Pope’s bullet gifted to “Fatima who saved his life”

John Paul II gave thanks to “Our lady of Fatima” for saving his life. The bullet from the assassination bid is attached to her crown.

John Paul did not honor Jesus the Messiah, after nearly being shot dead in new York in 1981.
John Paul did not honor Jesus the Messiah, after nearly being shot dead in new York in 1981.

The year after the attempt on his life in May 1981, the Pope visits the Shrine of Fátima for the fist time. Give thank to the Virgin for the miracle that had saved him. During the same pilgrimage, he carried out the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

  Jeremiah 7:18-19

The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger. But am I the one they are provoking? declares the Lord. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?

Next day, the then bishop of Leiria, D. Alberto Cosme do Amaral, lunches with the Pope, accompanied by the rector of the shrine, Mons. Luciano Guerra, and by the vice-postulator of the cause of beatification of the little shepherds. At the end of the meal, before their departure, John Paul II delivers him a small case, with these words: “This is a gift for Our Lady”. D. Alberto receives from the Pope’s hands the bullet that had hit him on the 13th May 1981.

Catholics seems no problem by honoring this wooden statue, even with a waste from a fire arm.
Catholics seems no problem by honoring this wooden statue, even with a waste from a fire arm.
A bullet it attached to the crown of the "Lady of Fatima"
A bullet it attached to the crown of the “Lady of Fatima”

The mortal projectile is now set in the precious crown worn by the Virgin on all the 13th of May and October; curiously, that masterpiece of jewellery made in 1946 with jewels offered by the Portuguese women as a symbol of thanksgiving:

John Paul II was an idol worshiper all his life. Here in Portugal.
John Paul II was an idol worshiper all his life. Here on a visit to his “queen” and “mother” in Portugal.

Portugal had been spared from the war. On top of the crown there is a sphere set with turquoises and surmounted by a cross; at the base of the sphere, which is hollow, there is a small hole at the junction of the crown stems. The bullet diameter fits perfectly into the hole.

Source: Catholic website

My comment:

There are many interesting aspects around the Catholic worship of this statue in Portugal.

1. Is is correct, to give a goddess any honor for saving a man’s life?

A Christian leader should not honor anyone but Jesus the Messiah. This is what makes him or her a Christian.  Roman Catholics are not Christians.

2. What do a bullet do inside a religious place of worship?

If the man who tried to kill the Pope had used a knife, would the Vatican have attached the knife to the crown?

To place a bullet to this crown of “the Queen of Heaven” is the ultimate proof of the idolatry of the Roman Catholic Church. The religion presented to us by the Vatican, is a satanic copy-cat version of “Christianity”. The ultimate deception.

 Romans 1:25

They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is for ever praised. Amen.
They carry the "Queen of Heaven", and bring curses down on their own heads.
They carry the “Queen of Heaven” on their shoulders, and bring curses down on their own heads.

Catholicism is an ongoing mockery of the true faith in Jesus the Messiah.  This kind of falsehood keeps millions of secular people holding a finger over their nose, saying: – Please, stay away from this kind of wickedness.

Eternal condemnation is what the Vatican priesthood deserve.

Repent, or perish

Written by Ivar

Advertisements

66 thoughts on “Pope’s bullet gifted to “Fatima who saved his life”

  1. I can’t even imagine carrying a statue along the streets portraying Mary wearing a crown of jewels! Idolatry is probably the least of this blasphemy.

    Mary is being touted as the co-redemptrix as if Christ needed or could use any human help! In the Second Vatican Council it was decided:

    Second Vatican Council: “Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from, nor adds anything to, the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.” (Lumen Gentium, n. 62.)

    Pope Leo XIII: “The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips.” (Iucunda Semper Expectatione, n. 2)

    I had to read that several times and I still don’t know what or where they came up with the blasphemy that was written. “For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us” What does that mean???

    1. Dear Marianne Bernard

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      An idol is anything that takes the first place in your life. It will ultimate push Jesus the Messiah down to a second place.

      An idol can be of wood and stone, but even your wife or your bank balance.

      The ultimate deception, is a copy-cat “Jesus” that that takes the place of Jesus the Messiah. This kind of fraud and falsehood is difficult to correct. Because if the person following the copy-cat knew He or she had been deceived, they would have repented. The problem is that multitudes of pastors and priest are a part of this global spread of satanic poison.

      One of the most serious betrayal of Jesus the Messiah in our time, is the Protestant camp’s acceptance of Catholicism as Christianity. It is a gross error, that will lead hundreds of millions of people into deception, even inside Evangelical fellowships.

      Jesus the Messiah has warned us:

      Matthew 24:4
      Jesus answered: ‘Watch out that no one deceives you.

      Priests who make the mother of “Jesus” a “co-matrix” should not be able to deceive anyone who read their Bible, and believe what is written. But a billion people or so, believe in this copy-cat Messiah, the most popular of the anti-Christs, the replacement of the real Son of God.

      1. Shame on you Ivarfield. If you don’t know the truth don’t you dare comment on it or post such blogs. You are a proud man who does not heed the word of the Lord Jesus.!

        You people so called “Protestants” or Believers or what not had no problem until the 15th century until when there was just one Catholic Church. But Martin Luther in his disobedience fought against the one and authentic Roman Catholic Church.! Which was founded by Jesus on Peter the Rock and his decent against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail. Martin Luther is already condemned for misleading many.

        If you were a true and authentic Church so called “Protestant Church” your church would not continue mushrooming into different thousands of denominations.!
        BUT since it had come from human origin and not with the intervention of Holy Spirit it’s getting divided and I’m surprised at your blindness and the blindness of your people. For you must have read in The Holy Bible the the kingdom that divides itself against the other cannot last long this is what has been happening to your Church and the new so called “churches” that you form, eachone teaching his own Gospel as per his own tastes and convenience.

        This is the disobedience that I’m speaking about Martin Luther he was a family member with the Catholic Church but he chose to disobey his parents Roman Catholic Church and left the house. You may have fights with your wife but do you think Divorce is the only option? He chose disobedience! He had no guts to confront and put his point right but in his pride did all sorts of turmoil.

        READ: 1Samuel Chapter 15
        14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

        15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

        16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

        “Tell me,” Saul replied.

        17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”

        20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”

        22 But Samuel replied:

        “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
        as much as in obeying the Lord?
        To obey is better than sacrifice,
        and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
        23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, androgance like the evil of idolatry.Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”

  2. Amen Ivar! Who out there shares the gospel? Do you ask them if they are Christians? Catholic’s always say they are Catholic’s. I ask them why they say that, they shrug with no answer. Even Catholic’s know they aren’t Christians. They don’t even know what a Christian is.

    1. You are right, Nannette, but to be honest, when I was a Catholic, I actually believed what they said about Catholicism being the only true religion. Praise God for opening my eyes to his truth!

      1. Marianne you are blinded. You are actually not even an authentic Christian for if you were a true one The Spirit of God would guide you. You should be ashamed that you became a Protestant. I don’t know what sect of Christianity you belong to.

        Fit this in your mind you and your followers that The Only Holy and Universal Catholic Chuch is not made out of human invention but it was a Church built by Jesus on Peter the Rock. You claim your understanding of scriptures and Bible as perfect and contradict the one which has been handed down by the Holy Spirit to the apostles and their decent. We follow a tradition that is not a creation of human mind, unlike you people we do not preaching the word of God as per one’s taste and we don’t have a Church which mushrooms into thousands of denominations for our people do not preach as they like but follow the traditions handed down by the apostles as it is without even taking a single iota out of it.

        If the Church which you joined so called “Protestant” Chuch was a perfect one it wouldn’t be divided for it’s own members were not united but they kept on biting eachother and kept editing and preaching as they liked. You will have to answer for this wicked deed of yours if you don’t repent. You and all your people.

      2. Little knowledge is dangerous! Indeed very dangerous. Please read john 9:41 to see if your eyes are really opened. If so.. Then I think you know what you should do. Maybe repent. I’m ordering you, just a suggestion. I don’t think you will even do that!

  3. Yes, I know Marianne. How do we know we have been lied to, unless the truth is put before us (John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4)? Once it is put before us, we then can choose who to believe God or man. Unfortunately most will not believe because they will have to admit they were wrong (repent) and that is hard to do. Praise the Lord for opening your eyes too! I have dear family members who choose to believe the pope, and I pray God will open their eyes too. One even believes the pope is god. Amazing considering he needs the pope mobile which is armor proof to protect him. Huh? They believe the media is lying to them when presented with the truth of the priests molesting boys, just to bash their religion. There you go. One says, “you only know what you are taught”. I say, Once you grow up, you can check out if what they were saying is true, right? Wrong. They don’t even care. But God does.

  4. Dear Ivar,

    Do you have any articles on the Infant of Prague? The Catholics believe that this doll represents the baby Jesus. There has been many miracles associated with this Infant of Prague. I do know of people who have experienced this. The RCC claims that since the doll is a representation of the baby Jesus you are actually praying to Jesus. Just wondering what you think or if you have any articles? In this link the novena is to Jesus….very confusing.
    http://www.medjugorjeusa.org/infant.htm

    Thanks & G-d bless!

  5. Rarely have I read such drivel. I’m amazed at the ignorance of this post.

    Here’s how it actually is. From the Bible you yourself idolise.

    First, Catholics don’t worship Mary, we worship her son, but we remember that when another person recognised his as Christ for the first time, He he inspired the person closest to Him to shout “for behold all generations shall call me blessed”.

    Have you ever stopped to wonder how amazing a woman would have to be to be the tabernacle of the most holy thing in existence? Even the angel was stunned by it: “hail Mary! Full of Grace!” That was the first thing his pure eyes saw: that she was replete with holiness. It’s like Our Lord said himself: “no good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.”

    Mary interceded for other humans at the wedding at Cana, why would she not be able to do so now?

    She’s discussed extensively in Revelation: St John sees her after the assumption in heaven in her continued corporal form, still at enmity with satan who hates not only her holy offspring, Christ, but also the rest of her offspring, us.

    So yes, we love Mary because one of Christ’s last commands was that we hold her as our mother, but we don’t worship her.

    No more do we worship statues: we use images to focus the mind because we are fleshy creatures with fleshy psychology. We use the prompts to be able to engage in prayer as fully as we can. If we were angels we wouldn’t need them, but we’re no so we do.

    I would invite you to get in touch with me to see if I can put right any of your other misguided thoughts on what Catholics believe and do. Once you actually have some information on the subject you might find yourself less hostile to us, maybe even see the beauty, goodness and truth of how the Church faithfully passes on Christ’s doctrine.

    1. Dear Francesco Forgione

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      You wrote:

      First, Catholics don’t worship Mary, we worship her son, but we remember that when another person recognised his as Christ for the first time.

      My comment:

      First: It is a gross error of Catholicism, to claim that the Messiah came into existence, when His mother birthed him in the flesh. Jesus the Messiah is eternal God, not created, but begotten by God the Father.

      God Him self came down from Heaven, and took on flesh. The Jewish virgin Miriam was chosen by God to give Him flesh, born like all men. The Son of men. Fully God, and fully man, the one and only.

      Second: Its a gross error to claim that the mother of Jesus was a goddess, born without sin, never sinned, and was “ever virgin”. You do not have to be a Christian to understand this. You simply have to be able to read, and open your Bible. Please do so.

      1. First. Catholicism simply does not say that. It says that the word became flesh at the incarnation. You are just wrong. Get your facts right. At some point you may find yourself reciting the apostles or nicene creed. Both of those documents were written by the Catholic Church. Both of those state this belief very clearly. The Angelus, that beautiful prayer for Mary’s intercession, does so even more pointedly, quoting John 1 “and the word was made flesh and dwellt amongst us”.

        Second. Catholicism simply does not say that Mary is a goddess. I have already dealt with her being sinless. Unless you think that Jesus sinned, Mary too was without original sin: “no good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.”

        You will note that I have based my answer entirely on the Bible. It is a book I know fairly well. That said, I believe you fasion an idol out of the Bible. My faith is alive: an interpersonal relationship between myself and my creator, redeemer and sanctifier. Yours is stultified by its confinement to a text that is only inspired by God with the a large dose of human corruption. You reject our (biblical) belief in papal infallability but you do so having applied infallability not to a person (who by virtue of his personhood can communicate with God like the rest of us) but to the cold dead pages of a book.

  6. You don’t worship statues yet you parade a statue of Mary adorned with a diamond crown so that people can view what?? A statue?? In Luke 11:27, Jesus was speaking about unclean spirits. in verse 27, the Scripture says, “As he said these thing, a woman in the crown raised her voice and said to him, ‘”Blesses is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that nursed you.” But he said, “Blessed instead are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”. That is what HE said about blessing Mary. Why didn’t Jesus agree that they should bless Mary?? Mary herself would be sad to know that she is being placed in a position of Mediatrix. Are you kidding me? That is sheer blasphemy! She knows that it is all by Christ alone. You need to know that too!

    1. Yes. We carry it so that people can see a statue… There’s a psychological trigger to underline how important she is. Nothing more. What Christ is saying there is that Mary is not blessed simply because she is the womb that bore him, but because she was the first to take up the cross of discipleship and unite her sufferings with those he endured on the cross as we all must do.

      I can understand Mary better than I can understand Jesus. His dual nature baffles me because it is outside the possibility of human comprehension. Mary on the other hand I can relate to easily. When I talk to her it’s to someone I’ve got the measure of. She is a mediatrix because, like all the saints, she understands my humanity as well as I understand hers, but she also understands the divinity of Christ because she stares at it in Heaven. She brought Christ to the world while still on earth, why would she not be able to bring the world to Christ now she’s in Heaven?

      1. Dear Francesco Forgione

        Shalom, and love in Jesus.

        As a Christian I love to debate Catholicism with Catholics.

        You wrote:

        1. Yes. We carry it so that people can see a statue… There’s a psychological trigger to underline how important she is.

        My reply:

        This kind of logic will lead to this conclusion: We can not see God, so He is of no importance. Lets make a statue of him. All Hindus will agree with you. They also, have statues of their “gods”.

        The Bible say “DO NOT”. Read Exodus 20 and believe the Word of God. I obey the scriptures. Not human philosophy.

        2. she was the first to take up the cross of discipleship and unite her sufferings with those he endured on the cross as we all must do.

        My reply:

        This is another phantom message, that holds no merits. The mother of Jesus could not take up “the cross of discipleship”, before Jesus was on the cross. Simply an impossibility.

        3. When I talk to her it’s to someone I’ve got the measure of.

        My reply:

        You are not suppose to talk to her. The Bible says taking to departed souls is a sin. You are suppose to talk to Jesus. He is the only mediator between God and man.

        4. She is a mediatrix because, like all the saints, she understands my humanity as well as I understand hers, but she also understands the divinity of Christ because she stares at it in Heaven.

        My reply:

        There is no co-redeemer, no mediatrix. Only Jesus has died for your sins. Only He can forgive sins. If you claim otherwise, you call God of the Bible a liar.

        5. She brought Christ to the world while still on earth, why would she not be able to bring the world to Christ now she’s in Heaven?

        My reply:

        The Mother of Jesus did not “bring Christ to the World”. It was God the Father who brought Jesus the Messiah to Earth. To give the Messiah flesh, God selected a Torah obeying Jewish virgin. She could not even understand what had happened to her. She had not had sex, and became pregnant by the Holy Spirit without even noticing it. An angel had to appear to Miriam, and cool her down. Today, she would probably have felt she had been raped during her sleep, and opted for abortion.

        The Roman Catholic Church defame the Jewish mother of Jesus. Shame on all who keeps on distributing this pack of lies.

      2. Francesco:

        I was a catholic before but after reading the Bible, I found out many inconsistencies with what the Scriptures say and with what Catholicism tells us. And so I left. (Jeremiah 51:45 “Come out of her, my people! Run for your lives! Run from the fierce anger of the Lord.” and Rev 18:4 4 “Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “‘Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues”)
        I pray that you will do the same.

        Catholic priests occasionally say that we shouldn’t “worship” the images in the church. I ask now why in the first place did they allow the images? Exodus 20:4-6 “4You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

        Francesco, notice verse 4- YOU SHALL NOT MAKE….” in short, God’s true people/believers shouldn’t even make anything at all of any image in the heavens, the earth beneath it, and waters below!! God knows the danger of even making an image because it would lead to verse 5!

        Lastly,

        John 20:29
        29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

        A true believer of God of the Bible does not need any as you say “psychological trigger” or “use images to focus the mind because we are fleshy creatures with fleshy psychology. We use the prompts to be able to engage in prayer as fully..” Brother, what you only need is FAITH in God and His Son our Savior (ONLY savior) Jesus Christ!

      3. in response to your points as you list them.

        —-
        ivarfjeld:

        1: That is a bizarre logic that you will have to explain. It doesn’t follow that because one cannot see something it is unimportant. Air, for example. I find that pretty useful, yet I cannot see it. If we were angels it would be a different matter, but we’re not, we’re fleshy humans with psychologies which need to be formed towards a relationship with God to whom (since we are so unlike God in the sense that we sin) it is hard for us to relate. Exodus is a book I know and have studied well. It requires knowlege of the context of the time without which it loses all but the most superficial meaning. The tribes around Israel in the period had a belief that one could carve and statue and inside it would dwell a Ba’al. This is the practice which is being countered by the proscription of graven images. They are not referring to any old graven images but the specific pagan practices of competing nations in the fertile crescent. This is the problem of idolising a book: that the situations in which that book is written are forgotten. The Bible can only ever be part of a larger tradition.

        2: I think Simeon in the Luke 2:35 would disagree with you. The idea that God is bound by the constraints of the chronology he set in motion seems to me to be limiting of His powers, something that, since he is omnipotent, is impossible.

        3: The saints partake in eternal life, not eternal death. They have not departed, they exist very strongly, more strongly than ours do since they have been purified by the blood of the lamb. The saints understand that perfection in a way that whilst on earth I never shall.

        4: I did not say that she was co-redemtrix, you are trying to set up a straw man argument. When we pray for one another all that we are doing is mediating between that person and God. Are you suggesting that I stop praying for my family, friends and those in need? Why would Mary stop praying for us just because she is closer to God and understands Him better? or to put it another way, why would she stop mediating for us? Why can I not ask Mary for her prayers? It just seems common sense?

        Since, somewhat bizarely you mention the unrelated belief that only Christ can forgive sins, I have to say that I (and the Catholic Church) agree with you, but that last time I looked he had no hands on earth but ours and so it is an important ministry of the Church that the priest, the Alter Christus, forgive the sins sacramentally in the name of Christ.

        5: If you say that Mary had no free will over the issue you commit one of two blasphemies. Either you say that God is evil and forces His will upon His creatures and denies them the free will that he gave them (that’s somewhat of a knot to untangle and still believe in an omnibenevelent God, let alone the concepts of Heaven and Hell since it would mean humans were not able to chose right from wrong, therefore not able to sin and therefore not able to chose to go to Heaven or to Hell, which are concepts predicated on free will) and that’s the one you seems to settle on with the whole (somewhat gratuitous) rape thing. OR you blashpeme by saying that Mary could only do good and that it was never a choice for her to do bad that she was perfect by no choice of her own. Neither of these are Catholic teachings because neither of them make any sense. The Church teaches that she did not sin because she had as many choices to sin as we do and yet, unlike us, chose not to do so. This is why she was capable of bearing Our Lord. Finally, I think that the Magnificat gives ample explanation of just how well she understood what was going on.

        —-

        and now antonio:

        These inconsistencies you speak of, perhaps you could put them to someone like the bible scholar Peter Cardinal Turkson. I’m sure that a man with a mind as vast as his (or someone like him) would love to be enlightened by your quibbles. I’m sure you’ll bring to his attention all sorts of issues he’ll never have thought of. He’s obviously in the wrong religion, since the Bible is so contrary to the book he’s devoted his life to understanding. Please also note that the Bible you idolise was compiled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 by Pope Damasus I. Luther then had such high regard for this sacred scripture that he tried to remove four of its books (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation) because he disagreed with them. He added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, in direct conflict with James 2:24. That’s real respect for scripture right there.

        It is not a case of how often a priest tells you the truth of what the Church teaches, it simply is the truth and the Church teaches it. The Council of Trent proclaimed that “the images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are kept and honored in churches not because it is believed that there is any divinity or power in these images, or that anything may be asked of them, or any faith put in them. The honor shown to them is really being given to the persons whom they represent. Through these images which we kiss, and before which we bow with bared heads, we worship Christ, and not the saints whose likenesses they display.”

        Please note the contextual comments I made with regards to ivarfjeld’s comments which address all of your comments from Exodus. Please also take note of my comment on idolising the Bible.

        In response to the final comment, while I have dealt with it above in the bit about being “fleshy humans” rather than “angels”, allow me to underline it once more:

        Are you perfect? Am I perfect? Indeed is any human now living perfect? How can we hope to mould our fleshy psychologies towards a relationship with God unless we introduce a part of God into that psychology. We all have access to truth, goodness and beauty in a limited way on eath, but those characteristics are brought to perfection in God. We have to make do with introducing all of those unperfected experiences into our unperfected pschologies so that in as perfect a way as possible we can enter into a relationship with Christ. Blessed indeed is the person that does not need the images of Christ and His saints since that person must be looking at God with a perfected psychology, in Heaven.

      4. And while you’re going on about Exodus 20, ivarfjeld, you might also like to take a look at Numbers 21:8-9 in which God commands the creation of an image which inspires a faith in people that allows the working of miracles. A very similar thing happens in 1 Chronicles 28:18–19 where it is even more obvious that the use of images in linked to the internal disposition of the person since it is a case of David’s mind being enlightened. Then again, maybe you could leaf forward a few pages in Exodus itself to 25:18-20 in which God commands the construction of these self same Cherubim from that passage of Chronicles. I hate to just quote Bible verses since it leaves out so much more of the great tradition of the Church of which Scripture only forms one part.

      5. Dear Francesco Forgione

        Shalom, and love in Jesus.

        I sometimes encounter Roman Catholic priests, who contradict each other. First they claim that it was The Roman Catholic Church who gave the World the Bible, and in the very next moment they claim that this book is full of contradictions, not possible to understand.

        It is true that Roman Catholics can not understand the Bible. Because the Bible contradict the teaching of the Popes, found in the the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

        Roman Catholics have been indoctrinated since they could walk, told to believe in the Catechism. Very few Roman Catholics have ever read the Bible. Its a book quoted from during the mass, and that is it.

        God hate idols, that is made by men to be an image worthy of worship. Like Roman Catholic “saints”. The mythology according to Rome, reach its heights, when mortal men are idolized 14 to 15 hundred years after they departed.

        God never told the Jews to worship the Cherubims (angels) in the Temple, to bow down to them, and kiss them. Carry them in processions on their shoulders. Bring garlands to keep around their neck, and offer incense to them. The brass snake in the desert, was not going to be worshiped. When the Jews started to offer incense to the snake, God sent a King to destroy this idol.

        The Roman Catholics mocks God of the Bible. In particular the priests do so from A to Z. Like when they falsely claim that the Catholics made the Bible, and next by claiming this book is full of contradictions.

        Any school teacher who started to talk like this about the curriculum, would be suspended, and told to go on a holiday in the sun.

        The confusion among Catholics is massive. How many times have we not heard, Catholics say: – Call the parish priest. Only the “father” can explains to us what this scripture means. And the explanation given is always in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

      6. In response to your comment of September the 3rd, 9.31AM. I’ll take it paragraph by paragraph.

        “I sometimes encounter Roman Catholic priests, who contradict each other. First they claim that it was The Roman Catholic Church who gave the World the Bible, and in the very next moment they claim that this book is full of contradictions, not possible to understand.”

        It is an historical fact that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Who do you think compiled it? Where did it come from if not either the Council of Rome in the year 382 under the auspicies of Pope Damasus I or Canon 24 of the Council of Carthage in 415 under St Aurelius? You haven’t given an alternative theory to the facts as recorded by history.

        It is not a contradiction to say that just because it was compiled by a Council of the Catholic Church that it is not perfect. The Bible is not perfect, God is.

        The Bible is possible to understand, but it is incredibly complicated. We have an enormous amount of scriptural scholarship held and promoted by the intellectual tradition of the Church, the Magesterium. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, was a great exegete of the figure of Christ upon whom he published three scholarly works uniting in a scholarly way the Christ of the Gospels with the Jesus of history into the cohesive figure we have always known in an instinctive and loving way. This isn’t simple stuff any old pastor can do. It requires the great minds to allow simpler people like me to understand it. You on the other hand deify the Bible and say that it is perfect and without the need for interpretation. We realise that it is a collection of texts from accross history often with several sources in one paragraph that, whilst divinely inspired, had to pass through the flawed intellect of man before it could be passed on to us. This mish mash of texts creates contradictions and confusions.

        “It is true that Roman Catholics can not understand the Bible. Because the Bible contradict the teaching of the Popes, found in the the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

        The Bible, since it is a resource created by the Catholic Church, forms part of our tradition. It is not the only part of our tradition but it is a part. That tradition of which it forms a part is cohesive. The Popes do not teach in contradiction to what is held by scripture but in conformity with it. I am not aware of any doctrinal document issued by a Pope which does not back up its argument with comprehensive reference to scripture as well as previous teachings of Popes. The Catechism is the compendium of those Catholic doctrines which are rooted in the tradition of the Church, part of which is the Bible.

        “Roman Catholics have been indoctrinated since they could walk, told to believe in the Catechism. Very few Roman Catholics have ever read the Bible. Its a book quoted from during the mass, and that is it.”

        So very few Roman Catholics have read the Bible but it’s read to us every day, every week, every year at Mass and in the Divine Office. Am I any less aware of the plot of a novel if I read it from a book or listen to it on a CD? We certainly do not make it little less than a God like you do, but we put it in its proper position as part of the intellectual tradition of the Church.

        “God hate idols, that is made by men to be an image worthy of worship. Like Roman Catholic “saints”. The mythology according to Rome, reach its heights, when mortal men are idolized 14 to 15 hundred years after they departed.”

        You clearly haven’t read or understood what I’ve written repeatedly and in increasingly basic terms over and over again. We don’t worship saints. We don’t worship images. Having said it umpteen times the only conclusion I can draw is that you’re deliberately making things up about Catholicism which are not true. We call that a straw man fallacy.

        “God never told the Jews to worship the Cherubims (angels) in the Temple, to bow down to them, and kiss them. Carry them in processions on their shoulders. Bring garlands to keep around their neck, and offer incense to them. The brass snake in the desert, was not going to be worshiped. When the Jews started to offer incense to the snake, God sent a King to destroy this idol.”

        Well since we don’t worship images so I’ll ignore that first bit. But I will point out that actually the Cherubims were on the top of the Ark of the Covenant so carry them around in procession, bow down before them and offer incense to God in front of them is exactly what was commanded. The Jews were not worshipping the images, but the God in whose honour they were created. We for example, incense the altar during mass. We are not offering incense to the altar. We are using semiotics, creating a symbol of prayer ascending like incense in the sight of the Lord. In the same way, we create a sign of a saint by using a statue. Thus we kneel in front of that statue, not to it, when we ask that saint for their prayers. It is a psychological trigger. Nothing more. We don’t create an idol wherein we think the spirit of that saint resides like the Lord was dealing with in Exodus 20.

        “The Roman Catholics mocks God of the Bible. In particular the priests do so from A to Z. Like when they falsely claim that the Catholics made the Bible, and next by claiming this book is full of contradictions.”

        Erm. Who did compile the Bible then, if not the Catholic Church? The Council of Rome and the Council of Carthage. I think that the Council of Carthage was probably the first to issue a proper list of books. We still have it in fact, it’s called the Decretum Gelasianum. Some people have said that the Council of Rome is the earliest, but my suspicion is that the Damasine List which we find amongst its documents is a latter addition. I think you need to give us some answers when you rubbish historical events.

        “Any school teacher who started to talk like this about the curriculum, would be suspended, and told to go on a holiday in the sun.”

        Erm. If you think that the Bible is the curriculum you are wrong. The only thing we need to do in this life is love the living God. The Bible is not the living God.

        “The confusion among Catholics is massive. How many times have we not heard, Catholics say: – Call the parish priest. Only the “father” can explains to us what this scripture means. And the explanation given is always in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

        I’m not a priest. I’m a layman. A young layman at that. We’re lucky in that we insist that every priest undergo a minimum of seven years training. As well as human, spiritual and pastoral formation they have a rigorous course of intellectual formation in philosophy and theology. Our clergy are very highly educated. We realise that seven years of further education in this field is useful when discussing the complex questions of theology and that most lay people are therefore not as well qualified to discuss these issues as a priest. The only philosophy or theology qualification I’ve ever had was an RE GCSE when I was 15. I’m quite happy in the knowlege that a priest could, if he so wanted, do what I’m doing many times better, but I imagine they’re fairly busy saving souls and looking after people who need them

      7. Incidentally, that thing you said about “God hates idols”. Your theology is very bad if you think God hates anyone or anything. Any prohibition God imposes has nothing to do with what He hates since it is contrary to logic that He should hate anything since he created all things. God’s prohibitions are about us and what brings us closer to him or drives us further away. His laws are for our good, not His own.

      8. Francesco Forgione

        Shalom, and love in Jesus.

        You wrote:

        Any prohibition God imposes has nothing to do with what He hates since it is contrary to logic that He should hate anything since he created all things.

        My reply:

        With this kind of religious logic, even marihuana is good, since it is created by God. And there is nothing wrong with any kind of sex and prostitution, since both sex and the prostitutes are created by God.

        God of the Bible hate sin. And we are suppose to do likewise:

        Psalm 36:2

        In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.

      9. Francesco, you said: “Incidentally, that thing you said about “God hates idols”. Your theology is very bad if you think God hates anyone or anything”

        My friend, you need to READ the bible through. Actually God DOES hate things. For starters, read Proverbs 6:16-19 to find six things God HATES, seven that are an abomination to him!!

      10. Okie dokey, it’s quarter past four in the morning, but let’s get cracking with this one.

        Inanimate objects cannot be morally good or evil since good comes about by the active choice to do something good and evil is the lack of this goodness. Marijuana is an inanimate object. It cannot be morally good or evil in itself except in the sense that the message of Genesis is that God saw his creation and it was good. So if anything, the marijuana plant as a created thing is a good thing. It is the choice that a person makes in how they use this example of God’s creation which is good or bad. If, for example, the person making the choice is a pharmacist extracting THC from cannabis plants in order to make medicines, clearly this is a good thing. If the person making the choice is a 15 year old who wants to get high, clearly this is a bad thing. So yes, my logic stands even in your example of cannibis use: objective morality prohibits certain uses of that plant because they drive the person making that choice further from God. It is a non sequitur to suggest that this means God hates marijuana.

        In the example of marijuana we were discussing a noun whereas in your example of sex we are dealing with a verb since the noun “sex” is not a thing which exists in space but an abstract concept confined only to our minds. In this example you have given, my logic of choices being good and evil is yet more obviously true since with the same act, which can be the result of different intentions and in different circumstances (ie the result of different choices), can be either good or evil. So a married couple having sex for the purposes of procreation and expression of holy love is clearly a morally good thing. This same act, when the intention is the degrading of the sexual independance of a woman in the context of prostitution, is manifestly evil. God certainly does not hate the act of having sex, but our own intentions can drive us from him and so the act of having sex is prohibited when the intention or context are evil. It is a prohibition for our good, not his.

        And yes. God loves prostitutes because that is not what they are it is what a person (whom he created, knows and loves) does. If you are using prostitutes as an example of people who commit particularly grievous sins, then I’m afraid that the more serious the sins a person commits, the more God is willing to express his love for them since forgiveness is an expression of love so the greater the forgiveness required the more God is willing to express his love for that person. At some point I pray that you meet a prostitute and have a human conversation with them so that the divine brick that you’re not talking to a prostitute but a person might become apparent might sail through the window of your soul.

        The other reason that God does not hate anything is the very fact of His existance. Hate does not exist. It is not a thing. In the same what that darkness does not exist, it is an absence of light, hate does not exist: it is an abscence of love (ie the willing of good to the other as other). God is existance as it would appear in the Plato’s world of the forms. He is consumate existance since he brought existance into… well… being. It is illogical that an abscence could be present within consumate existance. This is my problem with the Westboro Baptist Church and protestants who think on the same lines (if not to the same extraordinary extremes) as they do. In shouting “God hates fags” or “God hates sex” or even “God hates marijuana”, the logical process follows that there is no God since to hate you have to have some sort of absence and in God there is no such non-existance, Him being the originator of existance.

        The problem with creating an idol out of the Bible is that you decide that God inhabits it, rather like the Ba’alists of the Old Testament. It is to this idol you refer when you mention “the God of the Bible”. It is God imprisoned by the bounds of human understanding as it stood two thousand years ago. There is no such person as “the God of the Bible” since humans could not possibly imprison the true and living God within such tiny confines. You need faith which is necessarily expressed in works and informed by the Tradition (a key part of which is the Scriptures), but which is rooted utterly in an interpersonal relationship with the living God. Jesus said “*I* am the way, truth and the life”, not “some books of which men will make a compendium in a couple of centuries time”.

        God does not hate idols, but idolitary may drive the people committing that sin further away from him.

        And so finally, taking the scriptures (1 John 4:8) as a source of information on the God whom I love: since I know God by my love, I can tell you that God is love. By the presence of love hate is reduced. By the present of perfect love, hate is perfectly impossible for God.

        Fortunately, none of this is relevant since the Catholic Church does not allow idolatry. You really should start reading some Catholic philosophy and theology. It’s that thing Archbishop Fulton Sheen said of there not being “a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church” but there being “millions who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

  7. There is absolutely nothing to say to a deceived fool who calls the bible “cold, dead pages of a book”. Shame on this man. The bible says not to cast pearls before swine. He does not understand Christ any more than a pig would know what pearls are. He twisted the verse in the bible that “no good tree bears bad fruit not does a bad tree bear good fruit” to say that is why Mary had to be born without sin. If that were so, how did HER MOTHER give birth to a sinless Mary if she herself had sin? Those who try to rationalize this have absolutely no common sense. Obviously this man does not have the Spirit of God in him to show him the error of his ways. We have to pray for him and those like him. Jesus was not a fruit of the Spirit but this person does not understand that. Jesus is God in the flesh. The fruit of the Spirit is the workings of the Holy Spirit in those who are saved.

    1. Dear Marianne Bernard

      Shalom, and love in Jesus the Messiah.

      One of the core doctrines of Christianity, is based on the Biblical fact, that only One person has been born free of sin. Jesus the Messiah.

      If you wave away from this doctrine, you end up in all kinds of falsehood. Like the Catholic religion. The idea that the Mother of Jesus was born free of sins, might look noble for all who do not know their Bible. But if “Catholic Mary” was born free of sins, so was her mother, grand mother, grand father, etc.

      This is nothing put hallow philosophy, and paganism. It has been packed together by the Vatican, and presented to us as ‘Christendom”. Rebuke such false teaches, so that people get a solid warning.

  8. I don’t think it is fair to call people names…especially on a so called “Christian” site….really?? At least Francesco is being honest in how he sees things and relates to them. I am not surprised by his comments. Most Catholics do not feel that they worship Mary. They feel that she is a heavenly mother who helps them get closer to a G-d that is not always easy to understand or be close with. The RCC is very well aware of the human dynamics and need of family. Let’s face it, we live in a world with many broken families. They have created this nice little heavenly family for everyone to be able to see, touch and be a part of. The RCC knows the flesh is week and people need something to see and touch….they have given them this. I am not saying that what Francesco is saying is right…in a biblical sense. It is not. But at least he is honest about his needs and feelings as a human. I do not blame Francesco or people like him…they really do not know. I blame the hierarchy of the RCC for capitalizing on and manipulating these well known human needs and screwing around with the word of G-d to suit their tyrannical quest for power.

    1. Kathleen, no one means to call names here but rather to reason through the error of thinking. Jesus himself call the Pharisees “white-washed tombs!” They were believing what they wanted to believe rather than what is truth. I am sure they believed they were right also.

    2. Dear Kathleen

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      You wrote:

      Most Catholics do not feel that they worship Mary.

      My comment:

      If you are not exposed to Roman Catholics in your local neighborhood, you simply do not know what you are talking about. We have the “week of our lady” going on in our colony at the moment. The Catholics defend their idolatry tooth and nail. They excommunicate Bible believers in their families. Some of the new born Christians are beaten black and blue, by their own relatives. Young Christians loose their inheritance, and might even been thrown out of their jobs.

      Jews should know better than to support this evil. No religious community have done more evil towards Jews than the Catholic community. Bigots, pogroms, Inquisitions and systematic massacres have been supported by “innocent and naive” Roman Catholics.

      When religious Catholics are told the truth, they answer by attacking you. And do everything they can to stop the move of the Holy Spirit within their communities. The parish priests leading the flocks.

      1. I imagine that Catholics are not defending idolatry. I imagine you’re being unpleasant to people who worship God and love His mother. If you can’t get your head around that difference might I suggest you’re probably not well enough placed intellectually to engage these people in debate.

        I’ve lived in the Catholic Church for more years than I care to mention, but I’ve never come across anything of the sort you refer to with beating and disinheritance. If this happens you have a responsibility to report it to the police. If not, you answer to God for the sin of bearing false witness.

    3. Dear Kathleen

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      You wrote:

      I am not saying that what Francesco is saying is right…in a biblical sense. It is not.

      My comment:

      So what made you corrupt your self, defending hallow human philosophy, that delete the Torah and the full council of God?

      Psalm 1:1
      Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers.

      1. Can you just fulfill what God desires from you, me and everyone. His request, Love one another. If you think Catholic is a false religion just because they honour (not worship) the Mother of God, why insult your brothers and sisters using the Sacred verses?

        Or are you planning to make your own religion? Brother(or uncle), I’m not saying what you posted is wrong. But
        Using the word of the Lord in vain in this silly argument is way too Childish! Don’t you think so?

    4. I have to say that worship is an act of the will. I have never willed to worship Mary. Love is also an act of the will: willing the good of the other as other. I have often willed to love Mary because I am blessed to have felt her will to love me and in so doing bring me closer to her son. There’s that line in the Christmas Carol “In the Bleak Midwinter” where it says “but his mother only, in her maiden bliss, worshiped the beloved with a kiss.” She has a unique relationship with her Son. We need to be as close to him as she is but can never hope to be so in the same way. The Church recognises that we are imperfect and so works out ways that we can minimise the effects of that imperfection. To me the interpretation of the magesterium has always been the most faithful to the scripture which form part of the apostolic tradition. That said, the scriptures alone are not enough to make a relationship with Christ. Robin Lane-Fox for example, knows the Bible backwards, he is a formidable classical scholar, but is an atheist. Luther gave people something they could see and touch too, the Bible, but did not set any limits on it since he proclaimed sola scriptura (amongst other solas…) and so encouraged people to idolise the Bible. We have not created the Holy Family, God did that, but we’re glad to be a part of it.

      1. Francesco, you do need to read Hebrews 4:12 where we are told that the bible is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword……..discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The bible is God-breathed. It is HIS word left to us and is fully able to train up the man of God in all his ways. Study the word, Francesco. You can read the bible backward and forward and come away with no understanding if you are not seeking God’s heart and truth. Even the devil knows the bible completely yet he is not surrendered to Christ. If you are a true believer, the bible is all that you need. As for traditions, Jesus spoke against tradition. He said in Matthew 15 “For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites!” I have no idea what your verse from a Christmas carol was supposed to prove? Mary was used to bring the incarnate Christ into this world but she has no more a relationship to Christ than does any believer! God is not a respecter of persons. In Scripture, when Mary and her sons showed up where Jesus was, Jesus said, “Who is my mother, my brother or my sister? ANYONE WHO DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER is my mother,my brother and my sister.” Jesus HIMSELF said that. Can it get any clearer?

      2. Marianne.

        A couple of very basic points to get us going.

        First. Perhaps the most obvious. When Hebrews 4:12 was written, there was no Bible. The Bible (as I’ve already said once on this tread) was compiled by Pope Damasus I in 382AD. The epistle to the Hebrews was written in 63-64AD. How could the author, a human, possibly know a) that his work would be included in this compilation, b) what else would be in this compilation, and most obviously of all c) that there would be a compilation. If God had taken the trouble to write it out Himself then I would willingly believe his omniscience would have encompassed his knowlege of Pope Damasus’s doings, but since He didn’t, I don’t believe that the author of Hebrews did foresee the events of the Council of Rome.

        Second. If you would like to throw around Bible quotations with no context and therefore almost no meaning, two can play at that game. I might even feel the need, being a Catholic, to understand what they say on a deeper level. Who knows.

        On the cross Jesus told Mary “woman, behold your son”, indicating the beloved disciple (who when referred to as such represents not only the Church herself, but all her members) and then to the beloved He said “Behold your mother”. Now clearly they are not talking in literal terms since it goes on to say that from that time forth the disciple took her into his home. The custom of the time was that a man lived with his parents until their deaths so there is no question of a son taking his mother into his home since he would already have been living in her home. What Jesus is telling us, in a way so beautiful as to indicate His possession of the fulness of that quality, is that Mary is mother of the Church and that we are her children but not only that, but that we are to love her and take her into our lives. With a little context, suddenly a much maligned passage becomes not only clear but starkly relevant and challenging to those who object to marian devotion. Jesus himself said that, can I make it any clearer?

        Third. You misunderstand what Catholics mean by “tradition”. We don’t mean how many tassles on a maniple or the colour of pom poms on a biretta as modern day Catholic pharisees do. The Church’s use of the word refers to the intellectual tradition, the purifying of doctrine to what Christ intended in what He taught and the application of that doctrine.

        Fourth. The verse from the carol does not prove anything, it illustrates the difference in relationship that she does have with her son. As I have previously explained this difference does not come about by the mere fact she birthed him, but because she was without sin.

        Now that prosaic and most obvious bit is out of the way I’ll have to take a gamble that the Greek and Hebrew characters in the following make it through the “post comment” button:

        Lets look at that greek word “λόγος” that you translated as “the Bible”. It’s one of the most used words in the New tastament (Strong’s Concordance notes 316 mentions) and roughly equivalent to the word “אֵמֶר” in Hebrew which crops up (according to Strong again) 53 times in the Old Testament. Strong (a hearty American protestant) gives the following definition for the word “λόγος” something said (including the thought); by implication a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension a computation” but the important bit is how strong follows these translations. He writes: “specifically, with the article in John, the Divine Expression (that is, Christ)”.

        Let’s have a look at why he felt so confident in this assertion: that the word λόγος had little to do with literal “words” in the biblical context.

        Philo Judaeus’s contact with Greek philosophy allowed him to first coalesce the hebrew concept of “חכמה” with the hellenstic concept of “Σοφíα” which Philo termed “λόγος” by roughly 50AD. This Σοφíα was the mediator between God the Creator and man, a concept which Hebrews knew as “מלאך יהוה”, that is “messenger of the Lord”. Suddenly this whole “λόγος” is looking increasingly like it’s actually talking about Our Lord Himself rather than the pages of a compilation of documents put together by some fourth century pope. If you were to quibble with this I need to look no further that John 1 for the perfect rebuke for your idea. He writes in that epic hymn to λόγος that it “became flesh and dwelt amongst us”. Last time I checked, no copies of the Bible had a pulse. The author of the Hebrews was aware of the philonian philosophy and so it seems obvious that he and pseudo-John are in accord. It has been speculated that this hymn may have been lifted or adapted from an earlier source, so John 1 and Hebrews may be closer to each other chronologically than the rough estimate of completion of John’s Gospel thirty years later suggests. Regardless, nethier have any interest in the Bible, they are talking about Christ. Christ is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword. The Bible is an inanimate object and can give you a paper cut. The Christ which it describes pierces the soul with his loving gaze.

        I suggest that you not only go back and study the words in the Bible, Marianne, because that can only ever give you part of the picture. I suggest you look at their context and maybe then you might find some more profound meaning in them.

      3. Dear Francesco Forgione

        Shalom.

        Please do not publish long Roman Catholic booklets on this site. Answer with a short comment, and reply to peoples questions.

        If you do not, you have not come to this site to debate.

        I have written a reply to you, but have not received any answer.

      4. ivarfjeld.

        What I write was all in answer to Marianne’s comments. She accused me of not studying the Bible sufficiently so I felt that I should satisfy her need for Bible scholarship. Unfortunately this did take rather a lot of words, but I guess the Bible just isn’t as simple a book as some would have us think. You will also note that the only scholar I referred to in that comment was a protestant, so I’m not sure why your casting it aside as “Catholic”.

        I’m not sure what you meant by not coming here to debate. It seems that your request that I do not publish comments beyond an arbitrary length closes down debate. Proper debate has to be detailed and exacting. You are encouraging meaningless soundbites. If you want that, go to twitter. Otherwise deal with the fact that some of us have things to say which require detail.

        Was the unanswered comment that of September 3rd? I hadn’t read it, but will do so now.

      5. Dear Francesco Forgione

        Shalom.

        In the past, it has been fruitless to debate with Roman Catholic priests. Because you can not debate one issue at the time, but jump around in circles, trying to change the topic all the time.

        But let me try once more, and invite you to focus on one topic.

        Who made the Bible?

        The Hebrew Bible was canonized 1.000 years before there even was a Roman Catholic Church. This is a Hebrew book, that contains the Law of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophetic Word. When Jesus walked on Earth, there was no New Testament. Neither did the Jewish Apostles Peter, nor Paul, hold a New Testament in their hands. They used the Hebrew Bible.

        Around 325 A.D, the process started of collecting a large number of New Testament scriptures, and add some of them to the existing Hebrew Bible. This work was completed by Bishops from different synods in the Middle East, North Africa and in Assyria. The Bishop of Rome, was only one of these Bishops. These synods were independent units, representing a free Church from bondage to the emperor of Rome.

        The Hebrew Old Testament cannon, and the Greek scriptures, had to be translated into Latin, the language of ancient Rome. Those who translated the Bible into Latin, were not the original Jewish writers. Rome copied the work of others.

        The Thomas Church in India, formed around 50-60 A.D, used Bibles that was written in Syriaic. The Syriaic scriptures were burned by the Portuguese criminals, who invaded the Indian Ocean around 1.500 A.D This Thomas Church was in unity with the Assyrian Church of the East, a Church that renounced the Papacy, and had nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

        Why was the syriaic scriptures found in India burnt by the Roman Catholics?

        It was the very proof of the falsification of history, an exposure of the lies distributed by Roman Catholic bishops all over the world.

        This is the truth.

        When the Roman Catholic Church tries to take the honor of giving the Word the Bible, it is nothing but a falsification of Church history. And in particular a falsification of how the Bible was written down, and made into the book we can hold in our hands today.

      6. “In the past, it has been fruitless to debate with Roman Catholic priests. Because you can not debate one issue at the time, but jump around in circles, trying to change the topic all the time.”

        I’m confused by your desire to compartmentalise your religion. For me one of the foremost Beauties of the Truth that the Catholic Church passes on is that all of its issues are inextricably linked by that bond of Goodness. To discuss one aspect it is necessary to touch on a large number of aspects. In this conversation for example we have addressed the veneration of Our Lady. This required some scriptural exegesis which in turn touched on the role of scripture within the Tradition. All follows logically, just as anything which is true must. We see that same process in other aspects of our lives. Your insistance on a religion divided should sound warning bells.

        “But let me try once more, and invite you to focus on one topic.”

        See above the problems of obsessing on one small aspect.

        “Who made the Bible?

        The Hebrew Bible was canonized 1.000 years before there even was a Roman Catholic Church. This is a Hebrew book, that contains the Law of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophetic Word. When Jesus walked on Earth, there was no New Testament. Neither did the Jewish Apostles Peter, nor Paul, hold a New Testament in their hands. They used the Hebrew Bible.”

        You are historically incorrect. Rabinical Judaism recognises twenty four books of the תַּנַ”ךְ. The oldest dating, given by a now discredited theory, is that the Torah was cannonized in 400BC. Modern scholarship believes that the process of canonization took up to four hundred years, starting in 200BC and ending in 200AD. So in fact, during the incarnation there was not a complete Old Testament either. These are all things of which the Catholic Church is very aware and it is yet another reason that we do not turn the Bible into an idol.

        “Around 325 A.D, the process started of collecting a large number of New Testament scriptures, and add some of them to the existing Hebrew Bible. This work was completed by Bishops from different synods in the Middle East, North Africa and in Assyria. The Bishop of Rome, was only one of these Bishops. These synods were independent units, representing a free Church from bondage to the emperor of Rome.”

        Unfortunately I have to turn that worshipped scripture of yours back on you and point out that it was not any old bloke who said “you are peter and upon this rock I shall build *my* Church”. This is the establishment of the papacy and at that point it had no link to Rome whatsoever. If this had not been the case then it would have been St Paul who was first Pope since he was the first apostle to go to Rome. What you have said says nothing about the status of the papacy. You are trying to undermine catholics by asserting the unimportance of the pope in the nascent Church, but in fact your argument has no ability to undermine the logic of it. I suggest that you take a look at Alcuin Reid’s scholarly edition of Adrian Fortescue’s “The Early Papacy to the Council of Chalcedon in 451” for a true overview of the issue.

        “The Hebrew Old Testament cannon, and the Greek scriptures, had to be translated into Latin, the language of ancient Rome. Those who translated the Bible into Latin, were not the original Jewish writers. Rome copied the work of others.”

        Again, I am very aware of the work of St Jerome. I fail to see its relevance. Every Catholic priest is taught to read the scriptures in their original languages, but it seems obvious for a world wide religion to have a standardized version. In the UK after the reformation King James found it necessary even in this small island. How much more needed it would be for the faithful to be united across the entire globe.

        “The Thomas Church in India, formed around 50-60 A.D, used Bibles that was written in Syriaic. The Syriaic scriptures were burned by the Portuguese criminals, who invaded the Indian Ocean around 1.500 A.D This Thomas Church was in unity with the Assyrian Church of the East, a Church that renounced the Papacy, and had nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome.

        Why was the syriaic scriptures found in India burnt by the Roman Catholics?

        It was the very proof of the falsification of history, an exposure of the lies distributed by Roman Catholic bishops all over the world.”

        The apostolic traditions are entirely in keeping with an authentic understanding of the papacy. Again look at the Fortescue and you’ll find it all very plainly explained. As for the Thomas Church renouncing the Roman papacy a few weeks ago I was staying in a parish in Worcester that celebrates the Syro Malabar Rite. There were schisms in the Church before Luther, that tends to be why oecumenical councils are called. Certainly the destruction of these documents was certainly a great crime committed by Catholics, but it actually harms your beliefs far more than mine. You still idolise the Bible but at the same time say that it was distorted in its infancy. Luther presumably was of this belief and that must be why he edited it so heavily. Why do you build the Bible into an idol if you think it is so flawed?

        “This is the truth.”

        This is half truthes pasted together.

        “When the Roman Catholic Church tries to take the honor of giving the Word the Bible, it is nothing but a falsification of Church history. And in particular a falsification of how the Bible was written down, and made into the book we can hold in our hands today.”

        All you’ve said is that Catholic bishops in the Middle East, North Africa and in Assyria in conjuction and obedience to the papacy, compiled the Bible through various oecumenical councils. This sounds an awful lot like “the Catholic Church gave us the Bible”. A very similar oecumenical council to the ones you obey by only reaing the canonical Bible was that of Trent which was called to counter the protestant schism and affirm the Catholic faith against it in order to bring about a renewed understanding and practice of the truth. Why do you not obey the Council of Trent but you do obey the earlier ones?

      7. Francesco Forgione

        Shalom.

        You wrote:

        Rabinical Judaism recognises twenty four books of the תַּנַ”ךְ. The oldest dating, given by a now discredited theory, is that the Torah was cannonized in 400BC.

        My reply:

        Moses wrote down the Torah. He lived around 1.300 BC. All the Prophets wrote down, what God had told them. Non of them were Roman Catholics.

        Jesus the Messiah walked into a synagogue and read from the Jewish book of Isaiah. A non Catholic book, that is found in the Hebrew Bible.

        Finally: The gospel writers were all Jews, less Luke might have been a gentile.

        The Roman Catholic Church is a religious movement of thief’s. You take credit for the work of others. Rome translated the work of others into Latin, and eventually claimed that the “Bible” had been made by them. In a modern and plain language: This is fraud.

      8. And we’re looking at who compiled the bible here, not who wrote the books therein. Why do you believe that those books are infallable and not others that happen not to have been included in the Bible what it was compiled by the Catholic Church. You may as well have said the same about any Christianity which uses the Old Testament. Jesus was at the founder of the movement which would later acquire the name “the Catholic Church” and whose message was disseminated by the evangelists. The Catholic Church compiled previous documents and then translated them. There is nothing fraudulent about this, it was all very openly done. In fact, it was discussed and decided at big public meeting. Nothing underhand at all. Though of course, if you do really believe that, you’ll remember that you love the Bible a great deal and that therefore you’re in love with a fraud. Where do you think the protestant reformers got their Bibles from? They translated the sources we chose to compile the Bible from.

        And as for Moses writing the Torah, by the time that the bible was compiled, there was plenty of jewish scholarship saying that he did no such thing. As far back as the 2nd century, scholars openly discussed how Moses being referred to in the third person, naming the Edomite kings who lived after he had died and the claim that the name YHVH was used for the first time by Moses despite it being found all the way through genesis meant that he could not be the author.

        Spinoza went on later to prove that the torah is in fact the work of at least four intellectual movements (“E”, “J”, “P” and “Dtr”), not one author and compiled by the speculative movement “R”.

  9. Dear Ivar,

    I did not corrupt myself or defend human philosophy. Did you not understand what I wrote? You have twisted and/or misunderstood my words.

    I really must thank you for your reply, for it explains who and what you are.

    Best of luck!

    1. Dear Kathleen

      Shalom.

      I fully understood what you wrote: But do your understand what I wrote?

      Falsification of the Word of God shall not find any support.

    2. Dear Kathleen

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      You wrote:

      Most Catholics do not feel that they worship Mary. They feel that she is a heavenly mother who helps them get closer to a G-d that is not always easy to understand or be close with.

      My comment:

      There is always someone who express good intentions in all religions. Also in the Catholic religion. There are many good Hindus and Buddhist too. They cling to their idols, and feel so warm, included and good. Lonely people surely needs company, and there is always love and true company in the truth, if you serve and worship the living God.

      The truth is that all who worship idols mock the living God, who hates idols. He hates idols enough, to send the worshipers of idols to the everlasting fire of Hell. God is Holy, and God is just. Hell is in every way justified. ALL good intentions are worthless, if they contradict or falsify the Word of God.

      1. You cling to your idols far more than Catholics do our alleged idols. The Catholic Church’s doctrine is as much aimed at preventing its members who are tempted to worship saints and images from doing so as it is promoting the responsible use of those images. Maybe if you read what the Church actually has to say on the matter you’d be better informed on the issue and better placed to conduct a reasonable conversation on the matter.

      2. Marianne. Please comment on the issues discussed. I’m actually very aware of Spinoza’s work and which bits I agree and disagree with. The bits I referenced are now seen as the normal position for biblical scholarship.

        Your quotation from the Oregon State University course pack was interesting, but in no way relevant to his scriptural studies. Your arguments are consciously ad hominem and utterly irrelevant. I do not take not of Spinoza himself, that would be pretty tricky since he is currently dead, but I do take note of his arguments. Some of them I scrutinise and realise that they are not true. His scriptural scholarship has been scrutinised by people who understand the issues very well indeed and they consider them perfectly valid.

        I listen a great deal to the word of God. I’m very fond of the Bible. I think it’s very important. I don’t make it into an idol like you do and so realise its limitations.

        I read every argument put before me and scrutinise it. Thus far neither of you have argued in a convincing way. My arguments have been tight and reasoned. Marianne, yours have been a bit shouty and not well reasoned at all. The positions you argue are full of fallacies.

        Always nice to be compared to an animal though. I bet the Lord is glad you recognise his image when you see it.

      3. Dear Francesco Forgione

        Shalom.

        You wrote:

        I listen a great deal to the word of God. I’m very fond of the Bible. I think it’s very important. I don’t make it into an idol like you do and so realise its limitations.

        My comment:

        This is the limit. Please leave this site. There are a multitude of Roman Catholic Websites where you can debate your lack of faith, and your falsification of the Bible. You are at war with the Word of God, and make a mockery of the true faith in Jesus the Messiah. Truly a follower of a copy-cat, the false Messiah of Rome.

    3. Quite right. A position of mutual understanding is the start of a meaningful conversation. We think the other is wrong on certain points but understand the *person* making those points has reason to do so. There has been a lot of online shouting going on but not a great deal of actual two way discussion. Maybe you, Kathleen, could rectify this problem other people have caused.

      1. Francesco, the prophets, apostles and disciples in the Bible are not perfect either. But they do not need or will ever need any form of psychology to come to terms with God. Your explanation “How can we hope to mould our fleshy psychologies towards a relationship with God unless we introduce a part of God into that psychology….We have to make do with introducing all of those unperfected experiences into our unperfected pschologies so that in as perfect a way as possible we can enter into a relationship with Christ….” actually did nothing to explain the reason why you need to have images in front of you to believe or have that feeling that you are talking to God face to face. Psychology shouldn’t have anything to do with our worship of God! Its plain and simple, God is everywhere, he can see us, hear us, even know our thoughts and feelings, We can talk to him anytime, anywhere if we want to. What you say comes across as: Humans are imperfect so God has to conform with our imperfections, God has to understand that as imperfect beings, we need to have “psychological trigger” when we pray?? That only perfect beings can pray to God without images??? Francesco, ponder about what you’re saying! But maybe unknowingly, you yourself had the best answer: “Blessed indeed is the person that does not need the images of Christ and His saints…..” Amen!

        John 20:29

        29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN AND YET BELIEVED”.

      2. antonio. I have to say I don’t think you’ve understood what I’ve written. We have to worship God and form a relationship with Him from the basis of fleshyness, since as I keep saying and you seem to have forgotten, we are not angels. We cannot escape that part of our fleshyness is our psychology.

        Allow me to examine what you say point by point.

        Firstly, unless you are going to say that the saints you mention were in fact angels, they too must have had psychologies that they needed to mould towards engaging in a relationship with God. They were humans, of the flesh and with all that goes hand in hand with that. It seems obvious to me that they did in fact need to form their psychologies to the worship God because you can only worship something once you love them and love is an act of the will and the will is at the behest of the mind which falls within the purview of one’s psychology.

        Our psychology is part of our fallen fleshy nature and so we need to encourage it in the direction of the perfection it will attain in Heaven. The fullness of God is incomprehensible by our fleshy nature but we can come to know God in a limited way when our reason and emotions are integrated. Clearly an understanding of our psychology, even if not in the terms that branch of science employs, is necessary for such an endeavour. A good way of doing this is by the careful use of images, sounds and smells as psychological triggers to enable us to enter into the psychological state most condusive to prayer.

        Your assertion that we can talk to God anytime is certainly nonesense. We can try to do so, certainly, and if we were angels (as you seem to believe) we could do so any time, but the sad fact of the matter is that by sin we chose to cut ourselves off from Him. We need to find within us the psychological state in which the still small voice of God can be heard in amongst not only the bustle of the world but the tempest of our own sinfulness.

        This being the case, it also rubbishes your claim that psychology should not have anything to do with the worship of God. We need to create the correct inner disposition for communion with the Almighty. Why, for example, do you sing hymns in church? It’s because it makes you feel as a community and evokes the same feelings in all of those participating. This sense of the faithful coming together to worship and love God is important theologically and spiritually but is enabled and strengthened by psychological stimuli. It is not that God needs to mould Himself to our imperfections, it is that we have to be aware of our imperfections in order to minimise their interference with our relationship with the Lamb who is without blemish. This was clear from my previous post so I am surprised that you felt the need to raise it.

        It is not that God must understand that we need these psychological triggers. He made us. He became incarnate. He is omniscient. He knows what human nature is like. He understands that we need these already. It is not us that demands that He understand. His own omniscience and logic mean it must already be true. There is no fault on His side of this relationship, the fault is on ours. This fault was brought about by our free will. It is God’s acceptance of our free will that means that each and every one of us is capable of chosing to go to Hell. If you suggest that we do not need to work towards the perfection of our psychologies to be able to deepen our relationship with God then you deny our fallen state, you deny our free will, you deny the possibility of Hell and thereby you declare that we are all in fact angels. I’ll let you know if ever I sprout wings.

        Whilst I feel honoured that you reserve the same treatment for what I write as the Bible, maybe you could look more closely at the context in which I wrote that last quotation before you pull it so extravagently from its meaning. Angels have no free will. They are not fallen beings. They are perfect. Their psychologies have no need of being brought to perfection since they already see the visio beatifica. They are blessed indeed. They have no need of images since they’re staring at the real thing. We do have free will. We are fallen beings. We are not perfect. Our psychologies do need perfecting. We need images because they assist us in this most important, and whilst on earth, unobtainable project.

        Finally. I ask you once again to look at some Catholic theology before you deign to pronounce on its veracity. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT MARY LIVES IN A STATUE OR JESUS IN A PAINTING. We do not believe that we have seen them. We’ve just seen images of them. It is mediated by human imperfection (very much like the Bible) and you just lack the subtlety of thought to grasp this idea. We rejoice in the intellection tradition of the Catholic Church which, by its fidelity to the Truth, has managed not only to grasp these very basic concepts but through a process of purifying dialogism come to understand and teach that which is not only true, but also good and beautiful.

      3. Francesco uses Spinoza to “bolster” his factless argument against the bible and its power to train up the believer. He references Spinoza. Let me give you a little info on Spinoza:

        “The doctrine that there is only one substance has astonishing and revolutionary consequences. The first of these is that the created world is not a separate substance from God. Rather it is an aspect of God. Thus Spinoza denies that God is a creator. He is here rejecting not only Descartes’ view of the relation between God and the world, but the whole medieval Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition! Since the idea of a creator God is central to Jewish and Christian (and Islamic) belief, though Spinoza clearly believes in God, he was labeled an atheist by many of his contemporaries. Later in the century, John Toland would coin the English word Pantheist to describe something very much like Spinoza’s view”

        That is who Francesco listens to INSTEAD of the word of God! He is deceived and your arguments are falling on his deaf ears. If he would take note of a man who denies that God is a Creator, there is no further need to try and show this man anything. The bible says it perfectly, “Do not cast pearls before swine.” Francesco does not know what to do with the “pearls of truth”.

      4. Marianne, I very much agree with you! Sadly, Mr. Francesco has opted to listen and believe in people who have non-Biblical views and worldly ideas rather than Bible truths. Francesco, don’t just take our word for it (or anybody else’s)—- just read the Bible and believe in it to know the Truth! God bless!

      5. Francesco
        With all due respect to you, Honestly you think too deeply on this stuff. Worship God simply in spirit and in truth. To much psyco stuff. Simply Come to God in your worship and in your praying. I’m a mechanic and if try to fit your pscyco stuff into my worship my focus becomes on the pscyco stuff rather than on the one I am to worship. You need to stop psyco-anylizing and just simply worship

  10. Dear Ivar,

    You need to read the entire post!! Not just pick parts of it and then misrepresent it.

    I said at the end that I did not think he was right!!!! I was just trying to be a compassionate person and understand why he thought this way. I am well aware of the scriptures and have been against the RCC idol worship…please read again!!!!

    Are you interested in arguing or helping people? Some people just need to be “right” all the time….much like the Pharisees…not an inch of compassion or kindness in them…but they certainly did know the scriptures. Unfortunately they did not know human compassion.

    1. Dear Kathleen

      Shalom.

      I understand your good intentions, and we need to have compassion on deceived people. But remember where the spirit of death is reigning, there has to be someone who stand up for the truth. People do not get deliverance and healing, by our whitewash of their sins. The fear of God, is the start of wisdom. Revivals have never come by the compromising spirit, but by the preaching of the Word of God. A clear cut to the heart, was the beginning of the day of Pentecost. A day that lead to true repentance, and people worshiping God in spirit and in truth.

  11. David Black: Yuma, Az USA
    ivarfjeld, I commend you for the way you answer situations. We are all blessed by your wonderful work to explain about our Messiah to others. You do it with love, tolerance and compassion, which is indeed a gift. My spouse and I are spirit filled missionaries to Vietnam, living there part-time.
    Keep up the good work for the kingdom.

    Shalom,
    James David Black

  12. My final comment is that even the Catholic Church did NOT add the extra books of the Apocrypha into the bible until the Council of Trent. That was years and years later. These books do not belong in the bible:

    Reasons why the Apocrypha is NOT inspired:

    1.The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha UNTIL the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

    2.NOT ONE of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

    3.NOT ONE of the writers lays any claim to inspiration!

    4.These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

    5.They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

    6.They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

    7.The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. “

  13. A very funny post.

    If trying to explain things in a crude, literalist view as the author of the post suggests, and to take just one side as the ‘legitimately certified literal approach’, then we can say that Jews were also idol worshippers. In fact, they were first class idol worshippers. Shalom!

    How so?

    Their idol was a box. The Ark of Covenant. It was in the shape of a box with decorations on it. Aaron did a marvellous job carving it, after he did a golden calf for practice. Some say the box had seraphs, guardians angels that protect it. So not only they worshiped a box, but also angels. How dare they!?

    That box was so venerated it had a special place in the temple of Jerusalem within the holiest of holy, and in the tent made for it during the Exodus. Show people of Israel the box with seraphs, and they fall down in reverence.

    Now you shall object, and say that Jews did not in fact worship the box and angels on it, won’t you? You will try to explain the metaphor behind the box, right? That they were worshipping God’s commandments stored inside, perhaps, the very Word of God?

    So there you go: you allow yourself to be too literal, and therefore at the same cost you are accused of the same sin of ‘idol worshipping’. What is the difference: a box of wood with angels worshipped in the temple, or a statue of wood with angels underneath worshipped in the Church?

    Will you not allow Catholics to give you same explanation as you would for the Ark of Covenant? That they do not venerate wood in the shape of a human being which serves the exact meaning as the wooden box, nor that they venerate angels below it. But that they venerate the very substance it visually reminds them of. And with that act they only replicate that what Jews did all those centuries before them, when Jews ‘venerated’ a box with decorations.

    Idol worshippers we all are, Jews and Catholics, or we are not — it only depends how we see things, and what we want to provoke in a spur of the moment. But to help us see better, maybe we can try to enrol art classes, to understand the whole metaphor and inner meaning of art?

    After all, true idol worshipping is adoration of material without the substance of true faith. That was and still is the worship of pagans: they venerate empty boxes, empty statues. Ark of Covenant without God’s commandments in it is not worth admiring anymore — it may be the same box outside, but is devoid of substance. That is what God teaches. Or not, if you insist to pour more oil in the fire of deliberate misunderstanding.

  14. A statue is a 3-D picture, venerated like the photograph of a deceased loved one. Honored, venerated, not worshiped.

    1. Dear Rachel Righting.

      Shalom, and love in Jesus.

      A statue in 3-D or not. It is still an idol. Even a child would be able to tell you. The Bible says, do not make idols. Do not bow down to them, (kiss them etc) and worship them. That is exactely what Roman Catholics are doing. No matter how many times you try to deny the obvious. Repent, or perish.

  15. The temple itself was replete with images, practically everywhere that one would look (and while prostrating before them):

    On the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:18), on the curtains (Ex. 26:1), on the veil of the Most Holy place (Ex. 26:31), the statues of cherubim (1 Kings 6:23) on the walls (1 Kings 6:29), on the doors (1 Kings 6:32), and on the furnishings (1 Kings 7:29,36).

    The objection is always when many quote Exodus 20:3-5 and Deuteronomy 4:15 God was proscribing against idolatry, that is the worship of images as gods.

    BUT in Exodus 25:18-22 and Ezekiel 41:18-19 God ordains the proper use of images in worship. Did God contradict Himself? Of course not.

  16. The ancient Jews understood the distinction between veneration and worship/adoration, as did the Christians who came forth from Judaism as its true fulfillment in Christ.

    Everything from the Jewish Mezuzah to the Torah was venerated (kissed) by pious Jews even until today.

    This is an ancient custom. And regardless if one doesn’t find some of these customs in the Bible, it has always been practiced by the faithful.

  17. Lastly and in short: Statues of earthly beings are forbidden; heavenly beings (such as cherubim) are not.

    This is also why the Church allows statues of saints: they have become heavenly beings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s