Faith

Catholic & Jewish Groups Condemn Susan Sarandon for Calling the Pope a Nazi

Susan Sarandon Is Condemned by Jewish & Catholic Groups Over Nazi Comment

Catholic and Jewish groups are condemning actress Susan Sarandon for referring to Pope Benedict XVI as a Nazi. As the Blaze reported on Monday, Sarandon made the remark during an interview at the Hamptons International Film Festival on Long Island this past Saturday.

The head of the Catholic League says her comment was “obscene” and the Anti-Defamation League released a statement calling on the actress to apologize to the Catholic community for the “deeply offensive” remark. So far, this hasn’t happened. In a statement, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL’s National Director, said:

We hope that Susan Sarandon will have the good sense to apologize to the Catholic community and all those she may have offended with this disturbing, deeply offensive and completely uncalled for attack on the good name of Pope Benedict XVI.

Ms. Sarandon may have her differences with the Catholic Church, but that is no excuse for throwing around Nazi analogies. Such words are hateful, vindictive and only serve to diminish the true history and meaning of the Holocaust.

Sarandon, who won an Academy Award for her role in the 1995 anti-death penalty film, “Dead Man Walking,” has a history of championing left-wing causes.

As first reported by Newsday, Sarandon said she gave a copy of the book on which the film is based to the German-born pope, referring to him as a Nazi. Here’s what Newsday’s Rafer Guzman, who first wrote about the exchange, described her comments:

She was discussing her 1995 film “Dead Man Walking,” based on the anti-death-penalty book by Sister Helen Prejean, a copy of which she sent to the pope.

“The last one,” she said, “not this Nazi one we have now.” Balabangently tut-tutted, but Sarandon only repeated her remark.

A telephone call to Sarandon’s representative asking for comment was not immediately returned.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments (379)

1 2 3 ... 6
  • garyM
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:37am

    Catholicism is good for the culture and I agree with their stance on abortion and some other issues Well that is the zealous Catholics, the ones that are not hypocrites like Pelosi and Biden. I believe Catholicism has missed the means of salvation and eternity message and the means by which man is forgiven of their sins.. It’s like asking the protestant Pastor to declare a person justified before God or forgive their sins, that doesn’t work according to my Bible. No name under whereby man can be saved but Jesus!

    Report Post »  
    • Libertyluvnmomma
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:05am

      Where’s Tim Robbins? Oh yeah, Hollywood couple is no more!

      I wonder why?

      Report Post » Libertyluvnmomma  
    • BETTY CROCKER
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:25am

      Garym, the Catholic Doctrine states that we believe all are judged through Christ. In other words Christ is the judge. I don’t know how much clearer this can be, why isn’t this good enough for other denominations or are they not really informed in the truth of our faith and why? The one difference that I can see is that we are taught not to judge others. Question with boldness!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:39am

      Confession: Jesus told his apostles – As the Father has sent me, so I send you. Then he breathed on them and said: Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men’s sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound. John 20 vs 21-23
      If you do not believe what Catholics believe, then stay with your own church. I see no reason to bash other faiths on this site. No one is attacking your church, whatever it is.

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • Roberto G. Vasquez
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:48am

      To Marxists/Communists like Sarandon, all who oppose them are “NAZI’s”.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:55am

      @BettyCrocker
      1 Timothy 2:3-5
      3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

      One mediator, Jesus. Not a “Pope”, no priests but our High Priest Jesus. That’s what the Bible teaches.

      But Susan Saran Wrap is wrong calling anyone a Nazi her and her ilk are on the wrong side of history.

      Report Post »  
    • robert
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:00am

      This thing has been indoctrinated by the her Hollywood plantation owners, and when she makes obscene comments like she does, she’s doing so because she knows it pleases them.

      We won’t hear the same hateful rhetoric coming from the mouths of these shadow miscreants, because they don’t have the guts to utter anything similar themselves, preferring instread to have their useful, brainwashed idiots like Sarandon, Garafalo, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin and the like to do their bidding for them.

      There is an abundance of hate within the evil Hollywood coterie of flakes, oddballs and misfits, and they comprise the worst haters on the American scene today.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:44am

      According to 1 Timothy 2:5, the only Mediator between God and us is Jesus.

      Look closely at what 1 Timothy 2:5 really says: Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. Because Jesus was the God-Man, only he can be the Mediator, the one who is between. Between men and the Father, there is the Son. This doesn’t undercut our belief, Catholics ask Mary or the saints in heaven to intercede for us because these, too, are men; they are members of mankind. Thus, we (men) ask them (men, too) to pray to the one Mediator (Jesus) in order to find favor with the Father.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:15am

      @ By Faith

      Catholics go beyond just asking someone to pray for them which Christian should do for each other. They believe that church officials can absolve them of their sins. The Bible clearly teaches that only Jesus can do that with his blood that he shed for the forgiveness of sins. We don’t go through any one but Jesus for this, not through a “priest” not through a “pope”. Again, there is One Mediator.

      Asking someone to pray for you is different than asking someone to absolve you of your sins.

      Report Post »  
    • motonutt
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:26am

      My gosh…..if her breasts get any lower she’ll have to start tucking them in her pants….
      I promise you……behind the scenes, her life is coming apart right now. I have a feeling that God is going to be on her like flies on poo-poo. And that can get uncomfortable quikly.

      Report Post » motonutt  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:33am

      @ By Faith

      Now, praying to the physically dead to ask them to pray for you is another issue all together.

      You will find no commandments or scripture in the Bible that indicates that you are to pray to anyone, whether living or dead other than God. The Bible teaches that our prayers are offered to God by our high priest Jesus and no one else.

      If you can find it in the Bible, I’d be interested in seeing it.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:38am

      @@ By Faith

      Now, praying to the physically dead to ask them to pray for you is another issue all together.

      You will find no commandments or scripture in the Bible that indicates that you are to pray to anyone, whether living or dead other than God. The Bible teaches that our prayers are offered to God by our high priest Jesus and no one else.

      If you can find it in the Bible, I’d be interested in seeing it.

      Report Post »  
    • tbg
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 1:09pm

      1 Tim 2:5 reads as follows: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…“ ”You see,” we Catholics are told, “there is only one mediator between God and men, Jesus Christ. Therefore, praying to the saints goes against the Bible because you are making them mediators between God and man, you are diminishing Jesus‘ role as the sole mediator!”

      Is that an appropriate interpretation of that passage? No, it‘s not and let‘s see why not.

      In the O.T. we see that Moses, Abraham, and Job interceded on behalf of others… that‘s mediating between God and man. We know that it is okay to ask others here on earth to pray and intercede for us…. that‘s mediating between God and man. So, I think, once again, we have a situation where a passage of the Bible is being misinterpreted and misunderstood.

      There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, but as members of the Body of Christ, He allows us to share in His mediation.

      Also, Scripture tells us that we have only one foundation, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11); but, Scripture tells us that there is more than one foundation (Eph 2:19-20). Scripture tells us that we have only Lord, Jesus Christ (Eph 4:4-5); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one lord (Rev 19:16). Scripture tells us that we have only one Judge, Jesus Christ (James 4:12); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one judge (1 Cor 6:2). (more on next post)

      Report Post »  
    • tbg
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 1:09pm

      Contradictions in Scripture? No! Not when these passages are all properly understood in context. Jesus is the only foundation; Jesus is the only Lord; and Jesus is the only Judge. But, we are members of Jesus‘ Body. Therefore, we are able, according to the graces given by Christ, to share in Jesus‘ role as foundation, as lord, and as judge, and in other aspects of Christ, as well. Another example, as a father I share in God‘s role as Father, by His grace. And, so also, we, and the saints in Heaven, and the angels in Heaven, can share in Christ‘s role as Mediator.

      *This two-minute apologetic question is courtesy of the Bible Christian Society.

      Report Post »  
    • CETMEONFIRE
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 1:35pm

      Let’s see….. after Jesus’ death and resurrection He was in the upper room with his apostles and he said to them “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you“ then He breathed on them and said ”receive the Holy Spirit, who‘s sins you forgive are forgiven them and who’s sins you retain are retained” (John 20:20-21)…… Jesus gave his true disciples the authority to forgive sin’s in His name…..Those who don‘t have or don’t accept that authority are false teachers & pretenders…. just sayin’

      Report Post » CETMEONFIRE  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:14pm

      Outonthetiles
      No one prays to dead saints, because those in heaven are more alive than we are. The Lord is God of the living, not of the dead. The fervent prayer of a righteous man is very powerful (Jas 5:16). Those in heaven are surely righteous, since nothing unclean can enter heaven (Rv 21:27). Those in heaven are part of the Mystical Body of Christ and have not been separated from us by death, but surround us as a great cloud of witnesses (Heb 12:1). They stand before the throne of God and offer our prayers to him (Rv 5:8) and cheer us on as we run the good race. Intercession among members of the body of Christ is pleasing to God (1 Tm 2:1-4) and even commanded by him (Jn 15:17). Those in heaven have a perfected love, so how could they not intercede for us? Christ is the vine, and we are the branches; if we are connected to him, we are inseparably bound together as well. Can the eye say to the hand, “I need you not”? Neither are we to say we don’t need the prayers of our brothers and sisters (alive here or in heaven), because salvation is a family affair.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:29pm

      How are people’s sins forgiven them? By hearing and obeying the Gospel of Christ.

      The Apostles were commisioned with spreading the Gospel of Truth. By this Gospel, the sins would be forgiven or retained. Those that obeyed the Gospel would have their sins forgiven and those that rejected it would have their sins retained.

      The same is true for Matt 16:19

      19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

      The Gospel is what does the binding and loosing and the Apostles were just the bearers of it. What are the Keys of Heaven, simple, The Gospel of Jesus Christ. They were not and did not make “new law”, only God could do that.
      The Rock that Christ’s Church is built on is Christ himself and Peter attested to that with his confession in Matt 16:16

      16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

      A confession that all Christians are called to make at their conversion.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:33pm

      @TBG said…..

      “”There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, but as members of the Body of Christ, He allows us to share in His mediation.”"

      Sorry, but that is outright Blasphemy

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:37pm

      @ By Faith

      Again, I will ask. Show me where in the Bible that it tells us to pray to Christian or Saints regardless of where they are, whether on earth or some where else.

      I’m waiting.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:03pm

      Out
      Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. “There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed” (Deut. 18:10–15).

      God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, “Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now.” The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an oc

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:08pm

      Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

      Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:11pm

      @ By Faith

      I’m not a “Fundamentalist”, just a Christian. A Christian who believes that the Bible is the final authority and if you can’t find an example there, then it has no authority.

      Again, I will ask. Show me where in the Bible that it tells us to pray to Christian or Saints regardless of where they are, whether on earth or some where else. Leave out all the conjuring, necromancy stuff. It is really a simple question and you should be able to show me since it is so fundamental to your beliefs.

      I’m still waiting for a Biblical example that instructs us to pray to Saints or Christians. I can myself can show you countless example on the Bible of praying but it is only to GOD.

      Still waiting.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:14pm

      @ By Faith

      Praying for one another is vasting different than praying to one another. I as well as you can show countless examples of praying for one another. But….show me where we are to pray to anyone other than God.

      Still waiting

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:14pm

      The angels are spiritual beings who have a free will and an intellect that is far superior to ours. The evil ones dwell in hell; the holy ones dwell in heaven and are therefore considered to be saints. Whoever is in heaven is a saint. God uses angels as messengers, guardians, and all-around helpers to us—as well as to reflect his glory.

      In Tobit 12:12, the Archangel Raphael said to Tobias, “So now when you and Sarah prayed, it was I who brought and read the record of your prayer before the glory of the Lord,

      and likewise whenever you would bury the dead.” In Tobit 12:14-16, we read, “And at the same time God sent me to heal you and Sarah your daughter-in-law. I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ready and enter before the glory of the Lord. The two of them were shaken; they fell face down, for they were afraid.”

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:19pm

      Out
      where in the bible does it say you should discuss religion on the internet?
      The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.
      Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.
      In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face.”
      The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition–a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
      John 20:30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:20pm

      John 21:25, And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:28pm

      John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:32pm

      OUT
      here is a good article on Sola Scriptura
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura

      Report Post » by faith  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:33pm

      @NH WInter…very interesting challenge there.. Here is a link that will take you to this dilemma and if you will notice at the bottom of the scriptures, it has several interpretations from famous bible scholars. Dare if you will to make a new discovery. Blessings and may the Holy Spirit of God be upon you to learn what only He wants you to. You know if you pray to God for His Spirit to guide you into all truth. and you continually pray as you seek each day…He will guide you into all truth. Remember..let the Holy Spirit of God teach you. Most people say…Hey it’s not fatal….it may not be for them…..but it very well could be much more than fatal., What should matter most in our lives is learning the truth and being obedient to Him.. (God/ Jesus)no one else. It’s not about us..it’s about Him and not the powers we have on earth, but that our name be written in heaven.

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:34pm

      @NH WINTER My apologies,, I forgot to post the link.
      http://bible.cc/john/20-23.htm

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:46pm

      Out

      now show me in scripture where Jesus said make sure you write this down so people can read it later

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:48pm

      @ By Faith

      And there you have it, “Oral Tradition” trumping the Bible. I was waiting for that supposed trump card to be played. Back a Catholic into a corner and they always fall back on it.

      Can’t play Monopoly with the rules to Sorry.

      Okay, the Tobit and a reference to an angel offering someone’s prayers to God. Now you know why it shouldn’t be included in any Bible since it contradicts the rest of the Bible. Luckily, many Bibles don’t include it since it is errant and misleading.

      Still waiting for an example in the Bible of anyone praying to Saints or Christians.

      And while we’re on the topic, what does the Bible have to say about Saints? Who are they? Christians, both living and dead.

      Act 9:32
      Now it came to pass, as Peter went through all parts of the country, that he also came down to the saints who dwelt in Lydda.

      Think about that, Saints living in Lydda.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:56pm

      @ By Faith said:

      “”"OUT
      here is a good article on Sola Scriptura
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura“”"

      Rather like a drawing by Escher of a the hand drawing a hand……where the Oral Traditions of the Romanists is put on the same level as The Word of God. Where the Bible can‘t stand on it’s own merits but needs to be “Interpreted” for the laity.

      Sorry, can’t play Monopoly with the rules from Sorry.

      Report Post »  
    • tbg
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:02pm

      @out
      on intercessory prayer and the Body of Christ. Please let me know after reading these passages, how my comments were “Blasphemous”
      Mk 12:26-27As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, [the] God of Isaac, and [the] God of Jacob’?h27He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled.”
      1 Cor 12:25-27so that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another.26If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy.
      Rom 12:4-527Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.
      For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function,5so we, though many, are one body in Christ* and individually parts of one another
      Jos 5:14While Joshua was near Jericho, he raised his eyes and saw one who stood facing him, drawn sword in hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you one of us or one of our enemies?”14He replied, “Neither. I am the commander* of the army of the LORD: now I have come.” Then Joshua fell down to the ground in worship, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?”15The commander of the army of the LORD replied to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy.”I And Joshua did so.
      Tob12:16 Now when you, Tobit, and Sarah

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:04pm

      Out
      Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

      Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.
      I’ll keep my Catholic faith which has an unbroken link to the time of Jesus. you can have your false teachings invented by a feces throwing monk who invented his “beliefs’ nearly 1,500 years after Jesus assended. because it is perfectly logical to think the further you get in time from Jesus the smarter you get.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:10pm

      out
      you have made the bible into your idol, I get that. but explain to me why the early church looks like my church and not yours?

      The Bible does not claim to be the sole rule of faith. Paul wrote, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). And he instructed, “Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

      These oral teachings and traditions have been handed down and entrusted to the Church, and they remain as much a part of the full Christian faith as the Bible. To ignore them is no less a tragedy than to ignore the Bible.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • AOL_REFUGEE
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:13pm

      She’s a nut case.

      Report Post » AOL_REFUGEE  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:19pm

      @ By Faith

      Trust me, I know what the Romanists/catholics think. They have been apostate since their inception around the 3rd century regardless of what “apostlic procession” they may claim.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:21pm

      I still don‘t think they should be equated with Nazi’s although in their past they do have a history of being quite brutal.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:26pm

      @ By Faith said:

      “”Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented”"

      Or it was kept from them by the Romanist/catholics, by force if needed. Those who dared to print it and make it available to the general masses were tortured and put to death by the supposed “inerrant” Romanist/catholics.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:29pm

      Out
      3rd century?
      St. Ignatius of Antioch
      The second Bishop of Antioch, Syria, this disciple of the beloved Disciple John was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. A holy man who was deeply loved by the Christian faithful, he always made it his special care to defend “orthodoxy” (right teaching) and “orthopraxy” (right practice) among the early Christians.
      In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle.
      His letters connect us to the early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. He was dedicated to defending the true teaching handed down by the Apostles so that the brothers and sisters in the early Christian communities, and we who stand on their shoulders, would never be led astray by false teaching. He urged them to always listen to their Bishops because they were the successors of the Apostles.
      Ignatius is also responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos (καθολικός), meaning “universal”, “complete” and “whole” to describe the church. It is from the word katholikos that the word catholic comes.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:30pm

      When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 and used the word catholic, he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe the Church. This has led many scholars to conclude that the appellation Catholic Church with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the 1st century.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:36pm

      out
      you have obviously been mislead. Do yourself a favor and read the Church fathers.
      The Fathers of the Church are so called because of their leadership in the early Church, especially in defending, expounding, and developing Catholic doctrines. For the first two centuries, most of these men were bishops, although in later years certain priests and deacons were also recognized as Fathers.

      The list includes such notables as: Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 97), Ignatius (d. 110), Polycarp (d. 155), Justin Martyr (the Church’s first major lay apologist; d. 165), Irenaeus (d. 202), Cyprian (d. 258), Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), and Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:36pm

      @ By Faith said:

      “”out
      you have made the bible into your idol, I get that. but explain to me why the early church looks like my church and not yours? “”

      I beg to differ. Take a look at the New Testament scriptures at the churches descibed there. They bear no resemblance to what the Romanist/catholics are in neither their worship nor their organization. They are not following the pattern laid down in the Bible for Christ’s Church. They are instead a blending of Romanism/pagan worship and “bible” ideas from both the old and new covenants.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:38pm

      Out
      Nero (64 – 68) – Killed Peter and Paul.
      Domitian (81 – 96) – Killed thousands of believers. Banished John to Patmos.
      Trajan (98-117) – The first to pass laws against Christianity. Killed Ignatius of Antioch
      Pius (137-161) – Killed Polycarp, a disciple of John.
      Marcus Aurelius (161-180) – Thought Christianity an absurd superstition. Beheaded Justin Martyr.
      Severus (193-211) – Killed Origen’s father.
      Thracian (235-238) – Brutal barbarian who commanded all Christian leaders to die.
      Decius (249-251) – Determined to exterminate Christianity.
      Valerian (253-260) – Killed Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.
      Diocleatian (284-305) – Last and most severe persecution. For ten years believers were hunted. They were burned, thrown to wild beasts, and put to death by every torture cruelty could devise. But Diocletian’s own wife and daughter accepted Christ.
      Constantine: October 28, 312 A.D. at the Battle of Milvian Bridge on the Tiber River, he had a vision; he saw a sign in the sky, which said “In this sign conquer.” Constantine vowed that if the God of the Christians would help him to win this battle, he would become a Christian.
      In 313 A.D., Constantine signed the edict of toleration (no more persecution of the church). He declared himself to be the “Protector of Christianity”.
      You are telling me Constantine “founded “ the Catholic church? Then who were Nero and his successors killing for 250 years?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:44pm

      @ By Faith

      Again, I know what the Romanist/catholics claim and try to use as proof. I know that they claim that certain early church fathers were Romanist/catholics where those fathers would have just described themselves as “Christians”.

      Report Post »  
    • TeaPartyJoe
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:49pm

      “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. I give you the keys to heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” – Scriptural proof of priestly authority to forgive sins in the name of the Holy Trinity

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:50pm

      We will have to agree to disagree. But look we had a debate about religion and there was no name calling or claiming one or the other was going to hell. Yea Us!

      We both agree: He came to pay a debt He didn’t owe, Because we owe a debt we cannot pay.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:59pm

      @ TEAPARTJOE

      All you need to do is look at what you quoted in context, Jesus is the Rock not Peter….I know, I know Peter’s name means rock but our ROCK is Christ. Peter’s confession is the Rock upon which the Church is built.

      Matt 16:15-19

      15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
      16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
      17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”

      The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, what breaks your chains to sin is The Gospel of Truth. The loosing and binding is done by the Gospel of Truth. If you believe it and obey it, your sins are forgiven or “Loosed”. If you deny it, your sins “Bound” and you are lost. Simple. The Apostles were commissioned with spreading the Gospel and now those who are Christians are.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:03pm

      @ By Faith

      “”out
      you have obviously been mislead. Do yourself a favor and read the Church fathers.”"

      I have read about the early Christians but I did myself a favor a long time ago and put little trust in the Romanist/catholic “Oral Traditions”. The history of early Christians and Romanist/catholics are two separate things.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:03pm

      Peter’s Authority
      http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
      By: Fr. Dwight Longenecker
      When I was in the Bible doctrine class at Bob Jones University, one of the verses we had to memorize was Matthew 16:18: “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

      A Catholic student might memorize this verse to prove his beliefs about the papacy. We learned it in order to deny Catholic beliefs about the papacy. It was explained that the rock in this verse was not Peter, but his profession of faith that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Christ’s pun on the name “Peter-petros” was not a pun at all because petros meant little stone, so Jesus could not have intended the rock to be Peter because he was speaking of a foundation stone. Only many years later did I begin to reassess the teaching I had received about this famous and important verse.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:03pm

      The Fundamentalists claimed that Catholics built the entire edifice of papal authority on this one verse taken out of context—a misuse of Scripture. An important doctrine, they said, should not be developed on one proof-text alone. In fact they are right, and as I began to study the Catholic faith more openly, I came to understand that the Catholic Church does not rely on this one verse alone to support papal claims but considers the whole verse in context. In addition, instead of one proof-text, there are three important biblical images that come together to support the Catholic Church’s claims to papal authority.

      The three images are rock, steward, and shepherd. These three images are found not just in one verse, but are rooted in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New. Like a strong, three-strand, braided rope, these three images of rock, steward, and shepherd provide a powerful interlocking and interdependent support for the authority Christ intended to leave with his Church on earth.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:04pm

      God Is My Rock

      A word study of the Old Testament shows the importance of the rock as an image of foundational authority and strength. In Genesis 49:24 the patriarch Jacob, blessing his sons, says that Joseph’s arm is strong in battle because it is upheld by “the shepherd, the rock of Israel.” The shepherd and the rock are symbols of God’s care and support for his people.

      For Moses, the rock is a solid place to stand and a secure hiding place (Ex 33:21-22), and for the people of Israel, the rock is a miraculous source of refreshment and life (Ex 17:6). Throughout the book of Deuteronomy, the Lord is a rock who is perfect, who fathers his children, and who provides an abundant life for them (Dt 32:4,13,15,18).
      The great psalmist King David refers time and again to the Lord as his rock, his fortress, and his deliverer (2 Sm 22:2; Ps 18, 19 et al). The psalmist praises God for he has lifted his feet from the miry clay and set them firm upon a rock (Ps 40:2). Throughout the Psalms the rock becomes a predominant image for the solid, secure, and trustworthy Lord of Israel.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:05pm

      The prophet Isaiah echoes the psalmist, and for him too the Lord is the rock. Shelter is found in the shadow of a rock in a dry and thirsty land (Is 32:2), while God is likened to the “Rock eternal” (Is 26:4), and the Lord is the rock from which the people of Israel are hewn (Is 51:1). Habakkuk reaffirms that the Lord is the rock (Hb 1:12), and at the end of the Old Testament, the prophet Zechariah says that God will make Jerusalem an immoveable rock for all nations (Zec 12:3).

      In the Old Testament the powerful image of the rock repeatedly refers to God himself. In the New Testament, Paul unlocks the image of the rock and says clearly that the foundation stone is Jesus Christ himself (Rom 9:33, 1 Cor 10:4). The incarnate Christ is the manifestation of the rock who is God. He therefore has the authority to name someone who will share his rock-like status.

      In the context of the whole Old Testament, Jesus the rock gives his teaching about the rock. Specifically, the important passage of Isaiah 51 describes God as the “rock from which [the people of Israel] are hewn,“ but they are told to ”look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who gave you birth.” Stephen Ray’s masterful work Upon This Rock piles up evidence showing that the Jewish teachers repeatedly referred to Abraham as the God-appointed foundation stone of the Jewish people.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:05pm

      God was the ultimate rock, but Abraham was his earthly presence. Just as Abram was given a new name to indicate his new foundational status, so Jesus gives Simon a new name—Rock —to indicate his foundational status in the new covenant.

      The King’s Delegate

      The second strand in the braided rope of Petrine authority is the image of steward. The steward in a royal household appears throughout the Old Testament record. The patriarch Joseph works with a steward in the palace in Egypt. King Saul has a steward, as does the prince Mephibosheth, but the most important image of steward in the Old Testament for understanding Matthew 16 is in Isaiah 22.
      There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the prophet says to the rejected Shebna, “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open” (Is 22:21-22).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:06pm

      The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds the power of the keys—the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, “I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades” (Rv 1:18).

      So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office—the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself (See “A Successive Ministry,” above).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:06pm

      Isaiah 22 provides the Old Testament context that Jesus’ disciples would have understood completely as he quoted this particular passage in Matthew 16. When Jesus said to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” his disciples would recognize the passage from Isaiah. They would understand that not only was Jesus calling himself the King of his kingdom, but that he was appointing Peter as his royal steward. That John in Revelation sees the ascended and glorified Christ holding the eternal keys only confirms the intention of Jesus to delegate that power to Peter—the foundation stone of his Church.

      Catholic scholars are not alone in interpreting Matthew 16:17-19 as a direct quotation of Isaiah 22. Stephen Ray, in Upon This Rock, cites numerous Protestant biblical scholars who support this understanding and affirm that Jesus is delegating his authority over life and death, heaven and hell, to the founder of his Church on earth.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:06pm

      The Good Shepherd

      The third strand in the strong rope of scriptural support for papal authority is the image of the Good Shepherd. This powerful image is so abundant in the Old Testament that this short article cannot begin to recount all the references. Suffice it to say that the Hebrews were a nomadic-shepherd people, and the images of the lamb and the shepherd are woven in and through their story at every glance. From the beginning God himself is seen to be the shepherd of his people.

      In Genesis 48 the old man Jacob, before blessing his sons, says that the Lord God of his fathers has been his shepherd his whole life long. The prophet Micah sees the people of Israel as “sheep without a shepherd,” and the shepherd King David calls the Lord his shepherd (Ps 23 et al). The prophet Isaiah says that the sovereign Lord will “tend his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms, and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young” (Is 40:11).

      The theme of the Lord being the Good Shepherd reaches its Old Testament climax in the Book of Ezekiel. Earlier, Jeremiah the prophet had raged against the corrupt leadership of the people of Israel. They were wicked and abusive shepherds, but in the Book of Ezekiel God himself promises to be the shepherd of his people Israel.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:07pm

      So the Lord says,
      As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness . . . I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice. (Ez 34:12,16)

      Finally, the Lord’s servant, the Son of David, will come and be the shepherd of the lost flock.
      I will save my flock, and they will no longer be plundered. I will judge between one sheep and another. I will place over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd. I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David will be prince among them. (Ez 34:22-24)

      One of the clearest signs, therefore, of Christ’s self-knowledge as the Son of God is when he calls himself the Good Shepherd. In story after story Jesus uses the image of the Good Shepherd to refer to his own ministry. He explicitly calls himself the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11,14) who has come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24). He tells the story of the lost sheep, placing himself in the story as the divine Shepherd who fulfills Ezekiel’s prophecy (Lk 15). The author of the Letter to the Hebrews calls Christ the Great Shepherd of the Sheep (Heb 13:20). Peter calls Jesus the Shepherd and overseer of souls (1 Pt 2:25),

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:07pm

      and in the Book of Revelation, the Lamb on the throne is also the Shepherd of the lost souls (Rv 7:17).

      When Jesus Christ, after his Resurrection, then solemnly instructs Peter to “feed my lambs, watch over my sheep, feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17), the ramifications are enormous. Throughout the Old Testament, God himself is understood to be the Good Shepherd. He promises to come and be the shepherd of his people through his servant David. When Jesus Christ, the Son of David, fulfills this prophecy, God’s promise is kept. Then before Jesus returns to heaven, he commands Peter to take charge of his pastoral ministry. Now Peter will undertake the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s place.

      The Vicar of Christ

      When I was an Anglican priest in England, I held the title of vicar of the parish. The term derives from the fact that the vicar is a priest appointed to do a job in the stead of the official parish priest. One priest might oversee various parishes, and so he appoints vicars to do the job when he can’t be there.

      Many non-Catholic Christians object to the pope being called the Vicar of Christ. But the word vicar simply stands for one who vicariously stands in for another person. A vicar is someone to whom a job is delegated. The three strands of biblical imagery—rock, steward, and shepherd—show in three different ways that Jesus intended Peter to exercise his ministry and authority here on earth—in other words, to act as his vicar.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:08pm

      The fact that there are three images is important because the authors of Scripture believed the number three to be one of the perfect numbers. A statement was most authoritative when it was expressed three times in three different ways.

      We see this in the passage in John 21. Jesus gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three solemn commands: “Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep.” Here Jesus delegates his authority three times in three different ways, using imagery found throughout the Old Testament. In so doing he clearly reveals his delegation of authority to Peter.

      History shows that from the earliest days Christians considered Peter to be the very rock, steward, and shepherd that Jesus proclaimed him to be. Furthermore, from the earliest days they considered his successor to be the Bishop of Rome, and that Bishop of Rome endures today as rock, steward, and shepherd—just a few hundred yards from the site of Peter’s death and burial.
      Does the Catholic Church build the claims to papal authority on one verse taken out of context? Hardly. The three strands of rock, steward, and shepherd are woven in and through the whole of Scripture, coming into focus in the life of Jesus Christ who is the true Rock, the King of the Kingdom and Good Shepherd, and who hands his authority on earth to Peter until he comes again.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • TeaPartyJoe
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:12pm

      @out

      Yes Christ is the true King of Christendom! However his giving of the keys of His Kingdom to Peter signifies a granting of stewardship to Peter. It was very common for kings to appoint stewards who would represent the authority of the king in the king’s absence and give the steward so appointed the authority to create a way for another to be appointed should the one that the king appointed die before the king returns. Same thing with Christ the King. He gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter….effectively appointing him as the first head steward of Christendom…and also left him a way to see that another was appointed in his place should peter die before Christ’s return when He said “Go out unto all the world and make disciples of all nations” and it is worth noting that Christ said to just go, not to finish compiling the Bible and go. And I’ll never follow Protestantism whose founder had the arrogance and audacity to desecrate sacred Scripture by ripping out the Deuterocanonicals

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:52pm

      In Matt 18:18 Jesus repeats what he said to Peter earlier in Matt 16 but this time, he was speaking to his disciples not just to Peter so it wasn’t just Peter who had the Keys to Loose and Bind:

      Matt 18:18
      18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

      Now, in Isaiah 61:1-2 we see:

      1 “The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
      Because the LORD has anointed Me
      To preach good tidings to the poor;
      He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
      To proclaim liberty to the captives,
      And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
      2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
      And the day of vengeance of our God;
      To comfort all who mourn,

      What are the “Good Tidings” Isaiah speaks of here that “heal the broken hearted” and “open the prisions to those that are bound?” The Gospel of Jesus Christ.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 6:07pm

      @ BY FAITH & @ TEAPARTYJOE

      There are many “rocks” in the foundation of the Church but Christ is the cornerstone that forms the basis of the foundation. Why, if Peter is this glorious rock that is set apart from all others, is his rock not differentiated from all the others in the foundation of the Church? They are all considered the foundation stones:

      Rev 21:14-20
      14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names[i] of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall. 16 The city is laid out as a square; its length is as great as its breadth. And he measured the city with the reed: twelve thousand furlongs. Its length, breadth, and height are equal. 17 Then he measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of an angel. 18 The construction of its wall was of jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with all kinds of precious stones: the first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third chalcedony, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth sardonyx, the sixth sardius, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 6:25pm

      The wall of the city in revelation is not the church

      Christianity started about 2000 years ago with a man (who was also God) – Jesus Christ. This man, Jesus, started a single Church with his apostles. Where is this Church today?
      The line of authority of those same apostles (in particular, the head of the apostles, Peter) can literally be traced to the leaders of the present day Catholic Church. In other words, the apostles of Jesus were the first leaders of the Catholic Church. In studying these early Christians, we also see that they are undeniably “Catholic” in their beliefs.
      For over 1000 years there was only this one Church – the Catholic Church.
      In the year 1054, a schism occurred in the Church. The “eastern” part of the Church split off and is known today as the Eastern Orthodox church.
      And it wasn’t until almost 1500 years after Jesus founded his Church that any “denomination” appeared on the scene. This was what is known as the protestant reformation, where some Catholics decided to break off from the Catholic Church and start their own churches.

      where in the Bible does it say that 1500 years after Jesus, a true church will be formed with a German Monk as the catalyst?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:00pm

      @ BY FAITH said:

      “”Christianity started about 2000 years ago with a man (who was also God) – Jesus Christ. This man, Jesus, started a single Church with his apostles. Where is this Church today?~~~~~~~~”"

      Answer
      Christ’s Church are Christians, who follow the pattern set for us in the first century as recorded in the New Testament Bible. The simplicity of Christianity and the Gospel as compared to the Old Testament Law.

      ~~~~where in the Bible does it say that 1500 years after Jesus, a true church will be formed with a German Monk as the catalyst?”"~~~~

      Answer
      The Church has been in existence since the death of Christ and some of it’s first members were the Apostles and later more were added on the day of Pentecost and ever since. The Church that Christ established in the first century is not Romanist/catholic. The two are strikingly different. This “monk”, or Martin Luther, to remove the code-speak was, although correct in some respects was also in error. Those that followed him even named themselves after him instead of Christ.

      The real basis for Christianity is the Bible, the books of which existed in the 1st century, not the teachings of uninspired men many generations later.

      Report Post »  
    • luyben12
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:15pm

      How can Catholicism miss the means of salvation when it contains all 7 sacraments implemented by Christ to His Apostles? You have it backwards, church‘s outside the Catholic church lack all of the 7 or simply don’t believe in them… This involves confession of sin, holy orders and the Eucharist…

      Report Post » luyben12  
    • luyben12
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:19pm

      Every tradition that Catholics practice is backed Scripturally, let alone it was the original Church of Christ… I wish Christians outside of the Catholic Church (which is the largest Christian denomination in the world) would try to understand Catholicism rather than fall into the company of atheists and blindly tear it down… There would be no such thing as Christianity had it not been for the Catholic Church.

      Report Post » luyben12  
    • lillymckim
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:34pm

      Old Saggy Boobs is at it again..

      Susan one word ….“underwire”

      Report Post » lillymckim  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:35pm

      @ BY FAITH & @

      ““The wall of the city in revelation is not the church””
      Answer
      The description is all part of the New Jerusalem and what makes it up. Without a wall, a City is Vunerable. It therefore is part of a functioning city so the foundation of the wall is part of the Church.

      “”How can Catholicism miss the means of salvation when it contains all 7 sacraments implemented by Christ to His Apostles? You have it backwards, church‘s outside the Catholic church lack all of the 7 or simply don’t believe in them… This involves confession of sin, holy orders and the Eucharist…
      Every tradition that Catholics practice is backed Scripturally, let alone it was the original Church of Christ… I wish Christians outside of the Catholic Church (which is the largest Christian denomination in the world) would try to understand Catholicism rather than fall into the company of atheists and blindly tear it down… There would be no such thing as Christianity had it not been for the Catholic Church.”"

      Answer:
      You are right, Romanism/catholicism is a denomination (abomination) of what was originally taught by the Apostles as instructed by Christ.
      There is no blind tearing down. The blind are those who follow “Oral Traditions” based on Pagan Romanism with a thin veneer of Bible taken out of context layed over it.

      To quote you again “There would be no such thing as Christianity had it not been for the Catholic Church”. How wrong you are. There would b

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:38pm

      @LUYBEN12

      You like the Romanist/catholics have inserted Romanist/catholic in the place of Christ as the foundation of Christian Faith.

      Report Post »  
    • ChristianLayman
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:45pm

      @TBG, Faith, and TeaPartyJoe, give it up. Most Fundamentalists would rather join Satan in Hell rather than admit that the Church is correct. That is how much they hate God. They keep on rattling off Bible verses, but you know what? Satan could bang out Scripture verses along with the most ardent Thumpers we have today. The fact of the matter is that like the New Atheist movement, they
      prefer to live in ignorance and reject anything that comes close to their twisted concept of orthodoxy with such vitriol that is befitting only that of someone with a cult-like mentality and you are NEVER going to reason with someone like that. These people NEED our prayers.

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:46pm

      @ TBG 1 COR 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ
      EPH 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household EPH 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, REV:19:16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” 1 COR 6:2 2COR 6::2 for He says, “AT THE ACCEPTABLE TIME I LISTENED TO YOU, AND ON THE DAY OF SALVATION I HELPED YOU.” Behold, now is “THE ACCEPTABLE TIME,” behold, now is “THE DAY OF SALVATION JAMES 4:12
      There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? There are many calling themselves Lords..yet there is only Our Lord Jesus..there are many who are called kings, but there is only one King. There are foundations, but there is just one Cornerstone, that being the Lord Jesus.

      Report Post »  
    • ChristianLayman
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:03pm

      @TBG, Faith, and TeaPartyJoe, give it up. Fundamentalists are just as brainwashed in cult-like thinking as some of these New Atheist groups like Zeitgeist and quite frankly don‘t give one rat’s rear end about basic history. Sure, Fundamentalists would like to believe that they are “True, Bible Believing Christians” but when it comes time to put up or shut up, they fall vastly short of the mark by trying to prove their lineage or unbroken continuity of belief, and when challenged can only say that the “Romanists” must’ve killed them despite being NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Seriously, who were the True, “Bible Believing Christians” from before the Protestant Revolt? Was it the Eastern Orthodox (never mind that their beliefs and practices nearly mirror Catholicism’s), the Cathars? The Nestorians? The Arians? The Modalists? The Pelagians? The Judaizers? The FREAKING GNOSTICS? SIMON MAGUS? No, they’ll go with the non-denominational nonsense that they can’t historically prove AT ALL, let alone PROVIDE A LIST OF NAMES and DATES. They’ll take whatever random heretic, apostate or even a loyal church father and cite him (just as long as he disagreed with the Church on one thing, despite being orthodox on everything else) and try to claim THAT as their “proof”.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:03pm

      @ BY FAITH

      ““The wall of the city in revelation is not the church””
      2nd follow-up, Do you deny that the New Jerusalem is the Church?

      As I said before, the wall is part of it. Our modern ideas of a city are quite a bit different than those of ancient times. Back then, a city wall was like that of a castle. The interior of the walls were actually the walls of dwellings and shops within.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:21pm

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN
      “” they are “True, Bible Believing Christians” but when it comes time to put up or shut up, they fall vastly short of the mark”"

      What mark is that? One that has been set by uninspired men who ursurp the authority of the scriptures with their “Oral Traditions” and their thin veneer of “Apostalic Succession” to foist upon people requirements and traditions much like the Pharisees did and all the while surplanting the Words of God. They claim that their “Oral Traditons” contain new revelations even though the Bible condemns this.

      Yeah, buying into the delusion that paganism wrapped in a cloak of “Christianity” is actually what God intended.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:50pm

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN, BY FAITH, LUYBEN12, etc….

      Going back to the unanswered question about who the “Keys of the kingdom of Heaven” were given to and what they are. Romanist/catholics will always say they were given to Peter. This is true, they were given to Peter, Jesus says so in Matthew 16 but they were also given to the other Apostles and disciples as well.

      Every true Christian for that matter has them but the Romanist/catholics will deny this because it blows a hole in their “Apostalic Succession” arguement and would set the “Laity” free from their bondage under the thumb of Romanism.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:12am

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN, BY FAITH, LUYBEN12, etc….

      In Matthew 18, Jesus is addressing his disciples and he repeats what he said to Peter just two chapters prior. This time he says it to the group of disciples:

      18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

      This isn’t referring to “Being in charge or being the Head Guy”, this refers to the power the the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ to take away sins. If you hear, believe it and obey it, your sins will be “Loosed” or forgiven. If you don’t believe and obey it, then you are bound to your sins and their consequences. Easy, simple.

      But the Romanist/catholic “church” doesn’t want you to know this because it takes away their “power”. Knowing the truth, you no longer have to go through them for Salvation. Your relationship with God is directly with God without them inserting themselves in the middle for whatever political or monetary advantages that gives them.

      Think about it, What we have here with the Romanist/catholics is similar in many ways to what the Pharisee’s were all about in the Bible and what did Jesus call them? White wash tombs full of dead men’s bones. They substituted traditions for what God really wanted. They were corrupt, greedy and LOST.

      Report Post »  
    • BETTY CROCKER
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:04am

      Thank you so much for all the help from great Catholic apologetics. My orginal point with “why isn’t this good enough for other denominations” has been well proven. OUT whether you consider yourself a “Fundamentalist” or not your methodology completely reflects that school. I believe it is a matter of RESPECT for other faiths. I also find this methodology to lead to CONDESCENSION and DISRESPECT. It also appears very geared toward the goal of ONE RELIGION. Now I know I am going to get an earfull!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:20am

      why is my post not here?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 10:38am

      Ok your turn. Give me proof.
      Where in the bible does it say Luther or any man can edit or remove 11 books from the original Bible?
      Where in the Bible does it list the books (table of Contents doesn’t count) where in the bible does it say BIBLE?
      Where does it say in the Bible where Jesus said write this down so people can read it later
      Where your proof Constantine is formed the Catholic Church
      Did Jesus intend to set up a church, yes, where is this church. Evidence please.
      I believe you have no proof. You are merely spouting the traditions of men. Men who came up with these lies centuries after Jesus.
      How is Luther or Calvin or Chick or Swaggart or any of the others different than Mohamed or Smith?
      They didn’t like the religion of the day, so they changed it. By who’s authority?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 11:14am

      that is only half of the post. Is the Blaze not a free speach zone?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • anna logan
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 12:00pm

      This isn’t for Gary M, I am not able to leave a general reply.

      But……. Susan Sarandon must be the long lost sister of the sea hags. She looks like some kind of prehistoric toad.

      Report Post »  
    • Codarama
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 1:21pm

      You don’t understand Catholic Theology nor proper Bible interpretation. The Sacraments were given to us by Christ… the Priest performs these sacraments by the power of the Holy Spirit (not by his own accord… he is only human)… The Priest is In Persona Cristi…. the laying on of hands given to the Church by Christ Himself so that the Priest is a Vessel for Christ to enter through, and by cooperation of the Human Priest, Christ Can Forgive our Sin and change the host (bread) into His Body and Blood… look up Eucharistic miracles to understand the literalness of the Catholic Faith… which of Course the Early Church was practicing. http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-priest-another-christ-when-he-says-holy-mass-hears-confessions-etc

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 3:42pm

      @ BY FAITH

      It’s very simple. Christ‘s Church didn’t start with Romanism, it didn’t start with Lutherans, it didn’t start with any of the other denominations you can name. It started with Christ. These groups are just facades thrown up to block the way to the Truth. Jesus said “No one comes to the Father but by ME”.

      The books that make up the Bible were written before any of these denominations came on the scene and were inspired and used by Christians in the first century as their proof text.

      This happened well before there was any counsel to say what was or wasn’t part of the canon. What has happened over the centuries especially at the hands of the Romanists was revisionist history to try to lay a claim on the truth.

      You have skirted the issue again though and I will repeat it again. I know why you won’t answer it because it lays waste to “Apostalic Succession”. Romanist/catholics like yourself will hold up Peter as the first “papa” or “pope” because he received the “Keys of Heaven” from Jesus. I agree, he did but so did all the other Christians. These Keys are the Gospel of Christ, the good news that he died for our sins so that we may have eternal life.

      Explain Matthew 18:18 where the Keys to Heaven are also given to the disciples which included not only Peter but the other Apostles and other followers of Jesus before him that day. Explain it.

      I’m waiting! Or will you throw up other strawman arguements? I’m confronting

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 4:05pm

      @BY FAITH

      I’m confronting you with the Gospel of Truth. Answer Matthew 18:18 where the Keys are given to all Christians to give to those who are lost.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:46pm

      So you just ignore the questions you cannot answer?
      I give you 3,00+ words supported by biblical as well as historical evidence (in Greek and Aramaic) that Jesus intended for Peter to be the head of His church(Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:03pm)
      and you come back with “he gave the keys to everybody” seriously so Jesus intended to have a church on earth, which the gates of hell will not prevail, but he left no one in charge… we all just do our own thing until some how some where a Bible comes along to show us the right way.
      you give me nothing but private revalations of men.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 5:56pm

      Already answered in Greek and Aramaic (Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:03pm)
      300 or so words of explanation and you give me “he gave the keys to everybody”
      you can‘t be telling me Jesus didn’t establish a church which the gates of Hell will not prevail against. That even you can’t take out of context. but you want me to believe he left no one in charge of this church. we all just get to do our own thing until some how some where poof the bible shows up and then we all get to read it for ourself and come up with our own interpritation of what it says

      you want me to re answer a question I already answered, but you ignore my questions?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:06pm

      In an earlier post you justified removal of a book from the bible. here is you glorious book remover: Martin Luther said: “if we allow them (the Ten Commandments) any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies. He also said that faith alone (sola fide) would get you to heaven. (Nowhere in the scripture can you find this saying) He basically said you can commit sins, break the 10 commandments but if you have faith nothing will happen. Additionally he said: be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day you will not lose you’re justification.
      “These demons would haunt the imagination of Martin Luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences of the devil hurling [excrement] at him and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil in which Luther would challenge the devil to ‘lick’ his posterior. Luther thought the best tactic might be ‘to throw him into my anus, where he belongs.’” Harry Crocker “Triumph” pg237
      Pope and cardinals should be killed and he and his supporters should was their hands in the blood
      Luther claims he came up with justification by faith alone while on the toilet. He claims that it came as “Knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower “

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:12pm

      If you are Lutheran your church was founded by Martin Luther an Ex-Catholic in 1520
      If you belong to the church of England or Episcopalian your religion was founded by Henry VIII an Ex-Catholic in 1534
      If you are a Presbyterian your church was founded by John Knox an Ex-Catholic in 1560
      If you are a Congregationalist your church was founded by Robert Brown in 1582
      If you are a Baptist John Smith created your religion in 1605
      If you are a Quaker your religion began with George Fox in 1652
      If you are Amish Jacob Amin created your religion in 1693
      If you are a Methodist your religion was created by John and Charles Wesley 1744
      If you are a Mormon your religion comes from Joseph Smith 1829
      If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as church of the Nazarene, Pentecostal gospel, Holiness church, United church of Christ, etc… your one of the thousands of new sects founded by men over the last century.
      But if you are a Catholic you know your religion was founded in or around the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, True God and True Man and this church will exist until the end of time.

      I’m sure you know this, because you know everything, but there are more than 30,000 denominations in the world (Satan loves devision)
      I know you are “non-denominational” which means that after all these changes they still got it wrong.
      Just goes to prove the farther in time you get from the earthly presence of Jesus the smarter we (well at least you) get.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:26pm

      I know you already know all about these people, but some else who is reading this with an open mind might find it interesting
      Scott Hahn conversion story (Presbyterian minister) http://youtu.be/W8RMvmrheE0
      Rosalind Moss Conversion story (Judaism) http://youtu.be/NAYcr1raq5Y
      Tim Staples Conversion story (Assembly of God) http://youtu.be/9A5XBzgjgfE

      Report Post » by faith  
    • BETTY CROCKER
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 6:42pm

      @OUT

      It is obvious this argument makes you very happy, powerful and arrogant. This is what faith is for you. How sad for someone to claim they are non-denominational yet hold such ill-will for the denomination that stood first. I really feel sorry for you and my prayers will be for you.

      Report Post »  
    • ChristianLayman
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 8:21pm

      @OutOnTheTiles

      The mark is that of an unbroken continuity of belief that is demonstrable throughout the course of history linking the Church to its origins. Can you provide an unbroken lineage of theologians from when your ecclesial community was founded all the way back to Christ to vindicate your personal interpretation? Is your interpretation coherent or logical? Does it endorse either heterodoxy or heresy, or if it is truth, how does one go about proving it?

      You claim that authority was usurped, and that only Scripture is valid. Okay, “scholar” the burden on you to prove from history that your theory is true. You of course can’t, because you don‘t read original source material but only rely on people who back your viewpoint and that’s that. This is why the atheists laugh and make fun of you.

      You really don’t have a clue, do you? Reread Matthew 18:18 in the context of Matthew 18:1-19:2. Authority is granted ONLY to the 12 Disciples (Apostles), not everyone, and it still does not nullify Jesus singling out Peter in Matthew 16:19.

      You keep claiming that “Romanists” are the only ones who believe in Apostolic Succession, yet can’t seem to address the 300 Million Christians known as Eastern Orthodox who believe in the SAME THING! Face it, your whacked out interpretation can’t be historically proven.

      Please, stop deluding yourself with your malarkey and read church history, preferably from those who lived it!

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 9:33pm

      @ Romanist/catholics

      So you admit that the “Keys” were not given to just Peter but to all 12 Apostles, well, at least that is a start!!

      All of the Apostles were Disciples, we can agree on that BUT not all of the Disciples were Apostles.

      Proof: Luke 13:12-15

      12 Now it came to pass in those days that He went out to the mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God. 13 And when it was day, He called His disciples to Himself; and from them He chose twelve whom He also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom He also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; 15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot who also became a traitor.

      Matthew 18:18 in context was spoken to his Disciples and not just Peter. The “Keys” were given to his Disciples which were more than the 12 that became Apostles.

      It is interesting that Luther started out as a Romanist/catholic so that helps explain where he got some of his twisted beliefs about Killing in the name of Christ.

      And to those of you who think I come off as arogant or prideful for being a witness to the Gospel of Truth that was freely given to all that believe and obey.

      Galatians 6:14
      14 But God forbid that I should boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 9:24am

      All of the Apostles were Disciples, but not all of the Disciples were Apostles.
      What does that prove? The apostles where chosen by Jesus to form the beginnings of his church with Peter being singled out as their leader.
      Can you think of any religion today who has a similar organization. What does your church look like? Wait do you even need to attend a church? Where in the bible does it say you must worship inside a building? I’m sure at some time a guy stood before you in a taylor made suit, until you found out he was flawed and now you and the Bible are all you need.
      I’m still waiting for the Biblical reference: Jesus telling the deciples to write anything down.
      He told them to go out and spread the good news, but where is the proof that they were to write it all down so the people could read it for themself?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:40pm

      @ BY FAITH

      What the Romanist/catholics have done is Pervert the Gospel of Christ. You have Perverted the Simplicity that is the Gospel of Christ. You have preached another “jesus” that is not in the scriptures. The inspired writers of the Bible predicted that you would come. The Apostle Paul writes

      1 Corinthians 11:1-4
      1 Oh, that you would bear with me in a little folly—and indeed you do bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!

      Galatians 1:6-8
      I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:45pm

      @ BY FAITH

      But if your heart is hardened, you will not endure sound teaching. Much like the Jehovah false-witnesses, Romanist/catholics can not believe what they believe without the “Oral Traditons”. To a jehovah false-witness, it is the Watch Tower Society, to the Romanist/catholic it is the Vatican and the “Oral Tradition”. You have taken the Simplicity that is the Gospel of Christ and Perverted it.

      I’ve enjoyed the discussion but alas, I’ve learned long ago that much time can be spent talking to Romanist/catholics, Jehovah false-witnesses and mormans to no avail. There is actually more fertile ground out there where my time is better well spent.

      Some eventually see the Light and the seed that I’ve sowed sometimes sprouts after many years. God will give the increase, not I. I’ve done what I can.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 1:49pm

      It likely hasn’t been a total waste of time though. Someone else undoubtably has read this post and it has opened their eyes to the Truth that is the Simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. Their interests have been stirred toward that which is spiritual and is Life.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 4:58pm

      it is not the Church nor I that have perverted the gospel.
      Paul was speaking to you

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 5:07pm

      thanks to those that joined this thread trying to stop the lies against the Catholic Church. maybe one day OutOnTheTiles will see the error of his ways. He is like the guy how live in New Orleans whos home was flooded. a boat came and tryed to pick him up. No thanks the Lord will provide. later he is on his roof and another boat comes by. No thanks the Lord will provide. still later a helicopter comes. the Lord will provide. he died and when he meets God he says where were you, I trusted you would provide and God said I sent 2 boats and a helicoptor

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 21, 2011 at 10:35pm

      Actually, I’m more of a guy who would never live below sea level in the first place nor near a modern day Sodom & Gomorrah. I prefer mountainous, rural areas where the air is clear and the living is honest.

      Report Post »  
    • ChristianLayman
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 12:16pm

      @OutOnTheTiles

      I’m guessing you and critical reading skills have been long-time bitter enemies, since somehow, you failed to notice that Peter is initially singled-out during Matthew 16: 17-19. My question to you is if Peter has no special significance and Our LORD had intended to give those who would be future Apostles equal authority, what is the relevance of separating Peter from the others? The Church’s teaching on Scripture is harmonious, yours are not. The big problem you seem to be having with Matthew 18 is that nowhere does Scripture mention other disciples outside of the Twelve, so the context of them being granted authority is limited to them and to them alone. The Laity simply put, are not granted equal authority to that of those who would become Apostles. After Christ ascended into Heaven, the transmission and appointment of authority is passed on from the Apostles to their successors, which would be the elders of each church. The elders are also called BISHOPS. The Bishop then has authority to appoint new priests, deacons, etc. This is the way it has been and will continue to be. This idea of everyman is his own interpreter and authority has only served to fracture apart the Body of Christ to which St. Paul CONDEMNS.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:22pm

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN said

      “”After Christ ascended into Heaven, the transmission and appointment of authority is passed on from the Apostles to their successors, which would be the elders of each church. The elders are also called BISHOPS.”"

      Okay, lets talk about Bishops/Elders, another perversion by the Romanist/catholics. Last time I checked, Romanist/catholic Bishops/Elders are not allowed to have wives but that’s not what the Bible tells us. I bet there is some “Oral Traditon” that changed that too. So much for the “Oral Traditions” being in harmony with the Bible. Notice also that they were to have obedient children as well.
      ***
      1 Timothy 3:1-7, the Apostle Paul writes
      1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
      ***

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:24pm

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      Now, why do you suppose it was a requirement for a Bishop to be married? Perhaps because they could learn a thing or two from having a wife? Perhaps for companion ship? Perhaps so they would have a outlet for their sexual desires?

      Why do you suppose it was a requirement for a Bishop to have obedient children? Perhaps so they could understand what it is like to raise children in the paths of righteousness?

      The Bible has similar requirements for Deacons.
      ***
      1 Timothy 3:8-13, the Apostle Paul writes
      8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
      ***

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 22, 2011 at 11:25pm

      Now it is interesting that in the very next chapter, 1 Timothy 4, that Paul warns of a great apostasy where some will depart from the faith. Note what Paul says

      1 Timothy 4:1-5, Paul writes
      1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

      But I’m sure that there is an “Oral Tradition” or official interpretation by the Romanist/catholics to both of these chapters that dismiss them. So much for “Oral Traditions” working in harmony with the Bible.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 1:38am

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      Au Contraire, critical reading skills have been long-time bitter enemies of the Romanist/catholics. So much so they, when in a bind, translate from Greek and Hebrew to Latin Vulgate or from Latin Vulgate to Aramaic or just flat out add to the Bible. LOL.

      Now, lets talk about the Apostle Peter. Peter was a rather eager but hard headed Apostle. Numerous times as recorded in the Bible, he gets things wrong and must be corrected. He seemed to need to be told things more than once to get a point across and Jesus really wanted to get his point across to Peter that he wanted him to feed his sheep in case he had any misunderstandings. That was the job of the Apostles, they were the ones that were sent, they were the ones who would be feeding the sheep after Christ left the earth.

      The impression you get of the Apostle Peter was that, as the saying goes, “The heart is willing but the flesh is weak”.

      Peter still had problems though with feeding Gentiles as is recorded for us in Acts 10-11 and God had to give him another lesson and then in Galatians 2 where Paul had to get in Peter’s face about the Gentiles again. I know, I know, the Romanist/catholics want to believe that Galatians 2 was between Paul and Cephas, not Peter even though Simon Cephas and Simon Peter were the same person. You see, if they accept that Cephas is indeed Peter, then they would have to accept that Peter was not as perfect an Apostle as would you expect for the first “

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 1:48am

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      You see, if they accept that Cephas is indeed Peter, then they would have to accept that Peter was not as perfect an Apostle as would you expect for the first “pope”.

      And if Cephas is indeed Peter, then Peter was MARRIED!!
      ***
      1 Corinthians 9:1-4, Paul writes
      1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
      2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
      3 My defense to those who examine me is this:
      4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
      ***
      Wow, look at that, Paul believes he should be allowed to bring along a believing wife just like Cephas and the other Apostles do. Cephas couldin’t be Peter, of course not, wouldn’t fit with the “Oral Traditons”. The Apostles has wives, imagine that.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 2:14am

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      Or perhaps your particular brand of Romanist/catholic believes that the Apostles had wives but I have met some that claim to be fundamentalist that don’t.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 11:18am

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN said

      “”This idea of everyman is his own interpreter and authority has only served to fracture apart the Body of Christ to which St. Paul CONDEMNS””

      No, what allows error to creep in are TRADITIONS of MEN that teach another Gospel, regardless of what denomination does it. Some traditions are benign but teaching that goes beyond what the Bible has to say is Error. You keep bringing up the idea about “private interpretation” so lets explore one of the places where the Romanist/catholics point when they want to deny the individual’s right to read the Bible for themselves and to come to their own conclusions on what is written.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 11:19am

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      ***
      2 Peter 1:16-21. Peter writes
      16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
      19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
      ***

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 23, 2011 at 11:21am

      @ CHRISTIANLAYMAN

      Now for a Romanist/catholic, since they are not allowed to read this and draw their own conclusions, must tow the line and believe that it means that they can’t read the scriptures for themselves and rely on their own interpretation of what they’ve read. This passage included!!!

      What this passage is really talking about is that Inspired Men wrote as the Holy Spirit moved them. In other words, the Apostles and Prophets didn’t make this stuff up nor were they uninspired. They were moved by the Holy Spirit to write it. The prophecies that are written were not their own ideas. They didn’t “cunningly devise fables” as Peter says in v16.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 24, 2011 at 8:57am

      Out
      So many things to correct. First off. I give a story of a man in a flood and your response is I would rather live in the mountains…what are you 12? It’s called an analogy, it’s kinda like a parable…look it up.
      Secondly, celibacy does not lead to pedophilia, celibacy leads to NO SEX. If you have a problem with celibacy, take it up with Jesus. (He was celibate) also Paul spent just as much time writing about not being married as the preferred way to live.
      Married priest. You don’t know what you are talking about. There are hundreds if not thousands of married priest in the Catholic Church. You obviously don’t know the difference between discipline and dogma. Your “logic” would have us believe that no woman has worth (even the mother of Jesus) but the fictitious wife of a priest will keep him holy. I would call that a reach.
      Oral tradition? Back to that one trick pony. By definition, Jesus used oral tradition. The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down. Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 24, 2011 at 8:57am

      . In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face.” The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition–a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 24, 2011 at 9:36am

      Out
      ” when in a bind, translate from Greek and Hebrew to Latin Vulgate or from Latin Vulgate to Aramaic or just flat out add to the Bible.”

      You do realize Jesus did not speak english. that only happens in the movies

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 24, 2011 at 11:28pm

      @ BY FAITH

      Don‘t have time for a full reply tonight other than the Romanist like your are wrong and you’re being purposefully obtuse.

      “Oral Tradition”, when speaking to a Romanist end up being their fall back arguement everytime, for without them, their twisting of the scriptures unravels. That’s why its central to any discussion with a Romanist, not because it’s my only “trick”……it’s the lynch pin that holds your faith together.

      You can‘t believe like a Romanist without it just like a JW can’t do without the WTS. Peter becomes just another Apostle among the 12. Your “religion” is based on the traditions of unispired men who want to worship someone called “mary” who has no resemblance to the actual mother of Christ. You have put this pagan goddess up on a pedastal, called her the mother of god, you worship her, you pray to her. She is so real to you, you can almost see her move and breath if you concentrate hard enough. But she unfortunately is a cleverly devised fable of paganist. The actual mother of Jesus lived, had other children, died and is now in the hadean realm waiting judgement like all of us will.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 10:59am

      Oral tradition
      The preferred method of communicating the word of God was not in writing but by word of mouth. Much of the Old Testament was known orally for centuries before it was written down.
      Jesus himself wrote none of the New Testament. He established a living Church founded on Peter and the apostles, and he told them to preach. We see in the epistles of Paul how anxious the apostle is about the welfare of the local churches he has established and how he wishes he could be there with them in person to guide and teach.
      In 2 John 12 we see explicitly in the written word itself how the apostles preferred to communicate directly with their own lips: “Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak, face to face.”
      The Bible is a testament to the oral tradition that was alive and already at work. Our source of the revealed word of God is Scripture plus Tradition–a Tradition that the Church Christ founded preserves and teaches. Much of that Tradition was reduced to inspired writing under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
      John 20:30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:02am

      John 20:30. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31. But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
      John 21:25, And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

      again with the oral tradition…your entire faith system is based on traditions of a man who had crap fights with the devil. It was Martin Luther who tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history. He also rejected the epistle to the Hebrews and the book of Revelation. He also called the epistle of James “an epistle of straw” because James 2:14–26 conflicted with his personal theology on good works. He also added the word (in his German translation) only in Romans 3:20 and Romans 4:15, and he inserted the word alone in Romans 3:28.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:04am

      Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

      However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

      According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:04am

      Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

      The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

      Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:05am

      “The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 11:07am

      Hilary of Poitiers

      “If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate" (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

      Athanasius

      “Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

      Epiphanius of Salamis

      “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

      “And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).

      You really think it is wise to attack Jesus’ mother?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 2:03pm

      “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.” (Matt. 10:5-15; see also Luke 10:1-12)

      I leave you in the hands of God

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 25, 2011 at 3:02pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      No attack when I’m talking about a pagan goddess the Romanist have named “mary”. Like I said before, Luther is not my hero. I could care less about him or any other Romanist or Romanist spin-off. So called “Oral Traditions” from denominations like the Romanists and the inspired Word are two different things whether you believe it or not. Romanist “Oral Traditons” are more properly called “Additions/Modifications“ and are hogwash and a product of ”The Gloom”. Mary, the mother of Jesus has gone to the place of the dead as will you and I someday if the Lord doesn’t come back first. It wasn’t about her, it was about Christ and the miracle of a virgin being with child. Stop trying to steal the glory that rightfully belongs to Christ and God.

      I’ll have time for a full response later.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:53am

      @ BY TRADITION

      First, You turn be over to no one. My relationship with God, as has any true Christian’s, is directly through Jesus to God the Father. Not through the Romanist pagan ‘mary”, not through the Prophets, not through you. You turn me over to no one.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:53am

      Mary and the Ark

      Mary is not like Ark of the Covenant or analogous to it, She could be touched and was. She was Human, not deity. She was not central to God’s Holy of Holies that was reserved for the Presence of God.

      God is where our mercy comes from. Mary is not the focus, God is, Jesus Christ is. Mary died, was buried and there was not “assumption” into Heaven, she went to Hades like the rest of the dead where she awaits judgment like the rest of us will.

      The “Women” in Revelations 12 is representative of God’s people Israel. Both O.T. Israel and the N.T. Church, Christ’s Church.

      The Ark of the Covenant in the O.T. was God’s Presence among his people, which is analogous to Christ himself, he is our Ark that bears us safely from spiritual death to spiritual life. Much like the other “Arks” in the O.T.

      Other things in the O.T. temple represent Christ as well but that is a subject for another day.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 7:55am

      @BY TRADITION

      Clergy and Marriage

      Depending on what brand of Romanist you are will determine who in the clergy is forbidden to marry so don’t play games with this “many priest are married” junk. Some may be before they are ordained but how many become married after they are ordained? The clergy for a Romanist/catholic are more than just ‘priests”, you know what I’m talking about, so don’t play games. The majorities of the clergy are forbidden to marry and are not married and you know it. The Bible writers predicted the Romanists would come along and do that in 1 Timothy 3 & 4.

      You and your Romanist friends have the blood of Christians on your feet, not dust. You’ve been treading that Romanist road a long time and have been misled by “traditions”. Your feet stink and they need a good washing.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:20am

      @ BY TRADITION

      Mary, the mother of Jesus is also not the “queen of heaven” and you Romanists claim. The Bible only mentions the “queen of heaven” in one place, the book of Jeremiah. The “queen of heaven” is a pagan goddess.

      Jeremiah 7:16-18, the Prophet Jeremiah writes:

      16 “Therefore do not pray for this people, nor lift up a cry or prayer for them, nor make intercession to Me; for I will not hear you. 17 Do you not see what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 18 The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven; and they pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger. 19 Do they provoke Me to anger?” says the LORD. “Do they not provoke themselves, to the shame of their own faces?”

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:20am

      @ BY TRADITION

      Jeremiah 44:15-23, the Prophet Jeremiah writes:

      15 Then all the men who knew that their wives had burned incense to other gods, with all the women who stood by, a great multitude, and all the people who dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying: 16 “As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you! 17 But we will certainly do whatever has gone out of our own mouth, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we have done, we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, were well-off, and saw no trouble. 18 But since we stopped burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”
      19 The women also said,“And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands’ permission?”
      20 Then Jeremiah spoke to all the people—the men, the women, and all the people who had given him that answer—saying: 21 “The incense that you burned in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your princes, and the people of the land, did not the LORD remember them, and did it not come into His mind?

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 11:39am

      @ BY TRADITION

      Now, you Romanists like to say that Mary wasn‘t even born yet and neither she nor Jesus Christ had ascended into heaven yet so Jeremiah wasn’t talking about what the Romanist are doing when they make their “mary” the “queen of heaven”

      All I’m going to say about that is ……Keep Deluding Yourself!!

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 26, 2011 at 1:01pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      About your “parable”. I answered it with one of mine own but you failed to grasp it.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:58am

      Why so much venom? So many rediculous unproveable claims.
      I’ll address this one:Mary is like the original ark because it carried the word of God…Mary too carried the word of God. If you are so wrong about this, then how can you be so sure about the rest?

      Jesus loves (not loved, loves) His mother, I too love Mary and if you like it or not she loves you too.
      at the wedding she told them to “do as he says” and they did. At the cross she was there when the others ran. She was the first person to accept that Jesus was Lord. You nor I know what they truely shared between them in his 33 years…and she was with him all 33 years. The apostles and early church fathers held Mary in the highest regard and they witnessed Jesus and Mary together.
      If you knew how much she loves you, you would cry with joy…all she wants is to lead us to Jesus. That’s it. nothing more, nothing less. She wants to bring everyone to her son.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:54am

      @ BY TRADITION

      No Venom, just Truth. The Bible is the Proof. You are failing to comprehend it.
      ***
      John 1: 4-5, the Apostle John writes:

      4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
      ***
      Romanist “Oral Traditon” is clap trap. It is not for I or anyone else to speculate on what is not written in the Bible and then later call it dogma or to put any “Oral Traditon” on the same level as the Bible. Let the Bible speak where it speaks and be silent where it is silent. Jesus Christ is the focus. God is the focus, not Mary the mother of Jesus. If Mary is so very important, why is so little written about her in the Bible????? That should give you a clue.

      Mary is not an ark, never was. She had no ability to carry people from spiritual death to spiritual life. The Arks in the Bible were types of Christ, Christ is the anti-type. The Mary of the Bible, the mother of Jesus knows nothing of what is going on currently on earth. She is physically dead and cut off from the world. True, she was blest to be the mother of Jesus but she contributed nothing to Christ being Christ; that came from God.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 10:57am

      @ BY TRADITION

      I understand the twist that the Romanist make to the Bible to try to make the Biblical Mary an ark. She wasn’t. The true Ark of the Covenant was central to the Holy of Holies. As you know, it contained Aarons rod that budded, a bowl of manna and the tablets of the Ten Commandments. These items remained in the Ark and were never taken out of it. Jesus contains all of these items; Life from Death, He is the Word and He is the fulfillment of the Law. He contains all these things and is all these things. Not his mother Mary. She gave birth to Jesus and he no longer resides in her womb. The Ark never gave birth!! The Ark is Jesus Christ and he is central to God’s Temple. Jesus Christ is also our High Priest. Jesus Christ is also God. Jesus Christ is also Light. Jesus Christ is also the perfect Sacrifice. Jesus Christ is also our Bread of Life, our perfect manna. Jesus Christ is also the Word. The Ark was made of wood(human) and Gold(God). Jesus Christ was both Human and God, the later of which his mother Mary, never was.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 11:47am

      You can ramble all you want. I never said Mary was God, I said the Ark carried the Word of God, Mary carried the word of God. For that matter, the cross carried the word of God. I don’t understand what is so hard for you to comprehend.

      I hope you treat your mother better than you treat Jesus’
      When you meet Jesus and His mother, remember this conversation.

      Oral Tradition? again show me where in the bible Jesus said to write this down so we can have a Bible so people can read my words. Jesus taught by oral tradition.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 1:13pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      No rambling here, only the Truth.

      The Ark of the Covenant never gave birth to what it contained, thus, the Ark isn’t a type of Mary. Mary isn’t the focus of the Temple. She’s not one of the furnishings. All of the Arks in the Bible are types of Christ. Period.

      The cross was not a type of Ark, it was a crucifixion device. Next you are going to tell me that your “mary” was a type of the cross too.

      Mary isn‘t my focus but I’ll be glad to meet her along with all of God’s people someday.

      Show me where in the Bible it‘s is okay to added to God’s Word. Show me where in the Bible it says that it‘s okay to say you have God’s authority to do something in his name that isn’t written there. It is true, the Bible was written over a period of time but that time is past. The inspired writers have finished their writing of it. It is complete. Jesus taught and we have his teachings in the Bible. Period. It is not for me or anyone else to speculate on what is not written in the Bible and make it Dogma for anyone.

      The Ark of the Covenant just like Jesus Christ contained Life from Death, Our True Manna from Heaven our Bread of Life and The Word of God. The Ark of the Covenant and it’s contents are All Him. He is in his Holy Temple.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 3:24pm

      Are you daft, what part of CARRIED THE WORD OF GOD are you having trouble with?
      No wonder you can’t understand the word of God. You are trying to put words in my mouth.
      You keep saying I am wrong because I believe the words of man. Men who lived alongside and shortly after Jesus, but still men.
      But you believe a man’s interpretation of the Bible, that man happens to be you.
      I’ll take my chances with the old guys

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 3:58pm

      1 Timothy 3:15
      “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

      did you miss it?
      THE CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, THE PILLAR AND BULWARK OF THE TRUTH

      so the non-existant church full of Pagans is who Paul sends us to? HUH who would have thought that.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:10pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      Again, The Bible is the Proof. The Word is the Proof. You are failing to comprehend it.
      ***
      John 1: 4-5, the Apostle John writes:
      4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
      ***
      In the same way that the Cross is not a type of Ark, neither is Mary. You drew a parallel there. The power is not in the cross and the power is not in Mary. Both were a means to and end. Nothing more. The cross in and of itself is nothing more than an instrument of execution. Likewise, Mary was nothing more than an instrument of birth. She was blessed to give birth to Jesus but that’s it. Mary does not carry us from spiritual death to spiritual life. Romanist, like yourself have drawn a parallel where the Bible is silent and no matter how much they try to spew out official “Oral Traditions” it will not change that.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:12pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      It is all about Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection. Nothing else. The emphasis of the virgin birth is the miracle of a virgin giving birth, nothing else.
      And yes, 1 Timothy 3:14-16, READ IT IN CONTEXT !!! You left out a verse. He “writes to them” so they may know how to conduct themselves. These are words of the Bible, written for our instruction and exortation. Not Romanist “Oral Traditon” or better know as “Additons/Modifications”
      ***
      1 Timothy 3:14-16; the Apostle Paul writes
      14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
      ***

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:49pm

      When did I say the ark had the power? now whose putting words where there are none.
      But you said only the church does that. You attack my church, I defend her. You attack Jesus’ mother, I defend her. I give you chapter and verse, I give you factual history, I give you the words of the people who lived in those days and still all you have are empty accusations.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 5:55pm

      Oh yea thats right you said the church was good for a while but the became corrupt.
      So Paul wrote to Timothy are you implying that is the only way Paul and Timothy interacted?
      They never sat down and talked? Or maybe sat together and read the Bible…Oh yea no bible at the time…only spoken word and letters. Yes written letters, but letters are not a bible until the Catholic Church said they were.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:10pm

      @BY TRADITION

      The Church is the Body and Christ is the Head. The Body doesn’t direct the Head. I know you want to but don’t even start with the “mary is the neck” junk that the Romanists like to throw out there. More “Oral Tradition” clap trap that you won’t find in the Bible.

      If Mary the mother of Jesus were in a place where she could know what the Romanist like you were saying about her, she would be Horrified. Thankfully, those that were faithful to God and now are dead to this world are not aware of the current goings on here.

      You are right, I attack your “church” which is not Christ Church. Your church is apostate.

      You are right, I attack your pagan “mary”

      These are not empty attacks because the Romanist beliefs, fabrications and fables are in direct opposition to Biblical Truth.

      Your “church” is a corruption, an abomination of the Truth. God’s church is alive and well and is made up of those who follow the Biblical Truths in God’s unchanging Word. The Bible is the only source for Truth. The Bible is the complete revelation of God.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 27, 2011 at 9:11pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      Sure, people of the Bible sat down and talked but what is necessary for our instruction now has already been recorded in the Bible. The people who wrote it were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it and put in it all that we needed. It is complete.

      The Romanists had no hand in constructing the Bible. I don’t care what council you say did it or ordained it or authorized it. The books that are the Bible were written independent of the Romanists and were in use before the abomination known as the Romanist/catholics came into being.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:06pm

      If the Bible does not come form the Catholic church, then were does it come from. And don’t say God. we agree on that. there must be a human intity, group or organization who put all these individual writing together.
      Paul did not say go to the Bible, he said GO TO THE CHURCH 1 Timothy 3:15
      You can choose to deny the truth, you can even invent your own truth, but my church has been here from the beginning and will continue until the end. You church if you have one, was created centuries after and will end much sooner

      Report Post » by faith  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 1:18pm

      These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 KJV)

      Faith if you read the verse in context, which you have shown you do not, Paul is saying he wrote this letter so in case he is delayed they may know how to behave………….

      @Out

      You want to silence “By Faith”, Simply ask her who is the Whore of Babylon and she will say Pagan Rome. Then “by faith” will defend all the paganism her church brought into it totally contradicting herself. 

      You cannot pray to dead people Faith. That is Pagan and from Pagan Rome and Greeks. Once again you demonstrate you practice Paganism….Who is damning people Faith? YOU….You are a hypocrite and know nothing about God……

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:34pm

      @ BY TRADITION
      The Bible is the Word of God and came from God through His Prophets and Apostles. Period. Not from the “universal pagan Romanists”. You keep calling it “your church” and I would agree since it is not Christ’s. You bought it, you own it along with your pagan brothers and sisters.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:36pm

      @ By OKIE from Muskogee

      I had that discussion with Romanists before and they say “They’re not dead, they are spiritually alive!” which is yet another twist. They’ve fallen into a delusion as the Bible so clearly states that some would.

      2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, the Apostle Paul writes

      1 Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:54pm

      2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 Continued

      Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
      ****

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 4:55pm

      Now what “church” on earth is full of power, signs and lying wonders? Who has a supposed “vicar” who has set himself up on a throne and “exalts” himself above all that is called God? Yes, the Romanist “vicar” does exactly this because the “church” he is the head of isn’t Christ’s Church at all. The Romanist will say. “he hasn’t exalted himself above God, he is simply the chief administrator for God on earth”. Same thing.

      There is only one chief administrator for God on earth and that is Christ Jesus. On earth and in Heaven.

      Not the Apostle Peter when he lived and not some other man in the present day.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 29, 2011 at 11:33pm

      Now, how do we know what God and Jesus Christ want us to do? Through the written Word of God revealed to us by the Holy Spirit through inspired men. It is the Holy Spirits Witness that Jesus Christ is Lord. Our spirit, when we follow The Word, bears Witness with the Holy Spirits Witness that we are Christians and that we have the hope of eternal life.
      ****
      Romans 8:12-17, the Apostle Paul writes:

      12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.
      ****
      The Holy Spirit does this through the Word which is the Bible, not a priest, not a bishop not a “pope”

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 31, 2011 at 9:27am

      Okie and Out
      Your lies cannot replace the truth

      Okie from misquoteski you continually get it wrong…I told you not to bother me with your explaniation of pagans. see the word your in the sentence? or do you read my post as you read the bible. only see what you want to see. that is the definition of private revolations. your defense of the bible is the same taken out of context and full of lies.

      Out
      your hate defines you. you both tell me the words that are there in the bible are not there. they really mean something else and only your interpretation is valid.

      Fact:
      the Catholic Church was formed by Jesus Christ with Peter and the Apostles. Peter was chosen as the head of the Apstles. That church still exist today and will continue. You choose to believe the lies and hate. that is on you.
      The 2 of you come on the Blaze and attack Catholics and the Catholic Church. No one is attacking you or your church. Get it? No one is asking you to change you beliefs. If you don’t post hate you will not get negative responses. Because to be honest, no one cares what you think. No one cares what I think. I challange you to be positive and only focus on what we as believers in Christ have in common.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 1, 2011 at 5:11pm

      @ BY TRADITION

      No Hate here except for the Hate of the deceptive Lie that is Romanist/catholic dogma. So many people are enslaved to the Romanist doctrines of Demons. The Romanist will always run back to their “traditions of men” to try to validate their lies and many have been and are lost because of them.

      The road is wide that leads to destruction and the Romanist/catholics are treading that road. The Devil is deceitful, telling half truths to the ultimate destruction of the hearer. I have a duty to stand up for the Truth that has been twisted by the Romanist Pagans wherever I see it. I have a duty to guide the erring back to the Right. Coexist is exactly what Satan wants and I will not be a part of it. I will focus on the Truth whether is be positive or negative, Coexist I will not and can not do.

      Romanist/catholic/paganism, in and of itself is an Attack on Christ’s Church. Christ is the Head, no one else. Not an Apostle, not a bishop, not a “pope”, not a priest, no matter what Romanist pagan tradition may say.

      You are under a strong delusion and have no stomach for sound teaching based on the Bible. Your mind has been clouded by “traditions” and “fables”. Hopefully some seeds I have sown will make a difference down the road in your life and steer you from the Romanist/catholic path to destruction.

      God will give the increase, not I. I can only sow the seeds.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:57am

      Out of your mind
      everything you believe can be found in the Nightmare World of Jack Chick

      all has been proven to be fraudulant…by protestants as well as Catholics

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 12:50pm

      @BY TRADITION

      I don’t know Mr. Chick, just the Bible which is the Truth. The Romanists/catholic pagans and others groups that base their teachings on the “traditions of men” have been proven fraudulent by the Word of God, the Bible. The Bible alone is the Truth.

      *****
      2 Colossians 2:6-10, the Apostle Paul writes:

      6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. 8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.
      *****
      We are complete in Christ, no one else and nothing else. Not the teachings or traditions of men like that being taught by the Romanists/catholics. Not by all the fluff taught by the Romanists, not by all the error taught by the Romanist.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 7, 2011 at 9:30am

      Out of your mind
      so you can find Romanist church teaching in the Bible
      and you can see a Pagan church being formed in the bible

      but you can’t see Jesus formed church in the bible

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 7, 2011 at 3:28pm

      @ BY MAN’S TRADITIONS

      What the Bible shows as the pattern for Christ‘s Church isn’t anything close to what the Romanists pagans like yourself claim as the truth or practice. Nothing close. When the Bible doesn’t support a belief, the Romanist rely on their “Oral Traditions” which are based in paganism and “traditions of men”. You are a part of the universal paganists. The Bible warned of your apostasy and it came to fruition. The Romanist wasn’t happy with the Word/Bible as God delivered it. The Romanist wanted to believe a lie, a fable and God turned you over to the delusions of your mind.
      That‘s why I’ve said that the Romanists are like the JW and the Mormans. None of you found what you wanted in the Bible so you wrote your own. The JWs call it the Watch Tower Society and the New World Translation. The Mormans call it the morman bible. The Romanists call it the vatican, the douay rheims and the “oral tradition” and the results are the same, Apostasy.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 5:08pm

      Out of your mind
      my church existed for 1,500 years before the Protester Reformation.
      7 books were removed and 11 in total were edited. That is the basis for your faith
      When the Bible doesn’t support a belief…edit it to fit your new belief, KJV
      By your own words, you are the cult

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 15, 2011 at 11:57pm

      You’re right, it’s your church, you own it, and you bought it. Christ didn’t buy it, you did. You have bought a fable, a lie based on Romanist paganism. Based on the twists of bad latin translations by uninspired men with a passion for paganism, walking the wide path of the world and who added writings that were never inspired and not accepted from the beginning by Christ’s true Church. But, you want to believe it so God has turned the Romanists over to your vain speculations; to the futility of your minds that you might believe a lie.

      What the Romanists like you adhere to is nothing like Christ’s Church; Nothing like His Bride set and declared in his Holy Word, the Bible.

      Yours is a lipstick-encrusted whore of Babylon festooned with all the worldly bobbles and vices befitting a woman of the night who is hardly what Christ would want as a bride.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 16, 2011 at 5:30pm

      “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” ~Matthew 16:17-19 Note Jesus did not say ChurchES. Jesus found His church on the imperfect Peter, not the prefect John. The Catholic church has relied on tradition AND the bible. Please recall, in the early Church, there was no bible, no printing presses, and most people couldn’t read. ALL Christians believed Jesus was present in the Eucharist – truly His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. First break was in the Orthodox Church in 1000′s – but ALL still believe in the Eucharist. Within only 60 years of the Protestant reformation, there was a book written with 200 possible “explanations” of John 6 / The Eucharist. How sad that for 1500+ years ALL Christians believed in the Eucharist and then satan, the great deceiver, fooled the Protestants and they threw out 7 bible books. There are now 30K+ denominations!?!
      The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said, “There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be.” Ask the Holy Spirit to show His fullness of truth.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 16, 2011 at 5:37pm

      “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” ~Matthew 16:17-19
      I thought you were a Christian…”Based on the twists of bad latin translations by uninspired men with a passion for paganism, walking the wide path of the world and who added writings that were never inspired and not accepted from the beginning by Christ’s true Church. But, you want to believe it so God has turned the Romanists over to your vain speculations; to the futility of your minds that you might believe a lie.”
      By your own words, you are saying Jesus was wrong. so which is it? The gates of Hades will not overcome it…or…Romanists, Romanists, Romanists, Romanists, Romanists, blah blah blah.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:28pm

      Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

      Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:31pm

      Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence. But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin: “Scripture alone”), will usually argue for their position by citing a couple of key verses. The first is this: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The other is this: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality of sola scriptura (the “Bible only” theory). Not so, First, the verse from John refers to the things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse immediately before it to see the context of the statement in question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:33pm

      Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral, rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to generation, by the Church. Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all inspired writing “has its uses” is one thing; to say that only inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.”

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:35pm

      Newman’s argument

      He wrote: “It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

      “Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.”
      Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 T

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:38pm

      Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!
      The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
      This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: “So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:39pm

      The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit “Christ’s word” to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

      Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time. “’But the word of the Lord abides for ever.’ That word is the good news which was preached to you” (1 Pet. 1:25). Note that the word has been “preached”—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
      supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.
      This is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy: “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6–8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:43pm

      Paul illustrated what tradition is: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed” (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
      The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).
      This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians “through the Lord Jesus” (1 Thess. 4:2).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:45pm

      Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, “And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
      Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: “So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’” Look closely at what Jesus said.
      He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12).

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:47pm

      Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice” (Matt. 23:2–3).

      What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word “tradition” in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a “tradition” is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
      The task is to determine what constitutes authentic tradition. How can we know which traditions are apostolic and which are merely human? The answer is the same as how we know which scriptures are apostolic and which are merely human—by listening to the magisterium or teaching authority of Christ’s Church. Without the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, we would not know with certainty which purported books of Scripture are authentic.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 17, 2011 at 4:48pm

      If the Church revealed to us the canon of Scripture, it can also reveal to us the “canon of Tradition” by establishing which traditions have been passed down from the apostles. After all, Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt. 16:18) and the New Testament itself declares the Church to be “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). .

      Report Post » by faith  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 4:42pm

      @ BY FABLES

      More “oral tradition” lies that spew from the lipstick encrusted Whore of Babylon that is the Roman Universal Paganists “church”. Those that follow ‘her”, are a part of her, have prostituted themselves by serving other “gods”. Shout the lies even louder, repeat them over and over ad nauseum. Repeat your catechism from the bowels of Hell, light you candles, burn your incense, repeat the lies and when you’re done, they are still lies and those that follow those lies are still Lost.

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 4:45pm

      @ BY FABLES

      BTW, you were a busy little beaver 11/17. Just get back from confessions or just mad?

      Report Post »  
    • OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on November 19, 2011 at 9:37pm

      @ BY FABLES

      Alas, it is like I said nearly a month ago now, talking to a Romanist, a JW or a Mormon is usually a huge waste of time because the soil of their hearts have been hardened by the lies that they so willingly believe and swallow. It’s been fun, it’s been real but there are other fields that are far more fertile. Later.

      Report Post »  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 21, 2011 at 9:31am

      Out of the mind of Jack Chick

      Once again I prove that you are a very confused person who is to be pitied. I give you biblical quotes, and historical evidence…and what do you give me? More unfounded, not provable accusations and lies. Again all I get from you is Romanist, Romanist, Romanist…learn a new word. You are a sad little man who refuses to see the truth. Don’t say you were not warned about your misguided interpretations.
      And don’t go away thinking I ever got mad. I tried to give you truth, you refuse to see. Why get mad? You are free to believe all the half-truths, misunderstandings and flat out lies you want to.

      Report Post » by faith  
    • by faith
      Posted on November 21, 2011 at 9:35am

      OutOnTheTiles
      Posted on October 28, 2011 at 3:36pm
      @ By OKIE from Muskogee

      I had that discussion with Romanists before and they say “They’re not dead, they are spiritually alive!” which is yet another twist. They’ve fallen into a delusion as the Bible so clearly states that some would.

      You and Okie from MisQuotsky can see the words, but can not accept the truth. Those fallen into delusion as the Bible states…that would be you and your revised, rewritten and edited KJV.

      Report Post » by faith  
  • Sharon Rose
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:36am

    Why give this idiot the time of day?

    Report Post »  
    • nanalynn
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:21am

      I’d like to respond to, ‘Why give this idiot the time of day’; regarding susan sarandon and her hateful comment about the Pope being a nazi. Let us PLEASE pay attention to sarandon, sean penn, michael moore, and other ‘hollywood-elites-in-their-own-minds’ because it clearly defines their hatred of America. These nincompoops are MARXISTS and hypocrites and prove it every time they open their mouths. It’s best that the majority of Americans who love this Country and the FREEDOM she provides be aware of treasonous enemies so we can put them in their place and ostracize them. We can choose whether to spend our money to enrich them [at the theaters], choose to spend our time watching the academy awards enriching their sponsers or we CAN CHOOSE NOT TO ENRICH THEM because we recognize they are MARXISTS. Once they can’t get their 15 million dollars per movie in America, maybe they will move in with castro or chavez or to another country they so much admire because they certainly make it clear enough in their statements to the press that they HATE the America that the MAJORITY of AMERICANS LOVE! So, please DO hear wht they say; knowing who your enemies are is a good thing!!!

      Report Post »  
    • junkmaninohio
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:47am

      Boycott Hollywood. Don’t give them your hard earned money at the box office anymore.

      Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:49pm

      @CHRISTIANLAYMAN.. I went to my pastor for an answer to NHWINTER…His answer did not resonate with me..I went to my favorite famous theologian of the Bible…not of any particular demomination… and his answer did not resonate with me. I asked the Holy Spirit…and went directly to scripture and 4 or 5 interpretations of that scripture from famous theologians of times past..Their answers resonated with me. You have only one source that you go to…and it is all Catholic. I have done my job and will continue to sound the alarm to those who will listen. The Lord Jesus says that they who are hypocrites know the truth and they will be exposed on Judgment Day. I do what the Lord calls me to do..with no threats of any kind..just warnings from God. It matters not to me except that I do His bidding and am obedient to Him. Good Day.

      Report Post »  
    • ChristianLayman
      Posted on October 20, 2011 at 7:15pm

      @AshestoAshes

      Forgive me for being frank, but I’m calling you out on your post. You claim that all my source(s) is Catholic, yet I have done no so such thing (unless my quotation from St. Clement I’s epistle to the Corinthians in another part of this thread is anything to go by). So, exactly what have I said in this thread comes from an explicitly Catholic source? Most of my dealings with online Fundamentalists verify a commonly held perception among Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestants, and non-Christians that they are complete loons, conspiracy theorists, and cultic. That is certainly not my fault if one falls into that category but is a result of how they present themselves to the outside world. Spreading the Gospel of Christ isn’t a bad thing. Spreading the Gospel while coming off as an arrogant, raving, obnoxious, bag of hot air is. You‘ll notice that I don’t go around being confrontational with Fundamentalists until only after they start foaming at the mouth and have “thrown the first punch”, so to speak.

      Would it help you to know that in my private scripture commentaries I use a variety of different sources, some Catholic, some Protestant, and some Jewish, whenever applicable?

      But now, let me ask, which theologians are you referencing for getting your answers. You claim to supposedly have a variety from “times past”. I certainly hope that the theologians you look to guidance from aren’t limited to 1500AD-present, because that wi

      Report Post »  
  • Hickory
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:35am

    This is what you hear when a twit from Follywood gets up off her back and lays her bong down.

    Report Post » Hickory  
  • 50Caliber
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:32am

    Hugo,,,,Sean…please move over one seat, you are sitting in Mrs Sarandon’s

    Report Post » 50Caliber  
  • pulguita
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:28am

    She is just another hollywood idiot who thinks they are educated enough to enter the political arena. That being said…..I think her comment was harmless. It seemed similar to the term ‘soup nazi’. I didn’t find that one offensive, it was funny.

    Report Post »  
    • Thatsitivehadenough
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:38am

      You have a point. But, I think some people were offended by that Seinfeld episode, but things weren’t as hot as they are right now. The left has been declaring open warfare on religions (except Islam), and throwing around the word ‘Nazi’ on a regular basis. Not to mention how many of them are feeling free to tout their anti-Semitism. The fact is, the left is feeling that they have the support of the Obama administration to let rip on anything they find offensive. Offensive to THEM that is.

      Report Post » Thatsitivehadenough  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:15am

      Thatsitivehadenough

      “The left has been declaring open warfare on religions (except Islam), and throwing around the word ‘Nazi’ on a regular basis. Not to mention how many of them are feeling free to tout their anti-Semitism. The fact is, the left is feeling that they have the support of the Obama administration to let rip on anything they find offensive. Offensive to THEM that is.”

      You are spot on. Your comments were concise & complete.

      Report Post »  
  • rambosharley
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:27am

    Hey Foxman…that witch doesn’t have any “good sense”!

    Report Post »  
  • weneedrubio
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:27am

    I have not figured out why we give people like her airtime. Hate is hate and she is full of it. Move on, she is old news at best.

    Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:19am

      I believe Thatsitivehadenough post of October 19, 2011 at 8:38am was great. I truly believe that a sustained boycott of Hollywood is needed. So we must pay attention to what they say & hurt the revenue stream of Hollywood.

      Report Post »  
  • Okie from Muskogee
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:26am

    Whether you agree wth Susan’s statement or not you must ask why two “religions” are CONDEMNING anyone. They have no authority to CONDEMN. She can say the Pope is cross dressing Nazi who is crazy as a fruitloop if she feels that way.

    This should show you a lot about both of these two groups and give you plenty of signs. Wake up…..

    Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • NHwinter
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:23am

      They condemn the remark, not her. I condemn racism, isn’t that the same thing? Come on, really!!!

      Report Post » NHwinter  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:25am

      Oh she has a right to see it & to be free from violence or the fear of violence.

      Her opinion resonates in some quarters of academia among students & faculty. It has a detrimental effect on others.

      I was so happy to see Jewish groups condemned her. If it was just Catholic groups, the left would have shrugged it off & immediately renewed their assault on the RCC. The way I see it, the left is coming for the RCC & then the Protestants.

      Report Post »  
    • apollo18
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:09am

      Yeah, not like another “religion” that straps bombs to their chests and kills women and babies because we “insulted” them. “But don’t forget to pick up your 72 “virgins” on the other side!”

      We’ll just shut up and “take it”.

      Report Post »  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:32am

      @NH

      If you condemn racism do you condemn race based groups such as the Jewish group above who see their face first? rut roe…..

      The Pope, the Catholic Church should follow Christs example and simply forgive her if they see her remarks as offensive. Forgive 70*7 is what Christ told Peter who you beleive was the “ first pope”. Rut roe again……

      The Catholic Church has no authority to request an apology and condemn her to shame for something she may feel is true, the pope is a nazi…….

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:51am

      Opie from Mis Quotski
      all you do on Blaze stories is condemn. Show me where the Pope, or the Catholic Church said she is going to hell for calling the Pope a nazi. you do know condemning someones actions is different than banishing someone to hell?

      Report Post » by faith  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:43am

      @By Faith

      That is odd, I do not see any reference of me saying either banished her to hell.  You made that up in your head, 

      I can show you where both said they condemn her, which is shaming her to apologize. Read the article or should I quote it for you from above? 

      As for me condemning, I shame no one to apologize to me, not even you thru this obviously deliberate attempt to discredit me nor your deliberate attempt at mocking my name. I also definitely have no power to banish anyone to hell.  You think you are acting Christian? Ha! You did nothing but show what is in your heart. 

      Have a great day! 

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • Dismayed Veteran
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 12:30pm

      Okie:

      To follow up in our exchanges on another posting, I would like to communicate with you about our respective religious beliefts. I tried to email you but the message kept failing. Please try to reach me at irishrover1966@hotmail.com.

      Report Post » Dismayed Veteran  
    • by faith
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:32pm

      Okie,
      If I took your comments out of context, I do apologize.

      I have read several of your anti-catholic post and assumed this too was one of them:
      Whether you agree wth Susan’s statement or not you must ask why two “religions” are CONDEMNING anyone. They have no authority to CONDEMN. She can say the Pope is cross dressing Nazi who is crazy as a fruitloop if she feels that way.

      the “religions” and “authority to CONDEMN”, plus the cross dressing Nazi comment make me think you are again bashing the Church Jesus created.

      “As for me condemning, I shame no one to apologize to me” but you do on a regular basis accuse those who do follow the Catholic chuch of all sorts of evil

      Report Post » by faith  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:55pm

      @By Faith

      I was simply pointing out that Susan can say whatever she wants about anyone she desires and that these two groups were not following Jesus’s words of forgiving 7 * 70. Instead they openly try to shame her to an apology. If either groups knew who she was why would they care what she says or thought.

      No I do not bash Catholics. I do share God‘s Word and show contradictions between Catholic teachings and God’s Word just like you stated below Jesus created it which is untrue. When can openly discuss anything on God’s Word civilly anytime you desire. As for your subtle comment of Jesus creating the Catholic Church which is referring to Peter as Pope please see verse:

      -Paul says their equal; 2 Corinthians 11:5
      -Paul censors Peter; Galatians 2:11-16
      -Peter is a pillar of Church, not the Pillar. Galatians 2:8-10
      -Peter was sent to preach by others; Acts 8
      -Peter did not preside the Council of Jerusalem; Acts 15
      -Peter refused to have Cornelius kneel to him; Acts 10:25-26
      -Peter professes he can’t forgive sin, like popes today; Acts 8:22
      -Peter says he’s a pastor or elder; I Peter 5: 1-3.

      I hope you have a wonderful night. 

      @Dismayed Veteran

      I sent you a note! Glad you reached out to me. I hope your night is great! 

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
  • G.E.R
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:25am

    The Pope is a Nazi. He served in a anti aircraft unit, the infantry, and was a POW. That makes him a Nazi.

    Report Post »  
    • joxer
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:37am

      Who’s infantrie? POW for whom? Reasearch before you stutter

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:02am

      He served in the German Army from 1943-1945 and when the allies got too close for comfort he deserted. At one point the Americans set up a HQ in his parents house and when they found out he was a German Soldier he became a POW.

      You should take your own advise and do your research before you stutter.

      Report Post »  
    • GoldenRudy
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:02am

      So, by your definition, everyone who served in the German military during WWII, whether drafted or volunteered, is/was a Nazis? You are aware, I think not, that the Nazis movement was a political party which required membership. Where is Benedict’s record of membership? You know that in the 1932 election, the Nazis Party received only 37% of the vote. By your logic (sic), everyone who served during the Vietnam War was a … a Republican, a Democrat, a Black Panther, a Klansman, etc? What were they? Don’t let pesky facts get in the way of your anti-RC bigotry.

      Report Post » GoldenRudy  
    • Gashouse Gorilla
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:10am

      GER, he was concripted and forced to fight. That does not make him a Nazi. Just because he’s German does not make him a Nazi. In fact, not all Germans in the Army were Nazis. You had to be a member. By your reasoning, all Russians were communists, which they were not. Get your facts straight and learn a little history before posting.

      Report Post » Gashouse Gorilla  
    • Lumbar Spine
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:18am

      The Pope was a member of the Nazi Youth…look it up. While Sarandon’s remarks were indeed intended to offend, technically, there’s a factual basis there. It is not fair however to suggest that the Pope presently espouses Nazi principles. But, hey, this politiocs…I’ve read far worse here.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:32am

      Good morning troll. 90% of all German youth were inducted into the Hitler Youth. Would you call everyone who came of age in Germany during that period a NAZI? Go for it! You know you want to do it.

      You can install a lot of fear when you start taking people off the street, the Jews, clergy, the infirm, other socialists, …

      Hitler came to power in 1933. By 1934 the Boy scouts were gone. That should tell you something of his power. Why don’t you read up on the Hitler Youth in the Jewish-Virtual-Library “before you open your mouth & remove all doubt” next time.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:42am

      G.E.R>
      “Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after December 1939.” wiki

      There is the small matter of the GESTAPO that shot deserters. If you were conscripted & didn’t show up that would make you a deserter

      “From December 1, 1936, under the Jugenddienstpflicht all other youth groups were banned and their membership was merged into the Hitler Youth. HJ membership was made compulsory for youths over 17 in 1939, and for all over the age of 10 in 1941. By 1939, Hitler Youth membership comprised 90 percent of the country’s youth.” -http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitleryouth.html

      To Lumbar spine & G. E. R.

      Made mandatory has ominous meaning in a totalitarian state. But safely ensconced in a society that protects your butts, I expect all sorts of armchair quarterbacking from the likes of you.

      Report Post »  
    • apollo18
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:58am

      G.E.R: YOU are a complete idiot.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 11:01am

      G.E.R.

      No come back; just a little drive-by-trolling from the left?

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 12:50pm

      So the fact that many of his teachers were nazi party members and the most important influence in his life was Cardinal Michael Faulhaber. Who was pro nazi, was entertained by Hitler, and even went on record by saying to Hitler that the church saw him as an authority chosen by god, to whom we owe respect. He’s a Nazi and a Liar.

      Report Post »  
    • Mary M. Tebbe
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 1:52pm

      g.e.r: The FACTS of history make people uncomfortable at times, but facts are facts, and we can’t change them. That’s why history has been erased and distorted; to alter facts. Even Fox News has been running backwards on this story. I said yesterday that the pope, in his youth, was a Nazi youth. That is a fact. Whether he wanted to be or not, we cannot really know. I also pointed out that the FIRST REICH was the Holy Roman Empire, regarded as the first German empire; therefore connected through history to the THIRD REICH. There is/was a connection between the East Germans and the Roman Catholic Church. To what extent, we may not be able to fully define, but history shows it did exist. Though it was probably in poor taste that Ms. Sarandon made this statement, it is not altogether untrue. The pope is now a spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, and so I’m sure they would like to overlook his past and redefine it.
      The actual Nazis are descendants of the ancient Assyrian/Goths that I write about on this website. I‘m sure there are many people that think I’m crazy saying this, but true history bears this out, if we only take a close look at it. The East Germans were Assyrian/Goths, and I prove it in my book. One day we may quit the PC method of defining things, and actually be interested in historical truths. I’m still waiting…………….

      Report Post » Mary M. Tebbe  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:34pm

      Mary M. Tebbe
      I read a book that said the “royal” (loosely speaking) clan of the goths the Balthi were from Carthage. the write was from Iowa of I remember. there were Syrians in the Roman Empire & some set up shop in Cologne where they worked as glassblowers. Others were part of the army here & there as archers.

      I don’t have anything on an Assyrian angle. If I had the old book about the Carthaginian angle I would try to check it out against original sources.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:40pm

      G.E.R.
      What a bald face lie you told about the Pope & Michael Faulhaber.

      “He is noted as a vocal opponent of the Nazis.[1] [2][3][4] His anti-Nazi agitation at one point resulted in him being ordered to the Dachau concentration camp (where 2,600 priests were killed.[5]) – he appeared for transport dressed in the full clericals of a cardinal but the SS feared the reaction of the crowds who so admired him and the order was rescinded.[3] His books were banned in Germany and there were two attemps on his life, in 1934 and 1938″

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faulhaber

      G.E.R. I think your posts speak to your reasoning, knowledge & mendacity.

      Report Post »  
    • HADEN0UGH
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 2:43pm

      Technically he WAS a Nazi. He was forced to enlist.

      Report Post » HADEN0UGH  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:10pm

      When you have other sources other than wiki come back and debate the issue.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:24pm

      G.E.R

      There you go.

      “The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany”, Guenter Lewy, 1964, Weidenfeld and Nicolson
      ”Three Popes and the Jews”, Pinchas Lapide, 1967, Hawthorn Books
      ”Nazi Germany and the Jews”, Saul Friedlander, 1997, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 0 297 81882 1
      ”The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945”, Saul Friedlander, 2007, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, ISBN 978 0 297 81877 9
      ”A Moral Reckoning”, Daniel Goldhagen, 2002, Abacus, ISBN 0 349 11693 8
      “The Catholic Church and the Holocaust”, Michael Phayer, 2000, Indiana University Press, ISBN 1-800-842-6796
      ”Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy, Susan Zuccotti, 2000, Yale University Press, ISBN 0-300-08487-0
      ”What Was Not Said”, Martin Rhonheimer, First Things Magazine, 137 (November 2003):18-2[9]
      “A History of Christianity”, Paul Johnson, 1976, Athenium, ISBN 0-689-70591-3
      ”Constantine’s Sword”, James Carroll, 2002, Mariner book edition, ISBN 0-618-21908-0
      ”Hitler the War and the Pope”, Ronald J. Rychlak, 2000, Our Sunday Visitor, ISBN 0-87973-217-2

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:34pm

      G.E. R.

      Your mendacity knows no bounds.

      “In Nazi Germany the archbishop of Munich and Freising,

      Michael Cardinal von Faulhaber

      (1869–1952) combated antisemitism; his Advent sermons Judentum, Christentum. Germanentum delivered in Munich in 1933, while not directly referring to the faith and ethics of post-biblical Judaism, were interpreted by the *National Socialists as a defense of the Jews in general. He played a considerable role in the preparations of the encyclical of Pope Pius XI Mit brennender Sorge (”With Burning Anxiety,” 1937), in which the pope vigorously denounced racism. While it became difficult to publish opinions favorable to the Jews in Nazi Germany, Catholics contributed to journals appearing in other countries. Msgr. John Oesterreicher’s Pauluswerk, originally intended as a missionary organization for the Jews, and his periodical Erfuellung became militant instruments against antisemitism in Germany and Austria while providing at the same time factual information on Judaism and on Zionist aspirations. In 1938 Msgr. Oesterreicher escaped to the United States where he founded the Institute of Judeo-Christian Studies at Seton Hall University.”

      http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04300.html

      Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 3:46pm

      Now that this thread is about exhausted, let me put my 2 pfennigs in. My guess would be that Sarandon dislikes the Pope because he is a conservative and opposes abortion. Maybe she remembers that young Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth, as pretty much everyone had to, maybe not, “Nazi” is the worst insult she can think of, as is the case with many people.

      Mary, we all eagerly await your book!

      Perhaps it will explain how there is a connection between East Germans (Benedict is from Bavaria) and the Catholic Church. Do you mean the inhabitants of the old DDR, which actually was in the mostly Protestant part of Germany? Or the East Germans who invaded the Roman Empire–Vandals, Goths, etc.–who were mostly Arian-with-an-i Christians, not Catholic Christians by the 5th century AD?

      Or perhaps we’ll learn how the Nazis are “descendants” of ancient Assyrians/Goths? If I were suddenly to become a Nazi, would my ancestry change? The ancient Assyrians spoke a Semitic language, and so far as we can tell were “Middle Eastern” in appearance, not exactly ideal Aryan-with-a-y types.

      Thinking of changing my fake name to “Sisyphus.”

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:09pm

      Here’s a few sermons from that great Cardinal

      Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber: Catholics Should Pray for the Life of the Führer

      You are witnesses for the fact that on all Sundays and holidays at the main service we pray in all churches for the Führer as we have promised in the Concordat. …We will today give an answer, a Christian answer: Catholic men, we will now pray together a paternoster for the life of the Führer. This is our answer.

      - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, Sermon, responding to newspaper story about a Swiss Catholic asking children to pray for Hitler’s death, July 7, 1936

      Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber: Hitler Lives in Faith in God

      “The Führer commands the diplomatic and social forms better than a born sovereign. …Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture. …Not as clear is his conception of the Catholic Church as a God-established institution.” As a result of this report, the conference votes to “once again affirm our loyal and positive attitude, demanded by the fourth commandment, toward today’s form of government and the Führer.” They assure the Führer they will provide him “all available moral resources his world-historical struggle aimed at repelling Bolshevism.”

      - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, meeting of Bavarian bishops on his meeting with Adolf Hitler, December 13, 1936

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:12pm

      Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber: Church Must Strengthen Confidence in Hitler

      “The Führer and Chancellor of the Reich, Adolf Hitler, has sighted the advance of Bolshevism from afar and his thoughts and aspirations aim at averting the horrible danger from our German people and the entire Occident. The German bishops consider it their duty to support the head of the German Reich by all those means which the Church has at its disposal.” Faulhaber insists that defending against Bolshevism is a religious duty and, to achieve this, it is necessary for the Church to muster all its moral and spiritual assets “to strengthen confidence in the Führer.”

      - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, Pastoral Letter, January 3, 1937

      Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber: Concordat Improves Reputation of Nazi Germany
      At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.

      - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, Sermon, February 14, 1937

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:14pm

      This is the best of all

      Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber: Adolf Hitler is a Man of Peace
      “[Adolf Hitler is a] man of peace. …The great deed of safeguarding peace…moves the German episcopate acting in the name of the Catholics of all the German dioceses…to extend congratulations and thanks and to order a festive ringing of bells on Sunday.” Read in all Berlin pulpits: “God has heard the prayer of all Christendom for peace. By His grace and the tireless efforts of the responsible statesmen the terrible affliction of a war has been averted… [W]e desire now with a prayer and a Te deum to praise God for His goodness in that He has preserved peace for us…[and] assured the return of our Sudeten kinsmen to the German Reich.”

      - Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, commemorating Germany occupying Sudentenland, October 2, 1938

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 4:21pm

      G.E.R
      Still lying I see.

      I‘ll take the Jewish Virtual Library’s word over yours.

      I am sure you will find many churches (liberal & conservative) in the U.S, praying that Obama may execute his responsibilities as President with wisdom.

      You could try to thinking G.E.R. It would hurt at first, but after a while you would get use to thinking & enjoy it.

      Report Post »  
    • G.E.R
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:08pm

      You truly are a sheep and you have my pity

      Report Post »  
  • wkw58
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:23am

    Why anyone would listen to this washed up, second rate actress? Hey Hollywood….any comments?….(crickets). Ye shall know them by their words.

    Report Post » wkw58  
  • Windsong
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:19am

    America finally has Hollywood figured out.
    They’re too doped up to write anything original, so they assigned someone to re-make all the movies Americans loved…’cause Hollywood is going to go broke otherwise. That leaves them free time to go out and bash anyone who isn’t a Socialist/Marxist/Communist like them. The problem is, they haven‘t figured out that this ’occupation‘ isn’t a movie yet. They spend all their time in their little make-believe worlds, and can no longer tell the difference between reality and script.
    Ms. Sarandon and all her Hollywood friends honestly believe that a Socialist//Marxist/Communist will bring about a ‘Utopia’…because it was in the script. Maybe someone could buy her a book that actually tells the history of the collapse of Russia, and what caused it. Or maybe someone could actually explain to her that Greece is a failed nation because the country couldn‘t afford their ’Utopia’. It would be great if the once great ‘stars’ in the United States would actually read a book for a change – instead of a script. I wonder if they know there is a difference.
    There was a time when I consider Penn and Redford and Sarandon and Letterman to be really talented. Boy, did they show me!

    Report Post »  
    • Cavy2see
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 12:48pm

      Yep we all grow up and learn right from wrong…but somehow the Hollywoody’s missed the plane with brains…not nice for me to say this but it will be our detrament…everyone in Muslim world thinks all American’s are bank robbers, rapists, and murderers…etc. (fill in your own etc. here…) our movies are always slanted with twenty five or more car chases…a way to make havoc on our auto industry…just a goofy thought on that one…but to get back to SS woops her intials make me think…oh well…got to go make lunch…thanks people who understand … first they came for the (fill in) …then they came for me…watch out for the people who smile a lot…I don‘t go to the movies at all don’t want to give them my husbands hard earned money…

      Report Post » Cavy2see  
    • Lucy Larue
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 5:24pm

      WINDSONG,
      Thank you for your post.
      You speak the truth.
      Sarandon is a mentally chalenged IDIOT!
      She can memorize her script lies.
      She is paid MILLIONS for ROTE memory.
      SAD!

      Report Post »  
  • capitalismrocks
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:17am

    Excellent news to hear – she really should be condemned for her reckless and disgusting words!!!

    Report Post » capitalismrocks  
  • MotoMofo
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:17am

    If you need work in Hollywood and your phone is not ringing, say something to piss off alot of people and make the news. Then cross your fingers and wait by the phone.

    Report Post » MotoMofo  
  • wakeup1
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:15am

    @lol gonzo….the Pope is like whatever ive heard worse…. He does battle with Satan everyday ….lol its time for susies facial injections of chemical goop and she just mad at God bc shes going to be pelosi’s twin.)

    Report Post » wakeup1  
  • tadroid
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:15am

    When does the mob drag her millionaire butt out into the street? Where’s her money being redistributed?

    Report Post » tadroid  
  • thegodfather
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:14am

    Conservative “compares” Obama to Hitler in a metaphor….he’s banned from TV, labeled an outcast.

    When a liberal CALLS the Pope Hitler…she just made the A list for parties in the Hamptons.

    Report Post » thegodfather  
    • Lumbar Spine
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:24am

      Ummmm…if Hank Williams Jr. was banned from TV then why am I seeing him on FOX, The View, and other shows milking his additional 15 minutes of fame before fading into oblivion? Williams was the so-called voice of Monday Night Football…the NFL and ESPN had every right to can him for what even he admitted were “dumb” remarks. Susan Sarandon is not representing anyone but herself. But, to make you feel better, let’s ban her from Monday Night Football.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:48am

      Lumbar Spine

      I regard Obama as dangerous even Hitler like. When Black Panthers can be filmed intimidating people at a polling place & nothing is done about it that is very similar if not exactly like the NAZI’s violence pre-1933.

      Holder dropped the prosecution of those Black Panthers. Obama is Holder’s boss. Therefore Obama approves.

      Hank William’s comparison was apt.

      Report Post »  
  • tadroid
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:14am

    It’s easy to throw pot shots at another religion, when you don’t have one (save Greenism). If that bug-eyed skank had any guts, she’d have an opinion on the blood-thirsty murderers in the Islamic faith. Oh, I forgot slave traders, too. Where‘s her opinion of women’s rights in the Islamic faith? How ’bout her nutless boyfriend? What does that geek think about the culture of murder and suicide? I hear crickets!

    Report Post » tadroid  
  • LibzLie
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:12am

    I think I saw her on Tosh last night. He wanted a 100yr old stripper. It sure looked like her.

    Report Post »  
  • Lumbar Spine
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:11am

    Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is a nasty man who would take offense if you said Catholics dressed nice. His job description is apparently official Catholic griper…he takes any criticism of any Catholic as an affront to the entire Catholic Church and goes on the offensive. He has a long history of this.

    Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:19am

      But Conservatives can’t compare Obama to Hitler even as an analogy? I’m not Catholic, and i find it offensive. It’s like someone I know who knew I was abused as a child, calling my whole family in-bred. He was FORCED into Hitler’s youth. At least he’s not Soros, who changed his name, gleefully participated in the extermination of his own people.

      Report Post »  
    • Steve
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:29am

      Question.
      By deflecting away from the main point and twisting this to someone/something else (A favorite ploy used by the progressive left when they know they cant win the argument)
      are you saying that she’s right and the Pope is a Nazi?

      Report Post »  
    • Applehead
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:34am

      SPINE,
      He doesn’t go out enough! Catholics need more representatives going out and defending the faith and our Lord Jesus Christ!!! We need a new movement to increase the name of Jesus Christ in America and you’ll see our country prosper!!! Whoever Blesses the Spiritual Israel Jesus Christ will be Blessed and whoever curses the Spiritual Israel and the Heavenly Jerusalem Jesus Christ will be cursed!!! Every word of the Bible is about Jesus Christ and if you accept him as your Savior you are chosen and if you don’t your not!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Lumbar Spine
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:35am

      LORIANN: “At least he’s not Soros, who changed his name, gleefully participated in the extermination of his own people.”

      I just reread your post, LORIANN…and this is a horrible, horrible thing to say about someone, particularly considering that it is completely untrue. George Soros’ father arranged for the young teenager to go live with a sympathetic friend, who was a member of the Nazi Party, and to pretend he was the man’s son in order to save the boy from Nazi persecution of Jews. Young Soros accompanied the man on an inventory of the estate of a wealthy Jew who had fled Germany. Soros later wrote about how he spent a few days at the estate, rode horses and had fun…he was a boy. That was the extent of Soros’ “Nazi” experience. I don’t care if you have differing political views than mine, but you are not entitled to spread vicious lies. Please stop.

      Report Post »  
    • Lumbar Spine
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:38am

      STEVE, I am saying that Bill Donohue is a nasty man and that the Catholic Church does itself a disservice by allowing this man to continue to speak for them. My feelings about Sarandon’s comments are expressed above…assuming they are not deleted by the moderator or arbitrarily placed elsewhere on this thread.

      Report Post »  
    • Lumbar Spine
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:50am

      STEVE…apparently one of my posts critical of Sarandon’s remarks was rejected by the moderator. I presume that was because I dared to criticize Glenn Beck in it as well.

      APPLE…is this a religious board or a political one? It’s really, really hard to tell. And if I need saving I think I’ll go somewhere other than a Glenn Beck internet board. Thanks anyway…

      Report Post »  
    • Applehead
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:08am

      SPINE, The story has religion in it. You’re entitled in my opinion to voice your opinion! This is a message board where open debate should be welcomed! I posted a video of Iranian president having a peaceful meeting with Rabbi’s that was deleted and censored by The Blaze for what reason? If you have a opinion, article or video that shows anything thats against the Blazes neocon Zionist agenda he gets deleted or its called anti semitic! To me antisemitic is if someone uses a racial or religious epithet or spew hate towards a group of Jews for religious beliefs or just hate! None of which I would ever do!!! But if you make a claim that they own the media and give proof of ownership of all major networks it’s antisemitic and censored! You can call the Pope whatever you want but its my choice to boycott your movies or the studio! Free speech is a must and Glenn says to question with boldness and when you do your censored by his website! Is Glenn a phony?

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:05am

      No, Soros gave out deportation notices to Jews as a “little kid”. I am sure that as a “little kid” of 14 years of age, he had no ideal what he was doing. Why he probably couldn’t even read at that age much less comprehend that the NAZIs hated Jews. Just a wee little one of 14 years of age innocently making his way around the world.

      Report Post »  
  • kickagrandma
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:09am

    Took `em long enough. We were denouncing her the minute it hit the news….

    Report Post »  
    • ashestoashes
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:30am

      I do not understand the majority of Hollywood’s politics..which is socialism…which means everyone but them will be dirt poor because the ones out there far away of Hollywood land can all share what they have with everyone else. As for her stance with the Pope..she was ticked off at him ,(was she not? , because he stands behind the death penalty of which she would like to see abolished, I have always stood behind the death penalty… but I also know that there are many innocent people who have been put to death..that‘s the hardest thing to acknowledge and I have heard DA’s express the same concern.. Every situation is differnent. I feel sorry for some of the condemned person’s family in some cases… you know that some of them must die a first death after discovering their child has committed such a heinous act….then a second death in seeing their own child put to death. If you haven‘t seen Ted Bundy’s last interview..you should. He was raised in a Christian home with a normal Chirstian family. He said that without exception, the common denominator with all violent criminals in prison is pornography. Porn,. drugs, and occult practices allow the entering of demons into a body. We have a lot that we should be cleaning up in our country.

      Report Post »  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:08am

    .
    Damnit Janet! Keep your mouth closed…………….

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • Applehead
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:06am

    She’s a loser!!! Hollywood has polluted our society with garbage!!! I hope the ADL will help to call Hollywood out for using our Lord Jesus Christ’s name in vein in all their movies!!! This is a bigger offense than her calling the Pope a Nazi ot any anti racial remarks because using Jesus Christ’s name in vein is the worst verb offense anyone could say!!! STOP BLASPHEME JESUS CHRIST’S NAME IN VEIN IN HOLLYWOOD MOVIES!!!

    Report Post »  
  • Polwatcher
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:05am

    Sarandon is a hugely wealthy actress who spews her hatred at the Pope in between rushing to sign another multimillion dollar contract. If she would direct some of that wealth toward helping the needy instead of cursing our good Pope, maybe she would find some peace of mind.

    Report Post »  
    • Lloyd Drako
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 12:47pm

      A little rudimentary research will show that Sarandon does in fact contribute to quite a number of humanitarian causes.

      Strictly speaking, it’s not “cursing” to call someone a Nazi.

      Report Post » Lloyd Drako  
  • JediPatriot
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:04am

    It’s the same thing as Hank Williams Jr. Who cares what they say. That’s what our first amendment is all about.
    Peace

    Report Post » JediPatriot  
    • Cranky
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 8:22am

      NO, it’s not the same thing. Hank Williams, Jr was making an analogy. She called him a “Nazi”.

      Report Post » Cranky  
    • miren
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:05am

      I agree with Cranky! Not the same thing.

      Report Post » miren  
    • JediPatriot
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 10:09am

      @ Cranky & miren – It IS the same thing. It’s the first amendment. THAT was my point. Stop fighting for these celebrities. They won’t fight for you.
      Peace

      Report Post » JediPatriot  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on October 19, 2011 at 7:56am

    Give her a break. It’s been hard on her, going from desirable movie star to tired old hag.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • 1947
      Posted on October 19, 2011 at 9:12am

      “WAY OVER WEIGHT” Look at that ROLL

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 ... 6

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love