
Pope Benedict XVI blesses faithful during his weekly general audience on November 21, 2012 at the Paul VI hall at the Vatican. Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday voiced his support for diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire in Gaza on the eighth day of the conflict and spoke of his concern at the escalating violence. (Credit: AFP/Getty Images)
Jesus Christ was actually born many years earlier than previously thought. At least that’s what the Pope says.
In his book, “Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives,” the Pope claims that a “mistake” was made by a sixth century monk known as Dionysius Exiguus, translated as “Dennis the Small” in English.
“The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years,” the Pope writes in the book. “The actual date of Jesus’s birth was several years before.”
The Telegraph has more details:
The assertion that the Christian calendar is based on a false premise is not new – many historians believe that Christ was born sometime between 7BC and 2BC.
But the fact that doubts over one of the keystones of Christian tradition have been raised by the leader of the world’s one billion Catholics is striking.
Dennis the Small, who was born in Eastern Europe, is credited with being the “inventor” of the modern calendar and the concept of the Anno Domini era.
He drew up the new system in part to distance it from the calendar in use at the time, which was based on the years since the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian.
There are doubts about how exactly Dennis calculated the year of Christ’s birth. In other words, the Pope’s view is not uncommon and certainly not earth shattering.
“The Bible does not specify a date for the birth of Christ. The monk instead appears to have based his calculations on vague references to Jesus’s age at the start of his ministry and the fact that he was baptised in the reign of the emperor Tiberius,” The Telegraph reports.
Featured image via AFP/Getty





















































































































Comments (370)
The-Monk
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:20pmDo they dye the Pope’s hair to match his clothes or vice-versa?
Report this comment
Zorch
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:18pmThis is amazing….any REAL Christian knows there is no reference to Jesus’ birth, other than “the shepherds were watching the flocks in the field…” (can’t be winter), and now this ancient man, THIS Pope, has finally found out; I’m happy for him, but it doesn’t deserve to be written about. These are the sorts of things that have caused the Reformation, that event that revealed Catholicism for what it is, a money maker. The Bible refers to the Holy Catholic church, but this is better defined as the Holy Universal Church, the church formed after Christ’s resurrection, by the Apostles. Anyway, perhaps one day, this Pope or another, will discover that too. Are Catholics, Christians? Not so much!
Believing in Jesus doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than going to McDonald’s make you a hamburger. Remember, the Bible tells us Devils believe in Jesus…..and tremble.!
Report this comment
Gourdy
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:26pm“Believing in Jesus doesn’t make you a Christian” — dude, that’s the very definition of a Christian. You can’t just make stuff up!
Report this comment
NHwinter
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:41pmZorch – I don’t think it snows that much in Bethlehem, so the shepards could be watching their flocks. Not that the year or date matters, its the fact the Jesus was born. I find it interesting that so many bash the Catholic Church. If you did an indepth study you would find the doctrine is based on scripture. To each his own, if you don’t like that church find another, but be kind and stop bashing what you don’t know about. Its horrible enough that Obama has pitted one group against the other, lets not add to all this division.
Report this comment
Platonician
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:51pm“any REAL Christian knows there is no reference to Jesus’ birth, other than “the shepherds were watching the flocks in the field…”
Catholic Scholars, theologians and historians, the best minds of humanity, have been dealing with these issues for centuries. The book by the Holy Father was published years ago but keep in mind that long before he became the Pope, he was a theology professor at the best Universities in Germany.
Please before imagining that you have the truth about any Christian matter remember that the Bible itself was compiled by the Catholic Church, and you cannot interpret it without the scholar tradition and teachings of the Church.
The main reason behind Reformation was the personal ambition of depraved and flawed human beings like Luther and Calvin, the Obamas of Christianity. Millions died because of their pride and foolishness. Oh and the current depravity of secular society is a pure product of protestantism.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 9:55pm@ zorch
Do some of your own homework instead of reading the old “Chick” publications!
Report this comment
NoSurrender
Nov. 21, 2012 at 10:37pmThe whole crux of the rrformation was to reform the Church as it was and remove it from the clutches of Rome and the polution of its academics.
Long live the Reformation and No Surrender.
Report this comment
DeeCee
Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:17am@PLATONICIAN says:
“The book by the Holy Father was published years ago but …”
However, what you need to read and observe is the words of a real Bible:
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9
Report this comment
I.X.Pect
Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:26am@Gourdy : Satan believes in both God and Jesus, yet he isn’t Christian.
Report this comment
OlderCowGirl
Nov. 22, 2012 at 12:50am@Gourdy
I believe that you can believe that Jesus is real…but not necessarily follow Christ’s teachings. It is my understanding that a Christian is a follower of the ways of Christ. The Catholics believe in Jesus the Christ…the son of God. But my Catholic friends tell me that Catholics are the worst…because they believe that they can do anything they want…and just go ask for forgiveness from a Catholic Priest. Not all Catholics believe this way. I know of a lady who was Catholic and a very sincere Christian…I’ve never seen any Christian with more faith than this woman.
Report this comment
USAMama
Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:21amDeeCee, thank you!! I was born and raised catholic and much of my family is still catholic so I don’t want to “bash them,” however; since leaving the catholic church I have been shocked by how much of what they do is in direct contradiction to the Bible! To call a priest “Father” or worse the pope “holy father” to me is blasphemy and I won’t do it. Jesus rebuked that. Also praying to saints, even the apostle Peter told Cornelius, who had fallen at his feet and began to worship him “arise, I too am just a man.” We are not to worship anybody but God and His son Jesus. And yes prayer is a form of worship. And this notion that people are somehow unable to “interperate” the Bible without some scholar or priest is wrong. Most of the Bible is very clear and easy to understand. Much of it reads as a history book. The first time I picked up a Bible as an adult I expected it to be some coded book full of riddles that needed deciphered I was surprised by how easy it was to follow. Growing up catholic we never had a Bible in the house, which I don’t understand. What better way to understand God then to learn His history! It’s like the progressives telling us we shouldn’t read the constitution. That we need some elite scholars to “decipher” it, when in reality it’s not that hard to understand, and when you do read it you start to realize all the things they are doing that are just wrong.
Report this comment
DJA222
Nov. 22, 2012 at 7:54amTo USAMOMMA
It is a shame that you left the Catholic Church with those misunderstandings. Here is an explanation for your very important points
1) Father -Matthew does say “call no one on earth your father; you have but one father in heaven” (Mt 23:9). Do you think this passage meant that we can not even call our biological Dads, father? It was directed at the type of Father that only God can be, as our creator and Lord. In Matthew several sentences later he said, “Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers” (Matt. 23:32). So clearly verse 9 was not meant to be a prohibition against the use of the word “father”. Rather, it was a prohibition against the misuse. St. Paul calls the Corinthians his beloved children and says that he became their father in Christ (1Cor4:14:15). Paul also talks about “Abraham, who is the father to all of us” (Romans 4:16). The genealogy of Matthew discusses the fathers leading up to Jesus (Mt 1:1-17).
2) prayers – Catholics do not pray to saints or even to Mary – Catholics pray through them by asking for their intercession. Since Catholics believe they are in heaven with our Lord, they can be a great advocate for us.
3) Bible – First, Catholics are encouraged to read the bible everyday. The Catholic mass structure, readings and prayers are saturated with the Bible. Second, if no interpretation is necessary, then every Christian faith should be celebrating the Eucharist as Jesus insisted (John6) and highlighted by Paul in Corinthia
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 22, 2012 at 4:46pm@DJA222,
1. The RCC teaches that John 20:22 for example, designates the church as an institution of salvation which dispenses grace by the sacraments, through the priesthood. The problem is that the text does not support the notion that “only” those ordained under true apostolic authority were to possess this power. All believers proclaim the Gospel by which sins are forgiven: Rom 1:16; 1 Cor 15:1-4; 2 Cor 3-5.
2.Many scriptural arguments can be made concerning the Mariology doctrines of sinlessness, verneraion, bodily assumption, mediatrix and co-redemptrix etc. We are cautioned not to use any graven image in worship. The Bible states clearly that there are demonic spirits behind idols. 1 Cor 10:19-20. The issue isn’t whether or not one is praying to an image, but rather praying to the saint behind the image, since God should be the only object of prayer.
3. The problem is that the Bible is not saturated with the mass structure. In fact, it’s not there at all. Second, John 6 does not mention the mass either. It speaks of Jesus being the bread of life.
Report this comment
ZAP
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:00pmWhat a way to push a book
Report this comment
fastfacts
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:17pmDoes it really matter when Christ was born… he was born, that is what is important.
We need to start learning our history again though. We need to do this to gain back the minds and hearts of our young people. I have taken up a cause to teach them history ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/fastfacts/historical-conquest-card-game-of-the-future-and-th?ref=card ) and I would ask others to find their cause. The cause is great and the task will be difficult but our youth is worth it. Bringing them back to the principles life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is well worth it.
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 23, 2012 at 2:03am@USAMAMA – If any Christian can pick up the Bible and be led into all truth why do Protest-ants disagree with eachother about what is necessary for salvation? If any sincere believer can pick up the scriptures and understand them completely why did the Eunuch need Phillip to explain the meaning of scripture to him on the road to Jerusalem? If any sincere person can pick up the Bible and understand it completely why did Jesus have to explain everything that the scriptures said about Him to the 2 Disciples on the road to Emmaus? Peter said that Paul’s writings are very difficult to understand and the unstable and ignorant twist them as they do many other scriptures to their own destruction. So, we know that all scripture is of God and inerrant AND we also know that not everyone who reads scripture with a sincere heart comes to understand the scriptures completely. Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth. We know that the Church cannot fail because Jesus Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Jesus also promised that the Church He established would be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. So, we know that we can trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded to lead us into all truth. If we leave the Church that Jesus Christ founded and choose to rely on our own insight we are saying that Jesus Christ did not keep His promise. Do you mean to suggest that everyone who reads scripture is infallible? PAX CHRISTI
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 23, 2012 at 3:34pm@SNOOP
These are mostly straw men, but to answer respectively:
1. Non Catholics disagree on the definition of Salvation due to unbelief, poor hermeneutics, Ignorance, selfish pride, immaturity, traditions of men.
2. The Eunuch was an Ethiopian. Not a sincere believer.
3. Any sincere person can easily understand the Gospel message in the Bible. Understanding the Bible completely probably won’t happen in a lifetime. Regardless, leaving the interpretation to someone else who is just as fallen and sinful as you or I, is not a solution. Allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you to the knowledge of the truth as you read the Bible, is the method the Bible suggests.
4. Where does Scripture tell us “the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth”?
5. Just because Jesus said “His Church” will not fail, does not mean the RCC will not fail, nor that because it claims to be His Church, that it has the unfailing truth. And when compared to the Bible, it becomes clear that the truths the RCC teaches are mostly the doctrines of men.
6. Where does the Bible say “we can trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded to lead us into all truth? I think you’re confusing the RCC with the Holy Spirit and the Bible. Besides, what particular evidence is there that the RCC is that Church, and especially in light of the fact that the RCC favors the traditions of men over the teachings of Christ? Seems like a grand contradiction to me.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 23, 2012 at 3:38pm7. I disagree with the premise that one is denying “Christ’s promise” by reading the Bible and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead one to the knowledge of the truth, rather than relying on someone else to tell me what it says. Someone who is just as sinful and fallen as I am? And again, the Scriptures tell us not to do that so why would I?
8. The very “fact” that everyone who reads Scripture is in the same sinful and fallen state, is the reason why knowledge is only imparted by the Holy Spirit, through God’s Word, as we read the Bible. Not by the doctrines of men, who are all liars. Since no “man” can provide you with a better understanding than the Holy Spirit can, reading the Bible is the only possible way anyone may hope to approach “the truth.”
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 23, 2012 at 6:28pm@theotherberean – You wrote: “The Eunuch was an Ethiopian. Not a sincere believer.” Where does scripture say that the Eunuch was not a sincere believer? Just moments after speaking with Paul he asks to be Baptized. Are you saying the unbelievers seek Baptism? Odd point of view.
You wrote: “Allowing the Holy Spirit to lead you to the knowledge of the truth as you read the Bible, is the method the Bible suggests” Chapter and Verse please : )
You wrote: :”Where does Scripture tell us “the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth”? 1 TIM 3:15
“f I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
You wrote: “Just because Jesus said “His Church” will not fail, does not mean the RCC will not fail….” There was ONE church prior to Martin Luther. Either Luther was correct and the church had failed or Luther was in error, you can’t have it both ways. By the way, you still haven’t answered the original questions. Were Luther and Calvin wrong in their beliefs in the REAL Presence in the Eucharist and Mary’s perpetual virginity : )
You wrote: ““we can trust the Church that Jesus Christ founded to lead us into all truth?” Jesus Christ established His church in Matt 16:18 and He promised in John 16:13 that the spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth. You keep separating the Apostles from the Church, they are
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 24, 2012 at 11:02am@SNOOP
Touche’ You’re begging the question. An argument from silence proves nothing. It appears that after having the Scriptures explained to him, the eunuch became a believer, but there is no indication in the text that he was a “sincere believer” prior to Paul explaining the Scriptures to him.
Not to split hairs, but I challenged you because of the word bulwark, which is a mound or a wall of defense, which is not a foundation, and consequently renders an entirely different meaning.
Regardless, “the church” (meaning the body of believers in Christ, and not any particular organization or denomination as you seek to imply) may be the “pillar and ground of truth,” but the message is not that any particular church, such as the RCC, necessarily “teaches” truth. (Note the problems with the Church at Corinth) In context 1 Tim 3 consists entirely of instruction on: “how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God,” 1 Tim 3:14. Since “the church” is the pillar and ground of truth, one should exhibit righteousness.
There was not just “one” church prior to Martin Luther. One faith, but many churches. The Bible specifically mentions the church of the Thessalonians, the church of God in Corinth, the church in Cenchrea, the church in Ephesus, in Sardis, at Jerusalem, the church of the Laodiceans etc.. Which of these churches are that “one” church you claim Martin Luther and Calvin belonged to?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 24, 2012 at 11:02amJust because Martin Luther and Calvin were in error, doesn’t mean “the church” failed. Luther and Calvin are sinful and fallen men the same as you, me, and every other human who has ever lived. (Except for Christ). Unless Satan prevails against Christ Himself, His Church will not fail. And I did answer your question in another thread… yes, obviously Calvin and Luther were in error.
@SNOOP said: “He promised in John 16:13 that the spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth.”
Just the Apostles? John 16:8 says: When he has come, he will convict the world about sin, about righteousness, and about judgment;
No, I’m not separating the Apostles from “the church,” your argument is that the RCC is “the church” and “the church” leads us to all truth, which only the Apostles were given. Your argument makes the Apostles and “the church” one and the same.
John 16:8 also substantiates my argument that the Holy Spirit leads us to the knowledge of the truth, not any particular “church.”
Report this comment
11:11
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:55pmAhhh!… those “filthy catholics”, but anyway no matter what, no matter who, no matter why, how or where… there is only one thing on my mind ALL YOU BLAZERS and you know WHO you are have a wonderful, guilt ridden, fat laden, OMG gotta unzip my zipper, now is a good time for a nap, i’m just a guest, i’m an inlaw and i’m gonna sleep before i help with the clean up, HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
Report this comment
ZengaPA65
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:12pmWhat else has “the church” lied about for 1700 years hmmm….
Report this comment
jeanr
Nov. 21, 2012 at 9:03pmYou still upset about your dog?
Report this comment
jakartaman
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:55pmThere are many many christians that Identify themselves with the Catholic faith.
However, they are Chatholic in name only.
If you are pro choice – you are not a Catholic – If you are for same sex marraige – you are not a Chatholic. etc etc.
Report this comment
Gourdy
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:15pmSomewhat like being a Jew, one can have Catholic identity their entire life even though they don’t practice the faith anymore. I was raised in a very conservative Catholic household but chose not to practice the religion.
Report this comment
DougHuffman
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:52pmWhat a revealing title is The Infancy Narratives. The fallacy of a narrative is that it provides only the unfalsifiable illusion of understanding.
Report this comment
SimpleTruths
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:48pmSo what year is it now?
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:56pmThe year you finally move out of your mother’s basement?
Report this comment
Polarized America
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:12pm.
well if you ask an Atheist it’s..4,542,948,576…so go write that on a check..if you are one
Report this comment
Gourdy
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:17pmMy belief in God allows me to accept the science of evolution and the Big Bang. My God actually set those things in motion.
Report this comment
Raging_Waters
Nov. 21, 2012 at 8:17pm@GOURDY
Is there a limit to God’s power?
Report this comment
grayling646
Nov. 21, 2012 at 9:09pmThe year is 1984.
Report this comment
charles116
Nov. 21, 2012 at 10:55pmIt’s the year the
Romney’s learned it’s NOT their time.
Or Rafalcas
Report this comment
The-Monk
Nov. 21, 2012 at 11:01pmHi Dora…
Love your new “screaming face” avatar….
Report this comment
USAMama
Nov. 22, 2012 at 3:45amGourdy, are you a catholic? Just curious, my mom is a catholic and her Priest told her the same thing. But the Catholics aren’t taught to read the Bible or that the Bible isn’t accurate. The Bible tells us otherwise. Adam was specifically made, separate from the fish of the sea and the beasts of the earth or the birds of the air. All those things God spoke into being, He merely had to say the word and they were created. Not so with Adam, He took special time and care in creating Adam in His own image. Genesis 1:28 tells us “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” It doesn’t say anything about “then God slammed a couple big rocks together and over millions of years life started to form and fish or monkeys evolved into humans.” It just doesn’t fit.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Nov. 22, 2012 at 9:01amUSAMAMA…
“Catholics aren’t taught to read the Bible”
huh?… since when?.. if that’s true… all the masses i’ve attended in the last 39yrs were getting Catholicism wrong the whole time…. or the Bible we read throughout parochial school was mislabeled…
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 22, 2012 at 5:00pmSitting there like a bump on a log while someone tells you to open your Bible to a certain passage and then preaches on that passage is not “reading the Bible.” I was raised a Catholic and was never encouraged to read it on my own. And for obvious (to me) reasons. The Bible clearly contradicts many of the traditions taught by the RCC.
Report this comment
RushEcho2
Nov. 23, 2012 at 3:39amDuring the Dark Ages, the peons of the Catholic Church were forbidden to read the Bible bc only the priests were allowed to interpret it for them. Members reading the Bible is a relatively modern difference from ages past. Did you know?
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 23, 2012 at 4:23pmYes, the RCC has always taught that the Bible is just a big book that’s hard to understand.
So you should ignore what it says about knowledge and understanding coming from the Holy Spirit as you read it, and instead rely solely on the potentially flawed understanding and interpretations of someone who, being just as sinful and fallen as you, is no better equipped than you are to understand it.
But hey, who am I to say what you should or should not believe? I mean, if you think Catholics are hooked, look at the trench the Mormons are in.
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 1:52pmThe “APOCRYPHA” were in the original 1611 Version of the King James Bible. Also why did Luther want James and Revelation removed from the Bible? Luther said that neither were inspired and he wanted them removed. One has to ponder, (in light of Rev 22:19) why Luther would want Revelation removed? We know that Luther wanted the book of James removed because it explicitly contradicts Luther’s “Saved by Faith Alone” invention (James 2:14-24) Also why did Luther add the word alone to Romans 3:28 of his German translation of the Bible?
PAX CHRISTI
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 1:58pmSt IGNATIUS
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . .They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 110]).
St JUSTIN MARTYR
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” [A.D. 151]
St IRENAEUS
“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (Against Heresies 4:33-32 [A.D. 189])
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:03pmSt Irenaeus
“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life-flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).
St Clement of Alexandria
“‘Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).
Hippolytus
“‘And she [Wisdom] has furnished her table’ [Prov. 9:2] . . . refers to his [Christ's] honored and un-defiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper [i.e., the Last Supper]” (Fragment from Commentary on Proverbs [A.D. 217]).
PAX CHRISTI : )
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:04pmJustin Martyr
“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:05pmTertullian
“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (The Resurrection of the Dead 8 [A.D. 210]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:06pmCyprian of Carthage
“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned-[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (The Lapsed 15-16 [A.D. 251]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:07pmCouncil of Nicaea I
“It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great synod that, in some districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the presbyters [i.e., priests], whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer [the Eucharistic sacrifice] should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer [it]” (Canon 18 [A.D. 325]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:07pmAphraahat the Persian Sage
“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:08pmCyril of Jerusalem
“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:09pmAmbrose of Milan
“Perhaps you may be saying, ‘I see something else; how can you assure me that I am receiving the body of Christ?’ It but remains for us to prove it. And how many are the examples we might use! . . . Christ is in that sacrament, because it is the body of Christ” (The Mysteries 9:50, 58 [A.D. 390]).
Theodore of Mopsuestia
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought . . . not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:10pmAugustine
“Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).
“I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 2:15pmWell the diapers are piling up and the bottles are empty and my wife (commander in chief) has formally banned me from posting anymore today. I wish you all a safe and blessed Thanksgiving weekend. Until next time God willing, Much love in Christ. : )
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 24, 2012 at 5:46pm@SNOOP
Why do you keep mentioning Calvin and Luther, as if their flawed theologies matter? They are no different than you or I. The same with all the bandwidth you wasted (not to mention yours and everyone else’s time) posting the doctrines of men.
Re-posting heresy does not somehow make it orthodox. Many church fathers taught doctrines that are not consistent with orthodox theology. Look here… http://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html
Yes, Luther detested the letter to James and called it “the epistle of straw.” But he failed to recognize that James’s teaching on works complemented, not contradicted, Paul’s teaching on faith.
The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books are rejected by Christians because they teach many things that are not true and are not historically accurate. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” I’ll stick with the first Canon thank you.
Report this comment
snooop1e
Nov. 24, 2012 at 8:49pmFor those who have little understanding of the origins of the 2nd (New Testament) canon –
In 382 AD Pope Damasus I gathered a representation of bishops from the Christian world (called a synod) to define the canon of Scripture for the whole Church. This canon was ratified by numerous other Popes, synods, and Church Councils. Although Martin Luther and other Reformation leaders rejected the New Testament canon, they later retained these New Testament books in the Protestant version of the Bible.
The use of these 7 books is historically based on the fact that Jesus and the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint and the Septuagint contained the 7 “Apocrypha” books….in other words the “Bible” that Jesus and the Apostles used contained the “Apocrypha” The Apocrypha were in the King James Bible for 274 years when they were removed in 1885 AD.
Matin Luther
“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” (King James Version Defended page 98.)
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
So all Christians must ask themselves, why do I accept the Catholic 2nd Canon as inspired and why did Protestants remove 7 books from the Bible?
PAX CHRISTI
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 25, 2012 at 11:25amChristians reject them because they are not the Word of God. They lack consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching.
Catholics accept them for that very same reason, and because they prefer the doctrines of men over the teachings of Christ.
Report this comment
DonaldH
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:48pmHe was born on day one of Anno Domini ,, whenever that happened to be PERIOD!!– end of story!!
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:44pmAlthough I am not Catholic, I certainly hold no ill will towards the Catholic church. However, I have to wonder, how would the Pope know what year Christ was born? Was he there? As I understand Catholic doctrine (and I fully admit my knowledge of their doctrine is limited), they do not believe in modern day revelation which would prohibit any further knowledge coming from a heavenly source. So again, I ask: How does he know?
Report this comment
qpwillie
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:52pmI would be happy to look at and consider his evidence except for the fact that he didn’t offer any.
The two things that are reasonably certain about the Yahshua’s time of birth is that he wasn’t born in December and his name is not Jesus.
Report this comment
RandyLee7
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:06pmI the above article was the following passage,
“The calculation of the beginning of our calendar – based on the birth of Jesus – was made by Dionysius Exiguus, who made a mistake in his calculations by several years,” the Pope writes in the book. “The actual date of Jesus’s birth was several years before.”
You must have missed it.
Report this comment
RandyLee7
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:09pmModern day revelation refers to salvation history. The life of Christ was the end all be all. Nothing more.
Report this comment
qpwillie
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:21pm@RandyLee7
Those are references to where he drew his conclusions from. Not evidence.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:23pm@ qpwillie
Agree with you–but I believe His name is LOVE, at least to the Father.
Report this comment
JEANNIEMAC
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:47pmThe Church accepts the Big Bang, and is quite content with it. As far as evolution goes, it has been proven that all humans are descended from a single pair of humans. Who knows the how, when, where, etc.?
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 21, 2012 at 11:03pmFISH_BONE… Catholics do accept “modern day revelation(s)”. They are call prophets, visionaries and locutionists. Fatima is one of the more “famous” events if you wish to look it up. As prophets go, check out http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/ . (N.B. that the Catholic Church withholds any “official” approval of any “private” revelations, as stated on the site; “Whether officially approved by the Church or otherwise, through perchance worthy of pious credence, Catholic individuals are not morally obliged to espouse the messages emanating from any source of private revelation (e.g. apparitions, interior locutions and so forth). Unlike public revelation i.e. Sacred Scripture0 the Church herself has no providential protection in the realm of private revelations.”)
As for the year of our Lord being born… check out “The Star of Bethlehem” website which includes this matter in “The Study”. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/setting-the-stage/why-are-we-hearing-this-now/
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 21, 2012 at 11:12pmOh… by the bye… I personally believe the messages are authentic. As for anyone else, pray for discernment before reading the messages. Perhaps you can check out the prayers and evaluate for yourself if they ultimately lead one to Jesus and God the Father.
http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/crusade-of-prayer/
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 22, 2012 at 5:47pm“All” Scripture, prophesy, revelation, truth, knowledge and the Gospel, was given with evidence of divine Authority, and accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders. 2 Cor 2:12; Heb 2:4
John 10:38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
The problem with accepting modern day revelation is that there is no longer a valid means to verify that it is truly from God. Miracles were for a time and a purpose, which has been fulfilled, to substantiate the Gospel. But now we should be wary of them…
Matt 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect–if that were possible.
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 23, 2012 at 12:45amTHEOTHERBEREAN… I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you. However, if the private revelation only calls for conversion through prayer, fasting and reception of the Sacraments, then one can be fairly certain that it is not from Satan for such things will only lead the soul to God and to no other.
Report this comment
theotherberean
Nov. 23, 2012 at 4:34pm@PAX
Not to sound disagreeable, but I disagree. How do you explain Mormons?
The key to understanding is through the Bible. Joseph Smith abandoned the Bible and wrote his own, then led the Mormons away from the truth.
The RCC has done that same thing with the traditions of men.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that by denying the Deity of Christ.
Who can you rely on but Sola Scriptura?
Report this comment
Blacktooth
Dec. 6, 2012 at 12:55pmThe other…”The Jehovah’s Witnesses have done that by denying the Deity of Christ.”
You are welcome to your erroneous opinions, but I know that JW’s would rather listen to God than you.
16After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him.17Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. (Matthew 3:16-17)
Yes, Jesus is God’s Son. He is not God the Father.
http://www.jw.org
Report this comment
dte
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:36pmReally? You did a story about something that anyone with a brain already knows? What a link wh0ore.
Report this comment
db321
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:07pmYou can bet that God knows the date that his only begotten Son was Born. And God also know the date that Mohammed was born. God sent his son to die for our Sins so we could have eternal life in Heaven. Mohammed wants his followers to kill somebody to get into Heaven. Jesus tomb is empty and Mohammed is still in his grave.
In fact, people line up everyday, and wait hours, by the thousands to see Jesus’ empty tomb making it the #1 Tourist destination in Israel. We will all one day line up in front of Jesus to account for every Word (Our Support) and Deed (Our Vote).
Some that call themselves Christians have replaced God with a Man that thinks he is a God. We will know who they are because they will stand before Jesus on day and he will say, “You confess to be a Christian, but I don’t know you.”
Oh yes “The Jerk”, even you, Mohammed, Hitler, Saddam, and Gaddafi will stand in Judgement for their Sins.
Report this comment
spfoam1
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:34pmThe precise year, month and day is irrevevant since no one seems to know exactly. It seems to me the important thing is that he was born.
Report this comment
kindling
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:31pmNo one knows what year He was born because it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that we follow Him.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:37pmAmen!
Report this comment
Exrepublisheep
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:31pmIrrelevant.
Report this comment
wordweaver
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:31pmAs the article points out, this is not “breaking news”, but has been known for a long time. The only thing newsworthy about it is why the Pope feels a need to bring it up.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:44pmThis was reported as part of an interview concerning Pope Benedict XVI newest book on Jesus (one of a series about the Savior).
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:30pmOur Lord Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the Hebrew date of Nisan 14, and that corresponds to our Gregorian Calendar of March/April.
Jesus was 33 1/2 years old at his death. Consequently his birth month would have to be around our Gregorian Calendar’s September/October.
So, using our present calender, the month and year of Jesus’ birth would be September/October of 2 BCE.
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:39pmClarification: Our Lord Jesus Christ was sacrificed on the Hebrew date of Nisan 14, of the year 33 C.E. – Gregorian calendar.
Report this comment
DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:01pmClarification: YOUR lord “jesus christ” was a Jew and had a Hebrew name. “Christ” is a title not a last name. So at the very least you should be saying “jesus” THE christ or christ “jesus”. His name was/is Yeshua. It means salvation. Don’t be afraid of his non-caucasianness.
Report this comment
WhiteFang
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:48pmClarification, for DTOM:
Our Lord Jesus (Yeshua) is the Christ (anointed one) of the true God Jehovah (YHWH).
I never said ‘Christ’ was Jesus’ last name and your making an issue out of it is hard to understand. So, are you happy, now that I clarified to obvious?
Report this comment
athiest-infedel
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:27pmCatholicism is a polly-theistic religion, more people pray to mary than jesus.
Report this comment
TRUTHandFREEDOM
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:35pmAthiem is belief in molecules with no explanation for the first.
Report this comment
Polarized America
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:36pm.
i hear —”Our Father ‘…is popular …/;-)
Report this comment
NHwinter
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:36pmathiest-infedel – and you get your knowledge of what you stated from where?? You know not what you are talking about. Catholics do not pray to Mary. They ask for her intercession to Jesus. Jesus is the central figure in the Catholic Church. The bible says Mary is blessed among all women. If you don’t believe in God, fine, but stop bashing people who do. We could say a lot about you, but it just isn’t important. Try to make Christians unimportant to you also and give us a break.
Report this comment
NHwinter
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:39pmathiest-infedel – I suggest you invent a holiday just for athiests and you will find that Christians leave you alone. Return the favor to us please. We won’t demand that Christian signs and messages be posted next to your new holiday exhibit.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:40pmMary is NOT a god! She is a fellow believer, just as those who I ask here on earth to pray for me. She is asked to pray for us. It’s called, “Communion of the Saints”–on this earth, and in Heaven.
Report this comment
limalima
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:45pmNo, Catholics pray to only one God. But we all know, mom is the person to get on your side. So…hey we’re not stupid.
Report this comment
FISH_BONE
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:59pmNHWINTER: I believe that new holiday is called Festivus – The Holiday for the Rest of Us.
Report this comment
RandyLee7
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:14pmWrong. We are polytheistic if you consider the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit separate dieties. However that would be heresy. We believe in and worship only God in the Trinity. If you dont know dont speak and scandalize Christian faith.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:27pm@ RandyLee7
Trinty = Three persons in One, Consubstantial with each other. Therefore we are only worshipping one God in three Persons — a “mystery” according the the Catechism.
See you at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb!
Report this comment
RandyLee7
Nov. 21, 2012 at 9:30pmExactly right Hillbilly. It really gets old to keep telling people “No we dont worship idols, dead people, Mary, or the Pope. Educate yourselves people. I was pentecostal at one point in life being taught that all Catholics were going to Hell and now I am Catholic. I asked questions from priests and educated catholics and discovered something that is very real to me.
I have to tell you it really is shocking; our Pope Benedict has written over 60 books on theology and has forgotten more than most people know on the subject and many of you think the topic of his book is the real age of Jesus, when in all reality it was probably something a reporter keyed on to stir the pot. All it takes is a picture of the Pope on the Blaze to bring out the Catholic Haters.
Funny thing is when there is a Billy Graham or Joel Osteen story, we catholics dont show up like the Westmoreland Baptist Church to condemn all protestants to Hell.
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 22, 2012 at 6:25amRANDYLEE7… welcome home! :-)
Check out this site about ”The Star of Bethlehem”.
http://www.bethlehemstar.net/setting-the-stage/why-are-we-hearing-this-now/
3:25 AM here, guess I can say the Divine Mercy Chaplet.
Report this comment
Robert Hawk
Nov. 23, 2012 at 8:31amAtheist-Infadel; In the United States, you are entitled to your opinion based upon your belief, that is freedom. However in the end, only one truth will stand. I profess my self to be Christian and I profess to believe in Hebrew doctrine and law. Sometimes confused people make proclamations concerning that law which are incorrect, proclamations such as this earth is only 6000 years old, when that is not supported by biblical text. We know from 2nd Peter ch 3 that a day with the LORD is as 1000 years, therefore the 6 days of creation of this 2nd earth age and the day of rest was a 7000 year period in its self.
I have stated my beliefs, no matter how you align with them. They are written and I attest that they are accurate.
My beef is that those who claim to be Atheist who are actually not telling the truth. Your belief (for all have a belief) as hidden away in obscurity. Why? Because it allows others to observe the truth behind what you profess as your belief. Your comments provide the details however, as they attest to the knowledge of Philosophia doctrine and the use of Philosophia dialectics, most likely Stoic, and Most likely those defined by the believers Hegel and Marx & Engels. Personally I don’t care if you you believe in Philosophia doctrine, I do however have an issue with your deception and attempts to obscure your doctoral beliefs away from public view. Your a coward
Report this comment
Jinglebob
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:25pmOh Christ…it’s 2054! Where does the time go?
Report this comment
limalima
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:46pmvery funny. Thank you
Report this comment
Polarized America
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:20pmKEATONC—who cares ? maybe your mother, but if not try getting a dog. Their real loyal & don’t care about what other people think about you ../;-)
Report this comment
Keatonc333
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:37pmSeriously… Whats this going to effect? we we suddenly be in the year 2015 now?
Report this comment
Polarized America
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:45pm.
Seriously…what does it harm .it’s for his book &.he’s the Pope & into this kind of thing……
Report this comment
ScratInTheHat
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:05pmIf that means we shortened the reign of the 0 by three years that is a good thing! I’m already up for a do over!
Report this comment
4XGrace
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:19pmNext thing you know he’s going to turn around and say he wasn’t born at all.
The pope is a dope, an anti-crhist and certainly NOT a christian in the true sense of the faith implied. Mother mary is their god – a co-redeemer with Christ; the whole thing is such a blight; the biggest cult next to islam and just as blood thirsty. The Bible is just a tool they use to subjugate and destroy people all in the name of power and prestige. They serve their bellies not God.
Report this comment
kindling
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:28pmGone off a bit there haven’t you Grace?
Report this comment
SonOfThunder
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:29pmI agree. A pagan religion and not Christian.
Report this comment
TRUTHandFREEDOM
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:33pmI don’t know who or what YOU are serving, but your post doesn’t seem to be serving intelligent conversation.
Report this comment
Catwoman88
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:41pm4XGrace, Who are you, and what gives you the right to make such inaccurate, disrespectful, ridiculous things about Catholicism? It’s amazing how you comment on things that you know absolutely nothing about, and are offensive, to boot. Stick to what you know — if there IS anything…..
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:06pmGracie, Gracie, Gracie, Gracie,
Maybe you would want to read the early Church Fathers, you know, the ones who were alive when the Apostles were alive or directly knew those who were. You might find that the Church was begun by Jesus about 1500 years before “protestors” decided to go there on way and “rediscover” what they THINK is the early church. Some of the writings by early Church Fathers predates the writings of Luke in the Gospel of Luke and in the Acts of the Apostle.
See: John R. Willis, SJ, THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS and Jimmy Akin’s, THE FATHERS KNOW BEST, both available at most booksellers and as eBooks.
I was a “Johnny come lately,” a Evangelical Protestant, until I learned that the “extra books” in the Bible were not “added” by the Catholic Church, but were part of the Jewish Canon before the destruction of the Temple! And, how can I not accept the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (Consecrated bread and wine). Even Jesus in John 6 did not run after those who left and tell them that he meant it “just as a memorial.”
The Truth will make you free.
God bless you, may you know Jesus’ Salvation, and may the Holy Spirit teach and instruct you.
Report this comment
christos
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:17pm4xgrace – I 100% agree with you,also I believe Catholics worship the golden calf/$ follow the paper trail & they are always there,,,,what about the Concord treaty,,,the Catholics were involved with the holocaust.
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 22, 2012 at 10:36amHILLBILLYINNY… I miss posted a reply to you that ended on the next page. Thank you for your valiant effort to defend the Faith.
Report this comment
4XGrace
Nov. 22, 2012 at 6:40pmReligion is a works based faith. Works doesn’t gain you anything but a good feeling for a fleeting minute or two. Works cannot and will not save you from hell. All religions make you work for your salvation. The work they get you to do is two fold; one to make them rich, two to make you feel guilty for not doing enough. How can the richest religion in the world sit on their golden throne and claim that they are vicars of Christ and that they hold within their treasuries the graces of Christ’s work on earth? That has to be the penultimate proclamation of pride aside from Satan’s “I will be like the most high.” Christ, when he walked the earth claimed no earthly honor or abode.
When it comes to salvation there is no other way to be saved in this age of grace than by faith given to you by God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Salvation BEFORE works. God’s faith, not ours. We can do nothing. God has done it all for us. Fall on God before he falls on you. If you work for your salvation you call God a liar.
Report this comment
jcldwl
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:16pmNot really interested in what the leader of a pagan faith has to say about the birth of Christ
Report this comment
SonOfThunder
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:36pmMost Catholics are not Christians. It is a hoax to worship the saints, Mary, and their Eucharist. It is idol worship and breaks the first and second commandments. It is a faith plus works for salvation for Catholics which is not biblical. Ephesians 2-10 rexcella. Being an ex practicing catholic I can speak the truth about this pagan religion.
Repent Catholics and put your trust in Jesus alone!!!!!
Report this comment
Catwoman88
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:42pmYou know not of what you speak.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:20pm@ sonofthunder (which you don’t even resemble, you’re just a loud and irritating noise!)
Sounds like even where you WERE a Catholic you didn’t understand the Faith!
Saints are NOT WORSHIPED! They are respected and revered in the same way that other faiths discuss and report the ministries of Billy Sunday, Dwight L. Moody, Billy Graham, and other evangelical leaders.
Do you participate in a prayer meeting each week? Do you ask other Christians to pray for you and/or a concern you or someone you know is having? That’s using the Communion of the Saints here on earth, why would it not work between earth and heaven?
As you know the only one to be worshiped is God the Father, with the Son who is His Word, in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Cult we are not, but Bride of Christ the Church is, even with human failings. Hope to see you at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb after the End Times! Hope you’re enjoying and working to share Jesus’ Kingdom here on earth and in the world to come, as hard as I am.
Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:16pm@Proalliance:
It does matter in relation to the totality of Christs life; as I figure he was born around 6BC to 4BC based on my own calculations.
Report this comment
ModerationIsBest
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:58pmYou mean fake stories are fake?
Shocker!
Just goes to show that religion says “things ARE this way”, then when they are proven they aren’t, it’s “Oh it’s a metaphor, but still true!”
Report this comment
SimpleTruths
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:59pmOK, now i know for sure that you’re nuts.
Report this comment
crazytalk
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:14pmAnd who is the pope?
Report this comment
longknifed
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:14pmWell then that throws Mike huckabee’s theory off because the world apparently didn’t exist before Jesus in 4 BC. A lot of things happen in “several years.” Good thing he is on “our side.” phew.
Report this comment
proliance
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:13pmI do. Anyone else?
Report this comment
johnpaulkuchtajr
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:13pmI don’t want to agree absolutely with you, Keaton; but, if the Pope would have come out to all us lapsed Catholics run away from the church by the pedophile priest scandal, that may have been a lot more productive.
And, Keaton, please don’t take this personally; but, please seek professional help!
Report this comment
Keatonc333
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:39pmOn it bud! thanks!
Report this comment
Catwoman88
Nov. 21, 2012 at 6:46pmListen, JohnPaul Kuchie Kuchie – stop bringing up the priest scandal. And if that is your reason for leaving the Church, how weak of you. The Church is its people, the entire body, and you jumped ship – guess you just needed an excuse to be irresponsible. We don’t look to Pope Benedict to reign in the masses – and, please, do not disrespect the one who sits in Peter’s Chair. It’s offensive.
Report this comment
SonOfThunder
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:12pmThe pope or Peter is not the head of church. Jesus is. The pope is not the Holy Father. Father God is the Father. The pope is not the vicar of the church. The Holy Spirit is. The pope position is an anti Christ. Check out the church in revelation 2 and 3. that’s the Catholic Church headed to the lake of fire.
Run from your priests and their pagan rituals. Don’t you know the veil was torn at Calvary and there is no need to confess your sins to a man via priest. Why would you do that anyway? What if he was a pedophile? Do you think he forgave your sins? It is silly.
Repent to God and put your trust in Jesus. You are being duped. I was for 46 years then Jesus found me.
Report this comment
hillbillyinny
Nov. 21, 2012 at 7:37pm@ s-o-t
I can’t wait to meet you in heaven, especially when the Liturgy is being celebrated as is explained in the Book of Revelation. Candlesticks, incense, the Alpha and Omega/First and the Last, songs of Holy Holy Holy Lord God Almighty, Blessed is the Lamb that is Slain, etc.
Read all about it in Scott Hahn’s book, SUPPER OF THE LAMB. Maybe you’ll have an understanding of where those “rituals” came from and where you’ll be witnessing them again!
Blessings and love.
Report this comment
AbrahamsSheepdog
Nov. 22, 2012 at 1:20amPraise the Lord. You nailed it. Thank you Father, you are the Hope&change. Love never ends :)
Report this comment
SonOfThunder
Nov. 22, 2012 at 2:12pmYou are duped Hillbilly. Rituals, indulgences, Sacraments and baptism does not get you to heaven. Thre is no such thing as purgatory and you can not pray or pay some dead relative or friend into heaven from purgatory. There is no biblical explanation for these practices. The bible calls those who are saved are saints.
“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:”
- 1 Corinthians 1:2
Jesus had half brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. Mary was not sinnless and did not die a virgin. Mary did not ascend or assumed into heaven. It is a lie of the Catholic Church.
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
You and Catholics in general do not know your bible. You can’t even find a bible in a catholic church.
Believing what you believe we won’t be at the same feast. Most practicing Catholics will hear:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew y
Report this comment
SonOfThunder
Nov. 23, 2012 at 7:43amHilly you are being fooled. Believing what you do I won’t see you in heaven. I don’t need a book about a supper I got the Bible. Catholics don’t know the bible and you can’t find one in a Catholic Church in the pews. I know for a fact that the eight years in seminary for a priest they studied the bible for 6 months and the rest is catechism. I also know Rome is full of homosexual priests and they look past this debauchery. Your popes are a joke. Take pope Leo x for instance, Leo X (1513-21) was said to have invited guests to lavish banquets with up to 65 courses at which little boys jumped naked out of puddings.It was no secret Leo was “a lover of boys” who possessed also “an insatiable love of pleasure”. You got a sexually immorality problem in the Catholic Church. Why would you go to priests and confess your sins when there a possibility of him being a pedophile? Anyway the veil was torn at Calvary and we repent to the Father God. You are lost and I hope Jesus finds you one day. Repent nd put your trust in Jesus alone. Not in your filthy rags or dung meaning your rituals and works.
Report this comment
PaxInVeritate
Nov. 23, 2012 at 8:56amSo much hatred for what you do not know.
Report this comment
johnpaulkuchtajr
Nov. 22, 2012 at 6:58amYep, “stop bringing up the priest scandal” because it reveals how many good Catholic boys and girls were subjected to abuse while priests, bishops, cardinals and the pope looked the other way.
In fact, they not only looked the other way, the church establishment usually called the character of the accusers into question.
I my universe, you earn respect by the actions you take, not because a bunch of guys in red robes elected you to become instantly infallible! Think for yourself.
“Remember Benghazi”
Report this comment