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!

My goodness, how the mighty myth has fallen.

Counting coup again?

The myth may have fallen, may indeed be a myth, but you wouldn't know it from anything you and Diego have said. You simply do not make your case anything more than a likely story -- as far as I can see, and I've followed it on other threads. It's plausible only if if a whole array of assumptions, some easy, some difficult, are made.

And to me you make your case all the more dubious by seemingly failing to acknowledge the uncertainties or contradictions in your own arguments, by shifting ground, by seeming to resort to circular argument, and by repeatedly claiming that a bunch of coherent conjectures adds up to a proof.

You just said that the beginnings of both letters of Peter indicate that they were written to two different sets of people.

(1)Could "those" be Gentiles. (2)He is addressing them both to different peoples, the first to the Jews of the Disapora and the second to the Gentiles who believe along with the Jews. [I inserted the sentence numbers.]

That "those" COULD be Gentiles doesn't show that they ARE Gentiles. Because sentence one is a question (w/o a question mark)in the conditional tense and sentence two is a statement in the indicative mood, it is almost as though they came from two different paragraphs! It's not easy to prove "is" from "could?"

And then if we assume that the letters are addressed the one to gentiles and the other to Jews, you have the problem of dealing with 2 Pet 3:1 which seems to suggest that both were written to the same people. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. It's there. It's a problem created by your hypothesis. If you want your hypothesis to stand, I think you need to deal with it, not just move to some other argument.

It is as if showing that the traditional account is a conjecture with flaws PROVES that it is a myth, so much so that you can crow that it is fallen, while merely offering your account, certainly also a conjecture and certainly also flawed, is enough to prove its truth.

This is what I mean by our having very different understandings of argument and proof. To me, saying that the other side's contention is a fallen myth would be something I would only do either after I had "taken the field" with a comprehensively dispositive argument or as a "This is what I intend to prove" statement. It seems that you do it when you have merely articulated your conjecture. It has a high school debate flavor to my mind unsuited to a serious discussion of serious issues.

We get the over all thesis. We examine the arguments. We point out where they fail to persuade. SO you restate the thesis in a way seemingly intended to offend. Surely you don't think that will persuade us, do you?

Here is the article you linked to me at #1454:

In search of St. Peter's Tomb by Dr. Steven Hijmans

On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter's tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.

Between 1939 and 1949 this team had uncovered an impressive complex of mausoleums under the foundations of the church, dating to the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From their perspective the most spectacular find was, beyond doubt, the small monument under the present altar of the church which, all evidence suggests, was built as early as AD 160 to mark the tomb of St. Peter below it.

But from a scholarly perspective many other aspects of this complex are equally fascinating. It is striking, for instance, that although the monument above St. Peter's tomb is unequivocally Christian, all the mausolea in the necropolis around it were pagan. Accustomed as we are to associating the Roman Empire before Constantine with the persecution of Christians, it is interesting to note that Christians were apparently able to erect such a monument in an otherwise pagan area at this time.

The numerous mausoleums in the necropolis, often quite intact and well-preserved, are also of obvious interest. One mausoleum, designated mausoleum M, has sparked much debate because of the mosaics with which it is decorated. One figure in particular, depicting the sun-god, is often interpreted as Christ. This would make the mausoleum the single exception to the rule that all mausolea in the necropolis are pagan. However, this mausoleum has been the focus of some of my own research that deals with the Roman sun god, and I question the Christian interpretation given to its mosaics. But it is through this mausoleum that I became interested in this complex as a whole.

Returning to the tomb of St. Peter, its discovery immediately raised the question of the remains of the apostle. Did the excavators find them in the tomb under the monument? This is what Pope Pius XII said in his radio broadcast:

The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles has been found. Such is the final conclusion after all the labour and study of these years. A second question, subordinate to the first, refers to the relics of Saint Peter. Have they been found? At the side of the tomb remains of human bones have been discovered. However, it is impossible to prove with certainty that they belong to the apostle.

Little did he know what a bizarre episode in Christian archaeology lay ahead when he spoke these words. The whole subsequent story has been clearly set out by Dr. J. Curran in the journal Classics Ireland but I will summarize it here. Although the scant remains of bones found in the tomb were initially identified as those of a man in his late sixties, more extensive study later revealed that they actually belonged to an older man, a younger man, a woman, a pig, a chicken, and a horse.

This was disappointing, but meanwhile Margherita Guarducci, an epigraphist studying the graffiti on the monument above the tomb, had discovered that there had actually been a second burial associated directly with the monument. The excavators were unaware of this second burial through no fault of their own. The problem was that these archaeologists, as scholars, had dealt with their finds--including human remains--as archaeological data. Monsignor Kaas, a cleric rather than a scholar, thoroughly disapproved of this and as a result there had been a growing rift between the excavators and their superior. Increasingly, Kaas had taken to visiting the site alone, when the others were gone, guided by workmen sworn to secrecy.

On one such visit, in 1942, he had noticed this second tomb in the monument, newly uncovered but as yet unopened, and had ordered the workman accompanying him to open it. The tomb was not empty, and convinced that this was yet another burial that would soon be desecrated by the Jesuit archaeologists, Kaas had ordered the remains removed and stored for safekeeping. Guarducci discovered these events by pure chance, and by that time Kaas had died. So when Paul VI, a family friend of the Guarduccis, was elected pope, she informed him of her belief that in fact these remains were the true remains of Peter. The bones were found where Kaas had stored them and when testing revealed that they did indeed belong to a man in his sixties, Paul VI officially announced, on June 26th 1968, that the relics of St. Peter had been discovered.

Numerous scholars, including Curran, are by no means convinced that Guarducci was right and that these bones are indeed those of St. Peter. There are in fact numerous cogent arguments against that suggestion. However, none of the alternative hypotheses put forward are convincing either, and this leaves us with two tombs, a monument, and no relics.

Does that matter? It is true that we will probably never know with certainty which of the various bones--if any--belong to St. Peter, but while scholars puzzle over the nature of these remains, is it not enough that under the high altar of St. Peter's we have identified the remains of a monument marking a tomb that has drawn Christian worshippers continuously for over 1850 years? It is in that, one would think, that the true importance of this monument lies.

Dr. Steven Hijmans is a professor of history and classics and also a member of the Religion and Culture Network at the University of Alberta. This article was written in conjunction with a lecture series, "Exploring Our Past: Historical Perspectives on Christianity", that was co-organized by the Faculty of Arts and McDougall United Church. See the ExpressNews What's On - Lectures section for more information about this lecture series, which continues until June 14, 2001.

However, He was first sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, not Jews or Gentiles.

Stepping in here to help clarify....can't stay long as my grandson's baseball game starts soon. He's actually pretty good for nine years old and makes me proud. He has a 51 mile an hour fast ball....clocked! His dad, my son, was pretty good too, so he has an excellent pitching coach.

Many folks never heard of the distinction between Israel and Judah. Ping-Pong has alluded to it several times and I have also, so I thought I would take the time to expostulate.

In Genesis we read of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and of God's relationship to them. Abraham has other children and so does Isaac, but the scriptures primarily deal with Jacob and his progeny from the time his name is changed to Israel [Genesis 35:10]. The twelve sons and one daughter of Jacob are henceforth called the Children of Israel.....and the rest of the Old Testament is their story.

Everyone knows of the enslavement in Egypt and [Genesis 48] explains the division of the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manessah). During the Egyptian captivity there are thirteen tribes of Israel but after the Exodus the tribe of Moses (and Aaron), the Levites, becomes a priestly tribe and is apportioned by population to serve the other tribes.... bringing the tribe count back down to twelve.

After the Exodus and the resettlement in "The Promised Land" the Kingdom of Israel is divided and this can be read about in the books of Kings and Chronicles...primarily chapters eleven and twelve of I Kings. Ten tribes, in the north, retain the appellation "Israel". The two tribes in the south are Judah and Benjamin....with their apportioned share of the priestly tribe of Levi. They are henceforth referred to as Judah...jointly, and later on in biblical history simply become known as "Jews".

There are multiple prophesies to the Nations of Israel and Judah....both jointly and separately....so when you are reading prophecy it helps to make this distinction. Later on in history, God in his anger sends away to exile the Northern Kingdom...(ten tribes) about 721 B.C. to Assyria [II Kings 17:6] and they never return from captivity. The king of Assyria repopulates the now vacant land with pagans [II Kings 17:24] and these folks blend in with their paganism some features of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [II Kings 17:33-34] ....exemplified by their now new neighbors....the Jews, or the Southern Kingdom.

The ten tribes are now lost to history....everyone knows where they are, but they become known as strangers, sojourners, captives, and in reading ancient history of that era and local you will see many cultures developing in the same location at the same time as the ten tribes were in residence. So, bottom line....they became known by other names. Josephus knew who they were and where they were in the first century. Jesus knew who they were and where they were when he instructed his Apostles to "Go to them".

The Southern Kingdom of Judah (Jews) lived on in that area until they too, were taken captive.... to Babylon about 600 B.C. [II Kings 25:1-7] But, they returned to the "Promised Land" seventy years later and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle that episode. That land....of Judah (the Jews) became known as Judea in the first century. The land north was referred to as Samaria and still populated by paganized descendants of Babylonian refugees....the ancestors of Simon Magus. [Acts 8]

During the first century, the time we read most about in the New Testament, the ten tribes of Israel have still not returned to "The Promised Land" and they are known as Israelites.....and never referred to as Jews! The country of Judea is populated by Jews...who are also Israelites....one tribe. These ten tribes are who Our Saviour refers to when He speaks of the "Lost Sheep". [Matthew 10:6 and Matthew 15:24] He also references them in [John 21:15-17]. He is not speaking here of the Jews of Judea. He was one...so were most of the Apostles. He is not speaking of the Gentiles or He would have not called them His Lost Sheep!

This is only a scratching of the surface with regard to this story and like I say....I've got to go root for my grandson, so I would just like to leave you all with a suggestion. When you read prophecy look to see at whom it is directed. If it is directed to Israel in the last days....don't put too much credence in that being the little country we all call Israel today....for they are "Judah! This is one reason why many folks cannot understand simple prophecy. They are attempting to place it on the wrong people, at the wrong time, in the wrong place!

You just did it again! When one piece of data that you adduce is shown to be inconclusive, you don't even acknowledge that it has been so shown,. You just go find another dubious argument, which you present tendentiously. The first time you quoted that article you didn't even mention the other body under the menagerie of bones.

And I HAVE read the Justin Martyr bit, a LOT in recent days. Have YOU mentioned how many people think that the statue he thinks is Simon is in fact a statue of a Sabine Diety?

What is up with this? Are we about the truth here or about selling a point of view by carelessly misrepresenting evidence? I am really astonished!

I wish you would understand it form my point of view. If I give a moment's credence to something you assert, somebody else comes up and shows me that I shouldn't have. YOU mention the menagerie of bones, and I don't challenge it but joke with you about it, thinking that the discovery of the body that I know about must have happened another time. Now I am embarrassed that I believed you! This is terrible scholarship, and I am just an ADHD wanna be!

Diego asserts that Strong says that tribe is the "preferred" meaning of ethnos. I go to HIS source and find that's not what it says at all! How can I ever trust you again?

I feel abused! maybe this is abusive of me, but I don't intend it to be. I just don't get how the obvious misrepresentation of a source, whether intentional or not is not a kind of betrayal.

I'm sorry if I'm out of line here. I have eagerly mocked myself (easy target, after all) and reached out to controversialists to try to help this be a decent and friendly thread. Now I think I was wasting my time.

Please tell me this was at least inadvertent.

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.