The Rapturegreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Hey Tim: Hope you don't mind but I started a new thread for this by cutting and pasting your post.Tim said:
You don't believe in the rapture? Granted, the word rapture is not in scripture, but the act most definitly is.
1 Corinthians 15:51,52 -Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1 Thessalonians 4:16,18 - For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
The tribulation is a much deeper discussion, which would take a great amount to prove - with scripture. Not that the scripture has to be "twisted", but there is just so much involved. Revelation and Daniel, etc.
I believe the Word of God is our source of the past events, but also the future. Although we don't always see it before hand, as Emerald claims, we see at the end that indeed it has been recorded for us in the Word of God.
Gail's response:
The parousia is what all Christians believe -- that Christ will come again (Praise God), i.e., his second coming. What rapture theology teaches is that Christ will come again TWICE -- once to get his church, and then once again in judgment.
Jesus says in Matthew Chapter 24:29 "Immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken,
THEN VERSE 30: And THEN shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Then in 2 Thessalonians, 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come (the day of the Lord) unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction . . "
Also, by your own scripture quotes, notice he says "AT THE LAST TRUMP"
Rapture theology teaches Christ will come secretly before the 7 years of tribulation, which does not correspond well with the above scripture. I have heard the teaching on Daniel by rapture theologians, but I'm afraid they just don't square with the above.
Plus, how do we know it's a literal 7 years. 7 is the number for complete. It could purely be symbolic of "the completion of the age" and not a literal number at all.
People have been caught up with the rapture theology since the 1800's as you probably already know. People selling their houses, buying rapture gowns, going to the tops of mountains and waiting for Him to come pick them up. Hysteria, we are warned against!
It's just a ridiculous waste of time to try to determine his arrival when He Himself, said "No one knows the hour or the day."
We do know, however, that the times will wax worse and worse before His coming, the anti-Christ will come on the scene, and a great "falling away" will take place.
It's fun to think about, but folks shouldn't waste all of their time on it. Get busy with the business of the Lord; loving the loveless!!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 21, 2002
Top this one.
-- - (-@-.-), October 21, 2002.
GailMoving my post does make it easier to read. Thanks!
I do agree that we should not spend all of our time on the rapture, for you are correct that no one knows the day or hour, but He does tell us to watch and be ready. [Mark 13] Our main goal should be, [Mark 16:15] Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Take a look at the Rapture:
Matthew 24:39 - And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 - Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 - Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 - Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Added also are the verses I mentioned above. There is no mention of judgment with His coming to gather the Saints.
With the flood everyone perished in the judgment, except the 8 souls saved in the ark. With the Rapture, no one will perish, but the Christian will be removed from judgment [tribulation] and taken home to Heaven.
Tribulation:
Well, we know that the last 3 1/2 years [a thousand two hundred and threescore days]of the tribulation will be the worse. I believe especially for the Jews. I believe it will worse than with Hitler.
Rev.11:3 - And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [I believe Moses and Elijah]
Rev.12:6 - 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. [I believe the Jews hiding from the AntiChrist]
Rev. 12:10 - And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. [I believe the casting of the Devil and his angels into Hell for the reign of Christ on Earth - also note {which accused them before our God} which gives reason for Job 2:1 - Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Oh, I could go on, but much time is needed...
What do you believe, Gail?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 21, 2002.
What I am about to ask has nothing to do with this very intresting thread, but someone did bring up the number 7.Does anyone know why the number 7 appears so much in the Bible? Someone told me that it is God's number.
MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 21, 2002.
Hey MaryLu:The number 7 stands for perfection, or completion. 6 is imperfection, that is why 666 or 616 refers to Satan or the Anti- Christ. How it must scorn Satan to be referred to as "imperfect."
Tim, yes, I'm quite familiar with all of those passages. I just don't see real evidence of a "secret rapture," but only that the Lord is coming one more time in judgement, i.e., the second coming. That's not to say that we won't be caught up with the Lord before the annilation of the world, because I do believe there is good precedent for that. Like you suggested, the flood, etc.
This passage always confused me because it seems to be saying the "wicked will be taken out of the righteous," not vice versa as you suggested. Matthew 13:37-43
He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather OUT of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furance of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
In general, my view of Revelations is this: If you could paint on the dome of the sky the "beginning to the end" of history, you would have Revelations. It's a panoramic view of history and the future. The scenes depicted are both forwards and backwards! Like the Sistene Chapel! You look up in amazement at the "Revelation" of God!
I think it's quite possible that the 7 year tribulation could be a number symbolic of the time from Jesus' ascension to his 2nd coming -- the "completeness of the age," 7 being the number of perfection!
Well, that's all I know, gotta go!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 21, 2002.
As a note: I have a book about the numbers in the Bible called, By Divine Order, by Michael Hoggard. I have just started reading it and it seems pretty good.The number 7 stand for Divine Completion, Perfection.
The number 6 stands for Man, Sinfulness of Man.
I've never heard of 616 that I recall, where does that come from? Is that upposed to be the # of the AntiChrist?
I believe that the scriptures which you point out in Matthew 13:37- 43 could either be Christ's return at the end of the Tribulation or at the end of His 1000 year reign on earth, when the Devil and his angels are loosed one last time before being thrown into the Lake of Fire forever and ever! Amen!
For the verses on the rapture show that the dead in Christ will rise first, then the Christians that are still alive. Not the wicked first.
Probably more at the end of the Tribulation, when Christ returns witht the Saints to battle Satan at Armagedon.
Just another thought about 7.
Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
2pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I believe as the world was created in 6 days, so shall the world will 6 thousand years before Christ comes to reign on it. As the Lord rested on the 7th day, so shall He reign on earth for 1000 years (the 7000th year).
Adam to Moses - 2000 years
Moses to Christ - 2000 years
-----------------------------------------------> Rapture
Christ to End of Tribulation - 2000 years
1000 year reign of Christ on earth
End of this world as we know it.
I believe I have it broken down correctly, forgive me if I have made a mistake.
If you have a differnt opinion - anyone - please post a note!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 21, 2002.
Hey Tim:The middle 6 of the 6 "6" 6, in the original Greek, could be either a 1 or 6. That's why I mentioned the 616. Your bible probably has a footnote mentioning that.
As to that parable I mentioned about the harvest of the end of the age, note that the evil "tares" are taken "out of the kingdom" So if you're correct that this happens AFTER the rapture, the kingdom would be gone, wouldn't it?
Gotta run,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 22, 2002.
GailI have a Scofield Study Bible, and don't have that note [about 616]. I don't doubt that some Bibles may note that, I just haven't heard of that before. I will have to look into that.
As you say, "evil "tares" are taken "out of the kingdom"" - this must be the time after the reign of Christ and not after the tribulation as I said before. At the end of His reign, the Devil will be loosed one more time, then defeated forever and cast into the Lake of Fire.
It has been a while since I have looked at all of this, and if you don't pay attention, it can be confussing.
Do you believe that Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years? or anytime at all?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 22, 2002.
Hey Tim:I'm not sure about the millenium reign. It's just inconceivable to my puny brain I guess. I never have understood it. Is it literally a 1,000 years, or again, is it symbolic.
Interesting that as we've been chatting on this subject, the Bible Answer Man, or Hank Hannengraf of the Christian Research Institute, had a fellow on his radio program debunking the whole rapture thing, having written a book entitled "Rapture Fiction". Anyway, Hank, being a well-known Christian apologist admitted he's been studying eschatology for six years, and still has no dogmatic answers he feels comfortable giving.
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 22, 2002.
-- (top@it.again), October 26, 2002.
JmjHello, Tim and Gail.
Tim, the Catholic Church has not spoken dogmatically on the details of this subject, requiring believers to hold a single, exactly defined interpretation of the end times. However, she has rejected what is called "premillenialism" (with its "rapture"), which (I think) is what you believe in.As Gail has stated before, you are clinging to an idea that arose less than 200 years ago, within a little Protestant sect (Irvingites). You are trying to persuade folks at this Catholic forum to agree with one man's private interpretation of scripture, but we can never do so. How could be believe an non-apostolic idea less than 200 years old, rather than what has been handed down to us by St. Augustine and other "Fathers" of the earliest centuries of the Church?
The widely held belief among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox (and even most Protestants) through the ages is that the "millennium" (thousand-years) is a symbolic, not literal, term that is used to refer to the Christian era -- the present reign of Jesus on Earth.
I ask you please to read a one-page essay on this subject.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 28, 2002.
J.F.What do this scriptures talk about then?
1co 15:51 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 1co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
1th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
1th 4:18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.
Hey Tim, I can answer that question! They are all to do with the 2nd Coming of the Lord! The Lord will come once more, to gather his people and judge the world! He is not coming two more times as rapture theology presents.Maranatha, my friend!
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 28, 2002.
GailThen explain this for me:
1th 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
---
Re 1:7-8 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
----
Is this at the same time?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 28, 2002.
Yes, Tim, at the Second Coming of Christ -- EVERY EYE WILL SEE HIM, both the living and the dead! All those that pierced him! All those who refused Him! And also those who love Him! We will be "wailing" TOO, but not as those who rejected Him -- Not in fear and terror, but in AWE at His great and glorious appearing!Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 29, 2002.
We shall see then...
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.
Thank you, Gail, for replying to what Tim asked me. I agree with you completely!Tim, I strongly recommend that you avoid trying to determine what is the truth (on this and other theological matters) based on your terribly fallible private interpretation of scattered Bible verses. [On this topic, it seems that you somehow got steered down a wrong path by being beguiled by the 19th-century rapture-theorists' interpretation errors as well.]
Try to keep in mind that the Catholic Church has been teaching the same thing (without self-contradiction) about all doctrinal matters for 2000 years. The Church has the infallible truth directly from Jesus and the Apostles, so she can be trusted. By contrast, Protestant sects that keep springing up (more than one every day now) cannot be trusted. Nor can you, Tim, trust your private interpretation, which is, oh, so fallible.
God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 29, 2002.
John"the Catholic Church has been teaching the same thing (without self- contradiction) about all doctrinal matters for 2000 years."
You may want to read up on the past of the Catholic Church, it has made many changes over time - included the wanting to change the Rosary?
My interpretation, as you call it comes from scripture.
Your interpretation, or the Churches, came from where? From Peter?
Remember John the Baptist was here first...[ha - just for fun :)]
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.
John writes:"the Catholic Church has been teaching the same thing (without self- contradiction) about all doctrinal matters for 2000 years."
Tim responds:
"You may want to read up on the past of the Catholic Church, it has made many changes over time - included the wanting to change the Rosary?"
Tim, maybe you should let us be the experts with regard to the Catholic Church. John's statement is true. It referred to the consistent doctrinal teachings.
The Rosary is a private devotion/prayer--it is not a doctrine. I'd be interested in hearing about the "many changes" that the Church has gone through. I always enjoy this topic.
Could you give us a point of reference: could you give us another 2000 year old institution which has been more consistent than the Catholic Church If you judge us as having a Church that has "made many changes over time," surely there's a point of reference you could give.
My personal point of reference is the ~225-year-old republic that I live in: the USA--it's about 1/10th the age of the Church. Only 140 years ago, it accepted enslavement of blacks. It's made alcohol illegal...it's made it legal. Abortion has been illegal...it's been legal. That puts things into a bit of perspective. :-)
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 29, 2002.
"let us be the experts with regard to the Catholic Church."Granted...
But what about when they wouldn't let anyone read the bible in English - everything was done in Latin. People were persecutted and killed for reading and studing the bible in English. The common man could not read the scripture because they would not understand. Erasmus even stated this.
Now everyone can read the bible???
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.
Hey Tim: I think you're getting your information from somewhere with an anti-Catholic bias! The Bible was translated into French, I think, in the 1200's for France, and NUMEROUS other European countries translated the Bible into their native tongues as the need arose LONG BEFORE KING JAMES. I can cite a reference if you would like. It's too late now to dig.But anyway, what you stated is simply not true. Remember, the Douay Rheims was the first English "print" hot off the printer presses BEFORE King James. Prior to that the Bible had to be painstakingly hand-copied by monks in monesteries. VERY tedious and meticulous work indeed. To have a hand-written copy of the Bible was extraordinary EXPENSIVE. What you repeated on this thread is a slander perpetrated by biased Protestants! And I really do say that with respect.
The Catholic Mass still has more scripture reading than ANY Protestant church I have EVER attended (and they are many)!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socketn.net), October 29, 2002.
So, the history books that I have read are wrong?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 29, 2002.
I don't know. Are your history books written by anti-Catholics? Site your source, dude!I will tell you, Tim, that when I was asking the question, "When was the New Testament canonized, and was the apochrypha contained in that canonization?" I couldn't get a clear answer from anyone. Everyone told me the apochrypha was ADDED in by the Catholic church during the Reformation.
I even called Hank Hanengraf and CRI and talked to him and his guest, who was a church historian. They did RELUCTANTLY admit that the councils of Hippo and Carthage did canonize the N.T. with the apochrypha in the late 300's and early 400's. Also, Bruce Metzger, a well-known Protestant theologian posts the actual Carthage document on his site.
Anyway, I learned a big lesson. I don't trust a lot of people to tell the truth, especially if they have a bias. When I began to study the Catholic Church, I did so primarily by reading the actual writings of early church fathers, AND NOT WHAT SOMEONE SAYS THEY SAID! I read their writings in their entirety, in context, and what I found was ASTONISHING! We've been lied to!
Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 30, 2002.
"The Catholic Mass still has more scripture reading than ANY Protestant church I have EVER attended (and they are many)!"Gail, I must disagaree with you on your above statement. How can you possibly say that? We get a gospel reading on Sunday and that is it? We also get a gospel reading during the week and, in most cases, the homilies do not match the gospel reading at all. The priest decides to talk about whatever subject he feels like talking about.
I am not putting our church down for this or being critical in any way. BUT, I have been to protestant churches as well and I am sorry if I offend you at all, but the protestants have it over us when it comes to scripture - they know their scripture, they live for it and live by it. I have been catholic all of my life and I learned scripture from a protestant. I was given the Bible by a prostetant. No Catholic priest or nun ever told me to pick up a Bible and it will change your life - a protestant did.
Catholics are starting to come around now and learning about scripture, but many catholics still won't even refer to God by using the name Jesus - they are uncomfortable with it.
I am sure I will get a lot of people on here who disagree with me, but I am not going to apologize for my response because what you say Gail is so untrue.
MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 30, 2002.
Gail,The Charismatic movement in the Catholic Church is where many Catholics have learned Scripture - have come to develop a personal relationship with Jesus - BUT, there are many catholics who won't go near a charismatic prayer group because they think these people are weird and crazy.
MaryLu
-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 30, 2002.
Hi MaryLu:I am talking about the scripture readings from the O.T., the N.T. and then the gospel readings, combined, it's quite alot. Aren't the same scriptures read at every parish? From the lectionary?
Lots of love,
gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 30, 2002.
Tim writes:"But what about when they wouldn't let anyone read the bible in English - everything was done in Latin. People were persecutted and killed for reading and studing the bible in English."
Tim, do you know where Douay and Rheims are? They are towns in Northwestern France. The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated there. Do you know why this English translation of the Bible was translated outside of England? It is because Catholics in England were being persecuted by Protestants. The Protestant-controlled lands wouldn't let anyone read the Douay-Rheims Bible. Catholics were persecuted (and killed) for embracing their faith. Unfortunately, we have a number of martyrs killed by Protestants.
The Catholic Church did fight against the Protestant translations of the Bible because they introduced errors into the Bible. The Church fought these corrupted translations. It still fights against bad translations.
If the Catholic Church was fighting medieval bible-studies (a funny projection of 21st century activities), it doesn't make sense that they fought it by releasing the Douay-Rheims Translation of the Bible. The Church was not suppressing the Bible--it was fighting those who would twist the words of the Bible in their translations.
"The common man could not read the scripture because they would not understand. Erasmus even stated this.
Now everyone can read the bible???"
Now, the Bible is available to everyone. Most in the Western World are literate. A number of literate, educated people still do not understand the Bible. Bad translations are partially to blame. Bad scholarship is partially to blame. I want everyone to read the Bible. But I really want everyone to understand the Bible's message.
Another anti-Catholic misconception (I don't know if you've heard it) is the accusation that Catholics fought to keep people uneducated and illiterate. This false claim is dispelled by the fact that the world's largest non-governmental education institution is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not to blame for the fact that a large portion of the population was illiterate in previous centuries. It has always worked to give people the Gospel.
Tim, you write:
"So, the history books that I have read are wrong? "
Tim, based on the facts above, any history book that tells you that Catholics fought against the Bible is trying to manipulate the facts to fit into a nice anti-Catholic story. I question the facts and I question the motives. The Catholic Church has no reason to be against the Bible, but has a duty to protect the Bible from corruption by Protestant translators with a biased agenda. Some zealous Protestants writers want to twist the suppression of bad translations into a story that the Catholic Church suppressed the Bible and is an enemy of the Bible. Tim, how do you feel about the integrity of an author who would try to give you half of the story in the hope of passing his prejudices on to you?
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 30, 2002.
Rapture theology?Just now tuned into this thread. Forget about the bogus ''history'' which Tim has assimilated in his flight from the truth. Back to the ''rapture.
Raptured was a way of saying ''caught up'', and so we will be. The saints rising, as Paul describes, to meet the Lord in the air. This is the Parousia. The dead will rise, and the living saints are to change, ''in the twinkling of an eye.'' Those ''left behind,'' are, unfortunately, the living who die in unrepentent sin. No further account is given of them till Christ separates us all at the Judgment seat; some to the left and everlasting fire, and the others, saved, to His right.
Getting back to that rapturous moment. Is it at all spoken of precisely in the gospels? The real event and the day? Yes.
At the raising of Lazarus Our Lord had gone to the tomb in Bethany. He was met by Lazarus' sisters, Martha and Mary. A sad reunion, and Martha said to Jesus, ''Lord, if thou hadst been here my brother would not have died.'' Jesus shortly said to her, ''Thy brother shall rise.''
Martha then said to Jesus, ''I know that he will rise at the resurrection, ON THE LAST DAY. She put her finger right on the time of one single and final resurrection; which coincides very clearly with the day Saint Paul describes, saying, ''The dead in Christ will rise up first. Then we, who live who survive , shall be caught up together with them in clouds to meet the Lord in the air'' (Thess 4 16-17). This is on the Last Day; Saint Martha saying so with Jesus there before her.
The most glorious of passages in scripture follows, as Jesus says to us all, ''I am the resurrection and the life.''
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.
Gail"Are your history books written by anti-Catholics?"
True, they are non-Catholic, but couldn't I say the same for you. I doubt if your source of information is Pro-Protestant.
Once source is "Purified Seven Times", by Evangelist Bill Bradley. This is a discussion on the KJV.
---------
Thanks MaryLu for your honesty. Granted, I have only been to 1 Catholic service, and I don't remember much scripture reading there.
---------
Mateo
"Catholics were persecuted (and killed) for embracing their faith. Unfortunately, we have a number of martyrs killed by Protestants." ???
"Another anti-Catholic misconception (I don't know if you've heard it) is the accusation that Catholics fought to keep people uneducated and illiterate."
Let me give you some information for a book I am reading. Do not slay [ha] me for this information, I have not made it up myself.
Dark Ages:
"For the thousand year period that we refer to as the Dark Ages (AD 500-800) and the Middle Ages (AD 800-1500), the church of Rome ruled."
"The Roman Church forbade the reading of the Scriptures in English or any language other than Latin."
"In the early fifteenth century an angry mob, led by priests and bishops, entered into a cemetery in a church yard in the little town of Lutterworth, England, and proceeded to desecrate the grave of a man who had been dead for decades. His remains were exhumed and burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered into the River Swift. The man was, John Wycliffe, and his only 'crime' was being guilty of translating the Bible into the English tongue."
"Tens of thousands of Anabaptists were martyred in one night, in what has become known as the "St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre."
"In 1401 Parliament ruled, 'No one shall preach openly or secretly with out a license. No one shall preach, hold, teach, or instruct, produce or write any book contrary to the Catholic faith. No conventicles are to be tolerated."
"Parliamentary decree, 'If any man is convicted of these crimes, the sheriff shall cause him to be burned before the people in a prominent place to strike fear into the mind of others."
Wycliffe was a Catholic priest, but he was given the title "The Morning Star of the Reformation."
This is just some... And this is justified by the Catholic Church???
I do not believe what the Catholics teach, but I surely would not even think about killing them for it.
---------
Eugene
As for the Rapture, the subject must end...
We have claimed our sides...
To believe in the Rapture one must believe in the literal reign of Jesus Christ on earth to come.
Apparently you do not believe this...
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), October 30, 2002.
You must educate me then, Tim. I only know the second coming of Our Lord takes place on the last day; with the last judgment to follow. I have no inside info, maybe you do. I see what the Bible says; frankly I can hardly wait! I hope you find your way upwards with me and Saint Paul. All three of us can ask Jesus about his temporal reign. (What does Paul have to say, anyway?) --Nothing.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 30, 2002.
Tim,You write:
"For the thousand year period that we refer to as the Dark Ages (AD 500-800) and the Middle Ages (AD 800-1500), the church of Rome ruled."
Tim, actually, the kings and princes ruled, whether the Church blessed them or not. Many kings and princes were bloodthirsty and power hungry--as you'll see below, the British kings were often ruthless in their lust for blood. Read the Declaration of Independence, and you'll get a good idea of what the Founding Fathers thought of the British (Protestant) king. Add this to the atrocities committed during the War for Independence and the War of 1812.
You write:
"The Roman Church forbade the reading of the Scriptures in English or any language other than Latin."
Now, why would the "Roman Church" translate the Bible into English or any other vernacular language? Here's a web page with all sorts of interesting Bible history tid-bits.
You write:
"I do not believe what the Catholics teach, but I surely would not even think about killing them for it."
Unfortunately, some Protestants kings in the past didn't share this feeling with you. If you read through the "Saints of the Day" posts, you will see some of the victims of English Protestants:
St. John Boste (English, priest, tortured [racked] and martyred [drawn, hanged, quartered] by Elizabethans in 1594 [canonized 1970])
Bl. George Swallowell and Bl. John Ingram (English, teacher and priest, tortured and martyred [drawn, hanged, quartered] by Elizabethans in 1594 [beatified 1929])
Bl. William Webster (English, priest, imprisoned 20 years, martyred in 1641 [beatified 1929])
Bl. Edward Powell, Bl. Richard Featherstone, and Bl. Thomas Abel (1 Welsh, 2 English ... counselor of Queen Catherine; confessor and tutor of Princess Mary; queen's chaplain ... martyred [drawn, hanged, quartered] in 1540)
Bl. Everard Hanse (English, priest, martyred by hanging in 1581)
Bl. William Horne and companions (English, Carthusian brothers, martyred in 1540)
This is just a small sample (I looked from July 22nd to August 7th). Here's a whole bunch of Martyr-priests who died at the hands of the English Protestants.
I find it a bit humorous that in the UK, of what little remains of Christianity, there are more Catholics than members of the Church of England.
Enjoy,
Mateo
-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), October 30, 2002.
I would mention Saint Edmund Campion, S.J., Matt.A favorite of Elizabeth I as a young man, his Catholic faith cost him his life (dates ?) and he died a martyr on Tyburn Hill, tortured, drawn & quartered, then had his bowels ripped out and thrown into boiling oil. He forgave his tormenters and declared his loyalty to the queen on the scaffold.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 31, 2002.
How charitible of you all to mention the killings of Catholics by Protestants. Don't even get me started on the flip side of the coin.
-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 06, 2002.
Dear Ollie:
We know you aren't to blame for the death of Catholics everywhere on earth. You shouldn't take it personally. I suppose if we go all the way in reverse, your own family tree will surely include a martyr or two; dead because he defended the Catholic faith. Fischers were Catholics a few hundred years ago. Many are today. You are one of the black sheep, I guess! Lol!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.
In regards to the "Rapture" I think if people want an in-depth look into it rather than just hearing and aruging interruptive opinions, I suggest they start by reading "Beguiled by Rapture Deception" by Mozanaim Crux. This is a 669pg. book that take you on a Biblical journey in scripture verse by verse, with an explanation following each verse. I doubt there is a better book that sets up the basic biblical foundation of the rapture while offering the opposing view according to the scriptures ussing the NKJV Bible. Furthermore I have never found any book like this one, that calls the reader to think for themself and make up their own mind having gained new information to better equip themselves in that decision as to what they will accept as truth or reject as false...as Mr.Crux believes "faith belongs to the inividual" I encourage all to read Beguiled by Rapture Deception and decide for themself.
-- Dan Jackson (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), October 29, 2003.
Mr Crux's belief is dead wrong. It is the faith of the Church which men are called to participate in. No man is capable of accurately defining doctrinal truth by "thinking for himself and making up his own mind". Such an approach is the road to denominationalism, which is in direct conflict with everything the Bible teaches us about the Church.If you want a clear explanation of rapture theology and its 19th century roots, read The Rapture Trap by Paul Thigpen. It provides a concise, factual coverage of the development of this flawed fundamentalist theology, from its origin in two itinerant nineteenth century Protestant ministers, and the theological and biblical evidence which proves it is necessarily false.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 29, 2003.
Paul, thinking for one's self is funamental free will, why do you suppose there are so many differing doctrines? truth is relative to the believer, as faith indeed belongs to the individual. To say Mr. Crux is wrong just proves the point that all choose what they perceive as being truth...and his book provides information to better equip those in making such choices...as all are called to "study and show thyself aproved." I would rather people educated themselves in the Word rather than just spew what they have been told, never knowing if it be fact or fiction. My friend we all make choices be they good or bad, but I don't believe people should follow in willfull ingornace just because some one told them so. All should learn to think for themselves and study becoming educated in what they will ultimately hold as truth, least they be led astray in false doctrine. While yes all are called to one faith (Christs), but the question is who's doctrine? this is to what Mr. Crux refers,thru examining and testing many common ideologies one must choose...even if they chose not to believe at all. I seriously think before some one claims another wrong, they should at the very least listen to what it is they have to say first. Paul I highly recommend you read his book "Beguiled by Rapture Deception" first before you case a jugdment. Keep in mind my comments are not his, and in order to attain his views you must read his book. After which we can debate issues as long as you like.
-- Dan (darkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 10, 2003.
Dan:
Who told you ''all are called to study and show [them] selves aproved.''--? ? ?As fine as it might sound, this is not how we show ourselves approved, just ''study'' the scripture. In fact, it's a sure way to end up outside the faith of the apostles.
The verse you appropriate here is one written by Paul to a priest, ''a man of God,'' who must study to show himself equipt to give the truth to his converts and community. He was telling Timothy that unless he knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't be a good pastor. So, he must read the scriptures and learn all the truth. (Much of it still unwritten and oral).
Be it as it may, study of the scripture is good, but not by private interpretation; only when the Church is your teacher.
Ironically, protestants and ''Bible Christians are the last ones who should be knocking any Catholic who learns all the truth from the Church of the apostles; despite your calling that following ''what they have been told, never knowing if it be fact or fiction.''
Not at all. We follow the authorised source of biblical authenticity; the Church where we have the ONLY ''Pillar and mainstay of the Truth.'' (1 Tim, 3:15).
You are the ones never to know if it (your interpretation) be fact or fiction.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 10, 2003.
"Paul, thinking for one's self is funamental free will, why do you suppose there are so many differing doctrines?"A: The fact that thinking for one's self is an act of free will doesn't mean that it is a reliable means of finding truth. Does a medical school violate its students' free will by TEACHING them what they are REQUIRED to know? Or should the school simply let each student figure it all out for himself, believe what he thinks is best, and then go out and start treating patients? A student in medical school who can't think for himself would be in tough shape. So would a student who doesn't recognize the existence of objective truth.
"truth is relative to the believer, as faith indeed belongs to the individual"
A: That is absolutely false. Genuine truth is absolute and objective. Opinion is relative and subjective. And the source of a great many problems in peoples' lives is the inability to distinguish one from the other.
"To say Mr. Crux is wrong just proves the point that all choose what they perceive as being truth"
A: Yes, of course they do. And their choices are either right or wrong, depending upon how their perceptions line up with objective reality.
"I would rather people educated themselves in the Word rather than just spew what they have been told, never knowing if it be fact or fiction."
A: Just in the Word? Or can I substitute "medical school" for "the Word"? Most people are not in a position to "educate themselves" concerning either one. All they can do personally is read it and form subjective opinions. This constitutes becoming opinionated, not becoming educated.
"All should learn to think for themselves and study becoming educated in what they will ultimately hold as truth, least they be led astray in false doctrine."
A: Those who have attempted this approach have invariably ended up in the morass of division, fragmentation, and doctrinal chaos known as denominationalism - a guarantee of false doctrine. It should be clear by now that this doesn't work. You cannot have genuine truth except in unity, and you cannot have unity except under authority.
"While yes all are called to one faith (Christs), but the question is who's doctrine?"
A: Yes, that certainly is the question, because if you don't have objectively true doctrine yoou don't have the faith of Christ. You simply have faith in your own opinions and interpretations, which cannot guarantee truth.
"I seriously think before some one claims another wrong, they should at the very least listen to what it is they have to say first."
A: On matters of opinion, I certainly do so. But then, on matters of opinion there is no "right" or "wrong". On matters of fact however, what is the point of sitting and listening to someone prattle on endlessly about an invalid viewpoint you know to be objectively wrong? Of course, if I don't know the truth about a given subject, then I may listen to opposing viewpoints, and inevitably form my own opinion. But I won't know the truth about the matter until I go to the appropriate authority and learn the facts.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
Paul. I agree yet thinking for ones self does not lead to denominationalism, but failure to do so leads to cults. even Doctors must educate themselves, and how they do this is thru study and practice not simply by word of mouth. Challenging opinion and practices does not lead to failure, but rather advancement in knowledge. How we attain such knowledge is thru those very principals of testing. If everyone thought exactly the same way...life would be stagnate and produce nothing....Advancement is dependent upon free thinking. often ones opinion when investigated can lead to a fact..its called research...and such educational persuit informs and enlightens. Cults abandon freedom of thought and expression for control as all must be in one accord for such a system to work. Knowing whats right, wrong, true or false comes from study by whatever means to better inform, whereby one can make an intelligent choices...we all learn from one another be it good or bad.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 11, 2003.
Dan,Right you are. Cultism in a sense is the opposite extreme from denominationalism. In cultism, one individual has sole authority to define truth and impose it upon everyone else; and no-one is allowed to question or even discuss - only submit. It is a dictatorship. In denominationalism, no-one has any authority to define truth for anyone else. Each individual is expected to figure it out for himself, without reference to any living authority.
In a healthy society, truth is defined by an authorized and authoritative body, and made available to other members, who may think about it and freely choose to agree or disagree with the definition. However, certain defined truths are common to the society as a whole, and while individual members are allowed to voice opposing opinions, they are also expected to submit to the required norms of the society.
The Church works much like this, but with one major difference. Unlike any other society, the Church has a divine assurance of truth in its doctrinal teachings. Its doctrines have not only been declared true by its leaders (which may happen in any society), but have also been guaranteed true by God. Therefore, dissenting opinions from such infallible truth are, de facto, wrong.
Note, I am speaking here of doctrinal truth. You mentioned "challenging opinion and practices" as a valid means of advancement. Well of course! But doctrine is not a matter of subjective opinion, and some Catholics seem unable to distinguish between objective doctrinal truth and church practices. Change the order of Mass and they cry "heresy"!
You say that "Knowing whats right, wrong, true or false comes from study". Yes, it does. And unless you are the pioneer researcher in a previously unstudied field of knowledge, study necessarily means having objective standards resulting from the cumulative study and findings of the experts who have previously contributed in the field, against which you can compare and contrast your personal ideas. Simply thinking about a question and forming an opinion is not "study". As Catholics we can think and learn and grow. But unless we do so within the limitations of what has already been infallibly defined as truth, we are on a collission course with real heresy.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 11, 2003.
Hi Dan, Paul and everyone:Dan, you hit on a major point in your previous paragraph about studying and research, but I would just like to take your very good analogy a bit further.
I worked in the legal field for about 20 years or so working primarily in the field of litigation. The one thing that is SOOO overwhelmingly persuasive to a judge when a lawyer makes his case is the amount of "precedent" he can set forth. In other words, when he makes his case he ALWAYS looks back into time to see what was done in similar cases. The more precedent he has, the more apt he is to bring the judge his way. Legal precedent is the all-important factor in winning a strenuous battle in a court system.
Interestingly, as I studied catholocism for several years before converting, I made a startling discovery -- Catholocism is built EXACTLY like our legal system in that it is built on precedent, the precedent of our forefathers, our tradition. Our forefathers in the faith hammered through some very very tough issues; which books go into the N.T., the creeds, the councils, the neverending battling of various heresies . . . and that is one of the reasons she stands like a fortress, just like it is one of the reasons why our legal system is so very trustworthy.
So you see how valuable our traditions are? It is the mortar which holds the bricks in place! One of the sad conditions of protestantism is that it picked the mortar out in the Reformation in order to start afresh, or so it thought. But in actuality, it did nothing more than pile brick upon brick upon brick. So with nothing to hold it together, sure enough, one by one, sometimes two by two, sometimes more, they always, always, always, fall!
So you see, the medical field is wise to build upon past studies and research; the legal field is wise to build precedent upon precedent, and the Church is wise to build its doctrines and teachings upon our ancestors in the faith, stemming, of course, from the teachings of the apostles.
Love,
Gail
P.S. For thus it says, "The Church is the pillar and foundation of our faith."
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 11, 2003.
Gail,Paul I have to say agree with both of you. Yet I also stand by the statement that "faith belongs to the individual" as a person is exposed to an idea they weigh it an form an opinion which leads to making a personal choice whether to accept or reject it. Such has been the case from Gen to Rev. Whatever a person personally belives as a truth, in this case a "gospel truth" it is indeed their personal faith whether or not people agree with it doesn't matter as it a choice they have made for themself not the body. The fact is we all think for our selves, if not not this very conversation would never have taken place, as everyone would be in agreement in all things, thinking exactly alike "mindless drones" if you will. Our father has set then standards to which all mankind is to live by found in our Bibles. However its not His Word that is questioned, rather the interpretations of his Word by by His children, this is where decernment must be applied..asking those important question in seeking the knowledge necessary to form an opinion and ultimatley a choce...just like accepting Christ, no one can do it for you, its a personal chioce between you and Him...just as no one can stand in your stead on judgement day, everone is judged independently..as the choices one make in life are their own..be it to wrath or reward. an exsample would be Luke 16 the rich man and Lazarus.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 12, 2003.
In addition I would like to a state "Im not Catholic" and as such I guess would fall under the category of a Protestant some would call a denomination by the fact its not the Catholic faith...However Orth geek Catholics claim the Roman caths are also outside the faith and Messianic jew claim the Greek are and the Jews they...my point is I personally don't care what body of faith one has chosen to accept as their truth...thats not my job nor is it mine to covence anyone of anything, mine is just to share my thoughts and opinions of my personal faith, whether we agree or not in particular church dogma or doctrinal ideas...its the sharing of information that I enjoy for the edification of all.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 12, 2003.
"faith belongs to the individual" as a person is exposed to an idea they weigh it an form an opinion which leads to making a personal choice whether to accept or reject it"A: Yes, which is why it is so crucial to make sure that our sources of such ideas are valid, authoritative, and accurate.
"Whatever a person personally belives as a truth, in this case a "gospel truth" it is indeed their personal faith whether or not people agree with it doesn't matter as it a choice they have made for themself"
A: Yes, that is indeed what constitutes a person's personal faith. Therefore, if that which a person believes to be true is actually objectively false, then that person's faith is based on untruth. His mere acceptance of, or believing in, an objective untruth doesn't make it true - it just makes him wrong. Jesus said "the truth" would set us free. He very definitely did NOT say that whatever a person thinks is the truth will set him free. In fact, faith in untruth is spiritual bondage.
"However its not His Word that is questioned, rather the interpretations of his Word by by His children, this is where decernment must be applied"
A: No. This is where obedience must be applied. Jesus said that he was founding one Church for all mankind. He said that the Church He founded, and no other, would be guided by the Holy Spirit to the fullness of truth. His Word identifies that one Church, and no other, as the pillar and foundation of truth. THAT is where He told us we would find the truth. Looking for it anywhere else is a violation of His Word, and will inevitably lead a person into untruth.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2003.
Dan:
You may find yourself in the position of Eve; who told the serpent why she and Adam were commanded not to eat of the forbidden fruit. She had the truth directly fom God. The serpent, however, said: ''NO, YOU SHALL NOT DIE,'' (Gen 3:4). Instead of holding onto the truth of her Creator, she accepted the word of the tempter, a creature.You hold to untruths given to you by men, other creatures, just like the serpent. The truth God sent you in the Person of His Son, you can't recall anymore. You went by the wisdom of men. They taught you that by scripture alone, you would know all the truth; but they had no authority to say that. Now, instead of hearing the truth of Christ, you adhere to their false word; keeping at Bible study and no more. That's why I must remind you: The Church is founded by Christ; she can teach you all the truth. All the false teachers taught you was to rely on your own wisdom. God's plan had it otherwise; you learn your wisdom from Him, in the Catholic Church. Not alone, with just the Book.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.
Hi Dan,I encourage you to pick up the Catholic catechism when you get a chance. It is marvelous and I think you'll enjoy it. It is chocked full of WISDOM, church father quotes, teachings from of old! You'll be blessed, I promise.
As stated above, Christ left a visible, unified Church that is meant to be a boat of safety in this tumultuous world in which we live. There are soooo many heretics circuiting about today looking for devotees to exploit. Christ never meant for every believer to have to go to seminary to study his Word for 10 years so that he wouldn't be deceived; that's the Church's job! Just think, Dan, if that were the case, no believer stood a chance before the printing presses were invented in the 15th century!! No, the gospel is for the poor, the rich, the literate and ILLiterate.
Gotta run,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 12, 2003.
Hi folks, once again I do agree with you all in part, yet simlpy setting up a particular religion "Roman Catholic" church as the supreme authority over our Fathers children as the only true faith of Christ by the rituals and traditions layed down by the fore fathers I think is rather presumptuous. The Greek Orthodox Catholics contend that the Roman faith is incorrect and on it goes. The point is just because some one, even by tradition, claims something as our Father and Christs inherent truth, doesn't mean it is,. Furthermore any one who would claim that to question a regligious dogma is wrong and in fact questioning the Father Himself thru such an act is wrong. No one is born with innate faith in any doctrine..but choose a faith based on the information they have attained which they are in agreement with. I feel its a shame to call any doctrine wrong simply because it does not aline with what you personally believe. I find truth in all faiths and don't believe one by its self is completley and altogether right as We all contributors in the quest for truth. Building walls of relgious separtation and pointing fingers based on nothing but interprative opinion ragarding our Fathers Word is unproductive. As a christian I don't believe I have been led astray by any religious scholars or faiths..I gather the information to study and research it including listening to many thoughts on the subject, I then form my own carefully weighed opinion,to which I ultimately make a personal decision in its regard. I never accept something as truth simply because the "Church" tells me too. I believe I am subject to the Father and the Son alone, not a chruch or its traditions and rituals and the choices I make in my life are my own and between me and my Father....to whom I also don't believe I need any other mediator than Christ. This is simply some of my personal beliefs...granted you may very well call them wrong and say I am lost in the lies of men..but that would just be your opinion and I find no ill will in it, just a difference of opinion.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 13, 2003.
The Greek Orthodox Catholics contend that the Roman faith is incorrect and on it goes.Please use correct terminology.
1. There is no such thing as "Greek Orthodox Catholics." The Greek Christians who no longer consider themselves subject to the pope are simply "Greek Orthodox" (Catholics no longer).
2. This is a Catholic discussion forum. Most of us here are Catholics. We profess the "Catholic faith," not the "Roman faith" (which, to my knowledge, does not exist).
-- (Correct@Terminology.Please), November 13, 2003.
Please excuse my use of Greek Catholic...I have simply repeated what they claim they are or as you say once were, yet they claim they were first and the Roman sect left them...not vis versa...this is not my opinion just what they have told me. I understand this is a Catholic forum and in no wise was it my intent to offend, if I have please accept my apology for having done so. And please understand I offer no personal opinions against Catholics nor the faith...only summit that we are all Christians and should respect one anothers beliefs. thank you
-- Dan (DarkmatterOfFact@aol.com), November 13, 2003.
No one is born with innate faith in any doctrine..but choose a faith based on the information they have attained which they are in agreement with"A: Correct. But that obviously does not mean that anything they happen to be in agreement with is thereby the truth. Indeed, if two people hold opposing beliefs on a particular point of the faith, we know imediately that at least one of them is holding a false belief. Truth cannot conflict with truth.
"I feel its a shame to call any doctrine wrong simply because it does not aline with what you personally believe"
A: I have never called someone's doctrinal belief wrong on that basis. I call a belief wrong only when God Himself says it is wrong. God said that the Church HE personally founded would teach the fullness of truth, and that EVERYTHING it binds on earth is bound in heaven. Any doctrinal teaching which conflicts with the truth is, by definition, wrong. The truth, as defined by the word of God Himself, is the teaching of His Church. History plainly reveals that the Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church. Therefore, any teaching which conflicts with the teaching of the Catholic Church is wrong, not by my personal judgment of it, but because God said so, in no uncertain terms.
"I find truth in all faiths and don't believe one by its self is completley and altogether right as We all contributors in the quest for truth"
A: It is correct that non-Christian religions do have access to some universal truths. Most of them have a code of morality roughly similar to that of the Christian faiths. The Natural Law, which God has engraved in the hearts of all human beings, is the source of such universal truths. However, when God revealed Himself to men, first through the Jewish faith and subsequently through the Catholic faith, founded by His Son Jesus Christ, He revealed to men a great fund of truth which human beings had never had access to previously. It is likewise correct to say that non-Catholic Christian churches teach some truth - not only the universal truths of Natural Law, but also a portion of revealed Christian truth, which they took with them from the Catholic Church when they left. But it is certainly NOT correct to deny that ONE Church holds and teaches the fullness of truth, because such a statement directly contradicts the word of God Himself, Who said that the Holy Spirit would guide HIS Church to ALL truth.
"Building walls of relgious separtation and pointing fingers based on nothing but interprative opinion ragarding our Fathers Word is unproductive"
A: That's an understatement! Denominationalism is the most destructive movement that has ever befallen the Christian faith. It has done more harm to Christianity than the sum total of all the bloody persecutions the Church has endured.
"As a christian I don't believe I have been led astray by any religious scholars or faiths"
A: Well, given that your beliefs are contrary to those of many other Christians and faiths, and that conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs, you must then believe that all of the others have been led astray, and you alone hold the fullness of truth. Can you explain why you think you would enjoy this exalted status?
"I gather the information to study and research it including listening to many thoughts on the subject, I then form my own carefully weighed opinion, to which I ultimately make a personal decision in its regard"
A: So do the thousands of denominational groups whose beliefs conflict with yours. On what authority do you claim that they are all wrong, and you alone are right? Could you direct me to a passage of scripture where Jesus approves of "carefully weighed opinion" as a valid source of doctrinal truth?
"I never accept something as truth simply because the "Church" tells me to."
A: And that is why you are one minute fragment of the chaos known as denominational religion, while I am one member of a body over one billion strong, who believe and worship in unity and in truth. Unity, not doctrinal chaos, is what Jesus Christ described for His Church. The reason for this sad state of affairs is Protestantism's universal rejection of the authority Christ gave to His Church, and their ineffectual attempt to substitute something else as their "authority". Truth cannot exist except in unity, and unity cannot exist except under genuine authority.
"I believe I am subject to the Father and the Son alone, not a chruch or its traditions and rituals and the choices I make in my life are my own and between me and my Father"
A: Ultimately that is true. And when you meet your Father, He may well ask why you decided to take matters into your own hands and live your Christian life according to your own self-defined principles instead of those which HE laid down as binding on all mankind.
"I also don't believe I need any other mediator than Christ"
A: That is very true, and fully in accord with Catholic teaching. But it is irrelevant to this discussion. The work of mediation was finished on the Cross. The Church is not our Mediator, nor is anyone in the Church.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.
Paul. A: Well, given that your beliefs are contrary to those of many other Christians and faiths, and that conflicting beliefs necessarily mean false beliefs, you must then believe that all of the others have been led astray, and you alone hold the fullness of truth. Can you explain why you think you would enjoy this exalted status?Paul, this is not the case at all. I do not contend that everything I disagree with is false. Nor do I or would I dare suppose I hold the fullness of truth....thats apparently a Catholic position. In many faith hold that the Catholic church was not the first church set up by Christ thru James...Messianic Jews make the same claim to fame as the Catholics on this issue...and the Ortho Greeks say its them as well from whom the Catholics broke away from. It seems to me that it is your position that the Catholic church holds this exalted status of were right and all else are wrong..which has been in endless debate from day one.
A: So do the thousands of denominational groups whose beliefs conflict with yours. On what authority do you claim that they are all wrong, and you alone are right? Could you direct me to a passage of scripture where Jesus approves of "carefully weighed opinion" as a valid source of doctrinal truth?
11Tim 15.Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Explication: Study = be diligent. Shew = present. Approved = tried. Workman = laborer. Rightly = straight manner. Dividing = to make a straight cut = separate. Be diligent in studying the gospels, so that you are without cause for shame. Rightly dividing the Word, not mixing and matching scripture to fit in something not written, which are false doctrines and precepts of men that make His Word void.
As Satan corrupted the people in the beginning, so shall he in the end times. Since from time past to the present day, the serpent is hard at work changing the hearts and minds of humanity. His evil spirit breeding in iniquities, corruption and confusion we have allowed him to separate us by breaking up the unity of Christians into different religions and denominations, causing conflict in the interruptions of our Father’s Word and by way of creating his false doctrines, churches, and religions to further confuse and hide the truth from God’s children. This separating of Christians is contrary to God’s will. We are all called to be united in one God, one truth, and one way; that is the Father through Christ. The truths are there, you only need pray to the Father for understanding and diligently study His written Word, ignoring the traditions, precepts, vain doctrines, and the futile words of men. Show yourself approved to the Lord when He returns being awake and sober, doing His work. For this is how you will escape the tribulation, not by flying away, but through learning and knowing the trappings of Satan. With knowledge you avoid his snares and in avoiding his traps, you avoid Satan himself and the eternal end that awaits him and his followers.
In short this means if you don’t know the Lord’s doctrine but only man’s, then you’re in trouble. You may know the Lord but He doesn’t recognize you, not until you know and follow His doctrine rather than man’s. The only way to do that is to stop listening to people and start studying His Word, checking it out, investigating the Word for yourself whereby you then and only then, can come into the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom that is the truth, that is God, that is our Lord Jesus Christ (Yahshua) where with true salvation is found. Obedience is the key to salvation, not by some structured religion, not by some denomination, not by church doctrine, not through ritual, not through traditions of men, not by words nor precepts of men, not by baptism and not simply because you profess to believe in the Lord. Salvation comes through true grace given freely to all in obedience of faith, who put it into practice by prayer, study, and works. Through these you are found approved by God (YHVH) and the Lord Jesus Christ (Yahshua the Messiah). When He returns let Him find you doing His work, being found approved and not doing the work of the antichrist and his disciples.
Paul, As you can plainly see, "I do not set myself up as all knowing and what I believe it absolute truth....but that I seek truth. It simple commonsense to think for yourself, not to do so is were one can become insnared in false doctrine...JW's make a fine exsample of total control..who claim all that comes from the watchtower is truth and everything else is a lie...I see little contrast between what they claim and what your saying the Catholic's are saying. Many make the Claim...and how would you ever know witch is truth and which is not if you never investigated our Fathers Word for your self but reley on others to do your thinking for you?
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 13, 2003.
Dear Dan:
You didn't answer Paul's question. You presume to ''know'' without an authority to judge by; --none but your own works. Even saying frankly: ''Nor do I or would I dare suppose I hold the fulness of truth. Thats apparently a Catholic position.''All which begs the question once more. Not knowing, you must appeal to a higher authority. That's the Church.
Christ says plainly what the Church is for, among other things. She has authority from Him. (Matt 18 :17), Wouldn't the Church ''position'' herself as the way to the fulness of truth, with that ''leverage'' given her by Jesus Christ? It would be absurd if she conceded that position to your human ''authority'' of free lance Bible Christians. Christ never empowered the Bible as your authority. He sent the Bible to His Church! She is the one who takes you to the proper understanding of God's Word. If you won't follow her lead, you are to be ''as the heathen and the publican.'' If you are as the heathen, what good is your Bible wisdom?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
Hi Dan,Jesus established an authoritative Church, Paul echos the sentiment in 2 Tim, "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth." It's not presumptuous, it just is! The Catholic church has the pedigree, the Orthodox church does not. It's that simple. If Christ had meant for each man to be autonomous, he would not have granted authority to the church to settle grievances and to remit sins.
God Bless,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 13, 2003.
"I do not contend that everything I disagree with is false"A: Really?? Could you give us an example of a doctrinal belief which you think is true, but which you reject anyway?
"Nor do I or would I dare suppose I hold the fullness of truth....thats apparently a Catholic position"
A: That was Christ's position. He said the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth". And no wonder! He also said the truth would set us free. How could we know if we had been set free unless we had an absolutely reliable means of knowing what is true. He provided such a means. A Church which can only bind on earth what is bound in heaven. That's my guarantee.
"In many faith hold that the Catholic church was not the first church set up by Christ"
A: No-one with any knowledge of Christian history would presume to make such a statement. The fact that no other Christian church existed for 1,000 years after Christ should be proof enough for any thinking person.
"the Ortho Greeks say its them as well from whom the Catholics broke away from"
A: I'll buy that as soon as they show me some documents from the Orthodox Church of the 2nd century ... or 4th ... or 10th.
"It seems to me that it is your position that the Catholic church holds this exalted status of were right and all else are wrong..which has been in endless debate from day one"
A: Actually it was not in debate until centuries after day one. Until then, every Christian was Catholic. There was no other choice. Since Christ made His promise of the fullness of truth to one Church only, we should expect to find the fulfillment of that promise in one Church only - the one He promised it to.
"His evil spirit breeding in iniquities, corruption and confusion we have allowed him to separate us by breaking up the unity of Christians into different religions and denominations, causing conflict in the interruptions of our Father’s Word and by way of creating his false doctrines, churches, and religions to further confuse and hide the truth from God’s children. This separating of Christians is contrary to God’s will"
A: AMEN!!!!!!!!!
"We are all called to be united in one God, one truth, and one way"
A: That's right! And that unity can be found nowhere except in the Holy Catholic Church.
"The truths are there, you only need pray to the Father for understanding and diligently study His written Word, ignoring the traditions, precepts, vain doctrines, and the futile words of men"
A: That is EXACTLY the approach that Satan has used to bring about the ungodly state of doctrinal chaos that now exists! Open your eyes! It doesn't work!
"In short this means if you don’t know the Lord’s doctrine but only man’s, then you’re in trouble"
A: Yes, you are! And it is immediately obvious that the conflicting doctrines of denominational religion CANNOT possibly represent "the Lord's doctrine". The Lord does not contradict Himself! Each denomination differs from the others by man's doctrine, whether that man be Luther or Calvin or Zwingli or Knox or Henry or Browne or Wesley or Smyth or any of thousands of other unauthorized human founders of unauthorized churches. Only One Church was founded by the Lord, and that's where you will find His doctrinal truth.
"Paul, As you can plainly see, "I do not set myself up as all knowing and what I believe it absolute truth....but that I seek truth"
A: If you sincerely seek truth, the Holy Spirit will guide you home, to the Church Jesus Christ founded for you.
"how would you ever know witch is truth and which is not if you never investigated our Fathers Word for your self but reley on others to do your thinking for you?"
A: No-one does my thinking for me. It is my own investigation of the Word of God which has allowed me, by the power of the Holy Spirit, to recognize the One True Church Jesus Christ has founded for all men. And having recognized that Church, and having read the profound promises Jesus Christ made to that Church, I would be a fool to expect to find truth anywhere else. Especially when so many are seeking truth elsewhere, and demonstrating so clearly that they are unable to find it.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 13, 2003.
Hi folks, those were all excellent resonses. Yet I defy you to show me anywhere in the Bible that declares the church means the "Catholic" church, which incidentally had not yet been established, and therefore His church represents Christ's body of believers and not an organized religion with a papacy that must interpret His Word for the people who are apparently incapable of doing so themselves, and such decrees made by this established authority must remain unchallenged by the people, as it is deemed to be infallible. A: Actually it was not in debate until centuries after day one. Until then, every Christian was Catholic. There was no other choice. Since Christ made His promise of the fullness of truth to one Church only, we should expect to find the fulfillment of that promise in one Church only - the one He promised it to. Actually Paul all Christian were not Catholic...most at the time were Messicanic Jews not romans or greeks...and as far as churches go at the time following Christ's crucifixion believers meet in homes in secret fearing death for their faith in christ. No where in the Word will you find mention of the Catholic...maybe there one of the seven in Rev...and maybe its neither Philadelphia or Smyrna. None the less we all think for ourselves, if not then everything said in opposition would be a working contradiction.
-- Dan (darkmatterOffact@aol.com), November 13, 2003.
We know from historical evidence; countless documents-- that the early Church was eventually referred to by her faithful as Catholic. All that means is --the universal, or ''everyman's'' Church. Is this so hard to understand?I myself usually specify the Church of the apostles. Of all the extant religious assemblies ever to preach Christ's Gospel, only ONE is traceable without any problem back to Christ's apostles. That one is the Church we call Catholic. The apostles are simply THERE-- In that Church from the beginning.
We know it from those who followed; and from the many monuments and dedications made to these first Christians by the faithful. That's not counting the letters and manuscripts that survive in the world to this day. You only have to look to the Catacombs beneath the city of Rome, where many hundreds of the first Christians were laid to rest; all members in good standing of the single and unique Church; the Universal Church of Peter and Paul.
These give visible testimony to that ancient history of the Church. All within the bosom of the Catholic faith! Who did you think were crucified and burnt, and eaten by lions in the Roman arenas? Methodists? Bible Christians from a TV program?
No-- all Catholics. They lived their lives as believers; the original Catholic faithful. That's why all the churches in Rome bear the names of Catholic saints and virgins and martyrs. Who ELSE would these churches be named for? They were the Romans to whom Paul wrote that epistle. Read Romans 1 :7-:8 / See what Paul said about these saints! Every one a Catholic; because in the era we're talking about, there was no ''reformation church'' or schismatic church, or any other church. Just one; the Catholic Church.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 13, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Dan.You wrote: "Nowhere in the Word will you find mention of the [word] Catholic."
First, that is irrelevant. The word "Catholic" need not be in the Bible in order for anyone to argue the authentiticity of the Catholic Church as the one founded by Jesus. The words "Trinity" and "Incarnation" and "Substitutionary Atonement" aren't in the Bible either. But they are authentic nonetheless.
Second, in a manner of speaking, the name "Catholic" is in the Word of God -- because the Word of God is not restricted to the Bible. It has two fonts, one being Apostolic (or Sacred, or Oral) Tradition. In fact, the Bible itself arose from part of the Apostolic Tradition -- which was preached for a time before any part of it was written down. If you turn to the works of the martyr, St. Ignatius of Antioch (second successor to an Apostle as bishop there), you'll find his reference to the "Catholic Church" around the year 107 A.D.. And he used it with the expectation of being understood -- not as though he was coining the term. Thus it may have been in use for decades. Don't expect to find it in the very earliest Christian documents, since the word "Catholic" means "universal," and the Church had not yet spread to all parts of the civilized world.
Dan, you wrote: "Actually ... all Christian were not Catholic ... most at the time were Messianic Jews ..."
Well, isn't that interesting? You think you have permission to refer to them by the term, "Messianic Jews," even though that term is (to use your phrase) "Nowhere in the Word" -- and never even heard until the 20th Century -- but we do not have permission to refer to them as "Catholics"? You are mistaken, sir!
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 14, 2003.
Hello againA. We know from historical evidence; countless documents-- that the early Church was eventually referred to by her faithful as Catholic. All that means is --the universal, or ''everyman's'' Church. Is this so hard to understand? The church in Rome is that established body who declared it catholic. Fact is, all were called Christians¡Knot Catholics a term which came later derived from the growing popular Christian beliefs and the political power of the entrenching faith. I myself usually specify the Church of the apostles. Of all the extant religious assemblies ever to preach Christ's Gospel, only ONE is traceable without any problem back to Christ's apostles. That one is the Church we call Catholic. The apostles are simply THERE-- In that Church from the beginning. A. I have no Idea what history books your reading that declares such¡K the one church you claim is the ONE set up by James which is traceable to him, is in fact ONE: a single building¡Knot an entire religion under him but rather a place of ecclesiastics under Christ. Paul talked about fellowship in 1 Cor. 1& 4, referring to all speaking the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that all be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. What he is speaking about here is the fact that divisions = denominationalism, had already begun. Some claiming to belong to the church of Paul, church of Apollo¡¦s, the church of Cephas, etc and you can add James (catholic) to that list as you claim all were Catholics, which this gospel clearly refutes, and Paul rebuked them sternly for this. Reminding them that there is but one Father, one Savior, one Word and one truth, that Christ is not divided nor was anyone including himself crucified for you, nor were any baptized in the name of Paul or any other name. Paul of course is reminding them that they are to be of one mind and the same in judgment, which is to say in the Word, by staying in the Word of God and teachings as it is written taught chapter-by-chapter, verse on verse, precept upon precept, as taught by Christ. For once you stray from the Word into thoughts and opinions of men, you¡¦ll bring about divisions, in which case one will believe them to be more righteous than another. To which Paul said, ¡§¡Kthat ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? And what hast thou that thou didest not receive? Now if thou didest receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?¡¨ Unfortunately few listened to Paul, even unto this day.
We know it from those who followed; and from the many monuments and dedications made to these first Christians by the faithful. That's not counting the letters and manuscripts that survive in the world to this day. You only have to look to the Catacombs beneath the city of Rome, where many hundreds of the first Christians were laid to rest; all members in good standing of the single and unique Church; the Universal Church of Peter and Paul. This of course is the case in Rome¡Kyet you left out the greater multitudes of non-Christians also laid to rest in catacombs¡Kever hear of plagues and the historical reasons why so many were laid to rest under the city? Most Romans and Greeks remained steeped in paganisms not Catholicism, to which all non-Jews were referred to as gentiles not Catholics of a universal church, going on to be called the universal name of Christians i.e. those who believe in the deity of Christ as the Messiah=God manifested in the flesh and now rejected the common pagan beliefs of the Romans, Greeks and others, who also clashed with the Jews that rejected Christ¡¦s deity, although many Jews did in fact accept Christ as the Messiah and called Messianic Jews¡Kwhere there pre-established synagogues began teaching the message of our LORD and Savior¡Kand with this conversion of Jewish faith to that of Christianity ¡Kthey set up the first Churches which had previously been established and taught the expanded faith in Christ. These give visible testimony to that ancient history of the Church. All within the bosom of the Catholic faith! Who did you think were crucified and burnt, and eaten by lions in the Roman arenas? Methodists? Bible Christians from a TV program? I think you have seen too many movies my friend ƒº Most were slaves¡K Christian came in to play much later as the faith grew and blame placed on them by the political powers that be at the time. Before Christianity came into the theater of religious beliefs the Romans had their games of death as did most cultures before and during this time period. No-- all Catholics. They lived their lives as believers; the original Catholic faithful. That's why all the churches in Rome bear the names of Catholic saints and virgins and martyrs. Who ELSE would these churches be named for? They were the Romans to whom Paul wrote that epistle. Read Romans 1 :7-:8 / See what Paul said about these saints! Every one a Catholic; because in the era we're talking about, there was no ''reformation church'' or schismatic church, or any other church. Just one; the Catholic Church. This is a salutation found in all Paul¡¦s Epistles, save Hebrews and the three Pastorals, where mercy is added. Martus=witness.i.e. All God¡¦s beloved ones in Rome. Here the Holy Spirit has been placed first because it lies at the threshold of ¡§all¡¨ Christian teaching, and if wrong here we shall be wrong altogether. The subject here is not the church but the revelation of God¡¦s wrath against sin, and the ground upon which alone the sinner can stand in righteousness before Him. Showing the Jew and Gentile alike, short of the standard of God¡¦s glory. Once again the subject is not the church and certainly not a Catholic movement. And to say there were no other churches but one catholic body, then you have chosen to ignore 1 Cor. 1& 4, referring to all speaking the same thing and that there be no divisions among you, but that all be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment i.e. God and Christ. What he is speaking about here is the fact that divisions = denominationalism, had already begun. Some claiming to belong to the church of Paul, church of Apollo¡¦s, the church of Cephas, etc and you can add James (the catholic church) to that list as you claim all were Catholics. The gospels clearly point out there were in fact growing numbers of Christian faiths under Christ¡Kproving all were not under one religious Church body you claim is the Catholic counsel¡Kbut all claimed to be united in the one faith that is Christ under differing governing bodies, in this same apparent assertion that their church by name is better than the other, where Paul clearly rebuked them for this fallacy. ƒº God Bless.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 14, 2003.
Folks..please let me remind you that I in no way came here to engage in a my church is better than your church joust. This is a coversation that I tried to avoid but was unfortunatly steered into..when the thought Paul responed to was "faith belongs to the individual" in which he believes it is an incorrect statement in that faith belongs to the church, in that anything outside what the Chruch (Catholic) has decreed is false and thus what I personally believe as a non-catholic are nothing more deceiving lies born of false doctrine outside the cathoilic church. Please understand this is not an area I want to get into...I don't think its productive...only to firmly establish the obvious fact....that we all think for our selves in matters of our personal faith. God Bless all
-- Dan (DarkMatterOFact@aol.com), November 14, 2003.
Dan:
Every word you read in my post is clearly irrefutable. Denying everything is not disproving it, and had you even agreed with ONE statement, it would show you weren't closing your mind to the truth; only debating.You dispute every point. That confirms our suspicions that you're a hard-line anti-Catholic, unwilling to acknowledge even the historical evidence. +++Much less a Catholic's points of view.+++ Prejudice is a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Since this is your hardened, final argument, I'm leaving you to fend for yourself. Not because I'm unable to counter your ''biblical'' exegesis or your dogged insistence. Many in our forum, myself too, have the resources (the Holy Spirit) to prick your bubble. It just won't pay off. Why save a drowning man who strikes you for trying? Adios, and may God help you now!
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.
eugene...unfotunately you see me as a hardline anti-catholic..I asure you I am not...in fact I love all my Christian brethren and simply will not allow one view to eclipse all others. And yes many areas of the Catholic faith I believe is true while at the sametime there are others that I don't agree with, to no exclusion of any faith. eugene coversion should not be what motivates your witness and simply put we can agree that truth in fact stands on its own having no need of proving its self. God Bless my friend
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 14, 2003.
Excellent, Dan! Pray for God's light. Remember your blessed ancestors who all lived as Catholics. They never expected you to be the lost sheep. But Christ is looking for you everywhere. Could be that is why he led you to this place. To help you understand. Have faith; pray to Him. He loves us, and doesn't desire the loss of one soul. Go in peace.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 14, 2003.
eugene, I understand you believe I am lost if not under the catholic church..so be it:) but just to correct you on my ancestries it would Jewish on my mothers side..and Irish on my fathers...what a mix! on my fathers side....you would be in part correct first catholic, then came the chrurch split where my fathers family became under the Protestant faith. On My mother's side all still remain Jewish some orthodox some not. What a colorful world we live in and even better when we learn to respectfully put our differences aside and just love on another. take care my friend...may God bless.
-- Dan (DarkMatterOfFact@aol.com), November 15, 2003.
Fine, Dan:
You still have deep Catholic roots. We have to recall as well who the first didciples of Jesus were. All Jews. Only ONE betrayed him.The others died Catholics. Saint Paul, who could not lawfully be crucified because he was a Roman citizen became a Catholic martyr by decapitation. --Where? In Rome.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 15, 2003.
Content: AWARD WINNINGEditing: SCORE –D >>>POOR Style: SCORE---C+ >>>AVERAGE—REPETITIVE---TEXTBOOK
Title: SCORE---A >>>GOOD Cover: SCORE---B- >>>GOOD
I recently received a review copy of this book, although a Christian, I’m not what you would call an every Sunday Church goin kina guy. Armed with basic knowledge I cracked open the book, finding to my surprise no preface but a rather long introduction. Not that the intro was bad, I simply prefer a short preface outlining its goal. I was pleased at the first chapter, written in a simple school text book style, as that of a teacher’s addition. Each verse was complemented with and explanation sometimes in great length others times not much at all, but coming together well for the altogether comprehension of the subject. The book over all is written in this educational manner and nicely done. However there are times when it seems to flow off the given subject into another area, but to my chagrin, would make its way back, having offered up an entirely more profound understanding of what the scriptures were saying then it would have if having simply stayed its course (just when you think your lost, it pulls you right back in.) The book flows smoothly form one subject to the next, I like that. The language used is simple; no overwhelming big words you need to break out the dictionary for. Then again there is one of two complaint I have, and that’s with repetitiveness. The book is very repetitive even within the explanations themselves and I find it rather annoying and unnecessary. But I have to confess, that with younger persons or even adults it’s often a necessary evil in teaching, to bring home a point or as said, beat it into their heads. Second complaint is poor editing, comprising of wrong word usage and punctuation, I also tend to believe a great deal more information was cut in the process, and it a shame that a book of this caliber that obviously contains vast knowledge in years of study has been treated so poorly, I’ll address this issue more in a moment. As I told you earlier, I have basic bible knowledge, so some of the things I read in this book were like a slap in the face, I never heard of such interpretations before, ever. At first I thought “what a nut case” but in reading on, it all came together making perfect sense, and what I had previously believed actually made no sense according to the bible scriptures themselves. I must confess I was a rapture believer prior to absorbing this book, but now I’m free of this deception thanks to Mr. Crux. Not only am I free of the lie, but all those years I was not attending church, I feel I made up for in this one book. From this single book “Beguiled by rapture deception” I have gained more knowledge and understanding of bible then the majority of my friends who have attended churches on a regular basis their entire lives. Few books offer such profound insight as this one. I have been around a long time and know a best seller when I read it, and this has best seller potential written all through it. I know the bias’s that exist in the industry between the self and traditional publishing market, and it’s to bad because every so often a self published book arises that demands the same recognition and attention of those quality traditional published materials and beguiled by rapture deception is one of them. I’ll put my reputation on the line and say “if you stock this book I guarantee it will sell.” No store wants deadwood sitting on their shelves, space is valuable and something that isn’t selling is costing money. This book however I guarantee if presented in view of patrons along with the other new releases will fly off the shelves before many others do. Getting back to the poor editing, I did a little goggle surfing in hopes of finding more info on the book and its author when I came across this site “Book Reviews by Marc Sadowski… Beguiled by Rapture Deception… Bookreviewcafe.com.” I was appalled by his review and incredible lack of professionalism. There simply exists no rhyme or reason in his reviewing of covers. Marc obviously is no professional having absolutely no clue of how one goes about critiquing a books cover. This is what he wrote “I have noting good to say about this book cover. At first glance, it looks like something that was made in two minutes by a novice on a paint program that comes with all PCs. I’ve seen covers like this before, and can tell that this was a print on Demand book title because a real publishing house would never allow something like this to be printed. In this case, there are either two people to blame here. There is the author who made this (because this is a print on demand) or there is the print on Demand Company (which would be my guess). I’ve seen this so many times that it does not even phase me anymore. Print on Demand companies will create crap for book cover designs. Some have improved, while others have not. Too bad. Reviewed by Marc Sadowski”. Talk about shooting your self in the foot. It gets better, on going through the site I found it’s BookInk.com, a freelance editing service, putting two and two together I noted the editor for the book beguiled by rapture deception was Lisa D’ Angelo, guess what a Lisa Ann D’Angelo is the managing editor at this site, hmmm could they be one in the same? It gets better yet, still searching I came across BeguiledBook.com you guess it, the official site of beguiled by rapture deception. Would you believe Marc was right; a young high school girl or novice he would call her, did create the cover along with the web site BeguiledBook.com. Now if they are the one’s who edited the book and the girl who created the cover knew this, and submitted it to this Marc character for a review, then Marc knew full well that it was a self published book and a high school girl designed the cover. If this is true, Marc’s review not only is unjustified by the industry, but was based on inside information and as such was nothing more than a mean spirited attack for his own amusement. Why? some people are just immature unprofessional jerks, as in reading some of Marc’s letters he himself posted, one of which complained about his reviews, but he thought it was funny. Marc also seems to have a bias against the book based in the fact he is a spiritualist (Reiki) and calls himself a reiki master :) he come across as one who was lost trying to find himself and the answers to life, till he stumbled into this little Reiki cult where he now calls home. Of course beguiled by rapture deception would be set against what he practices as a form of witchcraft…no wonder the animosity. Too bad. I recommend this book to everyone in spit of it's flaws, simply because the value of the content out weighs everything else. I myself plan on giving copies to others so I too can gain those works Mr. Crux pointed out, because I am lacking in them from all my years of not attending church or doing anything productive for the Lord. This has been my spin what’s yours?
-- Bob O'Reily (bob_oreilys_spin@yahoo.com), December 05, 2003.