Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Jewish persecution
Why did I present this? The reason is that a lot of hoopla have been spread over the internet that the Jewish people are this or the Jewish people are that and I know that's a lie. These anti-Jewish bigots don't make a difference between bad Jewish people (followers of the Talmud, Midrash, Noahite Laws, Zionist extremists, etc.) and good Jewish people (Messanic Jewish people, Jewish Christians, Jewish people who oppose the N.W.O., etc.)
These pseudo-patriot just label and branch all Jewish people as part of the conspiracy fact and reality which is just a much a lie as to say that no Jews are part of the conspiracy. I just wanted to show that Jewish like any other people suffered before in their heritage and struggle just like Blacks, Whites, Asians, Native Americans, etc. That's all. I also wanted to prove a point that it's wrong to presecute Jews as it is to presecute Palestianians. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It seems ironic that the majority of the presecution of the Jewish people from the early Middle Ages to WWII were done by the Roman Catholic Church. That's historical fact and that war criminal from Poland Pope John Paul II even apologized for his crimes against Jews, Protestants, and others recently.
1). During the Second Crusade at 1147, serveral hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all located in France)
2). In 1337, starting in Deggendorf, Germany, a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, and Poland.
3). IN 1389, at Prague, 3,000 Jews were slaughtered.
4). In 1391, at Archbishop Martinez's leading, 4,000 Jews were slain, and 25,000 were sold as slaves. Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of 10 had been forced to wear.
5). In the year 1492 (the year Columbus set sail to go to America) more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain and many died on their way at 6/30/1492.
6). The Chmielntzi massarces occured at 1648 in Poland which killed about 200,000 Jews.
7). I know this genocide well from my research and the Jewish hero Michael Lehman exposing this: During WWII, Many Jews and Serbs died by the Catholic Ustasha head by Ante Pavelic, a practising Catholic and visited the Peope.300,000-600,000 Jews, Gypsies, and Serbs were executed with Children's eyes taken out and concentration camps for kids.
8). At the First Cruade, thousands of Jews were slaughtered at 1096 (with at least 12,000 dead) at Worms (5/18/1096), Mainz (5/27/1096), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations were in Germany except Metz, France, and Prague, at the Czech Republic.
9). Diromg the Third Crusade, Jewish communities were sacked in England (1189-1190) and in Fulda, Germany, 34 Jewish men and women were slain.
There you have it. There are more troubles and crimes but this sufficient.
By Timothy
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GRATIA
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER.
These pseudo-patriot just label and branch all Jewish people as part of the conspiracy fact and reality which is just a much a lie as to say that no Jews are part of the conspiracy. I just wanted to show that Jewish like any other people suffered before in their heritage and struggle just like Blacks, Whites, Asians, Native Americans, etc. That's all. I also wanted to prove a point that it's wrong to presecute Jews as it is to presecute Palestianians. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It seems ironic that the majority of the presecution of the Jewish people from the early Middle Ages to WWII were done by the Roman Catholic Church. That's historical fact and that war criminal from Poland Pope John Paul II even apologized for his crimes against Jews, Protestants, and others recently.
1). During the Second Crusade at 1147, serveral hundred Jews were slain in Ham, Sully, Carentan, and Rameru (all located in France)
2). In 1337, starting in Deggendorf, Germany, a Jew-killing craze reaches 51 towns in Bavaria, Austria, and Poland.
3). IN 1389, at Prague, 3,000 Jews were slaughtered.
4). In 1391, at Archbishop Martinez's leading, 4,000 Jews were slain, and 25,000 were sold as slaves. Their identification was made easy by the brightly colored "badges of shame" that all Jews above the age of 10 had been forced to wear.
5). In the year 1492 (the year Columbus set sail to go to America) more than 150,000 Jews were expelled from Spain and many died on their way at 6/30/1492.
6). The Chmielntzi massarces occured at 1648 in Poland which killed about 200,000 Jews.
7). I know this genocide well from my research and the Jewish hero Michael Lehman exposing this: During WWII, Many Jews and Serbs died by the Catholic Ustasha head by Ante Pavelic, a practising Catholic and visited the Peope.300,000-600,000 Jews, Gypsies, and Serbs were executed with Children's eyes taken out and concentration camps for kids.
8). At the First Cruade, thousands of Jews were slaughtered at 1096 (with at least 12,000 dead) at Worms (5/18/1096), Mainz (5/27/1096), Cologne, Neuss, Altenahr, Wevelinghoven, Xanten, Moers, Dortmund, Kerpen, Trier, Metz, Regensburg, Prag and others (All locations were in Germany except Metz, France, and Prague, at the Czech Republic.
9). Diromg the Third Crusade, Jewish communities were sacked in England (1189-1190) and in Fulda, Germany, 34 Jewish men and women were slain.
There you have it. There are more troubles and crimes but this sufficient.
By Timothy
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GRATIA
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER.
Friday, May 22, 2009
More IM debates
IM: First of all, "truthseeker", I have a question for you. Before recommending this sermon, did you listen to it?
Response: Yes, I've look at it.
IM: I have listened to the sermon and here is what I think. I did find some agreement with him and his initial comments. I, too, am thankful to God that the events surrounding Christ's crucifixion have become a subject for widespread discussion as a result of the release of "The Passion".
Reponse: Well, I agree with that.
IM: I, too, am thankful to God that Mel Gibson has attempted to accurately depict the events surrounding Christ's last 12 hours leading up and including the crucifixion, and that Gibson has stood up for his principles against those who would have had him not follow the Gospels so closely. I, too, am thankful the movie is allowing Christians an opening to witness to non-Christians.
Response: Mel Gibson has good intensions to show people about Christ's crucifixion, but good intension isnt going to save anyone. It invalidates the scriptures so I reject it.
IM: Now then, I did find much to disagree with. Keep in mind, the pastor is coming from the perspective of someone who has NOT seen the movie, and I am coming from the perspective of one who has. The pastor claims the movie deals only with the physical suffering of Christ, while ignoring the spiritual suffering of Christ, which he claims is what the Bible focuses on. This is absolutely untrue.
Response: This is a weak point. Many pastors like from Cutting Edge oppose it and they have seen it. Just because someone didn't see a movie doesn't disqualify him or her from commenting on it. This is Freedom of Speech and there is enough paganism from Catholic mythics, etc. to oppose it. It does manly focuses on the physical suffering of Christ. The beatings lasted for an extremely long time and it had few spiritual references except for the defeat of Satan, some of Jesus Christs miracles, and Christ shown naked which is blasphemy at the end of the movie.
IM: Christ's spiritual suffering and struggles are dealt with extensively in the movie. In fact, the movie opens with his spiritual suffering and burden in the Garden of Gethsemane. The pastor even mentions Christ's spiritual suffering in the Garden and how important but for some reason he never mentions that this was dealt with in great detail in the movie. Why? Either because he knew the truth and chose to ignore it for convenience, or he does not know the truth. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply doesn't know what he's talking since he has not seen the movie.
Response: The pastor fully explained the Gethsemane situation in his work. The Gethsemane scene was so much a lie that I don't know where to start and I've seen the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Satan questions Christ's will to handle the sins of the world, which didn't occur in the Bible. The apostles thought Christ was weak which didn't exist in the Bible. Jesus is fainting nearly and weeps which didn't exist in the Bible in that magnitude.
Christ is presented as too weak and weary which never occurred in the Bible. Christ kills a snake, which is nowhere in the Bible. Christ experience agony but never fear. Christ is never afraid of anything in the entire universe and the Passion shows him to be extremely afraid which is not faithful to the Gospel accounts.
This scene is not necessarily spiritual but physical pain with a little spiritual feeling of handling the sins of the world. I assume the pastor knows what he is talking about. Just because the pastor doesn't mention every facet of a movie doesn't mean that he's ignorant of the movie. You love to use character assassinations. The Pastor is certainly telling the truth about this obscene trash, yet you don't see it.
IM: He makes the point of saying that in the Bible the first mention of Christ's blood during these final 12 hours is in the Garden with "sweating blood". This is completely consistent with the movie, as some beads of blood are visible on Christ's face and brow in the Garden before it shows Him shedding blood anywhere else. His point though fails on another count as well. Christ's blood is mentioned in the Gospels before the Garden. It is mentioned, for example, at the Last Supper when Christ told his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me" when He was referring to his shed blood and broken body.
Response: Christ's blood in communion was totally symbolic when he said, "This is my blood" since he used bread and wine not cutting himself to show his blood to them. He was signifying the plan of salvation and the future events, which would happen unto him. You refuse to put it into context.
The blood he was describing was a remembrance not literal blood and flesh that the disciples ought to eat and drink which is contrary to the Bible in the OT and NT. We are not allowed to eat flesh and drink blood in a religious ceremony as mentioned in Acts. As for sweating blood, I see no problem with that. The blood that saved all mankind was from the cross.
IM: That was, of course, in reference to the blood he would shed leading up and including the crucifixion. Was he referring to His sweated blood in the Garden? I hardly think so. The pastor is getting dangerously close to Mormon doctrine here as they put an inordinate amount of emphasis on Christ's suffering in the Garden.
Response: I see no problem with that and the pastor wasn't getting to Mormon doctrine since the pastor perfectly believes that Christ's cross and the resurrection saved mankind unlike the Mormons who believed that Gethsemane did it. This isn't deductive but you just hate the truth of Fundamental Christianity.
IM: They, in fact, claim that He suffered MORE in the Garden than on the Cross, and that Christians who focus on the Cross are misguided. It is a way for them to draw attention away from the Cross which is where Christ said "It is finished". The pastor is suddenly sounding like a Mormon here. By the way, the LDS Church is also "discouraging" their members from seeing this film. Wonder why? I think it's because they don't want their members to truly understand or be moved by what Christ did on the Cross and understand that what He did on Calvary is where their sins were redeemed and that the Garden was just the beginning of Christ's suffering.
Response: This accusation is just a lie. Nowhere does the pastor say that Gethsemane was the place of his sacrifice neither the area of our salvation. Mormons should see it since its a deception. In fact the movie doesnt place too much emphasis on his resurrection and the cross, which saved us. The movie ended when Christs buttocks is shown walking out of the tomb which is heresy. Moving on by your conjecture.
IM: Again, the pastor is speaking from a position of ignorance. He hasn't seen the movie. I have. The movie clearly shows that Christ is suffering spiritually as well as physically. Some reviews I have read from other viewers have even mentioned that they thought, despite the physical suffering what was shown, that Christ was depictd to have suffered more spiritually.
Response: People who know enough about the movie yet haven't seen have a right to critique it just like anyone else. Christ is depicted as a weak man unnecessarily beaten too much with a short scene at the end of his resurrection. This movie has the spirit of Satan by its unbiblical scenes and occult references. What is spiritual about Christ depicted as a weak person, Romans and the brutality lasting the majority of the film, and lies spread about him.
IM: "Spurious religious experience" was a favorite phrase of the pastor's. He insinuates that people who are moved by this film will NOT have conviction of sin, that there will be no change in lives, etc. Remember, he made these comments BEFORE the movie came out. As it turns out, he could not have been more wrong. Many, many people have reported conviciton of sin, changed lives, etc.. His prediction turned out to be untrue. Will every single person become a fundamental Baptist after watching "The Passion"?
Response: As for experience, Theoretically, many people can change their lives as a result of watch this film, but that doesn't justify it. It's a Roman Catholic Movie based on false beliefs, so why I'm wasting my time following a man's movie who consider me a candidate for Hell. He publicly stated that folks like me are going to Hell since Mel and his Jew hating father Hutton are part of the Vatican I cult. There are many instances of people dying and having stroke after watching the film as well. Why haven't you discussed that in detail?
The possibility of positive experience doesn't excuse a false film. That fundamental Baptist comment is typical of you since you hate fundamental Christian. The pastor perfectly outlines that Evangelicals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other Christian groups are part of the Christian family. He doesn't believe that neither do I conscribe that Baptists are the sole Church for a human to go to.
IM: No, but that doesn't mean the movie can thus simply be dismissed as a "spurious religious experience". Does everyone who hears this or any of the pastor's messages have conviction of sin or make permanent changes in their lives? NO. Not even everyone who heard Christ's messages became followers or continued to follow. Look at Judas.
Response: This is lame comparison. First, you say positive responses existed as a result of the movie and then you say that some people who receive Christ's message or the Pastor's message will reject it. Of course that's true. Not everyone will receive Christ. What does that have to do with the subject? How does that refute this film as pagan trash? Nothing. A film shouldnt be used as a primary evangelist tool and if todays Christians need a film to get back to God, then thats a sad fact for our sinful generation.
IM: He was one of the 12 disciples, and he betrayed Christ. Therefore, by the pastor's measure, neither he, nor even Christ could pass his "spurious rel
gious experience" test. What is the good pastor going to say to somebody who says to him "Pastor, I was tremendously moved and convicted after watching 'The Passion'. I have a deeper understanding of the love Christ had for me.
Response: What does Judas have to do with the legitimacy of the film or to do with experience anyway? The Pastor does say the truth about the film. Just because some has a good response and wants to be saved, doesn't mean he or she is saved or the film is true. You can be saved with or without looking at the movie. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth.
IM: I want to do everything I can to love Him back. I have repented of sins that I've been holding on to. I have immersed myself in the Word. I have been more bold in sharing Jesus with others."? Is he going to tell them "Ahh, just forget all that stuff. You just had a 'spurious religious experience' and nothing more. Go back to being the comfy, cozy, lazy Christian you were before"? I hope not. I hope he will be able to swallow his pride.
Response: Nowhere does the Pastor say that by looking at the film or having an experience with the film will lead a person to hell. He didn't say that neither do I believe it since that's ignorant and silly. You're adding words and to people's mouths and lying.
Wow, what ignorance. Did the pastor explicitly say that you must have a spurious religious experience to be saved or not? No. He just said that some experiences might not be a product of the film being holy. Being moved and being saved are two different things. I can be moved by looking at a movie and still refuse to be saved, etc. See the analogy. Christ doesn't save a man on account of a movie. If someone wants to be saved as a product of witnessing the movie, I see no problem as long as it is told to that person that the movie is a deception.
The Pastor has no pride and you are too elaborate on religious experience, which is desperation on your part.
IM: The pastor contradicted himself rather strongly when he emphasized that Gibson's Christianity has nothing to do with whether you should see this movie. He said you should judge the movie on its merits and not judge it on what kind of Christian you think Gibson is or isn't because we aren't in a position to judge Gibson.
Response: Well whether the Pastor said that or not, I believe Gibson's version of his false Christianity does have a role in looking at the movie. I judge false doctrines, the movie, and Mel Gibson's false beliefs as the Bible say to do and I've listed a dozen Bible verses to you directly to back myself up. I'm in a position and every man is a position to judge Gibson's doctrines and movies not his motives or him personally. Only God can judge a man's motives and heart.
IM: He then turns around and rails on Catholic atrocities of ages ago, such as the Inquisition, and asks "how can a Protestant go see a movie done by a Catholic"? There he is judging Gibson as being a less of a Christian, right after saying we shouldn't judge the movie by judging Gibson. What is also ironic, is that this pastor is a fundamental Baptist, is he not?
Well, the Baptists aren't even Protestants as I have recently learned. In fact, the Baptists were tortured and brutalized by guess who? Not the Catholics. Protestants! So, to be consistent, we shouldnt' see any movies done by Protestants, now matter how good of a "Christian" the director is.
Response: This response by IM is so loony and false that I'm laughing off the edge of my seat. ha ha ah ah hah ah ah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!! What is wrong with showing the truth of Catholic atrocities centuries ago? Are they false? They are true and I see no problem with a man doing it to expose Roman Catholicism. Many Catholic atrocities are recent like the Catholic Ustasha killing Serbs, Jewish people, and Gypsies during WWII, Serbian persecutions in the 1990s, or the pedophile priest scandals, etc. He is a human being and every right to show it. I have a biblical right to judge Gibson's religion if it has false doctrines and it does. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that and I'm called to Judge Righteous Judgment (John 7:24), which is the verse you don't like at all. Baptists and Protestant do have some differences both are still Christians. Catholics persecuted both Protestants and Baptists so this is a lie by you. Some Protestants did in fact killed Baptists but Roman Catholicism killed 50 million + people over 600 years (1200-1840s) in their godless Inquisition. Murder is wrong for both sides but Roman Catholicism killed more people than any other religion in the history of the world. Thats more than Islam and they never forgiven themselves until recently by the war criminal John Paul II in his lowbrow apology.
The Protestant movie thing is just sad by you. You can see movies about religion whether Catholic or Protestant, but you can criticize it if it has blatant falsehoods and thats what the pastor is doing. The movie shouldnt be seen because its a distortion and a disservice to the gospels and the movie has Catholic influence in it. Mel Gibson even admitted it as a Catholic movie. Even if a Protestant shown the exact same thing about Christ, I will reject it just as harsh as if a Catholic did it.
IM: The pastor's final and biggest point is that he believes the movie is idolatry and violates the 2nd Commandment? I completely disagree. This argument has been put forward by fundamentalists before, and they have simply taken it too far; otherwise, throw away ALL of your pictures, books, videos, and tapes that talk about God. Hypocritacally, the pastor is putting his own "image" of God on the internet, violating the 2nd commandment by his own standard. Ridiculous? Absolutely.
Response: This is another one of your great lies. The pastor perfectly outlined idolatry as any image that represented as God or the worship of images as God. Any pictures, pictures of family members, books, video tapes, and other images can be possessed by human beings as long as they are not used to represent God or to be worshipped as God.
The pastor does say that its a sin to use images to portray Christ. Yet again, you hate fundamentalists with stereotypes. Most fundamentalists follow God, read the Bible, and live a good life.
IM: I love the Lord with all of my heart. I would be sickened and very outspoken against anything that I felt was unBiblical, blasphemous, or irreverant toward my Saviour. If this movie had such an agenda, I would be the first to denounce it. I'm certainly not afraid to express my opinion, and will do so, even if I'm a minority of one. Mel Gibson is not perfect. His movie is not perfect. It's a good thing, though, that God doesn't require perfection from us, or ALL of us would fail. Some choose to find one thing wrong with "The Passion" and pass judgment on it as being evil. By that standard they are passing judgment upon themselves as evil.
Response: Good people and saved people can be deceived about a movie. This is outlined in prophecy so I wouldnt be shocked if Ive heard of a saved person praising this movie when its pagan nonsense. No one is saying that Mel Gibson has to be perfect or a perfect Christian. This is emotionalism by you. But the Bible does say you have to have a basically good life and follow the fundamentals of the faith.
Mel doesn't by believing bread and wine transforms magically into blood and flesh to be eaten, a man is the head of the earthly church, there is an inter-dimensional vortex between heaven and hell, Mary is the Co-Redeemer, sinless and Queen of Heaven, participating in movies that used Gods name in vain and massive amounts of profanity, and that his church is the one true church and you're going to Hell if you refuse to join it.
The movie is blasphemous by presenting Christ as too weak, showing him naked at the end of movie, and adding scenes that have no basis in the Bible. I find tons of things in the movie that are false not just one.
They also include Satan depicted as androgynous or female when Satan is male, Mary strengthen Christ at his beating by the Romans when it didnt happen, Children tormenting Judas in transforming in demon faces which didnt occur in the Bible, Satan tempting Christ in Gethsemane which didnt happen, and even others. You seem to point out a few good areas then ignore tons of contradictions of the movie. How deceptive of you trying to convince me of this trash.
IM: The pastor's sermon would have been much, much better and accurate if it had been much, much shorter. He should have stopped after expressing what good things are resulting from this movie.
Response: The pastor can outline what he wants as long its Gods truth and his words ring true to me. Good things? Good things dont cut when youre describing the Bible. You have to be as accurate as you can with good things and very few mistakes and this movie has a few good things and tons of mistakes therefore I refuted you and your mistakes.
By TruthSeeker24
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GRATIA
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER
March 26, 2004
9:46 pm. EST
Response: Yes, I've look at it.
IM: I have listened to the sermon and here is what I think. I did find some agreement with him and his initial comments. I, too, am thankful to God that the events surrounding Christ's crucifixion have become a subject for widespread discussion as a result of the release of "The Passion".
Reponse: Well, I agree with that.
IM: I, too, am thankful to God that Mel Gibson has attempted to accurately depict the events surrounding Christ's last 12 hours leading up and including the crucifixion, and that Gibson has stood up for his principles against those who would have had him not follow the Gospels so closely. I, too, am thankful the movie is allowing Christians an opening to witness to non-Christians.
Response: Mel Gibson has good intensions to show people about Christ's crucifixion, but good intension isnt going to save anyone. It invalidates the scriptures so I reject it.
IM: Now then, I did find much to disagree with. Keep in mind, the pastor is coming from the perspective of someone who has NOT seen the movie, and I am coming from the perspective of one who has. The pastor claims the movie deals only with the physical suffering of Christ, while ignoring the spiritual suffering of Christ, which he claims is what the Bible focuses on. This is absolutely untrue.
Response: This is a weak point. Many pastors like from Cutting Edge oppose it and they have seen it. Just because someone didn't see a movie doesn't disqualify him or her from commenting on it. This is Freedom of Speech and there is enough paganism from Catholic mythics, etc. to oppose it. It does manly focuses on the physical suffering of Christ. The beatings lasted for an extremely long time and it had few spiritual references except for the defeat of Satan, some of Jesus Christs miracles, and Christ shown naked which is blasphemy at the end of the movie.
IM: Christ's spiritual suffering and struggles are dealt with extensively in the movie. In fact, the movie opens with his spiritual suffering and burden in the Garden of Gethsemane. The pastor even mentions Christ's spiritual suffering in the Garden and how important but for some reason he never mentions that this was dealt with in great detail in the movie. Why? Either because he knew the truth and chose to ignore it for convenience, or he does not know the truth. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply doesn't know what he's talking since he has not seen the movie.
Response: The pastor fully explained the Gethsemane situation in his work. The Gethsemane scene was so much a lie that I don't know where to start and I've seen the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Satan questions Christ's will to handle the sins of the world, which didn't occur in the Bible. The apostles thought Christ was weak which didn't exist in the Bible. Jesus is fainting nearly and weeps which didn't exist in the Bible in that magnitude.
Christ is presented as too weak and weary which never occurred in the Bible. Christ kills a snake, which is nowhere in the Bible. Christ experience agony but never fear. Christ is never afraid of anything in the entire universe and the Passion shows him to be extremely afraid which is not faithful to the Gospel accounts.
This scene is not necessarily spiritual but physical pain with a little spiritual feeling of handling the sins of the world. I assume the pastor knows what he is talking about. Just because the pastor doesn't mention every facet of a movie doesn't mean that he's ignorant of the movie. You love to use character assassinations. The Pastor is certainly telling the truth about this obscene trash, yet you don't see it.
IM: He makes the point of saying that in the Bible the first mention of Christ's blood during these final 12 hours is in the Garden with "sweating blood". This is completely consistent with the movie, as some beads of blood are visible on Christ's face and brow in the Garden before it shows Him shedding blood anywhere else. His point though fails on another count as well. Christ's blood is mentioned in the Gospels before the Garden. It is mentioned, for example, at the Last Supper when Christ told his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me" when He was referring to his shed blood and broken body.
Response: Christ's blood in communion was totally symbolic when he said, "This is my blood" since he used bread and wine not cutting himself to show his blood to them. He was signifying the plan of salvation and the future events, which would happen unto him. You refuse to put it into context.
The blood he was describing was a remembrance not literal blood and flesh that the disciples ought to eat and drink which is contrary to the Bible in the OT and NT. We are not allowed to eat flesh and drink blood in a religious ceremony as mentioned in Acts. As for sweating blood, I see no problem with that. The blood that saved all mankind was from the cross.
IM: That was, of course, in reference to the blood he would shed leading up and including the crucifixion. Was he referring to His sweated blood in the Garden? I hardly think so. The pastor is getting dangerously close to Mormon doctrine here as they put an inordinate amount of emphasis on Christ's suffering in the Garden.
Response: I see no problem with that and the pastor wasn't getting to Mormon doctrine since the pastor perfectly believes that Christ's cross and the resurrection saved mankind unlike the Mormons who believed that Gethsemane did it. This isn't deductive but you just hate the truth of Fundamental Christianity.
IM: They, in fact, claim that He suffered MORE in the Garden than on the Cross, and that Christians who focus on the Cross are misguided. It is a way for them to draw attention away from the Cross which is where Christ said "It is finished". The pastor is suddenly sounding like a Mormon here. By the way, the LDS Church is also "discouraging" their members from seeing this film. Wonder why? I think it's because they don't want their members to truly understand or be moved by what Christ did on the Cross and understand that what He did on Calvary is where their sins were redeemed and that the Garden was just the beginning of Christ's suffering.
Response: This accusation is just a lie. Nowhere does the pastor say that Gethsemane was the place of his sacrifice neither the area of our salvation. Mormons should see it since its a deception. In fact the movie doesnt place too much emphasis on his resurrection and the cross, which saved us. The movie ended when Christs buttocks is shown walking out of the tomb which is heresy. Moving on by your conjecture.
IM: Again, the pastor is speaking from a position of ignorance. He hasn't seen the movie. I have. The movie clearly shows that Christ is suffering spiritually as well as physically. Some reviews I have read from other viewers have even mentioned that they thought, despite the physical suffering what was shown, that Christ was depictd to have suffered more spiritually.
Response: People who know enough about the movie yet haven't seen have a right to critique it just like anyone else. Christ is depicted as a weak man unnecessarily beaten too much with a short scene at the end of his resurrection. This movie has the spirit of Satan by its unbiblical scenes and occult references. What is spiritual about Christ depicted as a weak person, Romans and the brutality lasting the majority of the film, and lies spread about him.
IM: "Spurious religious experience" was a favorite phrase of the pastor's. He insinuates that people who are moved by this film will NOT have conviction of sin, that there will be no change in lives, etc. Remember, he made these comments BEFORE the movie came out. As it turns out, he could not have been more wrong. Many, many people have reported conviciton of sin, changed lives, etc.. His prediction turned out to be untrue. Will every single person become a fundamental Baptist after watching "The Passion"?
Response: As for experience, Theoretically, many people can change their lives as a result of watch this film, but that doesn't justify it. It's a Roman Catholic Movie based on false beliefs, so why I'm wasting my time following a man's movie who consider me a candidate for Hell. He publicly stated that folks like me are going to Hell since Mel and his Jew hating father Hutton are part of the Vatican I cult. There are many instances of people dying and having stroke after watching the film as well. Why haven't you discussed that in detail?
The possibility of positive experience doesn't excuse a false film. That fundamental Baptist comment is typical of you since you hate fundamental Christian. The pastor perfectly outlines that Evangelicals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other Christian groups are part of the Christian family. He doesn't believe that neither do I conscribe that Baptists are the sole Church for a human to go to.
IM: No, but that doesn't mean the movie can thus simply be dismissed as a "spurious religious experience". Does everyone who hears this or any of the pastor's messages have conviction of sin or make permanent changes in their lives? NO. Not even everyone who heard Christ's messages became followers or continued to follow. Look at Judas.
Response: This is lame comparison. First, you say positive responses existed as a result of the movie and then you say that some people who receive Christ's message or the Pastor's message will reject it. Of course that's true. Not everyone will receive Christ. What does that have to do with the subject? How does that refute this film as pagan trash? Nothing. A film shouldnt be used as a primary evangelist tool and if todays Christians need a film to get back to God, then thats a sad fact for our sinful generation.
IM: He was one of the 12 disciples, and he betrayed Christ. Therefore, by the pastor's measure, neither he, nor even Christ could pass his "spurious rel
gious experience" test. What is the good pastor going to say to somebody who says to him "Pastor, I was tremendously moved and convicted after watching 'The Passion'. I have a deeper understanding of the love Christ had for me.
Response: What does Judas have to do with the legitimacy of the film or to do with experience anyway? The Pastor does say the truth about the film. Just because some has a good response and wants to be saved, doesn't mean he or she is saved or the film is true. You can be saved with or without looking at the movie. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth.
IM: I want to do everything I can to love Him back. I have repented of sins that I've been holding on to. I have immersed myself in the Word. I have been more bold in sharing Jesus with others."? Is he going to tell them "Ahh, just forget all that stuff. You just had a 'spurious religious experience' and nothing more. Go back to being the comfy, cozy, lazy Christian you were before"? I hope not. I hope he will be able to swallow his pride.
Response: Nowhere does the Pastor say that by looking at the film or having an experience with the film will lead a person to hell. He didn't say that neither do I believe it since that's ignorant and silly. You're adding words and to people's mouths and lying.
Wow, what ignorance. Did the pastor explicitly say that you must have a spurious religious experience to be saved or not? No. He just said that some experiences might not be a product of the film being holy. Being moved and being saved are two different things. I can be moved by looking at a movie and still refuse to be saved, etc. See the analogy. Christ doesn't save a man on account of a movie. If someone wants to be saved as a product of witnessing the movie, I see no problem as long as it is told to that person that the movie is a deception.
The Pastor has no pride and you are too elaborate on religious experience, which is desperation on your part.
IM: The pastor contradicted himself rather strongly when he emphasized that Gibson's Christianity has nothing to do with whether you should see this movie. He said you should judge the movie on its merits and not judge it on what kind of Christian you think Gibson is or isn't because we aren't in a position to judge Gibson.
Response: Well whether the Pastor said that or not, I believe Gibson's version of his false Christianity does have a role in looking at the movie. I judge false doctrines, the movie, and Mel Gibson's false beliefs as the Bible say to do and I've listed a dozen Bible verses to you directly to back myself up. I'm in a position and every man is a position to judge Gibson's doctrines and movies not his motives or him personally. Only God can judge a man's motives and heart.
IM: He then turns around and rails on Catholic atrocities of ages ago, such as the Inquisition, and asks "how can a Protestant go see a movie done by a Catholic"? There he is judging Gibson as being a less of a Christian, right after saying we shouldn't judge the movie by judging Gibson. What is also ironic, is that this pastor is a fundamental Baptist, is he not?
Well, the Baptists aren't even Protestants as I have recently learned. In fact, the Baptists were tortured and brutalized by guess who? Not the Catholics. Protestants! So, to be consistent, we shouldnt' see any movies done by Protestants, now matter how good of a "Christian" the director is.
Response: This response by IM is so loony and false that I'm laughing off the edge of my seat. ha ha ah ah hah ah ah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!! What is wrong with showing the truth of Catholic atrocities centuries ago? Are they false? They are true and I see no problem with a man doing it to expose Roman Catholicism. Many Catholic atrocities are recent like the Catholic Ustasha killing Serbs, Jewish people, and Gypsies during WWII, Serbian persecutions in the 1990s, or the pedophile priest scandals, etc. He is a human being and every right to show it. I have a biblical right to judge Gibson's religion if it has false doctrines and it does. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with that and I'm called to Judge Righteous Judgment (John 7:24), which is the verse you don't like at all. Baptists and Protestant do have some differences both are still Christians. Catholics persecuted both Protestants and Baptists so this is a lie by you. Some Protestants did in fact killed Baptists but Roman Catholicism killed 50 million + people over 600 years (1200-1840s) in their godless Inquisition. Murder is wrong for both sides but Roman Catholicism killed more people than any other religion in the history of the world. Thats more than Islam and they never forgiven themselves until recently by the war criminal John Paul II in his lowbrow apology.
The Protestant movie thing is just sad by you. You can see movies about religion whether Catholic or Protestant, but you can criticize it if it has blatant falsehoods and thats what the pastor is doing. The movie shouldnt be seen because its a distortion and a disservice to the gospels and the movie has Catholic influence in it. Mel Gibson even admitted it as a Catholic movie. Even if a Protestant shown the exact same thing about Christ, I will reject it just as harsh as if a Catholic did it.
IM: The pastor's final and biggest point is that he believes the movie is idolatry and violates the 2nd Commandment? I completely disagree. This argument has been put forward by fundamentalists before, and they have simply taken it too far; otherwise, throw away ALL of your pictures, books, videos, and tapes that talk about God. Hypocritacally, the pastor is putting his own "image" of God on the internet, violating the 2nd commandment by his own standard. Ridiculous? Absolutely.
Response: This is another one of your great lies. The pastor perfectly outlined idolatry as any image that represented as God or the worship of images as God. Any pictures, pictures of family members, books, video tapes, and other images can be possessed by human beings as long as they are not used to represent God or to be worshipped as God.
The pastor does say that its a sin to use images to portray Christ. Yet again, you hate fundamentalists with stereotypes. Most fundamentalists follow God, read the Bible, and live a good life.
IM: I love the Lord with all of my heart. I would be sickened and very outspoken against anything that I felt was unBiblical, blasphemous, or irreverant toward my Saviour. If this movie had such an agenda, I would be the first to denounce it. I'm certainly not afraid to express my opinion, and will do so, even if I'm a minority of one. Mel Gibson is not perfect. His movie is not perfect. It's a good thing, though, that God doesn't require perfection from us, or ALL of us would fail. Some choose to find one thing wrong with "The Passion" and pass judgment on it as being evil. By that standard they are passing judgment upon themselves as evil.
Response: Good people and saved people can be deceived about a movie. This is outlined in prophecy so I wouldnt be shocked if Ive heard of a saved person praising this movie when its pagan nonsense. No one is saying that Mel Gibson has to be perfect or a perfect Christian. This is emotionalism by you. But the Bible does say you have to have a basically good life and follow the fundamentals of the faith.
Mel doesn't by believing bread and wine transforms magically into blood and flesh to be eaten, a man is the head of the earthly church, there is an inter-dimensional vortex between heaven and hell, Mary is the Co-Redeemer, sinless and Queen of Heaven, participating in movies that used Gods name in vain and massive amounts of profanity, and that his church is the one true church and you're going to Hell if you refuse to join it.
The movie is blasphemous by presenting Christ as too weak, showing him naked at the end of movie, and adding scenes that have no basis in the Bible. I find tons of things in the movie that are false not just one.
They also include Satan depicted as androgynous or female when Satan is male, Mary strengthen Christ at his beating by the Romans when it didnt happen, Children tormenting Judas in transforming in demon faces which didnt occur in the Bible, Satan tempting Christ in Gethsemane which didnt happen, and even others. You seem to point out a few good areas then ignore tons of contradictions of the movie. How deceptive of you trying to convince me of this trash.
IM: The pastor's sermon would have been much, much better and accurate if it had been much, much shorter. He should have stopped after expressing what good things are resulting from this movie.
Response: The pastor can outline what he wants as long its Gods truth and his words ring true to me. Good things? Good things dont cut when youre describing the Bible. You have to be as accurate as you can with good things and very few mistakes and this movie has a few good things and tons of mistakes therefore I refuted you and your mistakes.
By TruthSeeker24
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLA FIDE
SOLA GLORIA DEO
SOLA CHRISTO
SOLA GRATIA
SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS
SEMPER LIBER
March 26, 2004
9:46 pm. EST
My Debate with IM
IM: I don't need to refute the link, since you have only regurgitated tired, disproven arguments from those who have already been discredited weeks ago.
Response: Please list the tired, regurgitatred arguments I've shown and disprove the facts which you can't at all.
IM: You should come by more often and you'd be a little more current on what has already been posted and replied to.
Response: I don't need to come here often since it's obvious you're an ecumencial. YOur replies don't refute the fact that Mel Gibson is a Traditionalist, part of Vatican I (a cult claiming I'm going to hell since I'm not a Catholic plus has the Council of Trent calling all of the Reformation beliefs anathema=accursed/false Gibson has publically said that his Church is the one truth church), the actresses are Italian porn stars, new evidence proves it's occultic nature, large portions of the movie are not based on the Holy Infalliable Bible but from Catholic mytics, Gibson himself have performed in trashy movies filled with profanity and using God's name in vain, and the movie displays unnecessary violence to prove the point of God's gift and sacrifice to man.
IM: I'm glad to see you admit at least that it is not anti-Semetic. That was the first false accusation hurled at the movie by Hollyweird. A recent survey actually reveals that for those who have seen the movie, they are LESS likely to hold anti-Semitic views than before the movie.
Response: Polls shows people's opinion not necessarily outline whether something is anti-Semitic or not. The movie isn't anti-Semitic per se. Mel Gibson doesn't have in my mind any anti-Semitic bone in his body. His father ,Hutton is a genius, but makes the mistake of beliveing that the Holocaust only killed 600,000 Jewish people which is false and an he's an ardent member of Vatican I. Hutton Gibson is most probably an anti-Semite. The truth is that some Jews, some Romans, and our sins killed Christ. This is established as historical and biblical fact.
IM: Feel free to post these links a few more dozen times if that makes you feel better, but nobody is going to convince me that I didn't see, hear, and experience what I saw, heard, and experienced. All of the accusations against the movie by those who hate it are completely hollow.
Response: It seems nothing will convince you of this occult trash. That's fine with me since you have an oppurntunity to wake up reject the truth about that gross film. Your experience or my experience will never validate a movie but only by the word of God. God's word is like a checkup list and this movie has failed goods. Just because tons of people (which you obsess about showing) have positive responses of a movie, doesn't mean that the movie isn't a deception. I've visited sites showing tons of people responding in opposition to it. I dissent with the movie and my dissent isn't hollow. I and others have tons of evidence by the links, books, and other research. You just choose to disregard it. God comes to man by faith not by sight and by the hearing of the Word of God excluding what I taste, see, or touch. Satan can transform into an angel of light, but that doesn't mean Satan is holy. This film appears as good but it isn't. See the logic.
IM: The focus of the movie is unmistakeable. It is the love of God for mankind that He showed through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. I happen to believe that is the truth, so there is no great "deception". If you don't believe that Jesus came to die for your sins and be resurrected, then perhaps you do consider the movie to be a "deception" since that is the clear message.
Response: The movie has a good intension of sending the message of Christ, but good intensions don't cut it with occultic scences, vile actions, and Satanic symbolism. If a movie has unScriptural and wrong scences incorporated into it then I reject it. It's as simple as that. Numerous Individuals who disagree with it truly believe in the one and only sacrifice of Christ dying for us and the resurrection.
IM: This continued assault on the movie is really becoming quite a spectacle as the nay-sayers are growing more hysterical by the day. It's gotten to the absurd point where people who haven't even seen the movie are trying to convince those who have that they didn't really see what they saw.
Response: You are once again using false stereotypes. Many people who seen the movie like myself are opposed with it. Others who don't see it dissent with it as well. Some critiques are straight haters of Christianity and that's expected. I'm not growing hysterical, but I'm criticial and the contradictions are there.
IM: It reminds me of the tales of people who claimed to have seen UFOs and aliens and then get a "friendly" little visit from a couple of guys in black suits and dark sunglasses. The MIB ask the people what they saw and listen for the response. Then they tell the people "No. You are wrong. You did NOT see a UFO. You did NOT see an alien. You saw a weather balloon. You saw the Northern Lights. You saw ball lightning. Whatever it was you saw, it was NOT what you say it was. Got it?"
Response: I didn't know people who disagree with the movie are UFO-investigators. How low will you go? This is sad. The movie is pagan filth. At the end of the movie, Christ is naked out of the tomb, how disrespectful is that. I love dissenters.
IM: Well, the conspiracy Christian MIB who haven't even seen the movie can keep telling those of us who saw the movie what we saw or didn't see, but I can't deny it, and I won't. I have always had a deep gratitude to Jesus Christ my Savior for His sacrifice, but the movie only deepened my gratitude, appreciation, and love for Christ.
Response: Let me remind you one more time that I've seen the movie. So, you can't really bring up that false charge of most people criticizing it haven't looked at it. Can you increase your gratitude to God's without seeing the movie. I can. Can you?
IM: It has only deepened my desire to speak more boldy about Christ to others. It has only deepened my desire to love others as God loves them. I'm not perfect, and never will be, but I know that if Jesus loved me enough to go through what He did that He will never give up on me as long as I don't give up on Him, and I won't.
Response: I see no problem with expressing Christ's love to others or being an evangelists to folk. The comment about Jesus I agree.
IM: It was not an "easy" movie to watch. It was not a silly romantic comedy or sci-fi adventure, where you could detach yourself with the comfort of knowing that it is only make-believe. It was an artistic depiction of a real event, and while Mel Gibson may have used his artistic license, he did make "make up" Christ's passion. He did not make up Christ's infinite love for you, me, and every human being. He did not make up the beating, the scourging, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.
Response: The crucifixion is real, yes. There is no dispute to that. The most important thing to remember is that Christ's salvation wasn't a product of his beating, but by his Blood and death. When I've seen, I've immediately knew something was up. People metaphorizing, the andronynous Satan tempting Christ at Gethasame which didn't occur and holding a baby which didn't occur, Christ recieved strenght from Mary, etc. Those things are blasphemy and description Mel made up out of thin air. Goodness, You guys who support this nonesense will have to repent indeed.
IM: It was the absolute power and enormity of Christ's love for all of us that I took away from the movie, not all of the nonsense babbled about by people who don't any idea of what they are talking about. If Christ doesn't really love us that much, then, yes, you are correct and the movie is a fraud.
Response: Once again you are trying to align Christ's love with the movie. I can experience Christ's love without a movie. I can lead a good life without a movie and I can send people to Christ without a movie. Many Christians' criticism of the movie have already known that Christ loves all humans equally and died for all mankind. I know what I'm talking about and I wouldn't be so adamant about this film if I didn't have the specific facts to back myself up. People are saved by God not by a film and I won't be imtimidated by no man and won't accept this film throughout my life ever.
IM: I will take my chances with Jesus and that He really does love us that much.
Response: Yes, me too and I certainly don't need with a deceptive movie brainwashing fellow Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to ecumencialism. If this movie is doing anything it's brainwashing Bible-believers to be ecumencials. This may be the beginning of the turning point of us who aren't going to be part of Satan's lies and those who are decieved.
P.S. I've seen those letters and the truth is that we can judge on certain issues..Look at this:
Judgment
OT:
-Deut 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall
hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of
the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause
that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear
it.
-Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
-Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
-Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the
righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as
the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right? (refers to God)
-Hosea 12:6 Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment and wait on thy God continually.
-Pslam 68:4-5 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
NT:
-2 John 7-9 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
-Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. (This verse from 7:1-5 refers not to use hypocritical judgment, not any form of judgment. Even v. 5 commands sincere judgment by saying Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. JESUS CHRIST EVEN SAID THAT.
-Luke 7:42-43 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
-Romans 16:17-18, 2 Cor. 6:17, 2 Timothy 3:5, 2 Thes. 3:6, Eph. 5:11-13, Romans 2:9, 1 Thes. 5:21 Those verses maintain believers to Reprove false doctrine, separating from evil, and judging false doctrine which is very biblical.
-1 Cor. 10:14-17 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
-1 John 4:1-4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
-1 Cor. 6:2-5 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
By Timothy
Response: Please list the tired, regurgitatred arguments I've shown and disprove the facts which you can't at all.
IM: You should come by more often and you'd be a little more current on what has already been posted and replied to.
Response: I don't need to come here often since it's obvious you're an ecumencial. YOur replies don't refute the fact that Mel Gibson is a Traditionalist, part of Vatican I (a cult claiming I'm going to hell since I'm not a Catholic plus has the Council of Trent calling all of the Reformation beliefs anathema=accursed/false Gibson has publically said that his Church is the one truth church), the actresses are Italian porn stars, new evidence proves it's occultic nature, large portions of the movie are not based on the Holy Infalliable Bible but from Catholic mytics, Gibson himself have performed in trashy movies filled with profanity and using God's name in vain, and the movie displays unnecessary violence to prove the point of God's gift and sacrifice to man.
IM: I'm glad to see you admit at least that it is not anti-Semetic. That was the first false accusation hurled at the movie by Hollyweird. A recent survey actually reveals that for those who have seen the movie, they are LESS likely to hold anti-Semitic views than before the movie.
Response: Polls shows people's opinion not necessarily outline whether something is anti-Semitic or not. The movie isn't anti-Semitic per se. Mel Gibson doesn't have in my mind any anti-Semitic bone in his body. His father ,Hutton is a genius, but makes the mistake of beliveing that the Holocaust only killed 600,000 Jewish people which is false and an he's an ardent member of Vatican I. Hutton Gibson is most probably an anti-Semite. The truth is that some Jews, some Romans, and our sins killed Christ. This is established as historical and biblical fact.
IM: Feel free to post these links a few more dozen times if that makes you feel better, but nobody is going to convince me that I didn't see, hear, and experience what I saw, heard, and experienced. All of the accusations against the movie by those who hate it are completely hollow.
Response: It seems nothing will convince you of this occult trash. That's fine with me since you have an oppurntunity to wake up reject the truth about that gross film. Your experience or my experience will never validate a movie but only by the word of God. God's word is like a checkup list and this movie has failed goods. Just because tons of people (which you obsess about showing) have positive responses of a movie, doesn't mean that the movie isn't a deception. I've visited sites showing tons of people responding in opposition to it. I dissent with the movie and my dissent isn't hollow. I and others have tons of evidence by the links, books, and other research. You just choose to disregard it. God comes to man by faith not by sight and by the hearing of the Word of God excluding what I taste, see, or touch. Satan can transform into an angel of light, but that doesn't mean Satan is holy. This film appears as good but it isn't. See the logic.
IM: The focus of the movie is unmistakeable. It is the love of God for mankind that He showed through His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. I happen to believe that is the truth, so there is no great "deception". If you don't believe that Jesus came to die for your sins and be resurrected, then perhaps you do consider the movie to be a "deception" since that is the clear message.
Response: The movie has a good intension of sending the message of Christ, but good intensions don't cut it with occultic scences, vile actions, and Satanic symbolism. If a movie has unScriptural and wrong scences incorporated into it then I reject it. It's as simple as that. Numerous Individuals who disagree with it truly believe in the one and only sacrifice of Christ dying for us and the resurrection.
IM: This continued assault on the movie is really becoming quite a spectacle as the nay-sayers are growing more hysterical by the day. It's gotten to the absurd point where people who haven't even seen the movie are trying to convince those who have that they didn't really see what they saw.
Response: You are once again using false stereotypes. Many people who seen the movie like myself are opposed with it. Others who don't see it dissent with it as well. Some critiques are straight haters of Christianity and that's expected. I'm not growing hysterical, but I'm criticial and the contradictions are there.
IM: It reminds me of the tales of people who claimed to have seen UFOs and aliens and then get a "friendly" little visit from a couple of guys in black suits and dark sunglasses. The MIB ask the people what they saw and listen for the response. Then they tell the people "No. You are wrong. You did NOT see a UFO. You did NOT see an alien. You saw a weather balloon. You saw the Northern Lights. You saw ball lightning. Whatever it was you saw, it was NOT what you say it was. Got it?"
Response: I didn't know people who disagree with the movie are UFO-investigators. How low will you go? This is sad. The movie is pagan filth. At the end of the movie, Christ is naked out of the tomb, how disrespectful is that. I love dissenters.
IM: Well, the conspiracy Christian MIB who haven't even seen the movie can keep telling those of us who saw the movie what we saw or didn't see, but I can't deny it, and I won't. I have always had a deep gratitude to Jesus Christ my Savior for His sacrifice, but the movie only deepened my gratitude, appreciation, and love for Christ.
Response: Let me remind you one more time that I've seen the movie. So, you can't really bring up that false charge of most people criticizing it haven't looked at it. Can you increase your gratitude to God's without seeing the movie. I can. Can you?
IM: It has only deepened my desire to speak more boldy about Christ to others. It has only deepened my desire to love others as God loves them. I'm not perfect, and never will be, but I know that if Jesus loved me enough to go through what He did that He will never give up on me as long as I don't give up on Him, and I won't.
Response: I see no problem with expressing Christ's love to others or being an evangelists to folk. The comment about Jesus I agree.
IM: It was not an "easy" movie to watch. It was not a silly romantic comedy or sci-fi adventure, where you could detach yourself with the comfort of knowing that it is only make-believe. It was an artistic depiction of a real event, and while Mel Gibson may have used his artistic license, he did make "make up" Christ's passion. He did not make up Christ's infinite love for you, me, and every human being. He did not make up the beating, the scourging, the crucifixion, or the resurrection.
Response: The crucifixion is real, yes. There is no dispute to that. The most important thing to remember is that Christ's salvation wasn't a product of his beating, but by his Blood and death. When I've seen, I've immediately knew something was up. People metaphorizing, the andronynous Satan tempting Christ at Gethasame which didn't occur and holding a baby which didn't occur, Christ recieved strenght from Mary, etc. Those things are blasphemy and description Mel made up out of thin air. Goodness, You guys who support this nonesense will have to repent indeed.
IM: It was the absolute power and enormity of Christ's love for all of us that I took away from the movie, not all of the nonsense babbled about by people who don't any idea of what they are talking about. If Christ doesn't really love us that much, then, yes, you are correct and the movie is a fraud.
Response: Once again you are trying to align Christ's love with the movie. I can experience Christ's love without a movie. I can lead a good life without a movie and I can send people to Christ without a movie. Many Christians' criticism of the movie have already known that Christ loves all humans equally and died for all mankind. I know what I'm talking about and I wouldn't be so adamant about this film if I didn't have the specific facts to back myself up. People are saved by God not by a film and I won't be imtimidated by no man and won't accept this film throughout my life ever.
IM: I will take my chances with Jesus and that He really does love us that much.
Response: Yes, me too and I certainly don't need with a deceptive movie brainwashing fellow Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to ecumencialism. If this movie is doing anything it's brainwashing Bible-believers to be ecumencials. This may be the beginning of the turning point of us who aren't going to be part of Satan's lies and those who are decieved.
P.S. I've seen those letters and the truth is that we can judge on certain issues..Look at this:
Judgment
OT:
-Deut 1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall
hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of
the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause
that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear
it.
-Isaiah 1:17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
-Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
-Genesis 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the
righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as
the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all
the earth do right? (refers to God)
-Hosea 12:6 Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment and wait on thy God continually.
-Pslam 68:4-5 Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him. A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation.
NT:
-2 John 7-9 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
-Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. (This verse from 7:1-5 refers not to use hypocritical judgment, not any form of judgment. Even v. 5 commands sincere judgment by saying Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
-John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. JESUS CHRIST EVEN SAID THAT.
-Luke 7:42-43 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.
-Romans 16:17-18, 2 Cor. 6:17, 2 Timothy 3:5, 2 Thes. 3:6, Eph. 5:11-13, Romans 2:9, 1 Thes. 5:21 Those verses maintain believers to Reprove false doctrine, separating from evil, and judging false doctrine which is very biblical.
-1 Cor. 10:14-17 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
-1 John 4:1-4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
-1 Cor. 6:2-5 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?
By Timothy
My debate with another Catholic
*This is my response to Catholic #1 and his views. Enjoy.
Catholic #1: Hislop has long been rendered obsolete and Chick, well, what can you say about that.
Response: I dont consider Hislop and Jack Chick obsolete at all. Why do many people dislike Jack Chick? Its because hes been a soul winner for decades and never backed down from exposing the many Catholic superstitions that plague their religion like a virus.
Hislop conclusively proved that many of the infrastructures of the Catholic Church like the Papacy, nuns, mitre, mass, and other things have origins from the Mystery Religions of Egypt and Babylon not from the Bible. Jack Chick has proven to be a soul-winner for Christ and shown great exposes about Mormonism, Catholicism, Freemasonry, Jehovah Witnesses, Evolution, and Bible preservation for decades. Those things and what Hislop wrote are relevant today and are never obsolete.
Catholic #1: For info about chick and Hislop, look to catholic.com for their essays on them.
Response: Sorry, I rather look at www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html and www.chick.com and see what both men have to say, not distortions. Chick have opposed Freemasonry, JWs, Islam, etc. and that should be commended. His opposition to the religion on Catholicism is founded on Scripture.
Catholic #1: Either/or arguments are a hallmark of Protestantism, though Jesus stated he was the foundation, yet we see in Rev ther are 12 foundations. The saints in heaven share in Jesus. Jesus is the head, we are his body, working together. Honoring Mary is the same as Jesus, as Jesus was a good Jew following the 10 commandments perfectly. Paul stated he suffered for the body, "lacking in Christ's iflictions" Is he saying Jesus didnt do enough? NO! he joins himself to Christ, as we all should do.
Response: This is a classic case of distortion. The Bible says that Christ is the foundation and the chief corner stone plus the Rock period (1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4). The 12 foundations in Revelations refer to the New city of Jerusalem, not to the real and total indestructible foundation and Rock of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nice tactic in distorting the Scriptures to suit your agenda. I agree that the saints in Heaven live with Jesus and that Jesus is the head of the Church and believers are the body working together. On the other hand, there is no scriptural proof of a Pope, nuns, priests being a small number when God established the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9).
The Lord Jesus Christ is our only High Priest (Hebrews 7:26). There is nothing wrong with Honoring Mary, but I honor all believers equally not just Mary. Mary is a fallible, sinful woman since the Bible says that all men sinned. If you deny that all men have sinned before, you call the Bible a liar. The Catholic religion believes in venerating Mary and many Catholic documents cite Marian worship and some document classify Mary as a co-Mediatrix.
The Bible Says that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man plus we arent to worship nothing but God (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 12:24, Exodus 34:14). It isnt necessarily for veneration since we respect Mary, but Christ should be our majority for all veneration and honor should be given to all believers (which makes up Mary) equally. Christ was God in the flesh and called Mary woman. I have no problem with man suffering problems after salvation, but suffering is never redemptive. Only God Almighty can redeem us by nothing of ourselves. There is nothing wrong with joining with Jesus Christ, but not following false doctrines like the existence of a Pope, nuns, scapular, rosary beads with repetitive prayer violating Gods word (Matthew 6:7), etc.
Catholic #1: It is not either/or.
Response: There is context in scripture and God said choose heaven or choose Hell. There is an either or in life.
Catholic #1: Any one that seriously believes in Chick, is rather sacary as all his sources 'are covered up" or "trust me"
Response: Jack Chick is right on Evolution, Freemasonry, JWs, Islam, etc. I trust him and his sources and his work are not covered up or intentionally false. Many of his sources include information involving Creation, music, and other issues, not just the Catholic Church. Hes very wide in his perspective.
Catholic #1: Rivera and Todd were documented criminals, these, Chick's sources.
Response: Chick uses more sources than Rivera and Todd. Chick uses sources from Intelligent design promoters, Bible scholars, researchers, etc. Watchman may call me a smearer and question Chick, but I wont. Rivera was a man who made mistakes, but his fundamental arguments of the corruption of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits are facts. Todd was a man who made mistakes as well, but he tried his best to outline the Satanism is prevalent in society and the Secret Societies power in America. That should be cherished not condemned.
Catholic #1: I have read Marcavages views on this site about Catholics. He spends more time, it seems fighting us than focusing on abortion, etc.
Response: Marcavages has a right to believe in what he wants about Catholics. Abortion is forever evil and murder, but ecumenical unity is wrong and shouldnt be used to fight against legitimate social ills at all. I dont follow ecumenicalism and Rome is surely promoting that gambit to con Bible-Believers to compromise their faith for submitting to the teachings of the Vatican. I will never submit to the Vatican, Freemasonry, or other false groups at all. God allowed me to witness the truth in front of my face and I will not deny God. Dissent with false doctrine is scriptural and not evil or a hindrance to people.
Catholic #1: His posts and info show he never really knew anything about Catholicism. Reading articles and statements do not make one a Catholic nor an expert. He clearly knows little about us. Further, the "ex" title is telling. Ex-smokers are some of the biggest anti-smoking nazi's around.
Response: Thats so funny that you call an ex-Catholic like Marcavages as not knowing anything about Catholicism. Catholicism is easy to understand. It believes that works save, that Mary is sinless, that the mass contains the body and blood of Jesus Christ in a circular wafer (used by the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian pagans), that purgatory is a real place, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ when the Pope is never mentioned in the Bible and the Early Church condemned a bishop of bishops as Cyprian eloquently said in his works.
Catholic #1: Watchman,
I respect the fact that you are at least willing to look at both sides. By reviewing sites such as catholic .com, Catholic Apologetics International, Scripture Catholic, etc one should get a fair and balanced view of what we believe. Not some Chick-fantasy.
Response: Chick is not showing fantasy. Jack Chick is right that Roman Catholicism embraces purgatory, the Papacy, etc. Hes right that the Jesuits have been involved with negative activities before. Hes right that Freemasonry is wrong and occultic and hes right that God existed and that he created the heavens and the Earth. Jack Chick is right on a lot of issues.
Catholic #1: As I have said before, look at what we REALLY believe, not what someon with a clear grudge or slant has to say.
Response: I always know what Catholicism is all about by the Bible, Vatican II documents, early church quotes, more Catholic documents, and other information years ago. I dont have a grudge or slant.
Catholic #1: I have talked to Ralph Woodrow. He wrote a second book refuting, totally, Hislop's views in light on current archeology, etc.
Response: I havent heard of Ralph Woodrow. Hislops main premise that paganism influenced many of the doctrines of Romanism is a fact. I dont care how many books Woodrow right, since that cant be denied. Many scholars write literature blasting others opinion and that doesnt mean that the blaster is accurate at all.
Hislop believed that the cross was a satanic symbol!!
Response: The cross was a satanic symbol if you when a cross with equal sides on it. The cross in the form of a Tau is from heathen civilizations and thats proven by modern research, archaelogy, and history. Thats Hislops point. Thats not extremist for Christ rose from the dead. Having Christ on a cross around your neck is really sick for Christ is not on the cross but on the right hand of God the Father.
www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html is a site with multiple sources proving the pagan origin of the cross.
Catholic #1: He is extremely eccentric
Response: He may be eccentric, but right on his arguments.
Catholic #1: I have read the KJV, comapring it to my 2 Catholic Bibles. NO disagreement. The original KJV had the so-call "apocrapha" books !!!!!
Response: Many scholars have pointed out the many disagreement between the Catholic Bible and KJV. The original KJV had apocrypha books originally because it was of a reference tool not because they were as equally accurate as the 66-book canon. The early Church like Jerome, Origen, Hilary, etc. rejected it. Jewish scholars like Josephus, The Council of Jamnia, and Philo, and others in the time of Christ and for hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus condemned the Apocrypha as being inaccurate. Thats a historical fact.
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). Even King James and William Tyndale condemned the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha have many unscriptural precepts like prayers for the dead and sinless perfection (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), Salvation by Almsgiving (Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Purgatory (II Maccabees 12:39-45), the justification of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46), slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-28), and reincarnation (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). Lying, assassination and magical incantations are also approved in the Apocrypha. Luther and Calvin regarded the Apocrypha as not inspired works of God. Luther called it solely for edification and Calvin rejected them out right. So, Bible-Believers rejected the Apocrypha from the beginning.
Catholic #1: TRy as I have, I could not find any validation of the man-made Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or for some of you, once-saved-always-saved.
Response: There is tons of validation of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and other precepts. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to help a believer to find all fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Sola Scriptura also means that the Bible is the supreme source of information for religious usage, the final court of appeal for doctrine, and sufficient guide for any religious walk. Those 3 signs can be easily derived from Gods word. Thats a fact since 2 Timothy 3:15-16 All Scripture is inspired. Also see Psalm 89:34 .Not even God would alter his word. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says his written word is inspired and not given by private inspiration. The prophecy came by holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.
The Scriptures arent equal to tradition since tradition has a tendency to be distorted over time, change, some tradition are unscriptural, and no one knows the total extent of authentic tradition. The Scriptures are totally preserved in 66 books. Christ condemned some of tradition, but Christ never condemned the Holy Scriptures. Since tradition varies over time and the Bible doesnt, the Bible is superior to all tradition. Sola Fide is that by grace alone God can save a soul and thats fact expressed explicitly by Paul and others in the NT. I dont believe in once saved always saved.
Catholic #1: BTW
For those of you that are conspiracy nuts, how do you know that Peroutka is really a protestant now, not a Catholic ? Paranoia eventually leads to trusting in nothing or no one.
Response: A Conspiracy is mentioned in the Bible (Ezekiel 22:25, Acts 23:13). Satan is in a conspiracy to ruin the world, but in the end; he will fail. Legitimate conspiracies ought to be praised not condemned like John Loftus, Eric Jon Phelps and other proving that the Vatican allowed Nazis war criminals to come to South America, U.S.A., and other places in the Vatican Ratline. Peroutka is an Arminian Christian. Theres no need for paranoia, but there isnt a need for doubting the New World Order plan as well.
Catholic #1: Christ founded a Church, not a Jesus-and-me-only ism. Read Paul's letters carefully.
Response: Christ founded a Church with Christ as its head, but not with Popes, nuns, monks, priests, etc. that existed from the obsolete Judaism or from pagan religion. Read Paul and Jesus words carefully. Christ wanted the church to be simplistic not massive expansive with pomp and public, unnecessary religious ceremonies as we see today not only in Catholicism but in Charismatic circles and apostate Protestants and apostate Baptist churches.
Catholic #1: The pagan fallacy, once taken its natural and full route, can invalidate all Christianity. There are several books that allege that Jewish and Christian beliefs are nothing more than pagan beliefs, mixed with Middle eastern religions and Greek.
Response: Satan using false faiths counterfeited items of authentic truth and some aspects of Christianity have roots in Judaism. On the other hand, Christianity is unique from all faith since its the only faith that believes that one man saved the sins of the word and that mankind cant be saved by works, but by grace through faith.
All pagan religions subscribe to the belief that works will save a man, but his works can never save a man. Also, Christianity is unique in saying that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven and Jesus saved all of the sins of the entire world of all time not Buddha, Muhammad, Hinduism, etc. Books existing slandering Christianity doesnt validate their opinions anyway. Theres books slandering Bible-Believers, but that doesnt make them factually true.
Catholic #1: The everything-we-dont-like-is-a-pagan-religion is poor on any archeology, history and religious thought.
Response: Wow, God said dont follow in the way of the heathen. The Bible says that dont follow sinful. Thats paganism. Archaeology, history, and religious thought have proven the pagan influences in Catholicism and you refuse to accept that. For example, the Popes mitre is from the pagan religions of Babylon and has no scriptural validation. Monks existed in pagan religions globally, but has no scriptural validation. The circular mass is circular and claims to have the blood and body of Christ and a circular wafer is found in many ancient pagan religions (proven by historian Wilkinson), but it has no scriptural validation.
The Pope itself has no scriptural validation and Popes existed in Babylon and many Roman Emperors were called Pappa. Paganism ought to be rejected as wrong not covered up. It's not about what we don't like, it's about what God doesn't like. God doesn't like repeating prayer, unscriptural doctrine, calling a man Holy Father, and other things. I follow God not men.
Catholic #1: Unlike Watchman, you all disagree with me based on your own misconceptions, not what I really bleieve, yet each one of you acts as your own "pope" in what is biblical and who is or isnt a Christian, based on your own narrow and undereducated mind set.
Response: I have no misconceptions about Catholicism. Watchman is Watchman and tried to call me a smearer when I exposed his pal Ronald Reagan (that fraud) and I know all about Catholic belief. I dont act as my own Pope since God gave us a mind to question things. God gave us a spirit to discern things and God gave us a soul so he could save us. Questioning and exposing false doctrines is not evil or a sin. I dont act as a Pope. The Pope lets people bow to him, the Pope claims that he is the Vicar of Christ, centuries ago many Pope claimed to be God or take the place of God which is blasphemous, and the Pope is called Holy Father, when only God is called Holy Father (John 17:11).
Catholic #1: Look at the sites I noted for a fair opinion.
I always looked at pro-Catholic sites before and my mind is made up to follow Gods word and not unscriptural addition tradition.
Catholic #1: I do thank you all, for your attacks have deepened my Catholic faith and I have gotten even depper into scripture!!! I also am a Promo Director now for a Catholic Apolgist group!!!
Response: I thank you for deepening my faith in Jesus Christ. Ive gotten deep in Scripture as well. It doesnt matter if you are a Promo Director for a Catholic Apologist group, since Ive debated racist, 7th Adventists, Oneness, Muslims, JWs, Freemasons, etc. before. This is nothing new.
Catholic #1: BTW- Bible Christian Society, tapes and CD's for $1, if you are interested in the Catholic view from a strict, Bible-only study! No Fathers, little to no Cathecis or Encyclicals
Response: Sorry, Im not interested.
Catholic #1: I am a believer. I find the Catholic faith is in complete harmony with the RSV, Douy-Rheims and KJV!
Response: You are living in false doctrine in the Catholic religion. It is in harmony with the RSV and Douy-Rheims, but not with the KJV that eloquently refutes much of Roman Catholic distortions of scripture.
Catholic #1: Thank you all for increasing my faith. I continually pray for you, that Satan not use you as a willing patsy for his will.
Response: Thank you for increasing my faith. I dont need prayer to follow Roman Catholicism. Satan is not using me as a patsy for his will. The Roman Catholic Church is false by the evidence.
Catholic #1: Watchman, I can at least respect you/I differences brother in Christ!!!!!
Response: What can I say. Watchman is Watchman. Hes pro-Confederacy and denies that Freemasonry influenced the Confederacy and Union side of the War. For example, the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite was based in Charleston, South Carolina and Albert Pike and many Confederate leaders were Masons just like General Grant. Anton Chaitkin documented a strong Masonry presence in the South as well. Watchman mocked me by questioning the existence of the Knights of the Golden Circle when both Union and Confederate leaders were members and scholars having proven their and the Jesuits involvement in the death of Abraham Lincoln before I judge all Confederates as evil, which I do.
I judge the leadership of the Confederacy as controlled by the Elite in the Civil War. Nothing more or less. I go on the Bush Revealed Forum and writes articles, but I dont agree with everything he believes in as well. He mocks the Jesuit conspiracy fact, but heres some facts that Watchman and Catholic #1 dont want you to know:
Fact: Jesuit priest Bernhard Staempfle helped Hitler write Mein Kampf proven by author Edmond Paris and Otto Strasser was one of the founders of the Nazi Party. Even Hitler said that he modeled the SS after the Jesuit Order.
Fact: Honorary 33rd Degree Freemason Ronald Reagan was cozy with Boston College President Jesuit J. Donald Monan. Reagan not only passed abortion in California in the 1960s and was anti-gun, but also allowed pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Sandra Day OConnor to exist and other bad political policies.
Fact: Hitler signed Concordant with Vatican Cardinal Pacelli in 1933 with the help of Knight of Malta Franz von Papen. Hitler was never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church at all.
Fact:
Fact: Many Jesuits and the Vatican supported Latin American dictators to oppress the people there.
Fact: Jesuit Priest and 33rd Degree Freemason Joseph Rettinger create the powerful and sinister Bilderberger Group.
Fact: Jesuit priest William J. Fulco wrote the script for the unscriptural/occultic film of the Passion of the Christ.
Fact: Knight of Malta Dr.John J. DeGioia is a Georgetown/Jesuit trained person whos part of the Elite by being a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Chair of its Education Committee, according to the webpage he "represents Georgetown" being a member of the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Fact: Jesuit Georgetown University trained Bill Clinton and he even went with Jesuit Richard McSorley on a trip to Olso, Norway since both opposed the Vietnam War. Clinton is obvious a person who is pro-abortion and even vetoes a ban on partial birth abortion when the majority of the American people opposed that type of abortion.
*Not to mention that the refuse to look at the Vaticans Secret Societies of the Opus Dei, Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, etc. I hope you convert to real Christianity Catholic #1.
By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy).
Catholic #1: Hislop has long been rendered obsolete and Chick, well, what can you say about that.
Response: I dont consider Hislop and Jack Chick obsolete at all. Why do many people dislike Jack Chick? Its because hes been a soul winner for decades and never backed down from exposing the many Catholic superstitions that plague their religion like a virus.
Hislop conclusively proved that many of the infrastructures of the Catholic Church like the Papacy, nuns, mitre, mass, and other things have origins from the Mystery Religions of Egypt and Babylon not from the Bible. Jack Chick has proven to be a soul-winner for Christ and shown great exposes about Mormonism, Catholicism, Freemasonry, Jehovah Witnesses, Evolution, and Bible preservation for decades. Those things and what Hislop wrote are relevant today and are never obsolete.
Catholic #1: For info about chick and Hislop, look to catholic.com for their essays on them.
Response: Sorry, I rather look at www.piney.com/HislopTOC1.html and www.chick.com and see what both men have to say, not distortions. Chick have opposed Freemasonry, JWs, Islam, etc. and that should be commended. His opposition to the religion on Catholicism is founded on Scripture.
Catholic #1: Either/or arguments are a hallmark of Protestantism, though Jesus stated he was the foundation, yet we see in Rev ther are 12 foundations. The saints in heaven share in Jesus. Jesus is the head, we are his body, working together. Honoring Mary is the same as Jesus, as Jesus was a good Jew following the 10 commandments perfectly. Paul stated he suffered for the body, "lacking in Christ's iflictions" Is he saying Jesus didnt do enough? NO! he joins himself to Christ, as we all should do.
Response: This is a classic case of distortion. The Bible says that Christ is the foundation and the chief corner stone plus the Rock period (1 Corinthians 3:11, Ephesians 2:20, Romans 9:33, 1 Corinthians 10:4). The 12 foundations in Revelations refer to the New city of Jerusalem, not to the real and total indestructible foundation and Rock of the Lord Jesus Christ. Nice tactic in distorting the Scriptures to suit your agenda. I agree that the saints in Heaven live with Jesus and that Jesus is the head of the Church and believers are the body working together. On the other hand, there is no scriptural proof of a Pope, nuns, priests being a small number when God established the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5, 1 Peter 2:9).
The Lord Jesus Christ is our only High Priest (Hebrews 7:26). There is nothing wrong with Honoring Mary, but I honor all believers equally not just Mary. Mary is a fallible, sinful woman since the Bible says that all men sinned. If you deny that all men have sinned before, you call the Bible a liar. The Catholic religion believes in venerating Mary and many Catholic documents cite Marian worship and some document classify Mary as a co-Mediatrix.
The Bible Says that Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man plus we arent to worship nothing but God (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 12:24, Exodus 34:14). It isnt necessarily for veneration since we respect Mary, but Christ should be our majority for all veneration and honor should be given to all believers (which makes up Mary) equally. Christ was God in the flesh and called Mary woman. I have no problem with man suffering problems after salvation, but suffering is never redemptive. Only God Almighty can redeem us by nothing of ourselves. There is nothing wrong with joining with Jesus Christ, but not following false doctrines like the existence of a Pope, nuns, scapular, rosary beads with repetitive prayer violating Gods word (Matthew 6:7), etc.
Catholic #1: It is not either/or.
Response: There is context in scripture and God said choose heaven or choose Hell. There is an either or in life.
Catholic #1: Any one that seriously believes in Chick, is rather sacary as all his sources 'are covered up" or "trust me"
Response: Jack Chick is right on Evolution, Freemasonry, JWs, Islam, etc. I trust him and his sources and his work are not covered up or intentionally false. Many of his sources include information involving Creation, music, and other issues, not just the Catholic Church. Hes very wide in his perspective.
Catholic #1: Rivera and Todd were documented criminals, these, Chick's sources.
Response: Chick uses more sources than Rivera and Todd. Chick uses sources from Intelligent design promoters, Bible scholars, researchers, etc. Watchman may call me a smearer and question Chick, but I wont. Rivera was a man who made mistakes, but his fundamental arguments of the corruption of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits are facts. Todd was a man who made mistakes as well, but he tried his best to outline the Satanism is prevalent in society and the Secret Societies power in America. That should be cherished not condemned.
Catholic #1: I have read Marcavages views on this site about Catholics. He spends more time, it seems fighting us than focusing on abortion, etc.
Response: Marcavages has a right to believe in what he wants about Catholics. Abortion is forever evil and murder, but ecumenical unity is wrong and shouldnt be used to fight against legitimate social ills at all. I dont follow ecumenicalism and Rome is surely promoting that gambit to con Bible-Believers to compromise their faith for submitting to the teachings of the Vatican. I will never submit to the Vatican, Freemasonry, or other false groups at all. God allowed me to witness the truth in front of my face and I will not deny God. Dissent with false doctrine is scriptural and not evil or a hindrance to people.
Catholic #1: His posts and info show he never really knew anything about Catholicism. Reading articles and statements do not make one a Catholic nor an expert. He clearly knows little about us. Further, the "ex" title is telling. Ex-smokers are some of the biggest anti-smoking nazi's around.
Response: Thats so funny that you call an ex-Catholic like Marcavages as not knowing anything about Catholicism. Catholicism is easy to understand. It believes that works save, that Mary is sinless, that the mass contains the body and blood of Jesus Christ in a circular wafer (used by the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian pagans), that purgatory is a real place, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ when the Pope is never mentioned in the Bible and the Early Church condemned a bishop of bishops as Cyprian eloquently said in his works.
Catholic #1: Watchman,
I respect the fact that you are at least willing to look at both sides. By reviewing sites such as catholic .com, Catholic Apologetics International, Scripture Catholic, etc one should get a fair and balanced view of what we believe. Not some Chick-fantasy.
Response: Chick is not showing fantasy. Jack Chick is right that Roman Catholicism embraces purgatory, the Papacy, etc. Hes right that the Jesuits have been involved with negative activities before. Hes right that Freemasonry is wrong and occultic and hes right that God existed and that he created the heavens and the Earth. Jack Chick is right on a lot of issues.
Catholic #1: As I have said before, look at what we REALLY believe, not what someon with a clear grudge or slant has to say.
Response: I always know what Catholicism is all about by the Bible, Vatican II documents, early church quotes, more Catholic documents, and other information years ago. I dont have a grudge or slant.
Catholic #1: I have talked to Ralph Woodrow. He wrote a second book refuting, totally, Hislop's views in light on current archeology, etc.
Response: I havent heard of Ralph Woodrow. Hislops main premise that paganism influenced many of the doctrines of Romanism is a fact. I dont care how many books Woodrow right, since that cant be denied. Many scholars write literature blasting others opinion and that doesnt mean that the blaster is accurate at all.
Hislop believed that the cross was a satanic symbol!!
Response: The cross was a satanic symbol if you when a cross with equal sides on it. The cross in the form of a Tau is from heathen civilizations and thats proven by modern research, archaelogy, and history. Thats Hislops point. Thats not extremist for Christ rose from the dead. Having Christ on a cross around your neck is really sick for Christ is not on the cross but on the right hand of God the Father.
www.thewordsofeternallife.com/cross.html is a site with multiple sources proving the pagan origin of the cross.
Catholic #1: He is extremely eccentric
Response: He may be eccentric, but right on his arguments.
Catholic #1: I have read the KJV, comapring it to my 2 Catholic Bibles. NO disagreement. The original KJV had the so-call "apocrapha" books !!!!!
Response: Many scholars have pointed out the many disagreement between the Catholic Bible and KJV. The original KJV had apocrypha books originally because it was of a reference tool not because they were as equally accurate as the 66-book canon. The early Church like Jerome, Origen, Hilary, etc. rejected it. Jewish scholars like Josephus, The Council of Jamnia, and Philo, and others in the time of Christ and for hundreds of years after the death and resurrection of Jesus condemned the Apocrypha as being inaccurate. Thats a historical fact.
The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). Even King James and William Tyndale condemned the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha have many unscriptural precepts like prayers for the dead and sinless perfection (2 Maccabees 12:39-46), Salvation by Almsgiving (Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Purgatory (II Maccabees 12:39-45), the justification of suicide (II Maccabees 14:43-46), slavery and cruelty (Ecclesiasticus 33:24-28), and reincarnation (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20). Lying, assassination and magical incantations are also approved in the Apocrypha. Luther and Calvin regarded the Apocrypha as not inspired works of God. Luther called it solely for edification and Calvin rejected them out right. So, Bible-Believers rejected the Apocrypha from the beginning.
Catholic #1: TRy as I have, I could not find any validation of the man-made Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or for some of you, once-saved-always-saved.
Response: There is tons of validation of Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and other precepts. Sola Scriptura is the belief that the Scriptures alone are sufficient to help a believer to find all fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Sola Scriptura also means that the Bible is the supreme source of information for religious usage, the final court of appeal for doctrine, and sufficient guide for any religious walk. Those 3 signs can be easily derived from Gods word. Thats a fact since 2 Timothy 3:15-16 All Scripture is inspired. Also see Psalm 89:34 .Not even God would alter his word. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says his written word is inspired and not given by private inspiration. The prophecy came by holy men of God moved by the Holy Spirit.
The Scriptures arent equal to tradition since tradition has a tendency to be distorted over time, change, some tradition are unscriptural, and no one knows the total extent of authentic tradition. The Scriptures are totally preserved in 66 books. Christ condemned some of tradition, but Christ never condemned the Holy Scriptures. Since tradition varies over time and the Bible doesnt, the Bible is superior to all tradition. Sola Fide is that by grace alone God can save a soul and thats fact expressed explicitly by Paul and others in the NT. I dont believe in once saved always saved.
Catholic #1: BTW
For those of you that are conspiracy nuts, how do you know that Peroutka is really a protestant now, not a Catholic ? Paranoia eventually leads to trusting in nothing or no one.
Response: A Conspiracy is mentioned in the Bible (Ezekiel 22:25, Acts 23:13). Satan is in a conspiracy to ruin the world, but in the end; he will fail. Legitimate conspiracies ought to be praised not condemned like John Loftus, Eric Jon Phelps and other proving that the Vatican allowed Nazis war criminals to come to South America, U.S.A., and other places in the Vatican Ratline. Peroutka is an Arminian Christian. Theres no need for paranoia, but there isnt a need for doubting the New World Order plan as well.
Catholic #1: Christ founded a Church, not a Jesus-and-me-only ism. Read Paul's letters carefully.
Response: Christ founded a Church with Christ as its head, but not with Popes, nuns, monks, priests, etc. that existed from the obsolete Judaism or from pagan religion. Read Paul and Jesus words carefully. Christ wanted the church to be simplistic not massive expansive with pomp and public, unnecessary religious ceremonies as we see today not only in Catholicism but in Charismatic circles and apostate Protestants and apostate Baptist churches.
Catholic #1: The pagan fallacy, once taken its natural and full route, can invalidate all Christianity. There are several books that allege that Jewish and Christian beliefs are nothing more than pagan beliefs, mixed with Middle eastern religions and Greek.
Response: Satan using false faiths counterfeited items of authentic truth and some aspects of Christianity have roots in Judaism. On the other hand, Christianity is unique from all faith since its the only faith that believes that one man saved the sins of the word and that mankind cant be saved by works, but by grace through faith.
All pagan religions subscribe to the belief that works will save a man, but his works can never save a man. Also, Christianity is unique in saying that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven and Jesus saved all of the sins of the entire world of all time not Buddha, Muhammad, Hinduism, etc. Books existing slandering Christianity doesnt validate their opinions anyway. Theres books slandering Bible-Believers, but that doesnt make them factually true.
Catholic #1: The everything-we-dont-like-is-a-pagan-religion is poor on any archeology, history and religious thought.
Response: Wow, God said dont follow in the way of the heathen. The Bible says that dont follow sinful. Thats paganism. Archaeology, history, and religious thought have proven the pagan influences in Catholicism and you refuse to accept that. For example, the Popes mitre is from the pagan religions of Babylon and has no scriptural validation. Monks existed in pagan religions globally, but has no scriptural validation. The circular mass is circular and claims to have the blood and body of Christ and a circular wafer is found in many ancient pagan religions (proven by historian Wilkinson), but it has no scriptural validation.
The Pope itself has no scriptural validation and Popes existed in Babylon and many Roman Emperors were called Pappa. Paganism ought to be rejected as wrong not covered up. It's not about what we don't like, it's about what God doesn't like. God doesn't like repeating prayer, unscriptural doctrine, calling a man Holy Father, and other things. I follow God not men.
Catholic #1: Unlike Watchman, you all disagree with me based on your own misconceptions, not what I really bleieve, yet each one of you acts as your own "pope" in what is biblical and who is or isnt a Christian, based on your own narrow and undereducated mind set.
Response: I have no misconceptions about Catholicism. Watchman is Watchman and tried to call me a smearer when I exposed his pal Ronald Reagan (that fraud) and I know all about Catholic belief. I dont act as my own Pope since God gave us a mind to question things. God gave us a spirit to discern things and God gave us a soul so he could save us. Questioning and exposing false doctrines is not evil or a sin. I dont act as a Pope. The Pope lets people bow to him, the Pope claims that he is the Vicar of Christ, centuries ago many Pope claimed to be God or take the place of God which is blasphemous, and the Pope is called Holy Father, when only God is called Holy Father (John 17:11).
Catholic #1: Look at the sites I noted for a fair opinion.
I always looked at pro-Catholic sites before and my mind is made up to follow Gods word and not unscriptural addition tradition.
Catholic #1: I do thank you all, for your attacks have deepened my Catholic faith and I have gotten even depper into scripture!!! I also am a Promo Director now for a Catholic Apolgist group!!!
Response: I thank you for deepening my faith in Jesus Christ. Ive gotten deep in Scripture as well. It doesnt matter if you are a Promo Director for a Catholic Apologist group, since Ive debated racist, 7th Adventists, Oneness, Muslims, JWs, Freemasons, etc. before. This is nothing new.
Catholic #1: BTW- Bible Christian Society, tapes and CD's for $1, if you are interested in the Catholic view from a strict, Bible-only study! No Fathers, little to no Cathecis or Encyclicals
Response: Sorry, Im not interested.
Catholic #1: I am a believer. I find the Catholic faith is in complete harmony with the RSV, Douy-Rheims and KJV!
Response: You are living in false doctrine in the Catholic religion. It is in harmony with the RSV and Douy-Rheims, but not with the KJV that eloquently refutes much of Roman Catholic distortions of scripture.
Catholic #1: Thank you all for increasing my faith. I continually pray for you, that Satan not use you as a willing patsy for his will.
Response: Thank you for increasing my faith. I dont need prayer to follow Roman Catholicism. Satan is not using me as a patsy for his will. The Roman Catholic Church is false by the evidence.
Catholic #1: Watchman, I can at least respect you/I differences brother in Christ!!!!!
Response: What can I say. Watchman is Watchman. Hes pro-Confederacy and denies that Freemasonry influenced the Confederacy and Union side of the War. For example, the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite was based in Charleston, South Carolina and Albert Pike and many Confederate leaders were Masons just like General Grant. Anton Chaitkin documented a strong Masonry presence in the South as well. Watchman mocked me by questioning the existence of the Knights of the Golden Circle when both Union and Confederate leaders were members and scholars having proven their and the Jesuits involvement in the death of Abraham Lincoln before I judge all Confederates as evil, which I do.
I judge the leadership of the Confederacy as controlled by the Elite in the Civil War. Nothing more or less. I go on the Bush Revealed Forum and writes articles, but I dont agree with everything he believes in as well. He mocks the Jesuit conspiracy fact, but heres some facts that Watchman and Catholic #1 dont want you to know:
Fact: Jesuit priest Bernhard Staempfle helped Hitler write Mein Kampf proven by author Edmond Paris and Otto Strasser was one of the founders of the Nazi Party. Even Hitler said that he modeled the SS after the Jesuit Order.
Fact: Honorary 33rd Degree Freemason Ronald Reagan was cozy with Boston College President Jesuit J. Donald Monan. Reagan not only passed abortion in California in the 1960s and was anti-gun, but also allowed pro-abortion Supreme Court justice Sandra Day OConnor to exist and other bad political policies.
Fact: Hitler signed Concordant with Vatican Cardinal Pacelli in 1933 with the help of Knight of Malta Franz von Papen. Hitler was never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church at all.
Fact:
Fact: Many Jesuits and the Vatican supported Latin American dictators to oppress the people there.
Fact: Jesuit Priest and 33rd Degree Freemason Joseph Rettinger create the powerful and sinister Bilderberger Group.
Fact: Jesuit priest William J. Fulco wrote the script for the unscriptural/occultic film of the Passion of the Christ.
Fact: Knight of Malta Dr.John J. DeGioia is a Georgetown/Jesuit trained person whos part of the Elite by being a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO, Chair of its Education Committee, according to the webpage he "represents Georgetown" being a member of the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Fact: Jesuit Georgetown University trained Bill Clinton and he even went with Jesuit Richard McSorley on a trip to Olso, Norway since both opposed the Vietnam War. Clinton is obvious a person who is pro-abortion and even vetoes a ban on partial birth abortion when the majority of the American people opposed that type of abortion.
*Not to mention that the refuse to look at the Vaticans Secret Societies of the Opus Dei, Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, etc. I hope you convert to real Christianity Catholic #1.
By TruthSeeker24 (Timothy).
Friday, May 8, 2009
9/11
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/8457
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2329
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2675
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/4351
____________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/661
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2389
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2386
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/784 Calvin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/967 Papacy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2329
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2675
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/4351
____________________________
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/661
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2389
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/2386
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/784 Calvin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phantomtruth/message/967 Papacy
Monday, May 4, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)