Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII

    The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

    By Gary Michuta

    King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

    "Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

    (John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

    In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

    Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints.

    If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original

    1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

    Table of Contents KJV 1611

    Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

    “[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

    If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

    The Cross-references

    The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

     

    Mat 6:7

    Sirach 7:14

     

    Mat 27:43

    Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    Luke 6:31

    Tobit 4:15

     

    Luke 14:13

    Tobit 4:7

     

    John 10:22

    1 Maccabees 4:59

     

    Rom 9:21

    Wisdom 15:7

     

    Rom 11:34

    Wisdom 9:13

     

    2 Cor 9:7

    Sirach 35:9

     

    Heb 1:3

    Wisdom 7:26

     

    Heb 11:35      

    2 Maccabees 7:7

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

    1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

    1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

    Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

    In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

    The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

    As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

    Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

    Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

    It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

    “These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

    What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; av; bible; deuterocanonicals; kingjamesbible; kjv; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 601-617 next last
To: smvoice
Thanks for your reply.

I really appreciate your unwavering appeal to source authority.

Are you saying you have no one or source you consider authoritative? I'm really not seeing your answer to the simple questions. I don't think it's that difficult. Are you saying you are your own authority on all these matters?

Is that it or is it just difficult for you to say?

351 posted on 03/26/2012 7:21:43 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Revealed knowledge is when I dig into the real meaning of the Greek word “menounge”. It’s then that I find out that Jesus really said “nay rather” when someone was trying to give veneration to Mary. Revealed knowledge is when I find out that the Catholic Church only began to claim the Apocryphal books were inspired after they needed them to confirm doctrine not found in what they formerly declared scripture.

Context is all, here. Christ's pronouncement while on the Cross shows what He wanted to be known about Mary.

Let's see. When were the Deuterocanonicals canonized? In the late 300s, I believe. Did they need to be canonized then to promote some heinous plot?

352 posted on 03/26/2012 7:25:04 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; CynicalBear

How difficult is it for you to date when Peter went to Rome? I would think that’s a pretty simple question, since it’s been thrown around for what, 2000 years now? I’m not seeing your cooperation on these posts..but thanks for your reply. I’ll take that as an “I have no idea when Peter went to Rome. Tradition says he did, and that’s good enough for me.” Fair enough?


353 posted on 03/26/2012 7:26:25 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Excellent example and summary. I believe that’s known as Hyper-Dispensationalism.


354 posted on 03/26/2012 7:28:15 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; smvoice
That was powerful smvoice.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 23–28

Passionate, surely. Accurate in its claims, no.

355 posted on 03/26/2012 7:29:37 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Excellent example and summary. I believe that’s known as Hyper-Dispensationalism.

I have not done extensive study, but I find Hyper Dispensationalism lying somewhere between gazing at the god in the mirror and


356 posted on 03/26/2012 7:35:15 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

I think the Church fathers would be the best source on Peter’s travels and Rome. If you wish to know what it known, that’s where I’d suggest you look.

The chronology is not critical to my theology. However, I believe the chronology of Paul’s letters is critical to yours. Not mine.

This is why I asked for your source for dating/chronology of his letters. I really still have no clue why that seems to be so difficult for you.

Neither the general question nor the specific ones have been answered. Why is it so difficult?


357 posted on 03/26/2012 7:41:43 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; smvoice

Such an in depth, well studied, theological response………………………..NOT.


358 posted on 03/26/2012 7:51:17 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; count-your-change; CynicalBear; boatbums; metmom
Your smarmy answers does nothing to the discussion, Mark. I am giving you, from SCRIPTURE, a comparison of Peter and the 11's commission from Paul's commission. I started with Peter and the 11 so you wouldn't get the bends from jumping into the depths of Paul's ministry. If they are the same, then Scripture would make that perfectly clear. Paul would be the 13th Apostle. And would be sitting on a throne, judging the twelve tribes of Israel when Christ return to set up His Kingdom here on earth. But we know that is not true, according to God's Word.

Here's an interesting point that I'm sure you've never considered, because it's not in red letters. But it is an introduction to Paul's ministry and commission from the risen Lord.

"The Lord Himself said to Paul: They (Israel) WILL NOT RECEIVE THY TESTIMONY CONCERNING ME." (Acts 22:18). Wait a minute...that might just BE IN RED in your Bible, since CHRIST SAID IT. Paul's message, UNLIKE THAT OF THE TWELVE, was based upon Israel's REJECTION OF CHRIST. The twelve anticipated Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His return to reign, as I stated above. Did you know that, unlike Peter and the 11, Paul NEVER proclaimed the kingdom at hand, or offered it for Israel's acceptance? He confirmed that FACT that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, thus he went to the Jews first, until Israel was set aside, Acts 28.

I have about 10 points regarding Paul's ministry and commission. And how they compare to the twelve's ministry and commission.

"Oh goody", you say. "Thank God" I say.

And BTW: You are, once again, missing the point of Christ's earthly ministry and His ministry on this earth during His absence here. But really, I can expect no real dialogue with you on this. That's why God leads people to this site. Those who are searching and hungry for the truth of God's word. Not the religious institutions that tell them what to think, but The Word of God, that tells them what HE THINKS. His revealed word to mankind. His plan. His timeline. His way.

359 posted on 03/26/2012 7:56:30 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; CynicalBear
AH, so THAT date doesn't matter? The most important date of RCC, and it doesn't matter? And you're telling me to look it up? lol! How are any of the Books of the Bible dated, D-fendr? Just HOW are the dates approximated?

It's not that it's "difficult". It's that it is so hypocritical to insist one person do something, while refusing to do the same thing yourself. Can you not identify a pre-prison Epistle with the Prison Epistles? Can you not read the salutations, and content of the Epistles and understand times and seasons, who, what, where, when, and why?

But I really appreciate your reply. You have NO IDEA how much I appreciate it..

360 posted on 03/26/2012 8:05:07 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Neither the Pope or any Ecumenical Councils “officially” approved of the canons until the Council of Trent. Look it up. Given the historical errors included in the Apocrypha I can’t see how they view them as inspired by the Holy Spirit.


361 posted on 03/26/2012 8:17:57 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

No, the date doesn’t matter. There’s no ‘before... after, Jews, Gentiles, Jesus, Paul, Peter’ in the Church theology.

The Church teaches Peter was in Rome, here’s an article debating the question:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

The article is based on sources I consider authoritative on this question, Holy Scripture and writings of Church Fathers/Early Christians. I would have thought you already know what I consider authorities on different areas and matters.

>>>It’s not that it’s “difficult”. It’s that it is so hypocritical to insist one person do something, while refusing to do the same thing yourself.

Ok, so now will you reciprocate?


362 posted on 03/26/2012 9:18:25 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; MarkBsnr
"Neither the Pope or any Ecumenical Councils “officially” approved of the canons until the Council of Trent. Look it up."

How do you suppose Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate without the "official" Canon established at the Council of Rome in 382 AD?

363 posted on 03/26/2012 9:22:54 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; CynicalBear
I think what we are seeing, and for which we can thank you, is the primary reason why the Roman Catholic Church gets the gospel so messed up. They insist that "we" are ignoring the "Gospels" in "favor" of the Pauline epistles, yet they seem to not even grasp the differences between them nor to whom the various books were directed or their intent. It is exactly because they believe the words Jesus directed specifically to Israel MUST also apply to the church that there is so much confusion. They demand that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be the prism by which all the rest of the New Testament is read. We see it done by others, too, when they apply ALL the promises of God, including those that he gave to Israel ONLY in the Old Testament, to the church during the Age of Grace.

No wonder they dismiss the Millennial reign of Christ on earth after the end of the Tribulation - it messes up the Church being the "New Israel". Whether or not some understand the differences between Israel and the Church, it matters the most when the Gospel of the grace of God is commingled with the Gospel of the Kingdom. That's when the REAL problem of faith plus works for salvation starts out. Some people read the "Beatitudes" and insist that they are commandments of Jesus for how to go to Heaven. Then when we show that Paul teaches about the Gospel of the grace of God and state that it is NOT by our works that we are saved, we get pounded with the explanation that "The words of Jesus override the words of Paul - that mere bishop". It never seems to sink in that the ENTIRE Bible IS the word of Jesus Christ and God does not contradict himself.

I totally get what you are trying to say, but, for some, it will be like pulling teeth to get them to admit the wisdom of it simply because it has not been "blessed" by their all-knowing infallible magesterium. The same magesterium that is incapable of admitting they could ever be wrong about anything. Those that seek God's truth with all their hearts and with diligence and honesty WILL find it. Of that we can be sure. "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth", is in there for a reason!

364 posted on 03/26/2012 9:24:04 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I don’t debate with people who post lies about me.

There's no debating about it...

Still making up false stories, eh??? Some I suppose, would stoop to such a tactic for being unable to defend some of the nonsense that they post...

365 posted on 03/27/2012 7:07:19 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; CynicalBear
A thousand AMENS would not be enough to tell you the absolute truth of your post! You have gotten to THE core issue, and problem: the "Gospels" versus The Gospel of the Grace of God. To not see clearly is to become entangled in a web of confusion and deceit. And it starts with that very core issue.

Ah, but to SEE the difference, suddenly the blinders of "religion" are removed, and God's Word flows uninterrupted and uncontradicted.

Since God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, then the path, rightly dividing His Word of Truth, should be obvious. And so desired by anyone who truly wants to serve Him and be approved unto Him, unashamed and unwavering. 2 Tim. 2:15. Thank you and Cynical Bear for your great posts of truth and unwavering stand to preach the word, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and doctrine. :) God Bless!

366 posted on 03/27/2012 7:26:34 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; MarkBsnr
Still making up false stories

same old iscool. The guy who claimed he was a Catholic, then a Modalist, then ... flip-flop, D U uhhh

367 posted on 03/27/2012 7:29:59 AM PDT by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Iscool
Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

368 posted on 03/27/2012 7:37:52 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
It says that Paul was blinded. Paul never saw Jesus at all. Paul never saw Jesus until after his death.

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Perhaps you should avoid the bible during your religious teaching...

369 posted on 03/27/2012 7:49:46 AM PDT by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; Iscool

true — that remark by izzie on “Still making up false stories” is making it personal. Thanks RM


370 posted on 03/27/2012 9:02:29 AM PDT by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Your smarmy answers does nothing to the discussion, Mark. I am giving you, from SCRIPTURE, a comparison of Peter and the 11's commission from Paul's commission.

A rather misleading selection and conclusions which do not follow. I gave you from Scripture the Commission of the 12 from Matthew, Mark and Luke (in Acts). Significantly before Paul was recruited by God.

I started with Peter and the 11 so you wouldn't get the bends from jumping into the depths of Paul's ministry. If they are the same, then Scripture would make that perfectly clear. Paul would be the 13th Apostle. And would be sitting on a throne, judging the twelve tribes of Israel when Christ return to set up His Kingdom here on earth. But we know that is not true, according to God's Word.

I know all about Paul's ministry and how it merges with the Twelve, or really, complements it. Let me post a short piece which really shows that your premise is totally wrong at its base.

Jesus told the apostles that they would “Sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Lk. 22:30). In what way would the apostles judge the twelve tribes of Israel? First, we need to realize that Jesus was speaking here metaphorically. The twelve tribes of Israel is not to be taken literally in this passage. Jesus was not referring to the literal twelve tribes. His reference was to the church, God’s spiritual Israel (Gal. 6:16). James also used the twelve tribes figuratively to refer to Christians (Jms. 1:1). Paul used it this way in Romans 9:6 (See also Rom. 2:29).

Now that we’ve determined that the apostles were to judge the church, in what way was this judging to be done? Paul taught in Ephesians 2:20 that the apostles were in a sense the foundation upon which the house of God had been built, with Christ as the Chief cornerstone. When we answer the question as to how the apostles were the foundation, we will answer the question as to how they judge the church.

The apostles were the foundation of the church in the sense that it was through their preaching and teaching that the church was established (Acts 2). They taught only the gospel of Christ as revealed to them by Jesus Himself through the Holy Spirit. Jesus told them that after he departed, the Holy Spirit would come to “teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (Jn. 12:26). If you will remember, just before the church was established on Pentecost, the apostles were told to wait until the Holy Spirit came upon them and directed their teaching. This is exactly what happened! “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). It was because of this preaching that many believed and obeyed, resulting in the establishing of the church (Acts 2:40,41,47).

The apostles judge the twelve tribes of Israel (the Church) by preaching and teaching the Gospel truths of Jesus Christ as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:37, “the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Paul’s teaching, as well as the teaching of the other apostles, were the commandments of the Lord. This teaching always judged the lives of others. It either judged them to be faithful Christians, unfaithful Christians, or alien sinners. When they heard the teachings of the apostles, their minds were brought to the point of acknowledging what spiritual state they were in. This is the sense in which the apostles judged the twelve tribes of Israel.

By the way, if you are a Christian, you are part of the Israel of God. And the apostles doctrine, the New Testament, is your judge. It is this doctrine that will judge you in the last day (Jn. 12:48). How are you measuring up to the standard?

This is from http://www.defendthegospel.com/topical/judging_tribes.html - a Church of Christ and not Catholic at all. They get it, right here.

"The Lord Himself said to Paul: They (Israel) WILL NOT RECEIVE THY TESTIMONY CONCERNING ME." (Acts 22:18). Wait a minute...that might just BE IN RED in your Bible, since CHRIST SAID IT. Paul's message, UNLIKE THAT OF THE TWELVE, was based upon Israel's REJECTION OF CHRIST. The twelve anticipated Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His return to reign, as I stated above. Did you know that, unlike Peter and the 11, Paul NEVER proclaimed the kingdom at hand, or offered it for Israel's acceptance? He confirmed that FACT that Jesus was Israel's Messiah, thus he went to the Jews first, until Israel was set aside, Acts 28.

Uh huh. Then why did Paul normally go to the Jews first and preach in their synagogues wherever he went? Why did Peter convert the first Gentile and not Paul?

And BTW: You are, once again, missing the point of Christ's earthly ministry and His ministry on this earth during His absence here. But really, I can expect no real dialogue with you on this. That's why God leads people to this site. Those who are searching and hungry for the truth of God's word. Not the religious institutions that tell them what to think, but The Word of God, that tells them what HE THINKS. His revealed word to mankind. His plan. His timeline. His way.

And not yours, or any man's. The Church of Christ dude had it exactly right. Christ is the basis of the Church and the reason for it. He just built it upon Peter and the Apostles. Paul's part was to save the Church by being that salesman (all things to all men). Or how would you interpret that? With all the times that Paul nearly got killed by the people he hacked off, how would you interpret that? Paul is unconventional, to be sure. Yet he got results.

And a bunch of people who follow him like he was a god, instead of being the fantastic servant of the Church that he actually was. You think that I have a problem with Paul? Nope. I somewhat identify with him.

It is those who would usurp his true legacy in order to fulfill their own antiCatholic fantasies that I have a problem with.

371 posted on 03/27/2012 5:03:34 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Neither the Pope or any Ecumenical Councils “officially” approved of the canons until the Council of Trent. Look it up. Given the historical errors included in the Apocrypha I can’t see how they view them as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

You may wish to check out a certain decree by Pope Damasus, prompted by the Council of Rome, in 382.

372 posted on 03/27/2012 5:07:22 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
How do you suppose Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to translate the Bible into the Latin Vulgate without the "official" Canon established at the Council of Rome in 382 AD?

Very good. You beat me to it.

373 posted on 03/27/2012 5:08:09 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
"Very good. You beat me to it."

Great minds think alike.

374 posted on 03/27/2012 5:12:34 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Thanks.

I post the Scripture where Paul actually is converted in Acts 9 and get argued with by a yahoo who posts a distant metaphor from the Pauline Scriptures. I think that I'll post both accounts from Acts.

Acts 9: 3On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.c 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”d 5He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.e 6Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.”f 7The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.g 8Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing;* so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.h 9For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank.

Acts 22: “On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me.c 7I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’d 8I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.’e 9My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.f 10I asked, ‘What shall I do, sir?’ The Lord answered me, ‘Get up and go into Damascus, and there you will be told about everything appointed for you to do.’g 11Since I could see nothing because of the brightness of that light, I was led by hand by my companions and entered Damascus.h

He saw a blinding light. Maybe some people think that today if you want to see God, stare into a spotlight. Perhaps they have. I wonder if our separated brethren have been staring into a coloured disco ball.

375 posted on 03/27/2012 5:16:38 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
"Very good. You beat me to it."

Great minds think alike.

I am in the company of good men in the service of God. With God's blessing, we may accomplish much for His Glory.

376 posted on 03/27/2012 7:06:58 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; smvoice; boatbums

Again we see the modern progression in some camps away from orthodox Christianity towards the heterodoxy of Dispensationalism.

It’s only through knowledge of the history of the Church - including the Reformation - that these innovations can be fully ‘appreciated’.


377 posted on 03/27/2012 11:20:22 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
And a bunch of people who follow him like he was a god, instead of being the fantastic servant of the Church that he actually was. You think that I have a problem with Paul? Nope. I somewhat identify with him.

Masterful conclusion...

378 posted on 03/28/2012 12:45:35 AM PDT by Cronos (Party like it's 12 20, 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; smvoice; boatbums
"Again we see the modern progression in some camps away from orthodox Christianity towards the heterodoxy of Dispensationalism."

I'm still waiting for someone to present a reconciliation of Millennialism's 1,000 year kingdom with the "kingdom shall have no end" declaration in Luke 1:33 and as espoused in the Nicene Creed.

379 posted on 03/28/2012 9:31:06 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; metmom; RnMomof7
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.

Thank you for a terrific Bible lesson; just one more example the RCC makes things up and calls it Christianity when it is closer to paganism than true belief.

Anyone who reads the Bible learns the difference, God willing.

380 posted on 03/28/2012 12:57:59 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"Thank you for a terrific Bible lesson; just one more example the RCC makes things up and calls it Christianity when it is closer to paganism than true belief."

It bears repeating:

In her day Jael was most blessed for her charity and compassion, but that was not a prophecy that she would remain the most blessed forever. Further, Jael was never acknowledged by an Angel as "kecharitomene". Kecharitōmĕnē translates as the perfect passive participle of charitŏō (“Full of Grace”). It denotes one who has been and still is the object of divine benevolence, one who has been favored and continues to be favored by God, one who has been granted supernatural grace and remains in this state. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action

381 posted on 03/28/2012 1:17:32 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Excellent.....


382 posted on 03/28/2012 2:24:38 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Dr. Eckleburg
Kecharitōmĕnē doesn’t mean nearly what the RCC tries to inject into it. Anyone can use a Greek Lexicon and find that Mary was given grace by God but not to the extent of veneration that Catholics want to portray.
383 posted on 03/28/2012 5:03:49 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Dr. Eckleburg
"Anyone can use a Greek Lexicon and find that Mary was given grace by God but not to the extent of veneration that Catholics want to portray."

I would be willing to bet, that using your Greek Lexicon, that you wouldn't be able to order lunch or find the rest room in first century Alexandria or Athens, let alone use it to comprehend the mysteries of the universe.

384 posted on 03/28/2012 5:10:18 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; Dr. Eckleburg

But I can find out now the RCC has distorted scripture.


385 posted on 03/28/2012 6:25:29 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; CynicalBear
"Anyone can use a Greek Lexicon and find that Mary was given grace by God but not to the extent of veneration that Catholics want to portray."

I would be willing to bet, that using your Greek Lexicon, that you wouldn't be able to order lunch or find the rest room in first century Alexandria or Athens, let alone use it to comprehend the mysteries of the universe.

Come on, N-L. Everyone knows that the KJV is the real Bible. Any Greek is subservient to the real English meaning. Just like Jesus and the Apostles (superseded by Paul) taught from.

And any antiCatholic prejudice is preferred over the reality of Christianity.

386 posted on 03/28/2012 6:31:39 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for a terrific Bible lesson; just one more example the RCC makes things up and calls it Christianity when it is closer to paganism than true belief.

Welcome back, Dr. E. It is with thanks that I bathe in your dulcet tones once again.

387 posted on 03/28/2012 6:33:19 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr
"But I can find out now the RCC has distorted scripture."

I would like you to explain the contradiction between the assertion that Scripture alone, being sufficiently self interpreting so as to negate the need of a teaching authority and your need of a Greek Lexicon to fumble around with the intended meaning of Blessed.

388 posted on 03/28/2012 7:58:39 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You just don’t get it do you? Learn what Sola Scriptura means then maybe we can have a conversation. I’m not talking Solo Scriptura either. Learn the difference.


389 posted on 03/28/2012 8:05:43 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
"Learn what Sola Scriptura means then maybe we can have a conversation."

I do know what Sola Scriptura is and how it differs from "solo" scriptura. I am just struggling with a need to cite authoritative sources like lexicons and web pages to prove the Magisterium is wrong and unnecessary.

390 posted on 03/28/2012 8:16:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; CynicalBear

>> “ I am just struggling with a need to cite authoritative sources like lexicons and web pages to prove the Magisterium is wrong and unnecessary.” <<

.
No website necessary; the Bible says so! Christ condemned the practices of those Nicolaitans in the letters to the churches.


391 posted on 03/28/2012 8:40:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - No Way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; D-fendr; smvoice; metmom; CynicalBear
I'm still waiting for someone to present a reconciliation of Millennialism's 1,000 year kingdom with the "kingdom shall have no end" declaration in Luke 1:33 and as espoused in the Nicene Creed.

It's likely you will wait forever since this HAS been presented numerous times and, apparently, you have either missed it or refused to accept it. Hmmm....which one???

But, if you really HAVE missed it, then let me direct you to Holy Scripture (Yes, it IS found there). Turn to Revelation 20. It starts out speaking about Satan being bound for a thousand years in the "bottomless pit". The Beast and the False Prophet had been cast into the "Lake of Fire" just prior to then when Jesus came back to Earth to defeat those who had gathered to make war against God's people and the end of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 19). In Rev. 20:1-3, we see:

    And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

After that is done, then those who came out of the Great Tribulation were judged by... WHO? Why:

    I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge.

Well, who do we know who Jesus told would judge the twelve tribes of Israel? Ring a bell??? Those who were judged by the Apostles were those who were of Israel, whom the 144,000 Jewish, virgin, young men anointed of God to preach the Gospel of the Messiah Jesus Christ, and who had received and believed on him. Verses 4-6 say:

    And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

So, we know that Christ DOES return to earth and reigns for 1000 years. But AFTER this millennium, something else happens. Those who survived the tribulation and went into the millennium continued to have children, and THOSE children still had the responsibility to also receive Jesus as their Savior as well as Lord and King. As hard as it is to imagine, some don't - good old human nature, I guess! Here they have Christ - the perfect and righteous King of Kings and Lord of Lords ruling in justice and righteousness, they never want for anything, but they STILL rebel against him. In verses 7-10, we learn that Satan is "loosed" for a short while out of the Bottomless Pit/The Abyss and what does he do immediately?

    When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So, all those people who were born and rejected Jesus' rule were gathered by Satan to make one final attack against him. But it was over before they knew what hit them. Fire came down and POOF! they were defeated and they along with Satan were cast into the final HELL where for all ETERNITY they will suffer. Verses 11-15 speaks of that:

    Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

That parable that you guys are so fond of tossing out about the "sheep and goats" judgment? Well, here it is. It actually occurs after the millennium.

Finally, you asked for an explanation of the "kingdom will have no end" part, we see that not only during Christ's spiritual rule in Heaven but also his 1000 year rule on earth called the Millennium, but what happens next is the kicker. Read Revelation 21. Verses 1-5 speak of a completely NEW heaven and earth where Christ WILL rule and reign and His Kingdom has NO end:

    Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!”

You can read the rest of chapter 21 of Revelation as it speaks about the New Jerusalem where God fulfills his promise to Israel. Its description is awe-inspiring and at the end of this chapter we learn:

    I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

I hope you understand that this is by no means "modern progression" nor "the heterodoxy of Dispensationalism" but the actual truth from God revealed to the Apostle John and meant for us all. This is in NO way something new or recently "hatched" doctrine created to make the Catholic Church look bad, but was understood AND expounded upon by many of the early church "Fathers". This site http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CAjU quotes many of them if you care to read it. Now, I realize that, this goes against some of what your "Magesterium" has decided everyone should believe, but you should know what the Bible says as well as what was believed in the early church as they were taught by the Apostles. You will have to decide who you will believe.

392 posted on 03/28/2012 9:06:47 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"But, if you really HAVE missed it, then let me direct you to Holy Scripture..."

I do appreciate the patient and thorough explanation of your views. It was a good read and well presented. That said, I have to say that I don't agree with it because I believe in the hierarchy of the revealed word in which the Gospels are the pinnacle and all other Scripture is supportive. I cannot begin with Revelations, I have to begin with the Gospels and then see how Revelations reflects them. Peace and Blessings

393 posted on 03/28/2012 9:29:05 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
I do appreciate the patient and thorough explanation of your views. It was a good read and well presented. That said, I have to say that I don't agree with it because I believe in the hierarchy of the revealed word in which the Gospels are the pinnacle and all other Scripture is supportive. I cannot begin with Revelations, I have to begin with the Gospels and then see how Revelations reflects them. Peace and Blessings

Thank you for your gracious reply. I am curious about why you believe that the "hierarchy of the revealed word in which the Gospels are the pinnacle and all other Scripture is supportive" precludes you from considering the truths spoken of in the book of Revelation. If someone could show you that Jesus spoke of many things that John saw when he wrote Revelation - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - and that it DOES support Jesus' words, would you be more amenable to considering it? Do you accept that the epistles were continuing revelation from Jesus after he ascended to Heaven and that they taught additional truths to believers?

394 posted on 03/28/2012 10:00:04 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; D-fendr; Natural Law
And a bunch of people who follow him like he was a god, instead of being the fantastic servant of the Church that he actually was. You think that I have a problem with Paul? Nope. I somewhat identify with him.

Masterful conclusion...

Our opponents' stunned silence is very reassuring.

395 posted on 03/29/2012 5:09:58 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
. No website necessary; the Bible says so! Christ condemned the practices of those Nicolaitans in the letters to the churches.

Unfortunately, my Bible is missing the epistles that Jesus wrote to the churches. Oddly enough, my Bible only has Jesus writing in the sand. What version are you using? A Niccolo (sic) version?

396 posted on 03/29/2012 5:14:27 AM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

You just don’t get it do you? Learn what Sola Scriptura means then maybe we can have a conversation. I’m not talking Solo Scriptura either. Learn the difference.


397 posted on 03/29/2012 6:04:08 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

How are we supposed to believe that you understand the difference when you keep asking questions that indicate that you don’t understand the difference? You ask why we would try to understand what words in scripture mean. Really? You have never read Paul’s commendation of the Bereans? Even Paul said to check with scripture to see if what he taught was correct yet you expect us to take the word of some guy in Rome? The guys in Rome are teaching stuff that ain’t in scripture or contradict scripture.


398 posted on 03/29/2012 6:13:52 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
"How are we supposed to believe that you understand the difference when you keep asking questions that indicate that you don’t understand the difference?"

I am not arguing the merits of Sola Scriptura, although I would be glad to, I am discussing why and how Jesus instituted a teaching authority within the Church and how even those who reject the need for the Magisterium rely on cheap and unreliable substitutes.

"You have never read Paul’s commendation of the Bereans?"

Of course I have. St. Paul preached the Word on the authority of Jesus, not on his own authority and relied on Jesus' life and ministry being prophesied over 450 times in the existing Scripture available to the Jews of Berea, the Old Testament. If the Gospel Scripture was indeed available throughout the Gentile world at the time of St. Paul's ministry then he would have been no more than the teaching authority.

399 posted on 03/29/2012 8:36:59 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"I am curious about why you believe that the "hierarchy of the revealed word in which the Gospels are the pinnacle and all other Scripture is supportive" precludes you from considering the truths spoken of in the book of Revelation."

That is a valid question, and one I have asked myself on a number of occasions. My answer has two components;

1) Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. St. Augustine tells us that every word in Scripture has a purpose and that they embody the Word of God like every crumb of the Eucharist. When I see apparent contradictions I must have a way to resolve them. I never think that things that do not make sense to me are wrong, I always think that I have to study, pray and work to resolve the deficiency in me.

I believe that there has been an evolution of revelation, that God has revealed Himself to us in degrees and stages and that this reached its apex in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. All other revelation beyond the Gospel Scripture is only to help us to understand and accept the Gospels. So I always begin with the Gospels and see all other Scripture, New and Old Testaments in the context of supporting them.

2) I don't understand Revelation and its symbolism nearly enough to have wrapped my head completely around what St. John is trying to say. If you read the discussions surrounding the inclusion of Revelations in the Canon you will find that I am not alone.

400 posted on 03/29/2012 8:53:36 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 601-617 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson