brakelite

There will come a time when you will personally be aware that many many people, who believed every single word that you have quoted, are not in the kingdom when you fully expected them to be. People like this.... 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. or this.... 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. and these.... Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. I think we all know, or have known such people....not that I am condemning anyone,that is beyond my pay-grade, but it is clear that there is much moreto gaining eternal life than consent to just a few verses in scripture. Our experience, lifestyle, heart attitude, all have their place. I amnot suggesting that good works save us. But someone who believes in the message of the cross, but doesn't allow that message to affect any change in his life, is that one saved? A Christian?

Certainly, although such a concept was unknown to me in my early years. It is based on the misconception that the woman spoken of in Genesis 3:15 refers to Mary, whereas correct exegesis and understanding correct symbolism in prophecy reveals that the woman spoken of here is representative of the church. This error within Catholic thinking is repeated in Revelation 12 and Revelation 17. The woman in Revelation 12 being the true church, the harlot representative of an apostate church. I see no purpose in going further. If the foundation or root is error, the fruits will be also.

Mary being "co redemptrix" with Christ goes way beyond veneration...it is Antichrist. A vision, be it angel or any 'divine' being, we are instructed to test. The only way to do this is to compare their teachings or admonitions with the word of God. If it contradicts what has already been revealed by the Spirit of Christ through the prophets of the OT or Christ Himself or His apostles in the new, then they are lying spirits.

Then there is nothing more I could possibly add.

I am not offended, nor surprised you do not believe my testimony, it is what it is. The truth is is that I do not have the basics wrong. When Catholics pray to Mary or some other saint because they believe such a one has more influence with God than does Jesus, this is clear to anyone who can reason that Jesus has been replaced with a system that promotes itself , and dead people, as a mediator. I am sure that the church teaches that Jesus is the only Mediator, they cannot so openly deny the clear scripture saying so. But they can certainly practice otherwise, and teach contradictory advice in doing so. When I used to pray the rosary I had no perception whatsoever that is doing so I was displacing Jesus as the sole Mediator between my self and the Father...but regardless of what my understanding was at the time, that surely was what I, and countless millions of others were doing. I would like also to make a further particular point. Much of what goes on within Catholicism today is by demonic revelation. It is based on mysticism and superstition...taking the word of demonic apparitions and exalting them above the truths of scripture. Allow me to offer an example. Early last century an apparition, claiming to be Jesus, appeared to a certain Berthe Petit. This being said..."By confident consecration to my mother, the devotion to my heart will be strengthened and, as it were, completed." Jesus needs his mother to complete His work in us? Further, a Catholic author, Daniel Lynch reported on this in his book 'The Total Consecration'. Quote....having made such consecration, the best means to fulfil the first Friday and first Saturday devotions, to honor completely the sacred heart of Jesus and the immaculate heart of Mary and to hasten the 'triumph of the immaculate heart' (whatever that means) is to make the "Double Great Novena" requested by Jesus on August 15, 1942 of sister Maria Natalia, an Hungarian nun. This novena consists of reception of holy communion after prayer preparation and repentance, on nine consecutive first Saturdays together with and parallel to nine first Fridays with the intentions of consoling the sacred heart and the immaculate heart." Console...to comfort, soothe, quieten down, compose ╷ pacify, conciliate, assuage, appease, mollify. So if one of those Saturdays should be missed, does that mean Jesus and Mary are going to stay angry and refuse to be consoled? Are they going to continue to be upset over your sin because you failed??? Is that grace, or is it salvation by works? Is that a true reflection of Jesus's once only sacrifice for all sin? Hebrews 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. That is precisely the kind of mindset I grew up with....a certain fear of God...not a godly fear of respect, but a fear of judgement and punishment...a fear of His anger, when He is NOT angry!!! God has to be appeased by penance, when He has already given His only begotten Son ---what more can we add to that to make God forgive us???!!!!...God has to be approached through Mary or one of His favorite saints because Mary has more influence. As a mother Mary knows how to talk God out of being angry. This inchrist was the kind of thinking that permeated the church when I was growing up...it was what I was taught in the home, and it was constantly affirmed through the myriad of means by which prayer, devotion, consecration etc was redirected away from the sacrifice made on our behalf which fully and finally dealt with the sin problem by our only Savior through scapulas, rosaries, novenas, medallions, relics, parades, masses etc etc. I will continue with my former example. Another Catholic author, John Hallert, in his book "To Prevent This", wrote: "In 1934 when Sister Natalia was 33 years old, she had asked 'Jesus' to grant some special graces to souls of our times to honor the 33 years he spent on earth. On August 25, 1942,' Jesus' responded to this request of Sister Natalia with great generosity multiplying what he had already granted in his sacred heart devotion to saint Margaret Alacoque in 1690. (Obviously His death wasn't enough) He gave her 33 promises for all those who will complete a 'double great novena', as he called it. (This means going to mass and communion on the first Friday and Saturday while one is in the state of grace, in reparation for sins committed against the sacred and immaculate hearts, for nine consecutive months. ) With these promises, 'Jesus 'also gave the following instructions; "my child, look at your mother as the queen of the world. Love her and surround her with the trust of a child. I want this from you and from everyone. Behold the immaculate heart in which I have placed graces for the world nd souls. As the heavenly Father gave everything to me, in the same manner I give my victorious power over the world and sin to the immculate heart of my mother. Through my daughter, Margaret, I gave the world tremendous promises, but since my goodness is infinite, I now offer even more. :If the people wish to gain the benefits of my promises here, they must love and venerate the immaculate heart of my mother. The greatest sign of this reverence will be if they receive me in holy communion after proper preparation and repentance on nine consecutive first Saturdays prallel with the first Fridays. "Their intentions should be to console my heart togather with the immaculate heart of my mother. If someone hurts me, that person hurts my mother as well. If someone consoles me, this consolation will console my mother at the same time. My mother and I are one in love." The above was quoted from a Catholic publication that has been promulgated throughout the world since 1998. The publication is called THE MARIAN AND MEDJUGORJE CENTRE FOR PEACE NEWSLETTER. If anyone reading the above isn't sickened by the gross idolatry and antichrist ideas being promoted here, they do not have the Spirit of God leading them. The above is pure superstitious nonsense which a deluded church populace is far too ready to accept, believe, and pass on to others. IT IS NOT BIBLE RELIGION.

The gospel cannot be reduced down to just one or two scriptures. In the OT the gospel was also preached to Israel. This was accomplished through the sanctuary services and the sacrifices and holy days all of which prefigured Christ and the gospel.If one was to believe most of todays televangelists, one would think that the sanctuary service consisted of the death of the animal, the washing in the laver (baptism), and that's it. But the gospel goes further than Calvary. It goes further than the empty tomb. It goes all the way into the sanctuary itself, where the priests ministered the blood before the curtain, and then once a year entered into the Most Holy Place to 'cleanse the sanctuary of all the sins of the children of Israel". The above ministry in the temple by the earthly priests was the type or shadow of Christ's ministry now as our Mediator before the throne of His Father. All of this, and more, is a part of the gospel, and the gospel is incomplete without any one aspect...it includes justification (the altar of sacrifice/Calvary, which provides us with our legal right to eternal life)....it includes sanctification (the ministry within the holy place before the showbread/bread of life; the candlestick/light of the world; altar of incense/prayers of the saints, providing us with the fitness we all need to enter heaven, receiving Christ's righteousness)...and it includes glorification which is our final meeting with Jesus when He comes with all the angels of heaven on resurrection day to take us home.

@inchrist Again, bluster and obfuscation. It doesn't matter that I copied those pages from any particular web-site...it could have been CNN or EWTN...either way it takes nothing away from the truth. The syllabus of errors promulgated by Pius whatever number he was was a fact of life. Condemning the messenger, though may be popular with other Catholic apologists, unfortunately for you doesn't alter the facts contained in the message. The syllabus of errors was gross "infallible" portrayal of extreme Catholic dogma in defense of extreme restriction of religious liberty and in defense of the church's so-called God-given right to persecute all whom she, in her arrogance and self importance , deem "heretic". It was also a condemnation against any and all secular authorities who would dare claim authority over the church. The hiding of various criminals over the centuries in the Vatican or among the Swiss guards , including fraudsters (aka chairman of the Vatican Bank wanted for fraud by countless countries) , pedophiles (way too many to mention), and assassins (aka Abraham Lincoln's murderer), thus protecting their own against civil law, is arrogance in the absolute. But of course, you will no doubt defend this as being quite appropriate. Finally, my pointing out that the reformers were ex-Catholic priests, was not a defense of their wrongs, nor was it a condemnation of Catholicism per se. They shall each answer for their abuses of authority, just as everyone else will, Catholic Protestant or otherwise. I mentioned it not to lay blame on the church, but as a reasonable explanation for their behavior. They had been taught that such persecutions were entirely justifiable...they were wrong. Just as the Vatican is wrong today for not publicly and with heartfelt repentance completely eradicating all such teachings from its books. And condemning all her theologians, past and present, such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, for teaching it and practicing it. BTW, I am not ignorant of Catholicism as you would attempt to make out. I was a dedicated committed Catholic into my twenties. Educated throughout my young life in Catholic institutions. My rejection of Catholicism today is not based on what you folk like to claim ignorance of Catholc culture and/or Protestant bias.

Luther, Calvin, and most other reformers, were all brought up by, raised, and educated in Catholic schools, and universities, and graduated from Catholic seminaries. They became priests, observed the corruptions and hypocrisy in the church, but did not seek to begin new churches, but simply to 'reform' that church they knew and loved. That their leaders refused, was not the reformers' fault, nor was it because they taught heresy. The reason for the reformation was because Catholic prelates, priests, bishops, and rulers of the church refused to repent of their sins an hypocrisies. Then the Lutherans persecuted the Calvinists. The Calvinists persecuted the Presbyterians. And so it continued until it was realized that all must be granted religious liberty...that is the freedom to make mistakes and practice their religion according to conscience, without fear of persecution. Being brought up and raised and taught Catholic ways, it took a while for Protestants to realize that even persecution for observing religious practice other than orthodox, was itself wrong. The age old practice by Catholicism to force people to submit to Roman dogma WAS ERROR, despite the arrogant pontifications by a variety of popes defending their right to enforce religious teachings on the general population, even that as late as the 19th century. And I haven't seen any official church council yet declare otherwise, until Vatican 2, which declarations on religious freedom were very much a surrender to demands from US bishops....not because the curia had a change of heart.

Is there no end to you making things up? Are you serious? Read section four of the syllabus of errors, where it is declared as dogma that to believe a Bible society is not a pest in the same vein as communism and secret societies is error. (1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723). (2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles. (3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162). (4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them. (5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45). (6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages). (7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor. Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19). These rules were affixed to the Index of Prohibited Books and were constantly reaffirmed by popes in the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. These prohibitions, in fact, have never been rescinded. It is true that the Council of Trent did not absolutely forbid the reading of the Scriptures under all circumstances. It allowed a few exceptions. The priests were allowed to read the Latin Bible. Bishops and inquisitors were allowed to grant license for certain faithful Catholics to read the Scriptures in Latin as long as these Scriptures were accompanied by Catholic notes and if it was believed that these would not be “harmed” by such reading. In practice, though, the proclamations of Trent forbade the reading of the Holy Scriptures to at least nine-tenths of the people. Rome’s claim to possess authority to determine who can and cannot translate, publish, and read the Bible is one of the most blasphemous claims ever made under this sun. The attitude of 16th century Catholic authorities toward the Bible was evident from a speech Richard Du Mans delivered at Trent, in which he said “that the Scriptures had become useless, since the schoolmen had established the truth of all doctrines; and though they were formerly read in the church, for the instruction of the people, and still read in the service, yet they ought not to be made a study, because the Lutherans only gained those who read them” (William M’Gavin, The Protestant, 1846, p. 144). It is true that the Bible leads men away from Roman Catholicism, but this is only because Roman Catholicism is not founded upon the Word of God! Pope Clement VIII (1592-1605) confirmed the Council of Trent’s proclamations against Bible translations (Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 112) and went even further by forbidding licenses to be granted for the reading of the Bible under any conditions (Richard Littledale, Plain Reasons Against Joining the Church of Rome, 1924, p. 91). (8) The restrictions against ownership of the vernacular Scriptures were repeated by the popes until the end of the 19th century: Benedict XIV (1740-1758) confirmed the Council of Trent’s proclamations against Bible translations (Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, p. 112) and issued an injunction “that no versions whatever should be suffered to be read but those which should be approved of by the Holy See, accompanied by notes derived from the writings of the Holy Fathers, or other learned and Catholic authors” (D.B. Ray, The Papal Controversy, p. 479). It was during the reign of Pope Pius VII (1800-1823) that the modern Bible society movement began. The British and Foreign Bible Society was formed in March 1804, the purpose being “to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or comment.” Other societies were soon created for the same exalted purpose. Germany (1804); Ireland (1806); Canada (1807); Edinburgh (1809); Hungary (1811); Finland, Glasgow, Zurich, Prussia (1812); Russia (1813); Denmark and Sweden (1814); Netherlands, Iceland (1815); America, Norway, and Waldensian (1816); Australia, Malta, Paris (1817); etc. One of the societies began distributing a Polish Bible in Poland. The Pope, instead of praising the Lord that the eternal Word of God was being placed into the hands of the multitudes of spiritually needy people, showed his displeasure by issuing a bull against Bible Societies on June 29, 1816. The Pope expressed himself as “shocked” by the circulation of the Scriptures in the Polish tongue. He characterized this practice as a “most crafty device, by which the very foundations of religion are undermined,” “a pestilence,” which he must “remedy and abolish,” “a defilement of the faith, eminently dangerous to souls.” Pope Pius VII also rebuked Archbishop Buhusz of Mohiley in Russia because of his endorsement of a newly formed Bible society (Kenneth Latourette, The Nineteenth Century in Europe, p. 448). The papal brief, dated September 3, 1816, declared that “if the Sacred Scriptures were allowed in the vulgar tongue everywhere without discrimination, more detriment than benefit would arise” (Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Versions Compared, p. 236). While taking a look at the syllabus of errors, read through numbers 19 to 38 on what is considered 'errors'. For example, 24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. -- Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851.

The Catechism, in places , may reflect some truths of scripture. That does not make it scripture...it doesn't even necessarily make it scriptural, as there are far too many statements that contradict scripture, making the whole extremely debatable. Take the above quoted statement for example, "by worshipping idols and images as God"....I would suggest that while that is correct, one needn't consider the object of worship as actually being God in order for such an act to be idolatry. One may not consider his favorite sport as a god, yet if following that sport is your whole aim in life and your life is so caught up in that sport as to make it your life's priority, then it has become an idol. It is the same with many Catholics in their reverence for Mary and/or saints. They spend more time, more dedicatory commitment, to Mary than they do for Jesus. That is idolatry.

And what exactly is unbiblical here? inchrist, I have already quoted scripture that plainly and clearly states that there is only one Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. Not any church...not Mary or the saints....not any priesthood...not even the pope. Jesus is the sole and only Mediator appointed by God to mediate between Himself and mankind. Any interposing themselves between man and Jesus is replacing Jesus with something or someone else, and that is Antichrist. (See 500 and 473 in Strong's concordance). That said, I am not suggesting that fellowship with like-minded Christians is unimportant. That is not what this is about, and you know that don't you. Your bluster and obfuscation doesn't hide the fact that the Catholic Church hierarchy demands its church members to be obedient, loyal, and faithful to all church ordinances, sacraments, rites and rituals, because they claim that without them there is no salvation. The Protestant reformers were absolutely correct when teaching sola Christus...Christ alone. No man should allow another man to act as any sort of mediatorial agent between himself and his Savior.

Part two..... Psalm 77:13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God? The sanctuary is God’s plan or blueprint or model by which man may be brought back into the presence of God. Man was lost. The sanctuary was a map for man that he may find his way home. It is God’s Plan of Salvation, His GPS if you like to re-establish man as God’s law-abiding jurists. Compare the following scriptures, and we can see how very important the sanctuary is. Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. Matt. 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. The sanctuary contained the very real presence of God. When Jesus spoke of Himself as being the Door, the Light, the Bread of Life, what do you think He was referring to? Where was He getting these expressions from? John 1:1 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. What door is Jesus speaking of? It is the door to the sanctuary. Jesus walked through that door as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world to present Himself a sacrifice, holy and without blemish. We are to follow Him into the sanctuary, after His pattern. “I am the Way” He declared. “Thy Way is in the sanctuary” David said….Jesus is in the sanctuary…if we are to find our way to the Father, we must follow Jesus into the sanctuary where He is now, interceding on our behalf. I am sure most reading this recognize Jesus in the sanctuary, however, just as a refresher, I will go over again where Jesus is. beginning from the outer court, we know that Jesus came from heaven, was born into the tribe of Judah, who were camped immediately outside the door to the outer court, and thus…. As mentioned, He is the Door. John 10:1,2 Jesus is the sacrifice. Matt. 5:17 It is in Him we are to be baptized. John 4:10 Jesus is the Bread of Life. John 6:35 He is the Light of the world.John 8:12 He is our Mediator. Eph. 5:2 And He is the law personified. Matt. 5:17 Israel was delivered from Egyptian bondage (a type of the Christian deliverance from sin) in the very same pattern. Passover Lamb……..sacrifice……..1 Cor.5:7…..Exodus 12:1-6 Red Sea……..baptism…….1 Cor.10:2……Exod.14:16 Manna….Bread…..John 6:58…..Exodus 16:4 Israel chosen as a special nation to be a light to the Gentiles….Exodus 9:5,6. Moses made an intermediary (a type of Christ)….Exodus 19:9-11 Israel given the law. ….Exodus 20 Do you recognize the pattern? Are you following the Way through the sanctuary? The life of Christ was in similar vein and pattern….. Born in a stable among animals…born a living sacrifice…born to die..Luke2:7 Baptized at age 30…Matt.3:16 Led into the wilderness to be tempted which consisted of three elements 1. Change the stone to bread 2. presumptuous prayer 3. Bow in exchange for glory Matt.4:1-11 Goes on to preach and teach the law of God coupled with the grace and the mercy of God. John 14:15. Matt.9:13 Christ’s life follows the pattern even in reverse…. Descended from heaven….John 6:38 Lived by the word….John 4:34 Let His light shine….John 1:9 Lived a life of prayer….Luke 6:12 Was baptized…Matt.3:16 Was crucified….Matt.27:35 And from His sacrifice and ascension into the heavenly sanctuary…. Was sacrificed Was resurrected and purified Gave manna…. John 6:58 Ascended in order to intercede….Hebrews 7:25 Ministers among the candlesticks….Revel. 1:11-13 Judgement to begin in Most Holy Place….Revel. 11,18,19. The New Testament follows the same pattern…. The Gospels are the story of our redemption through the shed blood of Christ Acts give us the baptism of the Holy Spirit From Romans to Jude we are taught the essentials of the Christian faith 1. The word of God 2. Prayer/intercession 3. witnessing Revelation gives us insight into the throne room of God. I do hope you get the picture, and are beginning to appreciate how important it is to understand how the sanctuary is our blueprint for salvation.,for now we get to our pathway to the Father. Remember, “Thy way O God is in the sanctuary”. So what is the way to salvation? What is the full gospel? What does the sanctuary teach us as being the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Life to our ultimate salvation? We are to accept Christ’s sacrifice …..Romans 10:9 We are to be baptized….John 3:3-5 We are to eat the word….Matt. 4:4 We are to Pray….Luke 18:1 We are to let our light shine….Matt. 5:16 We are to keep God’s commandments….John 14:15 Note that our salvation does not begin and end at the cross as many today teach. Step one is not enough in order to reach the Father.The cross is only the beginning, the first step on a pathway to eternal life. The OT prophet Daniel tells of a power that would cast the sanctuary and the truths that it taught to the ground. Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. 12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Most are familiar with the parable of the wicked husbandmen found in Matthew 21. Jesus Himself declared that the responsibilities of the kingdom, that is to be a light and witness to the world, or God’s jurors, would be taken away from Israel because they rejected Him, and given to another nation who would bear the fruits. That new nation was the church. Matt.21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. 42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 1Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: The responsibilities of being a light and witness were taken up by the apostolic church. After his success in destroying Israel, Satan then focused his attention upon the church. Persecution didn’t work, but deception did. The nation of Israel, for so long Satan’s prime focus because it was the nation, or more specifically the tribe of Judah and even more specifically the family of David, that was to be the vehicle for the birth of the Messiah. Throughout the OT we see Satan’s attempts to wipe out the root, that the fruit could not result. Particularly we see this in his targeting of the family of David, and his constant temptations to false worship, knowing that God’s wrath and discipline would result in their destruction. The story of Solomon’s idolatry, the dividing of the nation, and the ensuing war between Rehoboam and Jereboam, are a glowing example. Yet God in His mercy preserved a remnant. There has always been a remnant that has been the recipients and keepers of the truth. Israel though, after rejecting Christ, were themselves rejected as God’s “chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15) Paul, among others, were now the chosen vessel. God’s people were no longer recognized as a nation, but as a church. So take a look at history. Was Satan aware of this change in paradigm? Absolutely! He knew very well who his most dangerous foe now was. It was those who now knew the truth of God’s love as revealed in the gospels. His attacks were directed against first, God’s people, and second, against God’s word. The former religious elite of the nation of Israel were Satan’s first agents in his attacks against the church. Then pagan Rome became his chief weapon, and after the failure of violence to quell the growth of the church, raised up a false Christian edifice, began to attack the scriptures and the peoples’ access to them, and introduced a raft of false doctrines, creeds, and superstitions that had a huge effect upon the church, and literally tens of thousands were seduced and beguiled by the sophistries of the Roman clergy that inherited the thrones of the Caesars. Among the lies and falsehoods were some that specifically replaced the very truths that marked the Way through the sanctuary…the Roman church set up another sanctuary (their own) in place of the true, and re-erected the veil which effectively cut off access to God. That veil was Rome’s man-made theories and superstitions which removed Christ as the sole Mediator between God and man and replaced Him with a system of semi-pagan lies and false doctrines. Indulgences replaced Christ’s sacrifice. Sprinkling was introduced without confession or repentance. The word of God was replaced by traditions. Prayer and Christ’s mediation were replaced by the confessional. Did you know that the confessional is a box divided by a curtain? Persecution, the use of force and state legislation replaced the light of the gospel. The law of God was cast down. The 2nd commandment was removed, the 10th commandment divided to make up the ten, the 4th commandment of the Sabbath changed to Sunday. However, there is good news. The gospel was to be restored. Daniel 8:14 says… And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The sanctuary was to be restored. God would not allow his arch-enemy to have his way in his endeavour to tamper with the jury without a fight. So God raised up loyal men of God who would declare the truth with courage and conviction, despite great opposition. The truths were to be restored, the Way opened up once again, the full gospel to be restored to the world. One by one, the truths were re-established in God’s church, and those truths broadcast and taught throughout the world. In the 1300s John Wycliffe, ‘The Morning Star of the Reformation’, translated the scriptures into the common tongue. His followers and supporters were called the Lollards. In their day, they were considered a cult, and were persecuted relentlessly by the established church. In the 1400s Martin Luther restored the truth of salvation by faith only. He restores the sacrifice of grace. Luther and his followers, the Lutherans, were considered a cult by those of his day, and were persecuted. In the 1500s John Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterians, has a great burden for prayer. He railed against the rote prayers of the established church… In the day,Presbyterians were considered a cult; they were also persecuted, by the Lutherans. In the 1600s God raised up a man by the name of John Smith. Smith restored the truth of baptism by immersion. His followers were known as Baptists…in their day they were considered a cult, and were persecuted by the Lutherans and the Presbyterians. In the 1700s John Wesley founded the Methodists. John Wesley had a great burden for evangelism: for letting the light of the gospel to shine…he preached from one end of the country to another, and even to the United States. The Methodists were considered a cult and were persecuted by the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, and the Baptists. So all the articles of furniture were restored by the beginning of the 19th century, except for one. The law of God. Daniel 8:14 said that at the end of the 2300 days and the sanctuary was to be cleansed. There are two other major time prophecies in scripture. The 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 1260 days/42 months/times,time, and half a time of Daniel 7:25;12:7; Revel. 11:2,3; 12:6,14; 13:5. The final article of furniture to be restored spiritually among God's people is His law. The book of Revelation declares loud and true that the remnant peope of God at the time of the second coming are commandment keeping people. See Revel.14:12 and Revel. 12:17. Perhaps now you are gaining a better appreciation for the meaning of the promised new covenant as described in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. God is now preparing a people to serve Him as law-abiding citizens in His kingdom. Witnesses in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, who, in agreement with all the angels in heaven, will…. Re 15:3 ……sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

This admittedly is a long reply...have divided it into two parts, but I think this goes a long way in explaining Ephesians 3:10, and a few other verses as well. The following lesson is intended as a means by which the reader may gain a perspective of God’s plan of salvation that gives him an understanding of the ‘bigger picture’. The intent is to form a picture of history, of God’s purpose for mankind, and relate it all to the gospel using the Old Testament sanctuary as the model. The following is not an’ optional extra’ to the Christian faith, it is an essential understanding by which all may know that they are on the right path, for God Himself drew the plans. In order to gain this better appreciation of our way to life, we must start at the beginning. At the very beginning of the conflict between good and evil, to the place where sin and rebellion had its woeful genesis. Ezekiel 28:11 ¶ Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. The above passage from the book of Ezekiel describes the fall of Lucifer. It tells us of his exalted position in heaven, the reason for his downfall, and his future fate. It tells us that he was the “cherub that covereth”. What is that? To find out we will go first to …… Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. We see here that the sanctuary or tabernacle in the wilderness was a copy or a small scale model of things in heaven. In that sanctuary in the wilderness that Moses built there were a number of items of furniture each one representative of a spiritual reality in heaven. I will go further into this as we progress, but in the case of the ‘cherub that covers’ we will go to Exodus 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. 20 And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. 21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. 22 And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. Note that the cherubs on either side of the ark of the covenant had their wings spread out over the ark, ‘covering’ the mercy seat. It was upon the mercy seat between the cherubim that God rested and communed with Moses. And it was under the mercy seat within the ark that resided the two tables of the ten commandments. The ark itself represented the throne of God, and His law, the ten commandments, the foundation of His government in heaven. The heavenly law of course was a law of love, which the earthly Ten Commandments were a detailed exposition.The two cherubs were comissioned to guard the throne, to protect God’s laws. This was Lucifer’s exalted position, “until iniquity was found in thee”. Iniquity is sin…sin is transgression against God’s law. (1 John 3:4). Therefore Lucifer rebelled against the very law he was created to protect. In …. Revelation 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. 7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. .,.,.it is revealed that there was a war in heaven, and that Lucifer succeeded in deceiving 1/3 of the angels of heaven to join with him in this sin. Thus the first war was fought over the law of God. I would suggest that the last war will be fought over the same thing. The parallel passage to Ezekiel in Isaiah 14 says 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. God’s law is love. Love is the foundation to everything that is undertaken in heaven…the scriptures say that God is love. Love is essentially unselfish. Lucifer, in declaring “I will”, was directly transgressing God’s law of love. Let us not think that the angels, or even Lucifer, suddenly decided to become evil. All sides in political disputes believe they are the best for the people that they wish to serve. Each side believes they can do better than the opposition, and that the country will actually be better off if they were in power. Isaiah tells us that Lucifer wanted to be like God. So what is God like? We know that He is Holy, righteous, He is love, He is just, and He is kind. Now of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be holy, righteous, loving, just, and kind. The problem with Lucifer’s aims however were the means by which he wanted to obtain these attributes. I can imagine how he spoke to and deceived his fellow angels…”We don’t need a law to be holy like God”…”We are already holy. We don’t need God to tell us how to be righteous. We are already righteous without the law…we don’t need any law to tell us how to behave”. Have you ever heard this argument before? “We don’t need God’s laws in order to be like God”? “We are being changed into the image of Christ but no longer need God’s laws any more to be righteous”….”we can be holy and righteous without God telling us how to do it”? So what was the result of Lucifer’s sin? He and his angels were cast out of heaven and Lucifer is now known as Satan. But why was he just thrown out? Why didn’t God destroy him right there and then; wouldn’t that have solved the sin problem for earth? God’s laws and recommendations are mirrors of His own righteousness. In Deuteronomy 19 we find that in cases of dispute there is away by which justice can be not only done, but be “seen to be done”… 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And we see also that …. Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: So let me ask, where were the witnesses between the conflict between Lucifer and God? The angels were on either one side or the other, so who was left to be an unbiased witness? There was no-one. Now God is just. So before passing any final judgement, God is going to ensure that the great conflict of the ages has witnesses. Note that He infers this in Ezekiel…. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Who are these kings that will ‘behold’ Satan? Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. In Genesis we are told that God gave Adam dominion…. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Who has ‘dominion’ other than kings? Note also the following… 1 Cor. 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? As kings we are called to judge angels. You can well believe that Satan understood all this when God created man to be His jury in the conflict of the ages. Interestingly, the requirements of jury service are very pertinent to our discussion. The criteria are: Little or no first-hand knowledge of the crime. Must be law-abiding citizens. Must have sound discernment between good and evil. Must not be swayed by public opinion. Now imagine if you will that you are a criminal about to be tried for grand treason against your country, and the inevitable sentence if found guilty was death. And what if you were suddenly in a position which gave you immediate and intimate access to the jury. What would you do? Bribe the jury? Very likely, in fact, we find that Satan did precisely that. Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. In other words, ‘you can be a real great judge (elohim/gods/judges) while disobeying God’s law! ‘ Thus Satan in deceiving Eve and implicating Adam, successfully tampered with the jury, making them entirely incapable of serving as God’s intended witnesses. They lost their status as law-abiding citizens, they were no longer fit for jury service. God however had a plan. That plan was to restore mankind as law-abiding citizens that once again they may be fit for the role He intended for them, kings and judges and witnesses in the conflict. That my friends is the purpose of the gospel. To be subjects of the kingdom of heaven, one must be subject to heaven’s laws. So in keeping with God’s first purpose in desiring a relationship with man and making man His witnesses, God sought Adam in the garden, and subsequently promised to make things right. After the calling of Abraham, and fast forwarding to the time of Moses, God took the next step in His implementation of His grand plan. Exodus 25:8 And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. To bring mankind back to God, God made a “Way”.

Inherent in any discussion on the trinity, is the often presumed criticism of non-trinitarians claiming that in denying the trinity, it is an automatic denial of the divinity of Christ. Now I am not what the 'orthodox' among us would call a trinitarian. I believe the same as the apostle Paul, who in the face of rampant idolatry specifically declared to a church born among idols, "that there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we in Him...." 1 Cor. 8:6 I also agree with Jesus, who said that even our eternal life depended upon our acceptance and knowledge of the one true God, saying in a prayer to His Father, "and this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God...." Now of course any of you looking up the verses above would instantly recognize that there is a reference in each, to another person, Jesus Christ. So, now that we have discovered who the one true God is, (the Father), let us now see who the Bible writers say Jesus is..... Who is Jesus? Is He, as the church constantly teaches, god the son? Or is He the Son of God? Mark knew who Jesus is. Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; John knew who Jesus is. John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. Nathanael knew who Jesus is. John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Peter knew who Jesus is. Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. The eunuch knew who Jesus is. Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Jesus was mocked when He was on the cross. What did they mock Him about? Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. They questioned whether Jesus is the Son of God! Is this not the same as is done in the Christian denominations that believe in the trinity doctrine? Are we not saying that Jesus is not the Son of GOD by calling Him “God the Son”??? The centurion knew who Jesus is. Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God. The disciples knew who Jesus is. Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God. Martha knew who Jesus is. John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. What did Jesus say about Himself? John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? What blasphemy are we doing by calling Jesus “God the Son” when we have no Biblical basis in doing this. “God the Son” and the Son of GOD are not the same. “God the Son” is a title, and this does not make Jesus the Son of God. Revelation 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; John 3:17-18 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Jesus called Himself the “the only begotten Son of God”. John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. In the Bible we see that we must confess that Jesus is the Son of God. 1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. John 9:35-38 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world. John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. Acts 4:10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. The only name that can save us is Jesus the Son of God. And in case you are wondering, there is no way a coequal co-eternal God as in God the Son be any kind of son other than metaphorical. But ask yourself. Did the eternal Father give a metaphor to die for mankind, or did He give mankind the greatest gift possible, His only literal begotten Son? When I read John 3:16 that informs me that God gave His only begotten Son, I believe it. I believe God had a Son to give. That said, I do not believe as taught by orthodox Christianity that the Son is of the same "age" as the Father. Such an understanding simply turns Jesus into an unbegotten being the same as the Father, which in turn completely denies the personality of both Father and Son, which John tells us is Antichrist. What is so difficult in simply accepting what the Bible says, and not making assumptions on subjects and areas about which the scriptures remain silent?

i get what you are saying, and I agree with you. But bear with me a moment. Yes, the Bible, in our perception of truth, is the basis for our faith and practice. For us, it is Truth. For the Catholic however, to convince him of truth, you must first convince him that the Bible is the prime source of Truth. He doesn't see things that way. For the Catholic, his church is the prime source of Truth. It is the church that defines what is Truth. And if the Bible, and the church are in contradistinction on any doctrinal point, the Catholic ceases to be Catholic the moment he accepts the Bible above the teachings of his church. Like I said, apples and cream cheese. The apples base their reality on the Bible, the cream cheese base their reality on what their church says the Bible means.

What many non-Catholics and possibly even some Catholics, do not realize is that in any debate between Catholicism and other faiths of a Christian nature, is like comparing apples with cream cheese. If it were apples and oranges, then we might make some headway. But the Catholic faith is not based on the teachings of the Bible. There were periods even in recent history when the church of Rome literally banned the Bible, and persecuted all those who had one, killing those who would dare translate one, because it exposed the false teachings of Rome. So one side of the debate defend their faith by quoting their Catechism, and they are correct in doing so, because that is a layman's reflection of the dogmas and canons of the church. But for a Catholic to defend his faith from scripture/Bible/word of God....is dangerous because a correct understanding of scripture and a discerning understanding of Catholic doctrine reveals many contradictions. Thus a Catholic when quoting scripture must do two things...first they must never explain it in any fashion other than as his church dictates, and second, they must be very selective in deciding which scriptures to quote. The non-Catholic Christian however in quoting the Bible in order to prove the Catholic is "wrong" in his teachings, is equally on dangerous ground. First, because of the several areas in doctrine where Protestants have yet to fully come out of Catholicism, and still cleave to Catholic teachings. The trinity and Sunday sacredness are two such instances. Second, one cannot prove the Catholic is not a good Catholic by quoting the Bible. He/she may be an excellent Catholic, even while completely ignoring Bible truth, as is exposed often in these forums. Why? Because again, Catholicism is not based on the Bible. Even attempting to prove a Catholic is not a Christian by means of scripture is difficult, because the Catholic does not use scripture as evidence of his being "Christian", nor as the basis of his faith and practice. That again is bound up in the Catechism, which he may claim is Bible based, but one must remember that any Catholic teaching if it is to be compared to the Bible, for the Catholic is not authoritative...such authority lies solely at the discretion of his church elders, namely the council of bishops who decide how the Bible is to be interpreted and understood. Tradition at times is even more authoritative than scripture, again, if that council declares it so. In other words, the bottom line for any Catholic in any challenge to his faith is not a question of whether such challenge says "do you agree with scripture?", but rather "do you agree with the curia?"

Any form of devotion...consecration...affection....that places anything or anyone ahead of God, is idolatry. Now allow me to quote "Mary". "Dear children! Today I call you to prayer. I am with you and I love you all. I am your mother and I wish your hearts be similar to my heart. Little children, without prayer you cannot live and say that you are mine. Prayer is joy. Prayer is what the human heart desires. Therefore, get closer little children, to my immaculate heart and you will discover God". The above was a message given by the demon 'Mary' who regularly appeared at Medjugorje in the 1980s, and beyond. The above particular message was delivered November 25, 1994. If such messages don't send creepy chills down your spine you are as blind as those who 'pilgrim' to these places.

Again another false charge The Catholic Catechism, … the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally. This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled. The Cathechism is the rule of faith for Roman Catholicism....it is NOT the rule of faith for Christianity. I am speakig of scripture...the catechism is not scripture. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

"At his weekly general audience June 25, Pope Francis continued his series of audience talks about the church, telling an estimated 33,000 people that there is no such thing as 'do-it-yourself' Christians or 'free agents' when it comes to faith ... Pope Francis described as 'dangerous' the temptation to believe that one can have a personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus Christ without communion with and the mediation of the church." "These are dangerous and harmful temptations. These are, as the great Paul VI said, absurd dichotomies."

The Pope recently declared that it was dangerous to seek forgiveness for sin directly from God. So, in other words, it is better to seek forgiveness through the intermediary of the priesthood. Okay, we all know, Protestants, Catholics, alike, that this is not a new thing, but a reminder of basic Catholic principle and doctrine. Right? Yet scripture declares but ONE Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who we all confess is the only begotten Son of God. (Whether we actually believe Jesus is a real Son of His Father is another topic for another time, I digress). So the situation we have is is not all that difficult to understand. 1. Scripture, the word of God says, only one Mediator, Jesus Christ. 2. The word of God also says that He, God the Father, is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us of all unrighteousness, if we confess our sins. 3. The RCC has moved Jesus to the side, and declared that we need to pray, not to the Father, not to Jesus, but to saints, Mary, Joseph, because they are more merciful, more understanding,more loving, and will convince God to love us more, despite the many many texts that declare God's undying self-sacrificial love for all men. 4. And of course, we ought not seek forgiveness from God for our sins, but rather from a man-made priesthood...again, shunting the real Mediator aside and replacing Him with an impostor. 5. All of the above, among many other things I could add, amount to one stark singular fact of scriptural truth. That in casting the Son of God to one side and replacing Him with a man-made system of religion that denies His proper status in the spiritual lives of their followers, the RCC hs erected itself as the Antichrist. This is not hateful of me to declare this, but it is hateful of the RCC to practice this...removing the true Christ and replacing Him with a false. That is hateful. That is Antichrist. Oh, and I speak as an ex-Catholic. I understand the mindset...I understand the culture...I hav no axe to grind, I hold no animosity, and I am firm in my belief that there are many true Christians within the Catholic community of faith...people who genuinely and sincerely love God and are living up to the light they have received....just as there are many people of other faiths who are not Christians because despite having received great light, they are not living up to that light. It is my belief that some Catholics are Chrictians, not because they are Catholic, but despite it.

Agreed...the early Celtic churches were pure, as were the churches of the east, untainted by the superstitions and introduced pagan rites that distrorted the churches of the west.I hold no defenses against Protestantism or Catholicism....Protestants struggled to free themselves completely from the falsehoods and absurdities of Rome...the call of the angel in Revelation 18...come out of her my people....applies equally to people in Protestant churches as well as Roman.

In saying that you reveal that you do not understand yourself what true religious liberty is all about. First, Protestants do not have laws enshrined within their church manuals advocating the persecution of members of other faiths...be they Catholic, Hindu, or Muslim, or pagan. There are numerous laws and canons, dogmas, and official papal encyclicals which blatantly recommend not just persecution, but death to all heretics as adjudged by Roman Catholic doctrine. This is provable by many examples, as I believe you well know, however, you will be hard pressed to find any such Protestant piece of legislation. If you did, I along with you would be swift to condemn it, as such a practice or law has no place in the Christian faith. Second. My disagreeing with certain tenets of the Catholic faith has nothing to do with 'tolerance'. I have no more right to 'tolerate' Catholic teaching that I do to 'tolerate' fishing in Alaska. Toleration presupposes a right to, when the time is convenient, become 'intolerant', through enforcing laws that demand penalties with the intent to change a practice not deemed acceptable. This practice of 'intolerance' is, as said previously, enshrined within Catholic canon law. Religious liberty however, in its truest sense, demands freedom of worship and faith practice for everyone. It is not about Rome demanding her rights to practice her faith unmolested...it is about all Christians everywhere demanding the freedom of all people everywhere to worship, or not worship, according to conscience. Without anyone having recourse to law and penalties if they disagree. Now that my friend also includes as sancrosanct my right to disagree with Catholic teaching...my right to bring up history as evidence of past abuses...my right to interpret prophecy as history repeating itself in the near future....all without being accused of anti-Ctholic hate speech and bigotry. Freedom of speech is inherent in frreedom of religion....the ban on proseltizing by the Vatican upon other members of the WCC is one such example of 'intolerance' and an attack on true religious liberty.

That type of rebuttal is a sad straw man. Allow me to enlighten you to a few facts. 1. Persecution carried out by the RCC was a matter of policy. It was defended by its most ablest theologians....it was enshrined as a principle in aith and practice, and taught as a fully justifiable tactic in 'converting' the world to truth. 2. I agree, for a time Protestants also persecuted Catholics. 3. Those Protestant leaders who did resort to persecution at all, didn't restrict their attacks on just Catholics, but also attacked each other, such as Calvin against Servetus. Thus it wasn't just a Protestant versus Catholic concept. Those early Protestants were ALL ex Catholics. They had lot to learn, and freedom of conscience was one of the last lessons to accept. The histoory of Robinson and Rhode Island is a demonstration of this learning experience. 4. The Vatican has not learned the above lesson of true religious freedom. Catholics 'tolerate' teachings and practices that are non-Catholic, when they do not have the power to intervene. When they do have the power, they will intervene, sometimes violently. 5. Such intervention is enshrined in canon law...is a long standing practice within Catholicism (see above quotes from recent Catholic publications) and many Papal encyclicals and official declarations have defended iit to the point of declaring such pactices as being offical standard prctice. Not so within Protestantism.

Anyone, regardless of their denomination, is classed as a heretic if he/she does not accept the laws enshrined within the council of Trent. The Council of Trent is the bottom line of Catholic canon law. And should the Vatican once again have temporal power as she had during the dark ages, she would once again implement the fires of the inquisition and exterminate all heretics found within her sphere of influence. Persecution by the church of Rome wasn't just a few incidental instances over a period of a couple of years by a few misguided zealots. It was a matter of established policy, and still is. Let us look for example at the Holy Office of the Inquisition. An office by the way that still exists today albeit, unsurprisingly, under a different name. The former Pope Benedict being the former head of that esteemed office. The origins of this organism can be clearly traced to 1227-1233 A. D., during the pontificate of Gregory IX. In 1229 the church council of Tolouse condemned the Albigenses in France and gave orders to exterminate them. In 1231 Gregory IX in his bull, Excommunicamus, condemned all heretics and proclaimed specific laws on how to deal with them. Among the provisions were the following: 1. Delivery of heretics to the civil power. 2. Excommunication of all heretics as well as their defenders, followers, friends, and even those who failed to turn them in. 3. Life imprisonment for all impenitent heretics. 4. Heretics were denied the right to appeal their sentence. 5. Those suspected of heresy had no right to be defended by counsel. 6. Children of heretics were disqualified from holding a church office until the second generation. 7. Heretics who had died without being punished were to be exhumed and their bodies burned. 8. The homes of convicted heretics were to be demolished. (See, G. Barraclough, The Medieval Papacy, London, 1968, edited by Thames and Hudson, p. 128; and R. I Moore, “The Origins of Medieval Heresy”, in History, vol. 55 (1970), pp. 21-36) In The Decretals of Gregory IX we find the following: “Temporal princes shall be reminded and exhorted, and if need be, compelled by spiritual censures, to discharge every one of their functions; and that, as they desire to be reckoned and held faithful, so, for the defense of the faith, let them publicly make oath that they will endeavor, bona fide with all their might, to extirpate from their territories all heretics marked by the church; so that when any one is about to assume any authority, whether spiritual or temporal, he shall be held bound to confirm his title by this oath. And if a temporal prince, being required and admonished by the church, shall neglect to purge his kingdom from this heretical pravity, the metropolitan and other provincial bishops shall bind him in fetters of excommunication; and if he obstinately refuse to make satisfaction this shall be notified within a year to the Supreme Pontiff, that then he may declare his subjects absolved from their allegiance, and leave their lands to be occupied by Catholics, who, the heretics being exterminated, may possess them unchallenged, and preserve them in the purity of the faith.” (The Decretals of Gregory IX, book 5, title 7, chapter 13) During the pontificate of Innocent IV (1241-1253), the mechanism of the Inquisition was further developed. In the papal bull Ad Extirpanda (1252), the following provisions were given the force of law: 1. Torture must be applied to heretics so as to secure confessions. 2. Those found guilty must be burned at the stake. 3. A police force must be established to serve the needs of the Inquisition. 4. A proclamation of a crusade against all heretics in Italy. Those participating in this crusade were to be extended the same privileges and indulgences as those who went on crusades to the Holy Land. 5. The heirs of heretics were to have their goods confiscated as well. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains: “In the Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ (1252) Innocent IV says: ‘When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podesta or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them’. . . Nor could any doubt remain as to what civil regulations were meant, for the passages which ordered the burning of the impenitent heretics were inserted in the papal decretals from the imperial constitutions Commissis nobis’ and Inconsutibilem tunicam. The aforesaid Bull ‘Ad exstirpanda’ remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or re-enforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake”. (Joseph Blotzer, article, ‘Inquisition’, vol. VIII, p. 34). The savagery of Innocent the IV has led the Roman Catholic historian, Peter de Rosa, to state: “In [Pope] Innocent’s view, it was more wicked for Albigenses to call him the antichrist than for him to prove it by burning them–men, women, and children by the thousands.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p. 225). Further, de Rosa makes this telling comment: “Of eighty popes in a line from the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus of the Inquisition. On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of this deadly machine.” (Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, pp. 175-176). It was during this same period that one of the greatest dogmatic theologians in the history of the Roman Catholic Church added his support to the idea of exterminating heretics. Let’s allow St. Thomas Aquinas to speak for himself: “With regard to heretics two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by death. For it is a much heavier offense to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by the secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics, immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done to die. But on the part of the church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err; and therefore she does not condemn at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the apostle teaches. After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious, the church, having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the church by the sentence of excommunication; and further she leaves him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated from the world by death.” (Joseph Rickaby, S. J. (R. C.), Aquinas Ethicus; or, The Moral Teaching of St. Thomas, Vol. I, pp. 332, 333. London: Burns and Oates, 1892). The fourteenth century inquisitor, Bernard Gui explained the purpose of the Inquisition: “the objective of the Inquisition is to destroy heresy; it is not possible to destroy heresy unless you eradicate the heretics; and it is impossible to eradicate the heretics unless you also eradicate those who hide them, sympathize with them and protect them.” (Salim Japas, Herejia, Colon y la Inquisicion (Siloam Springs, Arkansas: Creation Enterprises, 1992), p. 20; ). Moving on to the fifteenth century, we think of John Wycliffe. The Papacy would have been delighted to burn him at the stake during his life, but divine providence ruled otherwise. Forty years after his death, the Council of Constance (1413) ordered his body exhumed and burned. (see more on this in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 7-8 and The Great Controversy, pp. 95-96). Notice the words of Pope Martin V (1417-31) to the King of Poland commanding him to exterminate the Hussites: “Know that the interests of the Holy See, and those of your crown, make it a duty to exterminate the Hussites. Remember that these impious persons dare proclaim principles of equality; they maintain that all Christians are brethren, and that God has not given to privileged men the right of ruling the nations; they hold that Christ came on earth to abolish slavery, they call the people to liberty, that is to the annihilation of kings and priests. While there is still time, then, turn your forces against Bohemia; burn, massacre, make deserts everywhere, for nothing could be more agreeable to God, or more useful to the cause of kings, than the extermination of the Hussites.” (Quoted in, Dave Hunt, A Woman Rides the Beast, p. 247). These words were written by Martin V in 1429. The story of John Hus is very well known. In 1415 he was burned at the stake even though King Sigismund had guaranteed him safe conduct to defend himself at the Council of Constance (1414-1418). The remarkable fact is that Sigismund was encouraged to break his word by the Roman Catholic religious leaders. For a vivid description of the martyrdom of John Hus, read, The Great Controversy, pp. 109-110 and Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 19-30. A year later, in 1416, Jerome was also burned at the stake. For the fascinating story of how Jerome recanted his faith and then recanted his recantation, see Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, pp. 31-38. In both of these cases, the trial was held in the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Constance. After the trial Hus and Jerome were delivered to the secular power to be exterminated. Also in the fifteenth century, Pope Innocent VIII proclaimed a Bull against the Waldenses (1487). The original text of this Bull is found in the library of the University of Cambridge and a English translation can be found in John Dowling’s History of Romanism (1871 edition), book 6, chapter 5, section 62. Ellen White, in The Great Controversy, p. 77 quotes a portion of this bull in the following words: “Therefore the pope ordered ‘that malicious and abominable sect of malignants,’ if they ‘refuse to abjure, to be crushed like venomous snakes.’” Let me quote a church publication to put things in perspective. “You ask, if he [the Roman Catholic] were lord in the land, and you were in the minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon the circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: if expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly even hang you. But be assured of one thing: he would never tolerate you for the sake of the ‘glorious principles of civil and religious liberty’. . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself. We might as rationally maintain that a sane man has a right to believe that two and two do not make four, as this theory of religious liberty. Its impiety is only equalled [sic] by its absurdity. . . A Catholic temporal government would be guided in its treatment of Protestants and other recusants solely by the rules of expediency, adopting precisely that line of conduct which would tend best to their conversion, and to prevent the dissemination of their errors.” Civil and Religious Liberty, The Rambler, 8 (September, 1851), pp. 174, 178. The infamous syllabus of errors (infallible) echoes the above sentiments with regards religious liberty. These are relatively recent thoughts. So what happened to infallibility? “He who publicly avows a heresy and tries to pervert others by word or example, speaking absolutely, can not only be excommunicated but even justly put to death, lest he ruin others by pestilential contagion; for a bad man is worse than a wild beast, and does more harm, as Aristotle says. Hence, as it is not wrong to kill a wild beast which does great harm, so it must be right to deprive of his harmful life a heretic who withdraws from divine truth and plots against the salvation of others.” (Fr. Alexis M. Lepicier, De Stabilitate et Progressu Dogmatis, [printed at the official printing office in Rome in 1910], p. 194. Or again even more recently perhaps from The Tablet, the official newspaper of the Roman Catholic diocese of Brooklyn, New York: “Heresy is an awful crime against God, and those who start a heresy are more guilty than they who are traitors to the civil government. If the State has the right to punish treason with death, the principle is the same which concedes to the spiritual authority the power of capital punishment over the arch-traitor to truth and divine revelation. . . A perfect society has the right to its existence. . . and the power of capital punishment is acknowledged for a perfect society. Now. . . the Roman Catholic Church is a perfect society, and as such has the right and power to take means to safeguard its existence.” (The Tablet, November 5, 1938). The above reflects an ongoing policy that had endured for 1000 years. And although the recent apologies by the pope were welcome, albeit rather generalised, history and prophecy mitigate against any deep seated genuine change in Vatican thought. Steeped in over a thousand years of tradition and self assured righteousness, the curia I believe is far too entrenched in their own self deceptive dogmas to change in just one short generation from an attitude of total extermination of all opposition to one of brotherly love and tolerance to other faith practices. And prophecy testifies to the same. Inherent in Catholic policy is the willingness to use civil legislation to enforce church dogma. This policy has prevailed since the time of Justinian. And it continues today. If such legislation is enforced, is this not simply another form of persecution? And if it touches religious matters, does it not invade our liberties which the Vatican claims are now sacrosanct according to the Vatican. Yet I quote here Pope JP2 which totally contradicts freedom of conscience. "Therefore, also in the particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy. In any case, they are obliged in conscience to arrange their Sunday rest in a way which allows them to take part in the Eucharist, refraining from work and activities which are incompatible with the sanctification of the Lord's Day, with its characteristic joy and necessary rest for spirit and body." (Dios Domini page 112)And Benedict added to this.... The RCC “makes its contribution (in the ethical and moral sphere) according to the dispositions of international law, helps to define that law, and makes appeal to it”, that we live in a time when little groups of independent people threaten the unity of the world, (such as non-trinitarians, Sabbath keepers and baptists)? and that the only way to combat this problem is by establishing law and then ordering all of society according to this law, thus promoting “peace and good will throughout the earth.” (Apostolic Journey to the United States of America and Visit to the United Nations Organization Headquarters, Meeting with the Members of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, Address of Pope Benedict XVI, New York, Friday, April 18, 2008.) And if any here think that JP2 comment won't affect them, consider the following. on June 26, 2000 the United Religions Initiative was signed into what government leaders refer to as a global law. Truth is, this is actually one of many global laws popping up lately. At the signing of that document it became an all-inclusive international reality that any pope sitting in the Vatican after that date is now considered the universal moral authority over all churches with membership in the World Wide Council of churches, which essentially rules over your locally known National Council of Churches. This includes non-Christian churches that have joined as well. Whether you believe the RCC has changed or not, whether you accept her apologies over past grievances, the fact remains that untold thousands of Christians have been tortured, harried, chased, displaced and put to death by the Roman church. The Book of Revelation and Daniel both reveal clearly that this will continue right up to the second coming. If one protests that the RCC does not do such a thing today, I can testify to being acquainted personally with a convert to another Christian denominmation from Catholicism who is in fear of her life should she return to India. Even here, in her adopted country, Catholic workmates and former friends have turned against her, ostracised her, and are doing all in their power to remove her from her position at her work where she is a nurse. Her brother incidentally converted to a pentacostal denomination in India and was physically cast from his house, his work, and village, his family have rejected him, and he is now in fear of his life. This scenario is not uncommon in countries where Catholicism has the power to implement and carry out and support such practices. The Philipines, and many South American countries and also even some south Pacific Islands come to mind. (Need I mention Ireland?) The inquisition, the crusades, and the principles that guided the persecutions of the dark ages are proof that salvation, or justification by faith, means something quite different to the Catholic than it does for the Protestant. Salvation for the Protestant is a voluntary act of faith in the shed blood of his Savior. Compulsion by Rome to submission to the traditions and dogmas as taught by the Vatican is utterly contrary to the gospel.

Nonsense...the reason I suggest you research it is that the topic is so vast, and the resources available so plenty, I could barely scratch the surface, and you will not likely accept my word anyway. Like most Catholics, (and I know having been one a greater portion of my now 60+ years), it is unlikely you would so readily accept a contrary history to that which you have been previously taught by your church. The existence of Christian communities outside of the auspices of the Roman See is unthinkable to most staunch Roman Catholics. Such a reality impacts Papal authority and numerous other direct and indirect consequences that greatly undermine the Catholic perception that only through the pope and the sacraments can there be salvation. For example. The church that St Thomas established in Goa, India, in the first century. Christian or not? Was it under the ecclesiastical authority of Rome? And then what of the missionaries that Indian church sent out to the rest of India? Christian also? Roman? What of the churches of Galatia? Those Galatians that PauL converted were Celtic. They established themselves there in Asia Minor 300 years before Christ. They still traded with their own kin back in Britain and the gospel, along with the Christian scriptures, went with those traders. All 100s of years before the Roman church was a church. Anyway, you will be better off reading such things from real historians that you can look up for yourself. Don't take my word for it.