The Popes Of Rome

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognise them…" Matthew 7:15-16

STEPHEN VII (896-897AD) "He dug up a Corsican predecessor, Pope Formosus (891-896), when he had been dead for over nine months…. He dressed the stinking corpse in full pontificals, placed him on the throne in the Lateran and proceeded to interrogate him personally….After being found guilty, the corpse was condemned as an anti-pope, stripped and minus the two fingers with which he had given his fake apostolic blessing, was thrown into the Tiber…." (Vicars of Christ - the Dark Side of the Papacy by Father Peter de Rosa).

SERGIUS III (904-911) Standing in his way to the throne had been Leo V, who reigned for one month before he was imprisoned by an usurper, Cardinal Christopher. Sergius had both killed. Then he exhumed his predecessor and had him beheaded, three fingers chopped off and thrown into the Tiber.

JOHN XII (955 - 963) He invented sins, it was said, that had not been known since the beginning of the world - including sleeping with his mother. John XII ran a harem in the Lateran Palace, he gambled with the offerings of pilgrims and he even toasted the devil at the high altar during the mass.

BENEDICT V (964) Described by a church historian as "the most iniquitous of all the monsters of ungodliness."

BENEDICT IX (1032-44, 1045, 1047-8) Elected pope at age eleven, he was twice driven from his position due to his participation in plunder, immorality, oppression and murder. Church historians described him as "That wretch, from the beginning of his pontificate to the end of his life, feasted on immorality," and "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest has occupied the chair of Peter."

SIXTUS IV (1471 - 1484) This is the pope who built the Sistine Chapel in which all popes are now elected. Sixtus IV had several illegitimate sons, licensed the brothels of Rome and received a large amount of revenue for the papacy from these houses of iniquity, introduced the novel idea of selling indulgences for the dead to raise more revenue, and sanctioned the Inquisition in Castile (Spain) by issuing a bull in 1478 (in just one year - 1482 - in one city of Andalusia, 2000 "heretics" were burned as a result).

ALEXANDER VI (1492 - 1503) He was a murderer by age 12, he had 10 known illegitimate children, he was infamous for his drunken and immoral parties, he was known to have cardinals who had purchased their positions to be poisoned so that he could sell their positions again and increase his turnover. He spent a fortune in bribes to secure his own election as pope and he caused the Reformer Savonarola to be burned at the stake.

The Romans papacy has been characterised by extreme cruelty in its persecution of those it deemed as heretics. In particular the Waldensians, Lollards and Albigensians were slaughtered by the forces of Rome.

In 1208 Pope Innocent III declared: "Death to the heretics!" Great privileges and rewards were promised to those who would annihilate the "heretics" and to every man who killed one of them, the assurance was given that he would attain the highest place in Heaven!

The first target of this crusade against the Albigensians was the town of Begiers. All it's inhabitants were killed and all the buildings burned. The monk leading this slaughter, Arnold, reported back to Innocent III "Today, Your Holiness, twenty thousand citizens were put to the sword, regardless of age or sex."

In Bram the papal soldiers cut off the noses and gouged out the eyes of the Albigensian "heretics".

In response, Innocent III praised the papal soldiers who had destroyed the heretics.

The successor of Innocent III, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition in 1232. For over 600 years, spanning the reigns of over 80 popes, the Inquisition tortured and killed tens of thousands of Protestants including the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards and Huguenots.

The First Vatican Council (1869-70) under Pope Pius IX raised the Dogma of Papal infallibility to become the official teaching of Roman Catholicism adding the usual anathema upon all who dared to disagree:

Yet between 1378 to 1408 there were first two popes and then three! Gregory XII reigned from Rome, Benedict XIII from Avignon and John XXIII from Pisa.

John XXIII was described in Vicars of Christ: "He was noted as a former pirate, pope-poisoner, mass-murderer, mass-fornicator…, adulterer on a scale unknown outside fables, simoniac par excellence, blackmailer, pimp, master of dirty tricks."

Yet John XXIII accused his rival pope Benedict XIII of being "a Fake" and Gregory XII he nicknamed "Mistake"!

Pope Pius IX, who at the First Vatican Council (1869 - 1870) caused the dogma of Papal Infallibility to become the official teaching of Roman Catholicism, also issued an edict permitting "excommunication, confiscation, banishment, imprisonment for life, as well as secret execution in heinous cases."

At the First Vatican Council, Bishop Strossmayer (himself a papist) gave a speech arguing against papal infallibility. He pointed out: "Gregory I calls anyone anti-Christ who takes the name of Universal Bishop; and contrawise Boniface III made Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II and Eugenius III authorised duelling; Julius II and Pins IV forbad it. Hadrian II declared civil magistrates to be valid; Pius VII condemned them. Sixtus V published an edition of the Bible and recommended it to be read; Pius VII condemned the reading of the Bible."

It could also be noted that while one (supposedly infallible) pope, Eugene IV (1431 - 1447), condemned Joan of Arc as a heretic to be burned alive, another pope, Benedict XV, in 1920, declared her to be a saint and her burning a mistake.

Yet the Dogma of Papal Infallibility declares that when a pope speaks ex cathedra his words are "as infallible as if it had been uttered by Christ Himself!"

In plain contradiction to this "papal infallibility" is the Bible. The apostle Peter (from whom all popes claim their succession) never suggested that he was infallible. Indeed in his first general epistle Peter described himself simply as "an elder" and he exhorted his "fellow elders" not to act as "lords over those entrusted to you" (1 Peter 5:1-3).

Paul records in Galatians 2:11 "But when Peter had come to Antioch I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed…" Plainly Paul did not see Peter as infallible. Also Peter was married (Mark 1:30; 1 Corinthians 9:5). Indeed a requirement of a church leader is that he is married and bring up his children in the faith (1 Timothy 3:4-5).

The Lord Jesus taught: "You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve…" Matthew 20:25-28

Jesus taught that no one is good - except God alone (Mark 10:18) and we are to call no-one on earth Father - God alone is our spiritual Father. How then can any pope be called "his Holiness" or "Holy Father"! The term Holy Father is only used once in the Bible and it is clearly addressed to God the Father in Christ's prayer (John 17:11).

It is no wonder that when Archbishop Thomas Cranmer was about to be burned at the stake, on 21 March 1556, he declared: "As for the pope, I refuse him as Christ's enemy, and Anti-Christ, with all his false doctrines."

In the words of Martin Luther: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture or clear reasoning that I am in error - for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves - I cannot recant for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one's conscience. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. So help me God. Amen."

Sources: Vicars of Christ - the Dark Side of the Papacy by Father Peter de Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1989

If you equate Aramaic as somehow not being "Jewish" during and even before the time of Jesus, you are barking up the wrong historical tree.

Aramaic is not Jewish. Aramaic is a Semitic language from very early history. It is similar to Hebrew and was indeed spoken in and around the Middle East during the first century. Many folks....some actually educated....feel that Aramaic was the language of Our Savior. They have come to the understanding that the Jews were a defeated culture and no Nationalism remained in Judea which would have kept Hebrew in the forefront....and since Targums were in use to explain scriptures......He just had to have used Aramaic as his first language.

Here is what is wrong with those ideas. His culture was Hebrew and Aramaic is mentioned only four times in the Tanakh... each time as a foreign language: [II Kings 18:26][Ezra 4:7][Isaiah 36:11[Daniel 2:4]. It is not mentioned in the New Testament at all. In the stories of Our Lord, Hebrew is mentioned five times: [Luke 23:38][John 5:2][John 19:13,17,20]. Even the Peshitta (Aramaic Language scriptures) uses the word Hebrew in the preceding passages.

The family of Our Lord was very Torah observant and it is recorded in [Luke 2:41-52] that He spent much time conversing with teachers in the temple. He listened to them; He asked questions; He gave answers; He was twelve and He was certainly using Hebrew.

During His ministry it is recorded about thirty times where He is speaking with various Religious authorities in Judea. These conversations would have been in "Lashon Ha-Kodesh"...the sacred language. He quotes from the Tanakh about one hundred times using twenty different books. His listeners would have been at great disadvantage were it not for their understanding of Hebrew also. It is never even hinted at in scripture that He went on to explain a salient point in another language.

Did He speak and understand Aramaic? Of course. He also understood and spoke Greek and Latin....other common languages of the area.

The New Testament references to Hebrew make it seem absurd that some folks still believe Hebrew was a dying language during the first century. After the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" many began changing their minds on this subject. The "Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church"....in its first edition in 1958 says this: "Hebrew had ceased to be a spoken language around the fourth century B.C." Because of the scholarship generated from the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls the Oxford Dictionary says this in its third edition in 1997: Hebrew had continued to be a spoken and written language during the New Testament period.

Many anti Semites were attracted to the fledgling Christian Church....some even going on to be members of the priesthood. John Chrysostom comes to mind. It was rampant anti Semitism that began calling for the abolition of Sabbaths and Feast day celebrations....and threatening all kinds of unpleasant things to happen if Christians did not cease immediately in their observances.....especially alongside the Jews.

Here is a good place to check that out. The church was becoming more and more anti Semitic and finally realized that if they could convince folks that Our Lord really never paid too much attention to Hebrew.....but spoke Aramaic around the boys.....another nail in the coffin of the hated Jews could be accomplished.

I've already explained a number of times up thread of the fact that Matthew was written in Hebrew.....his native language. Well.....Matthew came from Galilee, along with the rest of them.....and they all spoke Hebrew with a Galilean accent [Matthew 26:73].

You know.....it all really boils down to this: Jesus was a Jew, but some folks....honest to God.....think He was a Christian. He never attended a church; He never celebrated Christmas; He worshiped in the synagogue; He offered prayers in the Temple; He celebrated Passover, Trumpets and Tabernacles; He ate according to the dietary laws of God; but you folks want to remake into something he never was.

His Hebrew aura has been Hellenized....and He has been stripped of His religious heritage. In doing this....you folks have erected a barrier between the peoples of God and have pulled up the Hebrew roots of Christianity.

If you equate Aramaic as somehow not being "Jewish" during and even before the time of Jesus, you are barking up the wrong historical tree. .... The fact of the matter is that, by the time of Jesus, Aramaic had become the language of the common people of Judea and Hebrew was relegated to the role of the scholarly tongue just as say, in the XVI Century, French was the language of the common people in France while Latin was relegated to the role of the scholarly tongue. ..... Polybius

Aramaic is not Jewish. Aramaic is a Semitic language from very early history. ....... Diego1618

That is NOT the point and you know it. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse?

That is not the point any more than claiming that, because the vast majority of American Jews cannot understand the following Natalie Portman interview conducted in Hebrew if their life depended on it, that those American Jews are not really "Jewish".

Natalie Portman in Hebrew

Your prior accusations to others and your response to my post is equivalent to stating, "English is not Jewish. English is a Germanic language. Therefore, claiming that the vast majority of American Jews speak English but not Hebrew in their daily life is an anti-Semitic attempt to strip them of their Jewishness."

Such logic has no basis in historical reality.

Your prior point was to claim that to state the historical fact that the common people in Judea spoke Aramaic was somehow "Anti-Semitic" because of some conspiracy theory about stripping Christ of his Jewishness.

That is as absurd as claiming the historical fact that the average American Jew cannot carry on a conversation in Hebrew is somehow "Anti-Semitic" because such a statement strips American Jews of the Jewishness.

You are completely missing, or deliberately ignoring, the historical point that I made that Hebrew remained the SCHOLARLY language of the priesthood while the common people spoke Aramaic.

Why else would the King of Judea, Alexander Jannaeus, strike coins of his Judean kingdom in Aramaic and Greek while leaving out Hebrew?

SO THE COMMON PEOPLE COULD READ THEM.

So, Hebrew remained a spoken and written language among the priestly class as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, DUH!

Latin ramained a spoken and written language among the scholarly class of Western Europe long after Latin ceased to be written or spoken by the common people of Western Europe.

By your logic, the discovery of a copy of Issac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in a library would signify that the common people of England spoke Latin in their daily lives in 1687.

Instead of regurgitating your preconceived ideas, go to the library and study Professor Ya'akov Meshorer's work.

As Meshorer states, "According to archeological evidence, during this period of the first century B.C.E., the Aramaic script, also know as the "square script" or "Syrian script" was the leading one. It was used for writing both in Hebrew and in Aramaic, and it seems that the early paleo-Hebrew script was almost completely forgotten and only few were able to read it. A few early scrolls written in paleo-Hebrew had certainly survived in the Temple and some priests and scholars maintained the tradition of reading this archaic script. Even among the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are some that are written in paleo-Hebrew. It is doubtful whether whether more than a small number of people were able to read it. In some of the scrolls, written in Aramaic script, the Tetragrammaton is rendered in paleo-Hebrew thus indicating that the scribe who preserved this criptnew that it was the original Hebrew one and its archaic flavor made it suitable for writing the name of the Lord."

I've already explained a number of times up thread of the fact that Matthew was written in Hebrew.....his native language.

Just because you have repeatedly claimed such a thing does not mean that you are correct.

"In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find,......." --- Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book III, § 2

Did that sink in?

" ...... which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, ...."

" ..... I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea ....."

In case it did not sink in the first two times, let's try it a third time:

" ...... which is written in the CHALDEE AND SYRIAN LANGUAGE, but IN HEBREW CHARACTERS, ...."

To a non-Judean, Aramaic would have been the "Chaldee and Syrian language".

To a non-Judean, any characters, from the paleo-Hebrew script to the Aramaic script used as the dominant script of the common Hebrew man of the era would have qualified as "Hebrew characters".

Do you know what this is?

Hebrew?

No, it is not.

It is Ladino, the XV Century Spanish dialect still spoken to this very day by some Sephardic Jews written "in Hebrew characters".

Here is the exact same page in Ladino but written in Roman characters.

Such was the case, according to witnesses that actually saw a copy of Matthew's Gospel in the library at Cæsarea. It was written "in Hebrew characters" in a non-Hebrew language, namely, "the Chaldee and Syrian language" which meant Aramaic.

You, however, seem to know better than those that actually laid eyes on Matthew's Gospel in the library at Cæsarea.

Consequently, you invent all your little theories about why He didn't speak Hebrew and it just makes you look silly.

You will find ten specific mentions in the New Testament of the spoken Hebrew language. You will find nothing of the Aramaic language mentioned. Doesn't this seem strange to you folks.....or do you just want to cling to the hope He wasn't Jewish after all......at any cost?

Our Lord speaks in the Hebrew to Paul [Acts 26:14] as He selects Paul to be an Apostle. Is this not significant to you? One of the most important verses in the scriptures ......and Our Lord is speaking Hebrew to a Greek. Why didn't He speak Greek?

Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book III, § 2 Did that sink in? " ...... which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, ...." " ..... I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea ....." In case it did not sink in the first two times, let's try it a third time: " ...... which is written in the CHALDEE AND SYRIAN LANGUAGE, but IN HEBREW CHARACTERS, ...."

Your link didn't work. Try mine! It sure sounds like Jerome was referencing Hebrew to me!!!!!

You, however, seem to know better than those that actually laid eyes on Matthew's Gospel in the library at Cæsarea.

The fact that Matthew was written in Hebrew has long been known by scholars in Israel. The New Testament scholars, fluent in Greek....and Hebrew can immediately see that the Synoptic gospels have all been influenced by Hebraisms. The books of Hebrews, Revelation and the first fifteen chapters of Acts are full of Semitisms, Hebrew idioms, Hebrew vocabulary, Hebrew syntax and thought patterns....not to mention Hebrew theology.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have changed much of what was previously thought about the Hebrew language. There are nearly 600 partial manuscripts (Biblical and Non Biblical) and 40,000 fragments. The main point here....being, that the ratio of Hebrew to non Hebrew is nine to one in favor of Hebrew. This includes fragments of both sectarian and non sectarian scrolls. Concluding from this evidence most reasonable people would assume that Hebrew, during this era (400 B.C./135 A.D.), constituted the vast majority of all spoken and written languages dealing in Philosophy, Education, Commerce and Theology......in Judea.

From the fourth century B.C. to the Bar-Cochba revolt 135 A.D. there was "ONE" coin inscribed in Aramaic (Alexander Jannaeus 103-76 B.C.). All other coins of Judea during this period were inscribed in Hebrew.

At Masada....Herod's fortress on the Dead Sea, fragments of 14 scrolls, 4000 coins and 700 inscribed pottery fragments have yielded a ratio of......get this: "nine to one" in favor of Hebrew.....not Aramaic, not Greek, not Latin......but Hebrew!

The fact that we have documents in Greek, that represent the books of the New Testament, makes them no more Greek than the Septuagint makes the Old Testament Greek. It is my personal belief (nothing scriptural) that The Lord used the Greeks to preserve his Holy Words.....knowing that the Romans would not bother them....while chasing down the Hebrews and the Christians. Thank God for the Greeks!

Here is a good proof text for the original Hebrew of Matthew: [Matthew 6:19-24] Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The Lord is speaking about money and how God is so much more important. He then says something about an "Evil Eye" and then finishes the statement. If this had been written in Greek most Greeks would ask, "Why this odd verse about an evil eye? We're talking money here! It doesn't make any sense".

But....if you happen to know what an evil eye is....it's an idiom that means you're being stingy with your money. Now the passage makes sense and you have come to the realization that it must have been written first in Hebrew! Then you realize that someone translated it into Greek, and evidently was not aware of the idiom.....or they would have said "You're being stingy!"

Look....I know it's difficult for you folks to come to the realization that you have been fed false tradition for most of your lives. This is one reason you should not put your faith in traditions of men [Mark 7:7] as it will lead to worthless worship. You should diligently search the scriptures and take them for what they are. An instruction manual that will tell you what has been and what will come. If you search for truth....asking for spiritual revelation, it will come.

A wise man once told me......"Most people are wrong about most things.....most of the time!" Look for a minority viewpoint.....and you just might be better off.

The basis for you folks harping and harping for centuries about Our Lord and Savior speaking Aramaic as His first language is completely Anti Semitic. You want to remove His Hebrew aura and simply cannot stand the idea that he was a Jew. Consequently, you invent all your little theories about why He didn't speak Hebrew and it just makes you look silly.

Is English your fourth language?

When did I ever say He did not speak Hebrew?

Did I not say that Hebrew was the scholarly language of the priests?

Wasn't Jesus educated in his religion? Why would he not also know Hebrew?

I SAID THAT ARAMAIC WAS THE EVERYDAY LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON JUDEAN PEOPLE OF THAT ERA.

As far as "you folks" and the archaeological evidence regarding Aramaic, I have cited the work of Professor Ya'akov Meshorer, one of the most well know Jewish Israeli authorities in Judean archaeological circles and you wallow in your ignorance and your tin-foil hat rantings about about Jewish Israeli archaeologists being "Anti-Semitic".

Your link didn't work. Try mine! It sure sounds like Jerome was referencing Hebrew to me!!!!!

If the link did not work, all you had to do was look up the primary source that was cited, namely Jerome, Against the Pelagians, Book III, § 2:

"2. In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Cæsarea), we find,....."

To an Ilyrian like Jerome, the language spoken in Judea may have been casually referred to as "Hebrew" especially if it was casually mentioned in passing in regards to a book written in Hebrew characters.

When Jerome focused specific attention on that particular book and actually quoted directly from it, Jerome described it in much more exact detail:

"In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters....."

I will not waste any more time with you as I find you to be incredibly ignorant about Judean History and you are quick to throw irresponsible charges regarding "Anti-Semitism" even when you are presented with the works of Israeli Jewish archaeologists.

For the rest of the Forum, I will leave this link regarding Archeology in Israel from "The Jewish Magazine". (I am sure that Diego1618 will explain to us that "The Jewish Magazine" is "Anti-Semitic".)

"The inscriptions of donors who contributed to the synagogue are thought to be a guide to the social makeup of the Jewish citizens of Zippori. The names in the picture panels are all in Greek, whereas the ones in the plain aisle next to it are in Aramaic: maybe the Greek-speaking Jews in Zippori were wealthier than the ones who only spoke Aramaic. By the way, Hebrew was not spoken at all in this period, but only written and used for religious purposes. The dominating languages were Greek and Aramaic."

Did all the rest of you on the forum get what those Anti-Semetic Jews wrote in the Anti-Semetic "Jewish Magazine" regarding what Anti-Semitic Jewish archaeologists have to say in that Anti-Semitic state called "Israel" in regards to the archaeological evidence regarding the Jews of Judea during the time period we are discussing?

"The names in the picture panels are all in Greek, whereas the ones in the plain aisle next to it are in Aramaic: maybe the Greek-speaking Jews in Zippori were wealthier than the ones who only spoke Aramaic. By the way, Hebrew was not spoken at all in this period, but only written and used for religious purposes. The dominating languages were Greek and Aramaic."

ONE MORE TIME: This is what those Anti-Semetic Jews wrote in the Anti-Semetic "Jewish Magazine" regarding what Anti-Semitic Jewish archaeologists have to say in that Anti-Semitic state called "Israel" in regards to the archaeological evidence regarding the Jews of Judea during the time period we are discussing:

"By the way, Hebrew was not spoken at all in this period, but only written and used for religious purposes. The dominating languages were Greek and Aramaic."

You can take it from here, wideawake. I will not waste any more time on this fool.

Throwing around slanderous charges of anti-Semitism and ignoring every bit of serious historical research done on late antiquity Judaea by Christian and Jewish scholars is not an argument.

Are you saying that Anti Semitism has not been a significant feature of the church? If so....let's review.

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race.

John Chrysostom (344-407 A.D.) The synagogue is worse than a brothel…it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts…the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…the refuge of brigands and dabauchees, and the cavern of devils. It is a criminal assembly of Jews…a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ… a house worse than a drinking shop…a den of thieves, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, the refuge of devils, a gulf and a abyss of perdition."…"I would say the same things about their souls… As for me, I hate the synagogue…I hate the Jews for the same reason.

St. Augustine (c. 354-430 A.D.) How hateful to me are the enemies of your Scripture! How I wish that you would slay them (the Jews) with your two-edged sword, so that there should be none to oppose your word! Gladly would I have them die to themselves and live to you!

Council of Laodicaea (364 A.D.) Canon #XXIX CHRISTIANS must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ. Canon #XXXVII IT is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them. Canon #XXXVIII IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

Fourth Lateran Council (1215 A.D.) Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all.

The Spanish Inquisition (1478 A.D.) The procedure of the Inquisition began with a period of grace - four months to convert or leave. Heretics were given the opportunity to come forward or to denounce others known to them. Jews were denounced for varied activities such as smiling at the mention of the Virgin Mary, eating meat on a day of abstinence, or being suspect of living as "hidden Jews". Many Jews which had "converted", continued to keep the Sabbath and Festivals secretly. For example, a woman was arrested on the grounds of not eating pork and changing her linen just before Saturday. Those who were suspected of being heretics and did not voluntarily come forward, were tortured as a means of obtaining confessions and finally, the death penalty was by auto de fe - burning at the stake. Death came easily to those consigned to the flames after weeks of excruciating torture. In this manner, thousands of Jews lost their lives during the Spanish Inquisitions and thus did the saga of the Jews in Spain end. In 1492, 300,000 Jews who refused to be baptized left Spain penniless. Jews sold their property, fine houses and estates, for a pittance; the rich Jews paid the expenses of the departure of the poor so that they would not have to become converts. Thousands of children were forcibly taken from their parents and raised as Christians. Thousands swarmed over the border to Portugal where they had temporary respite. However, in 1496, King Manuel of Portugal ordered the Jews in his realm expelled. Those who still remained in 1497 were subjected to atrocities and forced baptisms, especially of children.

Martin Luther – (1543) What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.

First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more... Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination.

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews..Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods... Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune. I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as related before. I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason, I would like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils...next to the devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord as many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the devil, this brood of vipers.

It was this blend of Anti Semitic hatred for these people, the Jews....that caused your theologies to gradually remove any vestige of "Hebrew Heritage" from the aura of Our Savior. It did not happen over night as we still see Christians celebrating Passover with the Jews in 364 A.D.

Jesus, like any other highly educated Jew of his day, spoke Aramaic as His everyday tongue, listened to the Scriptures proclaimed in His synagogue in Aramaic translation and heard the Scriptures expounded in Aramaic. He read and studied in Hebrew and Aramaic. He spoke Greek to Gentiles and to Jews of the diaspora.

He did not speak Aramaic as His everyday tongue. The reason He didn't.....was because no one else around Him did either! They spoke Hebrew and you can tear your hair out by the roots before you'll be able to find any reliable source that will tell you different.

I know how important it is to your theology to remove anything Jewish from His background.....so I don't fault you for your ignorance and prejudice. But....you should not ignore your own church history....and that of others that plainly show hatred for the Jewish people.

This is about a year ago It is not your church...but a sister church. Anti Semitism still oozes from theological institutions!

This Anti Jewish position is the basis for the church's abolition of Sabbath observance, abolition of Feast Days and annual Sabbaths, abolition of Dietary Laws and a blending into your theology of certain pagan rituals and liturgies. The church evolved away from it's Hebraic roots and now appears nothing similar to the Church of The Apostles that Our Lord left us.

The fact that you are resorting to personal insults and opprobrium demonstrates the inherent illogic of your position.

Can you show me a personal insult? I will apologize for it. I'm sorry your friend has decided to leave the debate.

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.