Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

The first thing a Catholic learns when they open their Bible is they cannot buy their way out of hell fire.

When a Catholic looks in the Bible they will not find purgatory. They will not find priests taking money to say a Mass to get souls out of the fires of hell. The Catholic church is popular because many do not want much out of religion and the Catholic church offers them the little they want. Yet many do want more of God and to obtain it they must leave the Catholic church. In the past 30 years it is estimated over 150 million Catholics have left the Catholic church seeking more of God from other religions. Catholicism remains popular because a Catholic can sin all the way to purgatory and someone can buy their way out of hell fire right into heaven. Over 150 million Catholics read the Bible and could not find purgatory and giving priests money to say a Mass to get souls out of the flames of hell fire. If a Catholic will open their Bible and search they will not find these either. No where in the New Testament is there a priest who takes money to say a Mass to get souls out of hell. Maybe God has been dealing with you showing you the Catholic church is not right? Now is the time to accept God's will and leave.

One of the good things about Catholics is their desire to help people. So if a loved one dies and they did not live a holy life it is understood they must go to Purgatory and suffer in hell fire until a priest can get them released to go to heaven. Catholics are very loving and ready to give large sums of money to help these poor souls. They really believe that by buying a Mass for these dead souls in Purgatory they will be released from hell fire to go to heaven. This is great love for people no doubt about that. But, all this love and all this money will never save a soul who has died lost and is in hell fire torment. The Catholic church has used the love and affection of its members to make billions of dollars in profit saying a Mass for loved ones. This has been fraud for many centuries. The Catholic church developed this money scheme to milk loving Catholics who cared for a deceased loved one. According to Catholicism, its members can pay money to the priests and empty purgatory hell fire of all Catholics. This is not true and it has not been true for 1600 years. Why do good and honest people put up with this scheme from the Catholic church? They do so because they are scared of the Catholic church and its priests. Those Catholics who look into the Bible will not find Purgatory, priest collecting money to say a Mass, or the Catholic church. This is why a person should not be a Catholic.

Thousands of Catholics each year are leaving the church of Rome. Why? They are leaving because they no longer believe the Catholic church is the true Church of the Bible. They discover the Catholic church is filled with falsehood, lies, and deceptions. They learn it has no biblical authority for its religious rituals and the majority of its teachings are perversions of scripture. When they look for the Catholic church in the New Testament of the Bible they cannot find it at all. When they look for the rituals practiced they cannot find them. When they search for a pope or priest performing the Mass they cannot find one. When they look for Jesus Christ to be a Catholic they are shocked he was not a Catholic and never attended a Catholic church. When a Catholic takes a good look in the Bible he/she will learn they have been in a false religion all along and brainwashed to believe they were in the true one and only. True Christianity is not Catholic. Christianity existed 295 years before the Catholic church was founded.

Catholics are right to leave the Catholic church. After all they must save their souls and if the Catholic church does not have the true Gospel message of salvation that will save sinners THEY SHOULD ESCAPE and quick! Of course the priest will try numerous tricks to keep Catholics in the church.

The second thing a Catholic learns is that Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic Church.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will never find Jesus in or near a Catholic church. When they open their Bible they will learn that Jesus was not a Catholic and was not the founder of the Catholic religion. They learn the word "Catholic" is not in the Bible. They then learn the Catholic church took up the name "Catholic" from Latin which means "universal." The Catholic church claims it is "universal" or world wide. It claims it is the oldest and ONLY WORLD WIDE RELIGION OF CHRISTIANITY STARTED BY JESUS CHRIST. When Catholics discover this is false, that Jesus started a Jewish religion, they soon learn the Catholic church is not Jewish at all but is Gentile owned, Gentile operated, and a Gentile controlled business enterprise whose product is paganized religion. When Catholics open their eyes and see that the Catholic church has adopted many pagan and heathen celebrations and practices and adapted these to Christian teachings, they know they have to leave. No, they know they have to run! It is right here, they know Jesus Christ was not the founder of the Catholic church. Because Jesus would not start a Church and then allow the gates of hell to conquer it by adopting pagan religious practices. No, Jesus would keep his Church pure and free from all evil and sin. The Catholic church is not such a Church. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church and Catholics learn they must leave it immediately.

The third thing a Catholic learns, is they do not receive Jesus Christ as Savior when the Eucharist wafer is placed on their tongue.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find the small wafer as pictured on the left. They will not find anyone sticking out their tongue to have the wafer placed there by a Catholic priest. Catholics are taught that when they go forward at the end of the Mass, they do so to receive the flesh of Jesus. The devout Catholic presents him/her self before the priest, open their mouth, stick out their tongue, and he deposits the flesh of Jesus in the form of this wafer. The Catholic is now told he has eternal life because he has eaten the flesh of Jesus. Salvation in the Catholic church is totally and completely in the Mass. They do not preach Acts 2:38 and the necessity of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, and through Christ alone. According to the Catholic religion, a person must attend Mass, believe the pope is the vicar of God, accept the Catholic church as the one and only true Church, and then receive the Eucharist on the tongue to be saved. But when a Catholic searches the Bible for the Mass and the Eucharist wafer they cannot find them. They discover the Catholic church has never followed the Biblical Lord's Supper (Communion or Passover). In fact they will learn the Catholic church does not follow the New Testament at all in the Communion observance of the Lord's flesh and blood.

The Catholic church departed from the ancient practice of Jerusalem and the Eastern churches of Asia in observing the Lord's Passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. The church of Rome has tried to destroy this ancient Passover observance since 325AD and the Council of Nicaea. At issue here is if the Church Jesus founded observed an annual celebration of his death on the annual Jewish Passover as he commanded (do this in remembrance of me--which includes the Cup, the unleavened bread, and washing of feet). Any Catholic who studies history will learn the early Christians did indeed celebrate the Lord's Passover on an annual basis on the same day the Jews observed their Passover. This practice was brought to Asia not only by the Apostle Paul, but the Apostle John and the Evangelist Philip.

The Asian Christian Churches followed the ancient custom of Jerusalem, celebrating the annual day of the death of Jesus on the Jew's Passover evening. This is certified by no less then such great men of God as Polycarp and Polycrates both of Ephesus. The whole of the Asian Churches held the eve of the 14th of Nisan as the annual celebration of the Lord's Passion on the same day the Jews observed their annual Passover. All the Asian Churches held a conference and refused to change to practice Easter and sent a letter to Victor Bishop of Rome, who then wrote letters to all the Bishops of the world to excommunicate them from the Christian Church (although he had no such power). The response of Polycrates (190AD) is documented history. The Catholic church at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, formerly adopted the practice of observing the Easter resurrection of Jesus AND NOT HIS DEATH! Jesus instituted the memorial of his death in the new Passover and sealed this as an annual celebration. He sealed the memorial of his resurrection in New Testament baptism.

Out of the Council of Nicaea came the Catholic law not to observe the Lord's Passover on the day, evening, and time he instituted it. The Bishops at the Council switched over to celebrate the Easter resurrection and held this as an annual day. Easter is now an annual day while the Lord's Communion was moved inside newly adopted pagan mystery Mass. The Mass is held many times a day contrary to what Jesus instituted for the Communion Passover. When a Catholic sees this, they know Rome and the Council of Nicaea falsified the command of Jesus to observe the annual Passover held in honor of his death as the Passover Lamb. A Catholic has every right to leave the Catholic church and go back to what Jesus instituted and he did not institute the Mass. Jesus was not the founder of the Catholic church or its Mass.

So, the Eastern Asian Churches continued the Jerusalem practice of the Lord's Passover on the eve of the 14th of Nisan. The Western and African churches controlled by Rome began to observe the resurrection which they called Easter (Easter is the spring pagan goddess Eostre). Those who celebrate Easter are observing a pagan holiday manufactured by the papacy.

It is here that Catholics learn the Catholic church adopted a pagan name for the resurrection of Jesus. This is shocking to Catholics when they see it. It is shocking to Catholics to learn that no Church in the Bible ever observed the day of the resurrection on an annual basis: but instead observed it on the occasion of each and every baptism of a convert. But the Churches did observe the Lord's Passover on the same day the Jews celebrated their Passover.

When Catholics learn the Councils were not holy meetings of the True Apostolic Church, they want out and leave. Over 500 million people world-wide have rejected the claims of the Catholic church. When a Catholic has Bible study and learns what the true Church really believed and practiced, they see the real Church Jesus established. They will eagerly accept the Lord's Communion and observe it because it is the Thanksforgiving Feast of the Lord's Passover. They are willing to give up the paganism of Easter. It is right here that the Catholic learns the bread and wine are only symbols and do not turn into the real flesh and blood of Jesus. When they learn they cannot receive Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue, they will leave the Catholic church. When they come to the truth that the Catholic Eucharist is a falsehood they will never stick out their tongue again to receive it. Catholic priests, monks, archbishops, cardinals, and popes will shudder of this, but no one in the Bible received Jesus Christ as Savior by sticking out their tongue and receiving a wafer that is said to be the real flesh of Jesus. When a Catholic gets a firm grip on the Word of God and understands the true Passover of the Lord Jesus they will never return to a Catholic church ever again.

The fourth thing a Catholic learns is the Mass is not found in the Bible any where.

When a Catholic opens the Bible they will not find the Mass. They will not find a crucifix used by the New Testament Church. They will not find a Catholic style altar at all. All Catholics know the center of the Catholic religion is the Mass. It is the ritual artificial re-crucifixion of Jesus by a priest as he takes the cup of wine and presents it to a crucifix of Jesus on the cross and recites a prayer in Latin. Concluding his prayer the wine magically is turned into the blood of Jesus. He then gulps this down and does not share a drop with the members attending. Where did this practice originate that only priests can drink from the Cup? Paul did not teach this to the Corinthians! Next the priest picks up the IHS wafer and holds it high before the crucifix as he mumbles another prayer in Latin. Usually there is music and a song immediately after the consecration that turns the bread and wine into the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is to embellish the moment of the occasion and give it a sense of holiness. The priest then summons the faithful to come forward and receive Christ as Savior. Believing they are receiving Christ as Savior they flock to the front and stick out their tongue to receive Jesus.

But when a Catholic looks into the Bible for this mystery ritual Mass they will not find it. They learn the Mass is nothing but a borrowed pagan ritual from the temple of Jove. They learn there is no Mass found anywhere in the New Testament. They cannot find a single person sticking out their tongue to receive Christ as their Savior. They cannot find a Latin Mass. They cannot find a priest drinking the cup of wine all to himself. These things are not in the Bible any where. The New Testament records everything about the Christian Church. And the Catholic Mass is not found there. One Catholic woman said: "when I tried to find the Mass in the Bible and it was not there, I knew in my heart I had been deceived."

What is the Mass? It is an artificial sacrifice. It is a mock sacrifice. It is the priest recrucifying Jesus in the emblems of the Eucharist and the Cup. Where in the Bible are we to think that observing the Lord's Communion or Passover memorial we are recrucifying Jesus on the Cross? It is not there! When a Catholic looks in the Bible for a priest to hold in his hands the Eucharist wafer and turn it into the flesh of Jesus, he/she will not find it. When they look in the Bible for a place where a priest blesses the cup and turns it into the blood of Jesus he/she cannot find it. This is shocking! Why is the Catholic church doing something that is not in the Bible . Why are they performing a ritual that no Apostle or Minister of the Christian Church did? Why is the central religious ritual of the Catholic church completely missing from the Bible? It is not there. The Catholic who learns this discovers also that the daily multiple Mass observance to recrucify the Lord Jesus is not in the Bible. Yes, the Mass is a recrucification of Jesus every time the priest holds it. There must be fresh flesh and fresh blood of Jesus in the Catholic church several times a day or the Catholic church has no Mass. How many times a day in all the Catholic churches throughout the world is Christ recrucified every day? In the Bible those who crucify to themselves Christ afresh are accursed. There is not one Mass to be found any where in the Bible. Just because the Catholic church points to Jesus observing the Jewish Passover does not make it a Mass. Jesus observed the Passover and then instituted his own annual Passover. He did not institute the ritual of the Mass as the Catholic church practices today. And what of washing feet which Jesus did and commanded of his Apostles. Why, in over 1,700 years has the Catholic church NEVER PRACTICED WASHING OF FEET at the Communion as Jesus established? It does not because the Mass is not a true representation of the annual Passover Memorial Jesus instituted. At no time did Jesus hint or indicate his Memorial was to be a daily ritual. When Catholics learn this, they know in their heart of hearts this is not the true Church.

What is the fifth thing a Catholic learns is there is no confession booth in the Bible.

They discover the confession booth is all a fraud and a sham. They cannot find it any where in the Bible either. The Catholic church just made up religious stuff and got people to believe it. People who never read the Bible to check if what they are doing is even in there. When a Catholic searches the Bible for the confession booth and cannot find it they know going to a priest to confess their sins was nothing but the way the Catholic church learns everything sinful that is taking place in a person's life or home. They learn the priest has used the confessional to extract sex stories out of young girls and boys. Many altar boys were homosexualized using the confession booth as a tool of contact and seduction by the priest. What is so shocking about this instrument of the church is that no where are Christians told they must go to a New Testament Minister or Preacher to confess their sins to receive forgiveness. When the Catholic learns they can go straight to God in their own prayer, at home, in the car, at work, or at a place of worship: they have no need for a confessional ever again. And, how is it that a sinful priest can tell a sinner to say five hail-Marys and put some money in the poor box and this is the penance for their stealing, lying, adultery, fornication, gambling, homosexuality, lesbianism, drug use, and other sins? How can a priest guilty of most of the same sins who has not confessed himself to some other sinful priest, going to be able to grant indulgences and pardons? When a Catholic really thinks about this, they know they were members of a church that was not the Christian Church of the Bible. They know they must read their Bible and find a Church that matches the Church of the Bible.

The sixth thing a Catholic learns is there is no Pope in the Bible and Peter was not the first Pope.

A Catholic who opens the Bible will discover there is no pope. Yes, they learn the claim Peter was the first pope is false. They will not find a pope in the Bible, and what's more they will not find the pope's fish hat or his fancy gold worn by Peter. No, they will discover the Pontiff title is another religious title stolen from the high priest of the temple of Jove. They learn Peter never was a pope and never was the recognized leader of the Christian Church. Indeed, he was given the keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 16:19 but these when used on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), in Samaria (Acts 8), and in Caesarea (Acts 10), afterward ceasing to be needed. He opened up the Kingdom gates of the Church to the whole world. He was not given the keys as a signal he held the position of Pope. Once the gates to the Kingdom were opened no man could shut them. No where in the Bible did Peter pass these keys on to a successor.

Who was the man who presided over the New Testament Church? Was it Peter? No! It was Jacob (James) the firstborn son of Mary by Joseph after Jesus was born. This half-brother of the Lord arose and took over the leadership of the Church and we find him in that position in Acts 15. Peter never was the head of the Christian Church so he could not have been the first pope of a fictitious Catholic church. How come, if Jesus is the founder of the Catholic church he is not the first pope? Most Catholics never seem to get out of the Catholic box far enough to ask themselves some important questions. The invention of a Gentile pope to run the Catholic church was in the fourth century.

All the pre-Nicene books were rewritten in such a way to create a legacy of supposed Western or Latin Roman pontiffs who ruled the entire Christian Church world. The title of Pontiff comes from Latin paganism. The title Pontiff is not in the Bible any where (it is another Catholic falsehood).

There are men mentioned in the history of the Catholic church as popes who may have never existed. They can be proven to exist only in the post Nicene books written to reinforce Rome's claim to legitimate power and control over the Christian Church. The falsehood of the donation letter supposedly written by Constantine is an example of forgery and fraud within the Catholic church.

The whole idea, theory, and development of a succession of Latin pontiff popes from Peter to the present pope is all a massive fraud. There is no pope in the Bible and there never was a pope over the true Christian Church. Jesus reigns as King over the Church and his Ministers act as his ambassadors throughout the nations. This you will find in the Bible. You will not find a religious system with nuns, monks, archbishops, cardinals, prelates, and popes. A Catholic will not find a religious hierarchy of ascending ranks from laity to the pope as is found in the Catholic church. When a Catholic learns there is no pope in the Bible, they know once more they had been deceived by religious trickery and mental seduction. They know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Take a look on the left at an ancient image of the fish god Dagon found in Mesopotamia. Look at his fish hat and that of the pope above. Any Catholic can see the Catholic church has adopted Dagan idolatry in hats to embellish their popes and priests and make them look religious to the world. The popes of Rome need to jerk that fish hat off, throw it down, stomp on it, and take it out and burn it. The pope should issue a Papal Bull it is never to be worn again by any pope or priest. Will they do it? No they will not do it and this is the reason the Catholic must run from the Catholic church and never look back. The Catholic church is not going to correct any of this falsehood, rituals, or heresies. It is a paganized Christian religion that has entrenched itself in many nations by bloodshed, threats, violence, and deception.

The seventh thing a Catholic learns is the 12 Apostles and New Testament Saints were not Catholic.

When a Catholic opens their Bible and tries to find the 12 Apostles and the Saints attending a Catholic church they will not find it. They learn from Bible study that all the New Testament Apostles and Saints were not Catholic. They learn the Catholic church surrounds themselves with images and idols of the Apostles and New Testament Saints to deceive members that the 12 Apostles and Saints were Catholic. It makes members think if these were all Catholic then they should be Catholic also. When they look at the images of the Apostles, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, they are led to believe these chose the Catholic church because it is God's church. They never stop to think these images are put around a Catholic church to make people think it is the Church of God when it is not. Idols and images around a Catholic church is one of the biggest deceptions of the priests of Rome. It is an important tool used by the Catholic church to deceive the minds of members. The members are forced to think in a box. They never consider these were never Catholics. But when they open the Bible and see these were not Catholic their eyes come open and they see the Catholic church is not the Church of the Bible.

A Catholic who studies will learn there are no nuns, monks, priests, or popes in the Bible. They learn Mary was not worshiped. They learn she held no special position other then the Mother of the Messieh. They learn the Catholic church invented a white religion that is racist and portrays Mary, Joseph, Jesus as white people when they were black or brown. They learn that Rome deceives not only with false doctrine but with pictures, idols, and icons. They learn that the veneration, worship, and prayers to saints is not in the Bible. They learn the Catholic church did not give the world the Bible. The Bible existed before there was a Catholic church. They learn the Catholic church makes use of these so-called saints to embellish its pomp, rituals, church decor with images, and to make people think all these were Catholic.

None of the Saints of the New Testament Church were Catholic. None of them had ever been in a Catholic church. None were sprinkle baptized in the trinity. None ever doused themselves with holy water. None of them ever went to confession. Never prayed on the rosary. None attend a Mass. None celebrated Easter. In fact, when a Catholic looks in the Bible for adoration and veneration of saints he/she cannot find the practice of it any where. One of the claims of the Catholic church to Catholics is this: "You can believe the Catholic church is the true Church because it produced all the saints and such holy men and women as St Francis of Assisi, St Teresa of Avila, St. John Vianney, St Therese of Lizieux." Rome claims these and other holy saints produced by the Catholic church proves it is the true Church. But where is the adoration and veneration of saints in the Bible? Where in the Bible is there the making of idols and images of saints to stand around the church, in the foyer, outside the church, and in every nook and cranny? Idols and images are condemned in the Bible.

Where in the Bible did Christians make medallions to hang from one's neck as a luck charm or a fetish to ward off sickness, disease, or some other bad omen? There is none. The whole use of these so-called saints is to make Catholics think no other religion claiming to be Christian has such people in its ranks. The Catholic church uses these saints and their lives as a means to teach Catholic doctrine and compliance to the rules and codes. If a person rebels against the Catholic church they might lose the prayers of a saint on their behalf or the behalf of another loved one. So, to keep close to God a Catholic prays to these idols and gives money to their favorite saint-fan-club. When a Catholic learns there is no such practices found in the Bible they know they were deceived again. They know they must leave the Catholic church quickly because it is not the Church Jesus founded.

When a Catholic opens their Bible they will not find Mary attending a Catholic Church. They will not find her as a Nun. They will not find a perpetual virgin. If Mary is not a Catholic there is no Catholic church. When a Catholic opens the Bible and learns Mary was not a Catholic and not the mother of God, they know they must leave the Catholic church.

Mary was the mother of the seed of David in which God was incarnated upon birth (1Tim 3:16). There is no greater deception and lie of the Catholic church then that Mary was a Catholic. Mary never attended a Catholic church in her life. She never heard of one in her life. She never saw or met a Catholic nun, monk, priest, or pope in her life. She never attended a Mass in her life. She was never sprinkle baptized by a priest of the Catholic church. She never prayed on a rosary. She never crossed herself with the sign of the Cross. She never doused herself with holy water. She never went to a confession booth. She never received penance from a Catholic priest.

Mary was not a Catholic. She was Jewish and a member of the Christian Jewish Church. This Christian Jewish Church was not Catholic. The Jewish Church did not develop into the Catholic church. The Catholic church is a complete Gentile creation of men established many centuries after Mary's death.

Mary was a Jewish woman of the tribe of Judah and the mother of Jesus the Messieh of Israel. She was mother of the seed of David, the man-child, and she was the unrecognized queen of Israel. She did not birth a God into the world.

Such teachings that she is God's mother makes Catholicism a laughing stock. How can the created birth the uncreated? Impossible you say! Agreed. Where was Mary when God created the heavens and the earth? She was not living yet. Where was Mary when God created Adam and Eve? She did not exist. To say Mary was the mother of God cannot be found any where in the Bible. When a Catholic looks for this verification and cannot find it, they know this is one more reason to leave the Catholic church. They ask themselves: if Mary was not a Catholic why should I be?

The Catholic church goes above honor of Mary, they make her a co-mediator with Christ. The Catholic church claims a Catholic can pray to Mary who will talk to her son who will talk to his Father and favor is granted because Mary is the mother of the Father's Son. Catholics are led to believe Mary can get the Father to do for them what they ask because God the Father would never deny the Mother of his Son. Is this procedure of praying to Mary any where in the Bible? It is not found there.

What is the theory behind this? In ancient times a person might be afraid to go directly to a king because they did not know how their situation might turn out. So, they sought a way to influence the king and who better to do this than his mother. So, a person might get the mother to mention something to the king and thereby soften up his attitude and or provoke him to do something good for a person his mother knows. After all, it is reasoned what king would not want to show honor and respect to his mother's wishes. So, a Catholic believes if they ask Mary, she will ask the Son and the Son will ask the Father and the Father will not deny the mother of his Son.

When a Catholic learns this is not in the Bible any where they know the Catholic church is not the true Church founded by Jesus. When they learn Mary was not a go-between to Jesus and to God the Father for others, this causes Catholics to see all this Maryology as nothing but a big religious sham. They should take this treasured Lady down from her place among idols throughout the world. They should stop praying to her because this is not in the Bible. They should stop teaching lies and falsehoods about Mary. Have they no respect for her? They should remove her from their churches because she was Jewish and not Catholic. When a Catholic learns that Mary was not a Catholic they have discovered the last thing they need to know that proves the Catholic church is not the Church Jesus founded.

As the light of Truth comes into the life of a Catholic they will see the Catholic church as an impostor. They will then take a second look at its sins, evils, and scandals. They will know from its birth in Nicaea in 325AD until today 2005 it is an evil religion that has cheated millions of true Bible salvation by its falsehood. The Catholic church has killed more people to establish and enforce the Catholic religion then any other religion in the world. Thousands have been murdered. Hundreds have been burned at the stake. More hundreds have been tortured. There are thousands of killed babies whom nuns birthed and the fathers were priests. Homosexuality is so out of control in the Catholic church among the priests, monks, and popes. If ever there was a church the gates of hell have prevailed against, it is the Catholic church. Catholic apologist claim these are just scars of sinners upon Christ and they are wounds to his body that Catholics and the world should overlook. No, we cannot overlook something so evil, when we know it is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church will continue to be the most shameful religious group in the world. When a Catholic comes to see the shame of the Catholic church they will know it is not the true Church Jesus founded.

So, why should a Catholic leave the Catholic church and find the true Church of the Bible?

Because as members of the Catholic church they are in a false church. As a member in the Catholic church they are forced to believe the Catholic church does not have to be found in the Bible. They are forced to believe in many things they cannot find in the Bible.

If a Catholic does not leave the Catholic church they are not baptized properly as found in the Bible. They are not saved by faith as found in the Bible. If they remain Catholic their soul will be lost. If they remain a Catholic after they are shown the Catholic church is not in the Bible they will go to hell.

A Catholic must ask themselves: "If Jesus and the Apostles were not in the Catholic church why should I be a member?"

A Catholic must believe Jesus was the founder of a Jewish Christian Church and Peter preached how to be saved in Acts 2:38.

A Catholic must ask him/her self this question: "If Peter was the first Pope how come the Catholic church does not follow him and baptized in the name of Jesus Christ as Peter preached in Acts 2:38?

Catholics are not dumb people. They do not want their soul to be lost. My final advice to all our Catholic friends is: "don't let anyone fool you or convince you to stay in the Catholic church."

Lord Jesus I pray for all the good people in the Catholic church. I pray our Lord that you would open their eyes to see you were not a Catholic and they should not be either. As they open their Bible Lord Jesus and begin to seek for the true Church, guide them, love them, and lead them as our Good Shepherd. Lord I pray now you will bring them into the one fold of the True Church of Jesus Christ. Amen!

Calling in the Greek, Latin and Aramaic experts on FR on this subject. Don't have the full screename for Kolo

Jimmy Akin: Bad Aramaic Made Easy -- There Is No Word for ‘Cousin’

Bad Aramaic Made Easy

There Is No Word for ‘Cousin’

By Jimmy Akin

In 2002, a unique archaeological find was announced: a limestone ossuary (or bone box) that may have held the remains of James, the "brother" of Jesus. The box dates to first-century Palestine and is inscribed in Jesus’ native language, Aramaic, with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

New attention was drawn to the ossuary by a book entitled The Brother of Jesus, by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington. Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review; Witherington is a New Testament professor. To publicize it, the two wrote a tie-in piece in USA Today’s weekend magazine, in which Witherington (the primary author) asserted:

"It is possible the inscription on the ossuary—‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’—provides us with a challenge in regard to some basic Christian assumptions about James. The Roman Catholic tradition is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters actually were cousins; Orthodox Christians believe they were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. The inscription conflicts with both of those Christian traditions, in fact, for there certainly was an Aramaic word for ‘cousin’ that could have been used in this inscription but was not. If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states" ("In the Name of the Brother," USA Weekend, April 13, 2003).

Witherington’s statement proved controversial. Though his characterization of Catholic teaching is not without problem, his assertion that there is an Aramaic word for "cousin" is egregious.

The Source of the Controversy
The New Testament is explicit that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Christian tradition—later infallibly affirmed by the Church—acknowledges that she remained a virgin afterward. The great majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community dissents.

But there are certain questions to be answered, such as: Who are the "brethren" or "brothers" of Christ mentioned in Scripture?

In English, when we say "brother," we usually mean full brother—a male sibling sharing both biological parents. But the term has a broader range of meanings. It can include "half-brother" (male sibling sharing one biological parent), "stepbrother" (male sibling sharing one parent by marriage), and "adoptive brother" (male sibling adopted into the family). It can be given figurative meanings, such as "comrade," as when military men are described as "a band of brothers."

Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?

It is unlikely that the term for "brother" is being used figuratively or mystically, because all Christians are Christ’s brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. "Full brother" is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. "Half-brother" is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin. It is possible they were adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record.

More plausibly, they were stepbrothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus’ brothers by marriage. There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have—in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)—states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin. Though not inspired, the document was written within living memory of Mary, when Christ’s family was still well known, as other sources attest (e.g., second-century historian Hegisippus). It may contain accurate traditions regarding the family structure.

The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common until Jerome (the turn of the fifth century) popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins. One would not guess this from a casual reading of the New Testament, but many have tried to deduce it from statements in the New Testament.

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word brother. Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios) that seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn’t used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn’t ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original Aramaic words (e.g., "Talitha cumi" in Mark 5:41).

This is important, because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one had to use a circumlocution such as "the son of his uncle" (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean "cousin" in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which means literally "brother" but is also frequently used in the sense of "relative" or "kinsman."

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for "cousin," normally would have used a general term to refer to whatever cousins Jesus had. In translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for "brother" (adelphos).

Which James?
There may be as many as seven men named James mentioned in the New Testament. For our purposes the most important are:

1. James "the Lord’s brother" (Matt. 13:55; Acts 15:13–21; 1 Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19),

2. James "son of Zebedee" (Matt. 4:21; 10:2; 17:1; Acts 12:2),

3. James "son of Alphaeus" (Matt. 10:3; Acts 1:13).

It is the first whose ossuary may have been found. He often was called "James the Just" and was martyred in the A.D. 60s (cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20:9). He is not the same as James son of Zebedee, who was martyred earlier (cf. Acts 12:2). Advocates of the cousin interpretation commonly seek to identify him with James son of Alphaeus.

Engaging the Argument
In the USA Weekend piece, Witherington criticized both the stepbrother and the cousin hypotheses. Regarding the former, he wrote, "If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states."

This argument is flatly wrong. The inscription does not state that Jesus and James were "literally" brothers. It says that they were brothers, period. It doesn’t say "James, son of Joseph, literal brother of Jesus."

And what does Witherington mean by "literally"? To most ears, the most literal meaning of brother is "full brother," all the other senses being in some sense accommodated to this primary sense. But we know that James cannot be a full brother because Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father (a point that Witherington, who has written a book critical of liberal reinterpretations of Jesus, acknowledges).

Witherington is trying to get too much out of the single word for "brother" in the inscription. Its range of meaning is simply too broad to rule out James being a stepbrother.

Even in English, which includes the term stepbrother, we tend to use just brother. Someone making introductions is more likely to say, "This is my brother" than "This is my stepbrother," unless family relations are icy.

Witherington dismisses the cousin hypothesis by simply asserting, "There certainly was an Aramaic word for ‘cousin’ that could have been used in this inscription but was not." For this argument to work, several premises have to be granted:

1. The ossuary is that of James the Just. Otherwise the ossuary has no relevance to the Holy Family.

2. The person who wrote "brother of Jesus" knew whose bones were in the ossuary. This is necessary because, even if the box did belong to James the Just, the inscriber had to correctly record his relationship to Jesus.

3. There is a word for "cousin" in Aramaic. This is the premise Witherington’s argument hinges on.

4. This Aramaic word was used in first-century Palestinian Aramaic. Aramaic is a language that goes back four thousand years. It served as the lingua franca of the Middle East for centuries, developing numerous dialects. Hypothetically, some dialect could have acquired a word for "cousin." But the fact that one dialect would have such a word—and that it might conceivably be found in some Aramaic dictionary (not one I have located)—would not prove that it could have been used on the James ossuary. For that to happen, it would have to have been part of first-century Palestinian Aramaic.

5. This was the preferred term for describing cousins at that time. By way of comparison, if I wanted to talk about someone’s housecat, I might refer to his domestic feline. That’s possible in current English, but not preferred. I’d be expected in normal speech to use the preferred term housecat or, more likely, simply cat. If there were a "cousin" term in first-century Jewish Palestinian Aramaic but it was a rare or non-preferred term, we would not expect it to be used on the ossuary. It would have to be preferred for the argument to have weight.

How probable are the five premises?

Premise one is possible. There is a good case to be made that the ossuary was that of James the Just (see Hershel Shanks’s part of The Brother of Jesus). Yet it is possible that the ossuary belonged to someone else.

This could happen if the inscription has been parsed incorrectly. It has been generally assumed that the phrase "brother of Jesus" applies to James. This is not certain; it may apply to Joseph (cf. Biblical Archaeology Review, March/April 2003, 12). In other words, the box belonged to a James who was the son of a Joseph, and Joseph was a brother of someone named Jesus. In this case, Jesus would be the uncle of James.

What would make this Jesus worth mentioning? If he were Jesus Christ, that would do it. Christ had a "brother" named Joseph (cf. Matt. 13:55), so he might have had a nephew named James. If so, Witherington’s argument can be reconstructed, because then Joseph is being described as Jesus’ brother.

It also is possible that the box has no connection with the Holy Family, and the Jesus of the inscription is worth mentioning for a different reason. It has been suggested that the inscription is due to a levirite marriage (cf. ibid., 14). According to this Jewish marriage custom (which lasted until the Middle Ages), if a man died childless, his brother was obliged to marry the widow to become the biological father of children whose legal father would be the dead man. Thus the box might belong to a James who had both a legal and a biological father, the two being brothers. So while premise one is quite possible, it is not certain.

The same is true of premise two. A few scholars have suggested that the part of the inscription that reads "brother of Jesus" may have been added later than the first part—though still in antiquity, since it also is highly weathered. If this was added, then the scribe presumably did so to clarify which "James son of Joseph" was being discussed—the one with the famous relation named Jesus.

But since the hypothetical second scribe was at least somewhat later than the first, he might have been more removed from the facts and thus might not have known the exact relationship between the two. Thus, per premise two we must assume that whoever wrote "brother of Jesus" knew whose bones the ossuary contained.

That’s not unreasonable, but the uncertainty increases the later in time the hypothetical scribe lived. If he was in the third or fourth century, then the exact knowledge of Jesus’ family relations had likely vanished by the time he wrote.

Premise three—that there is an Aramaic word for "cousin"—is where Witherington’s argument falls apart. He does not tell us what word he is referring to, either in the USA Weekend piece (which seems understandable) or in his part of The Brother of Jesus (which seems inexcusable, since his case hinges upon it and he liberally produces other foreign-language words).

After the article was published, I had a couple of cordial exchanges with Witherington. He seems to be a nice guy, but it does not appear to me that he knows Aramaic. New Testament professors in Protestant seminaries are well trained in Greek and have some background in Hebrew but almost none in Aramaic. In our first discussion, Witherington referred me to one of his colleagues, whom he described as "the real expert" and who had "assured" him that there was a word for "cousin."

Witherington’s lack of ease with Aramaic is apparent by the fact that, in his part of The Brother of Jesus, he freely explains Greek words for things but tends to fall silent when it comes to Aramaic. From what I can tell at present, he was just basing his argument on what he has heard from others.

Those others would not seem to include his co-author, Shanks. In his part of The Brother of Jesus, Shanks writes things that undercut Witherington’s claim. For example, he quotes the paleographer Emile Peuch, O.P., as saying "the specific relationship of James and Jesus in our ossuary is quite simply indeterminable. . . . The term ‘brother’ actually concurrently [in the first century] meant blood brother, half-brother, husband, uncle, nephew, cousin, friend, and companion" (51).

To my knowledge, I am the only full-time Catholic apologist who makes a study of Aramaic. I’ve paid particular attention to the cousin issue because of its apologetic implications. Still, I am not an expert, so I consulted several people who are more knowledgeable.

The first was Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J., and he confirmed that he also was unaware of any Aramaic term (in any dialect) that means "cousin."

Next, I visited my Aramaic teacher, Fr. Michael Bazzi, a Chaldean Catholic priest from Mosul, Iraq. He is a native speaker of Aramaic (the ethnic language of Chaldeans) and the author of several textbooks on both modern and classical Aramaic. Fr. Bazzi confirmed that there is no term for "cousin," and whenever one wishes to pick out the cousin relationship, one uses one of the various possible circumlocutions. Neither did the dictionaries that Fr. Bazzi and I checked produce words for "cousin."

Finally, I corresponded with Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. Though scholarly reserve would prevent him from saying so, he is regarded as an 800-pound gorilla among American scholars of Aramaic. In The Brother of Jesus, Shanks notes, "No one wants to get into the ring with Joe Fitzmyer when it comes to Aramaic" (47).

Fr. Fitzmyer was quite helpful and direct: "In first-century Palestinian Aramaic there was no word for ‘cousin,’ but one used the circumlocution, ‘son of the uncle.’" Further, he added, "I do not know of any word for ‘cousin’ [apart from the circumlocution] in any other Aramaic dialects."

Concerning the word for "brother," Fitzmyer noted, "The word did not simply mean ‘blood brother,’ and you will find in the book of Tobit a variety of broader meanings: ‘compatriot,’ ‘kinsman,’ ‘relative,’ and even a generic usage when a speaker employs it, not really knowing (yet) the relationship proper. The young Tobias even calls the angel Raphael (in disguise), ‘Brother Azariah’ (Tob. 6:7, extant in Aramaic). By that he certainly did not mean ‘blood brother.’"

While I was checking with my experts, Witherington was checking with his, and by the time of our second exchange, he was prepared to concede the key points. In an e-mail he wrote, "In Aramaic there is no technical singular term for cousin, unlike anepsios in Greek, so a circumlocution must be used in Aramaic if you want to affirm that someone was a cousin and not a blood brother."

He further noted, "The term ahui [the word corresponding to brother on the ossuary] can of course be used in a broader sense to mean ‘relative.’"

While Witherington does not support a Catholic interpretation of the brethren of Christ, he now tacitly acknowledges that he was wrong, and there is no Aramaic word for "cousin."

This serves as a caution for those who would make such a claim. Not only would they need to produce such an Aramaic word, along with the evidence backing up its existence in first-century Aramaic; they also would need to show evidence that it was the preferred term for "cousin" at that time.

Unless they can do this, it is irresponsible to tell the public that there is such a word. To do so misleads individuals of multiple religious persuasions, disturbs the faith of some, confuses others, and sparks needless arguments.

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.