Ken Copeland-Pope Francis incident (mentioned in the article), I’d like to point out something along those lines. You can see and hear Francis’ address to the Copeland people for yourself, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrS4IDTLavQ

The Anglican bishop Tony Palmer gave the keynote address, positioning himself as a kind of John the Baptist preparing the way for Pope Francis. Then came the Pope’s address to the crowd gathered there, in it, he said something most revealing having to do with the role he would play on the world scene.

He saw himself as Joseph empowered in Egypt, his brothers as “separated brethren” ignorant of who he was or what he was doing. To bring unity between Joseph (representing the RCC) and his separated brethren (representing Protestants), his brethren needed to recognize Joseph as their brother, and then “bow the knee” to him (to bring unity, Protestants must recognize Pope Francis’ role as the great unifier, then bow the knee to Rome).

I’ve got news for the Copeland idiots, the Jesuit Francis and his RCC, we know what you are up to, there are a great many of us who WON’T BE BOWING OUR KNEES TO ROME!

I find it interesting, observing the Jesuit Francis has been doing in the world ever since this revealing speech he gave at the Copeland meeting.

He, like Joseph in Egypt, sees himself in a unique position of power on the world stage to bring to pass “Joseph’s vision.” To those who know their Bibles, Joseph had certain dreams about his brethren eventually bowing down before him.

BEWARE OF THIS POPE!

Thank you for posting this testimony, a very good one indeed. It’s not often nowadays to see the sharp contrast set forth between the gospel and the RCC system, what we see instead is compromisers - identified and exposed in your article.

But, then, with the coming of Jesus so near, and the “falling away” (apostasy) going on around us, 2 Thess. 2:3, preparing the world for the antichrist, we should not be surprised at the ecumenical compromisers. Thankfully, we are encouraged here on the RF, seeing many who still understand the true gospel, as you saw it when you were first converted from Romanism.

Mistake, what I said in post 40 I sent to the wrong person, supposed to be for you.

“Palin is not in Ted Cruz’s league.”

True, as were the other things you said...and I’m from Alaska. I’ll be voting for Ted Cruz.

Darwinism has always been a central plank in the socialists platform. For the Nazi’s and Communists, a day to honor Darwin, “Darwin’s Day,” what a wonderful idea!

May we all die defending Christ’s Church so that the Catholic Church can live and bring more to Salvation with Christ.

What could possibly be wrong with this statement? Let me count the ways...

1. "May we all die defending Christ's Church."

During the reign of the Papacy over Europe during the middle ages, it wasn't a case of papists dying "defending" the ROMAN Catholic Church, but the many thousands dying at the hands of the papist tyrants, dying for their faith in Christ. Christ's church, my eye, the true church doesn't burn people alive who happen not to agree with them.

2. The ROMAN Catholic Church "brings people to salvation."

It doesn't bring people to true salvation, it makes paganized heretics out of them. It no more brings people to true salvation than the Mormon church does, both are cults, one based at Rome, the other Salt Lake City.

Who is arguing doctrine? The subject of this thread is Roman priests as “fathers.” The book of Acts is not doctrine, it is real recorded history. If the leaders of the early church, apostles, elders (Bishops), deacons, or whatever, were called priest or father, we would see evidence of it in Acts. Likewise, the prominence of Mary. It is NOT there.

The book of the Acts of the Apostles, after the gospels but before the epistles, is real life history of the early church. No apostle was called “Father” or “priest” in the book of Acts. Moreover, after the day of Pentecost in which Mary was mentioned, no mention of her in the book of Acts.

Which goes to prove the entire Romish system is an unbiblical cult. No wonder they are so against sola scriptura.

So, only under the law Judaizers are the only ones who have “the key of David?”

Since we are in New Testament times, I am inclined to believe that King David’s greater son, Jesus Christ, has has a little to do with that key.

How about the Catholics beheaded and burned by Protestants?

It is your institution, not Protestants, who are famous, or should I say infamous, for burning people alive who don't agree with them. The Islamics, I see, are now taking up the precedent set by your institution.

Oh, that’s right. Protestants can burn Catholics because “works don’t matter.” Of course, that means that while Catholics are now opposed in principle to burnings and beheadings, Protestants are still at liberty to burn and behead—because WORKS DON’T MATTER.

It is indeed a relief to know Catholics are now opposed "in principle"...whatever that is supposed to mean. I do not know of any Protestant that believes burning and beheading "do not matter."

In the meantime, name someone beheaded or burned BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. (I.e, not by the State.)

You try to divert attention from the ROMAN Catholic Church to the ROMAN state, both Roman, when the burnings were done at the behest of the the RCC...and you know it.

There is really no difference between the religious institution that had secular Rome crucify Jesus, and your religious institution that had the same Roman state do the burning of Protestants. Your institution is guilty before God. If they won't repent of it, then you should for them.

Surely you aren’t including your institution as representing the sheep in that parable are you? This...

http://therightscoop.com/breaking-isis-releases-horrible-video-burning-jordanian-pilot-alive-photos/

is the kind of “works” your institution is known for. Burning anybody alive who refuses to render obeisance to the Pope of Rome...as these Islamists did to this poor man in this video.

I’d suggest you come up with another passage of scripture to prove your point, this one backfires on you. Incredible that the RCC, of all people, lecture ANYBODY on good works! Have you ever repented of the “works” your church has done, burning Protestants alive?

the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

Meaning the ROMAN Catholic Church, of course. I've seen so much of this on the RF it makes me puke. They are neither...

holy (things pagan are unholy),

catholic ("Roman" is not universal, it only refers to the Mediterannean-European part of the world),

nor Apostolic (one need go no further than the book of the Acts of the Apostles, their Popes bear no resemblance to what we see there, more apostate than apostolic).