Jump to content
KiwiChristian

Was mary "full of grace"?

Recommended Posts

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

Mary was "highly favored" Luke 1:28 which means "much grace". Mary did recognize that she needed a Savior. The Bible does not say that Mary was anything other than an ordinary human.

  • Thumbs Up 6
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She Had a belly full of grace, do we need to worship Mary no.

  • Thumbs Up 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

I've searched through many different translations of the mainstream bible for 'full of grace', and nowhere is Mary called that. She is told by the angel that she is 'favoured by god', or has 'found favour in god's eyes'. So? David was favoured in god's eyes. At one time Saul was favoured in God's eyes. Samuel was favoured in God's eyes. All Christians are favoured in God's eyes. Luke 1:18 "kai eiselthōn pros autēn eipen kecharitōmenē Kyrios meta sou eulogēmenē sy en gynaixin"

The phrase, "full of grace," in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament. Neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).

The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace.  We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase, "full of grace," does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom" along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?
 

The mother of Jesus, Mary, was highly favored (to grace, special honor, unmerited favor). 

Short of spending a great deal of time researching where Mary being "full of grace" originated. I'd put up my cow it started with the unholy traditions of men; and saint worship and intercession of dead Saints, praying to Mary, the daily Eucharist, the repetitive rosary. In short, I'd hedge my bet on the Roman Catholics.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting that Mary gets used so often as the ball in the rugby match between those that see the Bible as the ultimate authority and those who see a man-made church in that role, yet both seem to rarely consider the life and plight of Mary, the woman. We that have accepted the biblical authority perhaps react too harshly against Mary, seeing the abuses done in her name -and they are many- that the catholics have done.

First, it is absolutely scriptural to recognize that she was given the extreme honor and privilege of being chosen to be the earthly mother of the Messiah. We must not brush that fact aside and describe her as "the same as every other human". She was uniquely chosen by God and for that alone she deserves our respect. The fact that the catholics have gone too far -much too far- doesn't diminish the need to recognize the honor she received.

But consider her life, afterward. Can you imagine the years she spent after the birth of Jesus, when everybody knew that Joseph was not the father? John 8:19 & 41 reflect this.  In a culture where such evidence of adultery was punishable by death, can you imagine living in that small town where everybody knew each other's business; the gossip, the whispered slurs and shunned existence? She was chosen by God for honor, but I doubt she received much honor until much later in life, if at all. If it's true that 2 John was written to her as "the elect lady" (not known for sure, just an intriguing possibility), then at the end of her life she was still receiving encouragement and exhortation from John.

As Christians, I hope we don't also choose to shun Mary, the person, as an over-reaction to the catholics.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Persuaded said:

I think it's interesting that Mary gets used so often as the ball in the rugby match between those that see the Bible as the ultimate authority and those who see a man-made church in that role, yet both seem to rarely consider the life and plight of Mary, the woman. We that have accepted the biblical authority perhaps react too harshly against Mary, seeing the abuses done in her name -and they are many- that the catholics have done.

First, it is absolutely scriptural to recognize that she was given the extreme honor and privilege of being chosen to be the earthly mother of the Messiah. We must not brush that fact aside and describe her as "the same as every other human". She was uniquely chosen by God and for that alone she deserves our respect. The fact that the catholics have gone too far -much too far- doesn't diminish the need to recognize the honor she received.

But consider her life, afterward. Can you imagine the years she spent after the birth of Jesus, when everybody knew that Joseph was not the father? John 8:19 & 41 reflect this.  In a culture where such evidence of adultery was punishable by death, can you imagine living in that small town where everybody knew each other's business; the gossip, the whispered slurs and shunned existence? She was chosen by God for honor, but I doubt she received much honor until much later in life, if at all. If it's true that 2 John was written to her as "the elect lady" (not known for sure, just an intriguing possibility), then at the end of her life she was still receiving encouragement and exhortation from John.

As Christians, I hope we don't also choose to shun Mary, the person, as an over-reaction to the catholics.

You're absolutely right on the mark in my view. I've also pondered some other thoughts.

What was it like for Mary, Joseph and their other siblings, to know with absolute certainty that they were raising the "Son of God"? We're not told anything about Jesus' upbringing from about 2 years old to the start of His ministry at about 30 years old, except when Jesus was 12 and stayed behind in Jerusalem. 

From all indications and appearances, the siblings must have been raised in a normal environment? We're not told how or when Joseph died, but it must have been well before Jesus' ministry.

I had read something a long time ago that said Jesus' siblings didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God until His resurrection? I don't know if that is true or not, but if James the less, James the Just was indeed the "half brother" of Jesus, that could not be the case?

What an honor it must have been for the Apostle John, to have Jesus suffering on the Cross entrust the care of His earthly mother to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it was an uncomfortable family upbringing, all around. Jesus, even as a 12 year old, had an idea of who He was, while His brothers did not believe (John 7:4).

 

James the apostle (son of Zebedee, brother of John) is killed at the beginning of Acts 12, and it is indeed James the brother of Jesus who is the guy that seems to be the head guy in Jerusalem, summarizing the decision in the 2nd half of Acts 12, and who later writes the epistle of James. Jude, the other brother of Jesus, also not one of the 12 and also (presumably from John 7) didn't believe until after the resurrection. It must have been hard on them later, to have spent their lives in denial about their big bro, only to realize much later that they had wasted so much time in their doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when she had baby Jesus in her belly she was full of grace.  LoLz.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Persuaded said:

I'm pretty sure it was an uncomfortable family upbringing, all around. Jesus, even as a 12 year old, had an idea of who He was, while His brothers did not believe (John 7:4).

 

James the apostle (son of Zebedee, brother of John) is killed at the beginning of Acts 12, and it is indeed James the brother of Jesus who is the guy that seems to be the head guy in Jerusalem, summarizing the decision in the 2nd half of Acts 12, and who later writes the epistle of James. Jude, the other brother of Jesus, also not one of the 12 and also (presumably from John 7) didn't believe until after the resurrection. It must have been hard on them later, to have spent their lives in denial about their big bro, only to realize much later that they had wasted so much time in their doubt.

I agree with you but getting a little confused. I've spent a lot of hours trying to figure all this out. There's confusion even between Bible expositors and scholars of the three James' of the Bible.

My research shows, James the Apostle (the greater), son of Zebedee and Solome, elder brother of the Apostle JOHN, one of Jesus inner circle. A fisherman and business partner with with his brother JOHN and the Apostle Peter. The 1st Apostle martyred by Herod about A.D 44 [Acts 12:2]... This was not the half brother or kin to Jesus. This is were all my confusion comes in and I can't say with 100% certainty I'm correct.

My best estimate of Jesus' half brother, or cousin, or near kinsman, is JAMES the Less (in stature), or JAMES the Just, son of Alphaeus [a.k.a. CLEOPAS]. The brother [Gal 1:18-19] cousin or kinsman of our Lord. Author of the Epistle which bears his name, and head of the church of Jerusalem. I have confusion between the three James of the Bible. Flavis Josephus says [antiq 20.9.1] this James, the brother of Jesus was stoned and clubbed to death. Some say he was thrown over a hundred feet down from the SE pinnacle of the temple and survived, then was beaten to death with a fuller's club.

Now with all that said... How can this James many think is the half brother of Jesus, be the son of ALPHAEUS? 

I'm still beating my head against the wall trying to figure this out.

 

 

Edited by Dennis1209

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vincent's Word Studies is often relied upon by Bible translators.  This is his comment:

Thou that art highly favored (κεχαριτωμένη)

Lit., as Rev. in margin, endued with grace. Only here and Eph 1:6. The rendering full of grace, Vulgate, Wyc., and Tynd., is therefore wrong.

 

Many mistakes were found in the Vulgate, the original translation of the Greek Bible into Latin which became the official translation of the Roman church.  Other Catholic translators later found these mistakes but some incorrect passages had already been used for doctrine in the Roman church.  

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).   Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ.   Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."   Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.   1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.   2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context?   John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.   John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.   John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.   John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.   John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.   John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."   Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.   3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:   a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.   b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."   In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."   4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.   The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.   Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.   5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."   Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.   6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.   Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?   Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.   John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."   John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."   John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."   The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being.   Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:   "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.   "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.   Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.   Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?   Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?    No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
    • By KiwiChristian
      Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible.
      The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was.
       
      Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and  Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT.
       
      The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth.
       
      It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
      God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
    • By KiwiChristian
      If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
       
      If the Bible is a Catholic book,
      1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
      2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
      3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
      4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
      5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
      6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
      7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
      8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
      9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
      10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
      11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
      12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
      13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
      14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
       
      Now, please my friend, when you reply to this, please stick to just a couple of points per post, then it will be easier to respond to, unless you want to make a VERY long post answering ALL these points in one post, hoping that no-one will take the trouble to address your points.
       
    • By KiwiChristian
      A study of the New Testament reveals that ALL Christians are priests. Peter said,"Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house,a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5).Thus,all Christians are of that holy priesthood and can offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.There is not a man or group of men on earth who can offer unto God spiritual sacrifices for others.   ALL Christians have the right to go to God through Jesus Christ, our High priest (Heb. 4:14-16). There is no priesthood on earth that has the right to forbid each Christian to go directly to God through Christ, or to assume the authority to administer graces and obtain mercy for others.   A Roman Catholic priest is one who acts in the place of Christ, supposedly making unbelievers into Christians by "baptising" them. He converts the bread into Christ's flesh in the mass, and he forgives sins in the confessional.   In the Bible, all ministers are called elders, bishops or pastors, all referring to the one office, but there is no office of "priest". Christ is our Great High Priest, the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), so there is no need for other priests to mediate for us. Peter never called himself a priest, but did call himself a "fellow elder". 1 Peter 5:1.   In Acts, there is no reference anywhere to a sacrificing priesthood. In Revelation 1:6 ("hath made us kings and priests unto God"), and in 1 Peter 2:5,9 ("ye are a holy priesthood", "ye are a royal priesthood"), all believers are priests and have direct access to God through Christ. We don't offer an atoning sacrifice because only Christ did this on the cross. The only sacrifices we offer to God are prayers (Ephesians 6:18), praise and money (Hebrews 13:15,16), and ourselves in service to God (Romans 12:1). This Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers was rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's.   A pastor's real job is to preach the gospel, teach the Word of God and pray, not to hear confession, or change bread to flesh etc. Peter in 1 Peter 5 when he instructed fellow preachers, made no mention of any Roman Catholic priest’s practices of today.
    • By KiwiChristian
      ROMAN CATHOLIC LIES, IMMORALITY and CORRUPTION.
      More than 50 popes show themselves to be atheists or unbelievers. The history of the popes records homosexuality, rape, murder, adultery, drunkenness, selling religious offices, etc. 
      This behaviour is hardly fitting a "Holy Father" or "The Vicar of Christ".
      Examples include the following:
      1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several
      illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.
      2. Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a coarse, immoral man. The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the "Liber Pontificalis" said: "He spent his entire life in adultery." Catholic bishop Luitprand states that "he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him."
      3. Pope Boniface VII (984 - 985), John XII and Leo VIII were described by the Bishop of Orleans as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth."
      4. Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."
      5. Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter."
      6. Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his
      predecessors in killing over one million people.
      7. Pope Boniface VIII (1294 - 1303). The Catholic Encyclopedia states "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted - heresy, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, simony ... his whole pontificate was one record of evil." Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption" and assigned Boniface VII, Nicholas III and Clement V to the "lowest parts of hell." He proclaimed to be an atheist and in 1302 issued the "Unum Sanctum" officially declaring the Roman Catholic church as the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved.
      8. Pope John XXIII (1410-1415) was accused by 37 clergy witnesses of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft and murder. It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated 300 nuns. He kept a harem at Boulogne of 200 girls. He was publicly called the devil incarnate. He has been called the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne.
      9. Pope Pius II (1458 - 1464) fathered many illegitimate children and taught others to do likewise.
      10. Pope Paul II (1464 - 1471) maintained a house full of concubines.
      11. Pope Sixtus IV (1471 - 1484) financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders.
      12. Pope Innocent VII (1484 - 1492) fathered 16 illegitimate children by various women.
      13. Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) committed incest with his two sisters and daughter. On 31 October 1501, he conducted the worst ever Vatican sex orgy.
      14. Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as a cardinal fathered 3 sons and a daughter. He consulted astrologers.
      15. Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521) "was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure, revelry and carousing. (Catholic Encyclopedia). Luther visited Rome & said: "No one can imagine what sins & infamous actions are committed in Rome." A saying was: "If there is a hell, Rome is built over it."
      16. Pope Joan was a female pope whose name was changed to Pope Zacharias. Luther, on visiting Rome reported her statue in a back street. John Huss referred to her in his defence at the Council of Constance and this went unchallenged. She died in childbirth while in a public procession.
      17. Pope Eugene IV (1431 - 1447) condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch, but Pope Benedict IV (1919) declared her a saint.
      18. Pope Stephen VI (896 - 897) brought the dead body of former Pope Formosus (891 - 897) to trial, hacked off his decaying finger and had him dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.
      19. The "great schism" of 1378 lasted 50 years, where Italian and French popes cursed each other. 

      Is this the same morally pure church that Christ left to preach the gospel?
      When confronted with such evil papal history, the Catholic church, which claims "infallibility", teaches that "A sinful pope ... remains a member of the church, and ...
      from whom we may not withdraw obedience." Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 4, page 435.
      Jesus said in Matthew 7:18,20, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit ... by their fruits ye shall know them."
      20. Pope Alexander III decreed in 1170 that wills had to be made in front of a priest, or excommunication (cutting off from church and sentence to hell) would result. 
      The Catholic church has much to be embarrassed about in it's history, as seen from these 20 popes.
×