Google+ Followers

Wednesday, 18 September 2013

Catholicism and the worship of the dead III: 4.000 skeletons in crypt in Roman Catholic Church in Rome


4.000 skeletons in crypt in Roman Catholic Church in Rome

Not only Poland and Czech republic have skull chapels. In Rome it self there is a crypt in a Church with 4.000 skeletons and corpses.

In Rome there is a Catholic Church with skeletons dressed up as monks. 4.000 skulls can be found as decoration at this horrific site.
After publishing several articles about Roman Catholic adoration and veneration of bones, skulls and corpses, I decided to take a break to look into other matters.
But after I discovered photo’s from a “skull chapel” in the heart of the Italian capital, I changed my mind.
The Capuchin Crypt is a small space comprising several tiny chapels located beneath the church of Santa Maria della Concezione dei Cappuccini on the Via Veneto near Piazza Barberini in Rome, Italy.
This is the official version, that can be read on wikipedia.
The Capuchin Crypt contains the skeletal remains of 4,000 bodies believed to be Capuchin friars buried by their order. The Catholic order insists that the display is not meant to be macabre, but a silent reminder of the swift passage of life on Earth.
Described by Frommer’s as:
“one of the most horrifying images in all of Christendom” ,large numbers of the bones are nailed to the walls in intricate patterns. Many are piled high among countless others, while others hang from the ceiling as light fixtures.
Lets take a deeper look at the background history, and watch some more photo’s:
When the monks arrived at the church in 1631, they brought 300 cartloads of deceased friars. Fr. Michael of Bergamo oversaw the arrangement of the bones in the burial crypt. The soil in the crypt was brought from Jerusalem, by order of Pope Urban VIII.

This crypt in the heart of Rome is decorated with a painting of “Jesus”, skull, bones and two corpses. A tragedy, that keep non believers away from this wicked pagan religion with a “copy-cat Jesus”in its center.

The Roman Catholic priests even hung a skeleton under the roof, to be adored and venerated. The cross on the alter does make this room anything but a satanic place of worship. 

Spiritual madness and insanity made the Vatican faithful make this kind of “art” to decorate a place of worship.

This is the claimed “Church” in Rome were these horrible images can be seen “live”.
As monks died during the lifetime of the crypt, the longest-buried monk was exhumed to make room for the newly-deceased who was buried without a coffin and the newly-reclaimed bones were added to the decorative motifs Bodies typically spent 30 years decomposing in the soil, before being exhumed.
My comment:
Al most all Roman Catholics have no clue about what criminal acts their priest and Bishops have participated in during the ages.
But some few of the Catholics, take pleasure in looking “art” made of exhumed human bones, and a Pope that brought soil from Jerusalem to “decorate” the floor in the crypt, inside a Church build to honor the pagan Queen of Heaven.

A Vatican approved Church, that would be a perfect place to make a horror movie.

The full picture of the skeletons dressed up as Monks.

A demonized Roman Catholic Cardinal has published a picture of him self inside this crypt.

Bishop Sean Patrick O’Malley elevated by the Pope to the rank of Cardinal.
One of these wicked men, is Boston Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley. He has published pictures from this site on his blog. The Cardinal tries his best to defend this wicked “art” work as “holiness”.
Take a look at his blog.
Spiritual blindness has no limits when it comes to Vatican approved Cardinals.
First published 25.11.2010.
Written by Ivar



66 Responses to 4.000 skeletons in crypt in Roman Catholic Church in Rome

  1. sueliz1 says:
    Hi there Ivar. Blessings to you. Just when I thought I had seen it all, I see this horrid bone church. Pretty disgusting!!! The hanging monks really top it all off. Unbelievable!
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear Sue.
      Shalom.
      That there is such a site of horror called a Catholic Church inside the “eternal city”, caught me by surprise. Many Catholics claim that their religion has resulted in misunderstandings in third world countries, but that Rome it self is “clean and holy”.
      This is not the truth. Rome is mysterious Babylon from the book of revelation, and this is one of the articles you can use to try to open the eyes of the Catholics.
  2. Jes says:
    I think these are definitely bones of innocent murdered people. I bet these bones have been crying out to the Holy Creator YHVH (the God of Israel).
    What a wicked thing to do, use them for decoration and keep them hanging. DISGUSTING CATHOLIC CHURCH.
    • James says:
      Jes, I don’t understand why you would say such a thing. What is your basis for jumping to judgment like that?
      The church and the keepers of the site assert that it is the bones of the reverent members of a particular order of monks. In other words, people who, over centuries, devoted themselves to the worship and service of Jesus Christ.
      I would also dare ask how bones would cry out to God. They are empty. The Bible is quite clear that we vacate the body when we die, and I will agree only so far as that the former possessors of these bones now enjoy the opportunity to double “Cry Out” to God, both spiritually in his very presence, experiencing the fullness of grace that they strove for while occupying this earth, and silently, bodily, by aiding others in their worship of God, and helping to tell the story of our relationship with Him.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom, and welcome to this site.
        You wrote:
        In other words, people who, over centuries, devoted themselves to the worship and service of Jesus Christ.
        My comment:
        You believe in lies. The road to Rome has always been coated with blood and good intentions. The beast that rule the Vatican got drunk with the blood of the saints. True spirit filled Christians were butchered by the Papal faithful. The Papists were all children of Hell, worshiping the Queen of Heaven and her Bishop of Rome.
        To claim that this site is of Papal Monks, is like saying that the Church are grave looters of passed away member of their own religion. After 30 years in the grave, the bones of Monks was supposedly taken out of their last place of rest, to be used as Puppets in a Papal Horror show. What a shameful, disgusting and completely demonic version of the truth the Vatican is trying to sell us.
        The truth is that these bodies are the remains of true Christians who were rounded up, persecuted and killed in Rome, for their opposition towards the seat of the antichrist. They refused to accept the Pope as head of the Church, and had to pay with their life.
        These Baptist’s were refused a burial place, and kept for slaughter in a mini-Holocaust under the ground in the center of the claimed to be “eternal city”.
        Satan has no limits. By using his children to dress these skulls up as catholic monks for “veneration”, the devil make a complete mockery out of Christianity, and keeps billions of people away from Jesus. A more demonic religion than Catholicism has never been invented, and has surely come up from the bottomless pit.
        It will be easier to sell fridges on the North Pole, than to make us believe in this Satanic lie about “Holy skeletons”.
      • tom says:
        Rome, like islam has conquered by the sword, by fear and death not love, it is Rome that butchered the jews, the incas and hundreds of thousands of christians who dared to believe the Bible instead of the pope. Rome is literally full of dead mens bones.
  3. Melanie says:
    When I saw these pics I actually felt nauseaus.It defies understanding and as such one can easily say these kinds of acts are steeped in the pits of hell.
    Please coontine to expose this darkly satanical religion loosely described the world round as “Christianity”(this too is insane).
  4. James says:
    Wow, I’m really pretty stunned by this article.
    I might suggest that the authors and commenters hear consider finding their local college and enrolling in a few classes, one called “sociology” and another called “anthropology” and learn the difference between cultural values, and moral values.
    I may also suggest that anyone here pick up a Bible and see what the book has to say about the corpse and the flesh. Read especially what Paul says about it, much of it is not exactly delicate. Anecdotally, Paul is associated (retroactively of course) with protestants more than catholics for reasons that take words to explain.
    Personally, I believe in what the Bible has to say about bodies, and equate the inert corpse of a human being as mere dirt. To a person who truly believes that the spirit is greater than the flesh, and that true life is eternal life, the body no longer occupied has no more significance than a car you took to the junkyard, or your old house that burnt down, or the part of your garage that you gutted to build a new extension. If after I die you want to use my body to create a hockey set, I’m basically OK with that. I’d rather you do something nice with it, like fertilize a crop or decorate a church, but even if in the end you use my bones to level out the wobbly leg on your coffee table, I’d be OK with that. Because I’m not going to be in it anymore, and it couldn’t matter less than me.
    On the other hand, were I a monk, that is, if I had given my soul to God and my body and life to his Church, then I suppose I would probably be happy to see The Church use my body in whatever way it saw fit. If that is to decorate a church, then it means that even after mortal death, the bits I left behind would get to go on bringing glory to God, and serving his Church… what better could I want?
    One last thing, going back to my first paragraph. This chapel is centuries old. Our squeamishness about corpses and death is very recent. Ever see or read Hamlet? Read any ancient books? Wonder how they managed to bury so many people in small caves in Jerusalem? In the culture and era in which this chapel was built, our modern repulsion to bones and bodies was not shared. A skull was just a piece of a dead person, nothing more or less. To turn it into art, though, that is more.
    The Catholic Church is steeped in symbolism and tradition. I am not catholic, I am mennonite, which is of course incredibly different, but I can appreciate the idea that the accumulation of unique symbols and metaphors can deeply enrich the experience of faith. I would severely worry about the depth of faith of anyone who was unable to appreciate a symbol or an apparently odd but ancient practice, because if you read them at their face value, so many traditions described in the Bible, such as “eating the flesh and blood” of Jesus, being born again (imagine that graphically, it’s gruesome, and the Bible does contain a joke about it), putting to death the flesh… all of these things are plain and simple disgusting on their face to our modern values. So it’s quite critical, if you want your faith to survive, to be open to the depth and richness of tradition and symbolism that the two millenia of church history have to offer you.
    There is also a similar chapel in Poland built around the same time as the American Revolution of victims of the 30 Years War, as a memorial. The skulls of the people who built the place were later added after their deaths. Personally, and I am sure this is true for most of those reading this page, days after I die nobody will ever gaze upon me again, except the shadows which are photographs. These monks have borrowed extra centuries of influence on others. So perhaps I could envy them.
    • Gloria says:
      James
      Your comment: To a person who truly believes that the spirit is greater than the flesh, and that true life is eternal life, the body no longer occupied has no more significance than a car you took to the junkyard, or your old house that burnt down, or the part of your garage that you gutted to build a new extension.
      My Comment: Persecuted Christians are with Jesus Christ because they died for their faith, knowing they would inherit eternity with the king. But those that murdered them will still have to answer to Jesus for taking a life. 2 Corinthians 5:10 says: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
      Your comment: If after I die you want to use my body to create a hockey set, I’m basically OK with that. I’d rather you do something nice with it, like fertilize a crop or decorate a church,
      My Comment: That is rather disgusting, the use of bones fore “decorating” or what the roman catholic church does with it-openly displaying persecuted christians as if it were okay. Like I said, we all have to answer to Jesus Christ.
      The bible says in: Deuteronomy 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
      **Notice** wher God says: BUT THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE BURY HIM THAT DAY. Unless, I misunderstand God’s meaning (which I try and learn about God everyday): Yes, God considered it wise to bury the dead.
      Another verse on burial: 1 Samuel 31:13 And they took their bones, and buried them under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days.
      Your comment: . A skull was just a piece of a dead person, nothing more or less. To turn it into art, though, that is more.
      My Comment: Again, disgusting and wrong. The same way you suggest other people to attend classes to learn and read the bible, I suggest to you to find a Pastor who believes that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and who teaches strictly from the new and old testament, and learn from him.
      Your comment: I would severely worry about the depth of faith of anyone who was unable to appreciate a symbol or an apparently odd but ancient practice,
      My Comment: And I say to you simply and straight to the point READ EXODUS 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.”
      And Leviticus 19:4 “‘Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.”
      And Deuteronomy 4:16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman,
      Deuteronomy 5:8 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
      I can show you more if you’d like. The Word of God is simple and straight forward. All who do not follow the Word of God, will have to answer to that someday soon.
      God Bless.
      • PutYHWH1st says:
        unbelievable, what is wrong with these people? All we can do is pray they see the light. I believe Yahushua is the only one ascended to Heaven,the rest of the dead lie with their fathers ,like king David sleeps with his fathers,as it is written. The thief on tree going to paradise the jesuits put the comma in the wrong place.
        Luke23:43-”Assuredly ,I say to you today ,you will be with me in paradise.”
        A comma changes the meaning you clearly see.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear PutTHAW1st.
        Shalom.
        That Y’shua is the only one that has ascended to Heaven, is not a belief supported by the Bible. The Hebrew Bible explain that Elijah was taken into Heaven in a rapture.
        In the New Testament, we read that two Jews faced the Jew from Nazareth during the transfiguration. The two men was Elijah and Moses.
        From where did they come?
        Obviously from the same place as ministering Angles, from the Holy Presence of God our Father.
        In regards to the comma, I feel the scriptures are true and should be understood as it is written. The spirit of Jesus was surley going to be sent to Paradise “today”, in fact in the very next moment….Since there is no record of Jesus telling this thief anything “yesterday”, the Messiah obviously wanted to take the thief with Him.
        Jesus did not send this thief sleeping for the next 2.000 years.
    • Observer II says:
      Hello James and thank you for adding in some well-reasoned thought process to your posting.
      I am a Catholic and how Tradition, Symbolism, and language itself is twisted by some on this board makes my head swim.
      What most Protestants (Reformers) want everyone to do is just begin their Christian investigation around the year 1517 “when the Christian church really began”. The biggest error that is being fed to “Bible Christians” is that “the Bible alone” is all there is to know about Christianity, the Apostles, and Jesus.
      What they try to forget (and what they are trying to still make people forget) is that Jesus did two things that changed the world:
      1. He instituted a new Church built on the foundation of his Apostles, more specifically, Peter.
      2. He led by example as he preached the Gospel. He exhorted his followers to “do as I do” and not to just make up things on their own.
      3. And lastly, and one of the biggest heresies of all, that the Bible itself is somehow the super-form of religious expression even unto the point that fanatical Reformers ignorant of their own Catholic Christian heritage, if they could, would be just as happy replacing any other Christian symbols with just one, a Bible.
      I would argue that some of these Reformers could themselves be guilty of idolatry – adoring and venerating the physical Bible as their God.
      The truth is that Catholics do venerate Holy Relics. A holy relic is something that is known in it’s simplest form to been in touch with God and therefore by God’s holiness, has in some way become more holy.
      There are many many passages in the scriptures that show forms of holy relic veneration. One of the best examples comes from the Old Testament where Elisha’s bones bring a dead man back to life. This is an Israelite story from the Hebrew scriptures in the Book of Kings, Chapter 13.
      It is natural that the early Christians, who were Jews by race and who knew their own history, would attribute to the bones of their holy ones (the Roman Martyrs) a spiritual efficacy.
      No matter how much one tries, you cannot take the humanity and human culture out of the human.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear Observer II
        Shalom
        You wrote:
        What most Protestants (Reformers) want everyone to do is just begin their Christian investigation around the year 1517 “when the Christian church really began”.
        My reply:
        Falsification of history is an art of the Vatican. There has always been a Church, that has never accepted the Pope of Rome. They were baptists, like John the Baptists. They called Catholics that came into existence around 400 A.D, for pagans. They continued to baptize people with full immersion, and re-baptized Catholic.
        This was a persecuted Church, and the head of the martyr’s covered the way to Rome. The full way up to the office of the Papacy.
      • Observer II says:
        I think what you mean to say is that there have always been pretenders to true christianity, in fact even in the Bible there were false messiahs, false prophets, false everything. I think what the real problem here is, to echo Pontius Pilate, “Truth, what is truth?”
        You see, anyone can say, “I have the truth!”, but what proofs do they offer in defense of their claims? Is it mere opinion they offer as a defense, or something more substantial? Is it something real, but presented in a twisted fashion to suit their own ends, or is the substantive fact presented on its own merit?
        The truth is, I am not Jewish so I cannot comment on, “This is what Jews believe”. Similarly, it amazes me that some people who are not, nor have ever been Catholic presume to tell others, “This is what Catholics believe.”
        If a Jewish person says to me when presented with a textual quote or a picture of a Jewish religious expression, that what is presented is interpreted this certain way, then I believe them. I don’t go running off to perpetuate what I think of the issue, I believe them and their relayed interpretation.
        Now, of course if something clearly says something like in Matthew 16:18-19, that “Jesus said to Peter, and on you, The Rock, I will establish my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” And someone comes to me and says, no, that’s not REALLY what he meant, he didn’t REALLY mean to imply that he was founding a church and that he was founding it on the person of Peter. Then they are just plain wrong and do not really believe in the infallibility of scripture. I would even venture to say that they are misinterpretting the test purposefully in order to spread their own falsehood.
      • Gloria says:
        Observer,
        Your Comment: I would even venture to say that they are misinterpretting the test purposefully in order to spread their own falsehood.
        My Comment: I already told you what Matthew 16:18 means. It is no fault of mine, that you have your own perception. And if you are not Catholic, you surely protect their beliefs enough that makes a person think if you are not one now, then you were one then.
        Either Christ is always right.
        Matthew 16:18 means:
        Jesus is the Rock! What Jesus was emphasizing is based on what Peter had declare by revelation of the Father, when he said: “Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God.” Notice what Jesus said to Peter, “…and on this rock I will build my church.” He didn’t say, “and upon you Peter” but on what Peter had declared. The emphasis as to when Jesus said, “and I tell you that you are Peter”, Peter means, little rock, not “the rock”. Another words, Peter and also the rest of the apostles were the “pillars” of the foundation, which is Jesus, where upon the church will be built. Peter receives the message as a leader among the disciples, but definately, and with so many scriptures that affirm it, Jesus is the “Rock” the foundation of the church.
        God Bless
      • james says:
        Observer and Gloria,
        I started playing with the different versions I have to read this passage in different passages. Indeed the word for Peter, though it also means “rock”, is a different word than the word that is used as “rock” in this sentence. Theologians (protestant ones anyway) seem to agree that in verse 18, Jesus is not saying directly that Peter is the rock on which the church is founded, but is definitely using his words carefully to set Peter in a special position.
        From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
        “Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated “rock,” is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church; and woe to him that attempts to lay any other! Peter’s confession is this rock as to doctrine. If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer’s character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men’s sins, are blasphemous and absurd. None can forgive sins but God only. ”
        Mind you, Henry’s commentary is not itself scripture. But it is a sound piece of theology that has stood the test of time. Both Observer and Gloria have some elements both right and wrong here. It is clear that Peter is assigned a very special position in the Church. It is factual as we know from church history that Peter went on to be the leader of the church among the Jews, while Paul was a key leader among the gentiles; and the two disagreed. I find a morbidly humorous comparison between this vehement discussion of Catholicism among Protestants, and discussions of Sunni among Shiites. We are supposed to be better than that.
        I got an email of a comment from Ivar about Matthew 28, although I can’t find the comment on this page. Again the only thing that is “very clear” is that two people can read the same passage and come away with different interpretations. I tend toward a more face-value interpretation. I happen to believe that there are portions of the Bible that are poetic and prophetic, and thus should be interpreted mystically, and other portions that are not and should not. I don’t see a leap from 18 to 20. I don’t see that because of my context; if I were in a courtroom and the judge said to me, “I have the authority of the United States government, and I want you to go and obtain this evidence from this source” I would not interpret that command to mean that I in turn have received the judge’s full authority, except inasmuch as I may be his messenger to say to someone else, “Judge Smith has asked for this under the federal authority.” I do not become Judge Smith.
        Similarly, I take as plain the rather specific commands of Mt 28:19 and 20. And I interpret it within the reality that I live in, and in light of the further clarification given subsequently in the books of Mark through Revelation; I know from Acts, for instance, that there will be some people who I will not convert and I shall do no more than move along, shaking the dust from my feet as I do. So it is with teaching, that I cannot, by any means, teach someone what they are unwilling to learn. (Perhaps parents can accomplish this in some cases, but the education and criminal justice systems teaches me that in general, one cannot be taught until one acquires a desire to learn.)
        So I see nothing anywhere in scripture that appoints me as the judge of whether or not anyone else’s faith is valid. Ivar, I must partially agree; in fact fully agree to the wording of your conclusion, that Jesus has delegated some of his authority to us, insofar as needed for us to do his will. That becomes more clear in the book of Acts, but at that point we also learn that at least certain aspects of that delegation is accomplished through the holy spirit, which strictly speaking is not our independent action; I think that our individual authority “on behalf of” Jesus is quite limited, and I believe is limited to the role of a messenger or teacher. I find myself back where I started, with the assertion that there is nothing in scripture to entitle me to make demands of anyone.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom.
        You wrote:
        I think that our individual authority “on behalf of” Jesus is quite limited, and I believe is limited to the role of a messenger or teacher. I find myself back where I started, with the assertion that there is nothing in scripture to entitle me to make demands of anyone.
        My reply:
        What you promote is universialism, and has nothing to do with faith in Jesus the Messiah. He demand, that we keeps his commands. If we truly love Him.
        Luke 10:16
        Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.
        John 14:21
        Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.
      • james says:
        Ivar,
        No, I’m not even sure where you are getting universalism from the passage which I cited, but I am not advocating universalism. I think I can understand the root of your misunderstanding, but in light of your other comment I’m not going to put forth much effort in correcting it.
        Universalism is an “all roads lead to Rome” idea. That is not what I believe. I do not believe that “it doesn’t matter what you believe.” I do, however, believe that it is not my place to be the judge of that. Every man shall be judged by God and by God alone. Those who are under the law will be judged by the law; and those who do not have the law, will be judged according to the law which God has written on their hearts. This is not a new-age universalist idea but it is from the book of Romans, 2:12-16 paraphrased.
        Luke 10:16, I am sorry to burst your bubble but that verse is not directed at you personally. My rejection of your dogmatic idiosyncracies does not comprise any form whatsoever of rejection of Christ. You are not Christ.
        John 14:21, I agree. Again I would be hard pressed to disagree with scripture in and of itself. But once more, who are you to judge whether I have and obey God’s commands? How would you assess whether I love God, and whether he loves me? Don’t answer; I really don’t care what you think at this point.
        For you to call me an apostate, and accuse me of being unfaithful to the Word of God, is no different from the action of an “evil” pope excommunicating someone. You sin against the Father when you claim to know his heart. I know that he is merciful, but still, I would not desire to sin in that way.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom.
        Every man shall be judged by God and by God alone
        My reply:
        People are already judged. Because they reject the cross, and make a mockery of the death and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus of Nazareth.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom.
        Your comment:
        For you to call me an apostate, and accuse me of being unfaithful to the Word of God, is no different from the action of an “evil” pope excommunicating someone.
        My reply:
        I have mo power to excommunicate you. I am not your pastor. But I will not allow you to be a Shepherd, over the flock Jesus has given me to look after. Because you have no faith. That everything might be “ok”, is not the gospel. That the Pope might, or might not be a Christian leader, is at best a political statement.
  5. Melanie says:
    James
    With all kindness dont tell me to enrol in university over the one true Gods Laws. The Bible.
  6. Melanie says:
    Gloria-
    Agree with all you said.
  7. PutYHWH1st says:
    unbelievable, what is wrong with these people? All we can do is pray they see the light.
    • james says:
      Honestly, after the delightful feedback I had received from the several commenters here, I wasn’t planning to revisit this site, but I need a break from law books for a minute.
      Melanie, kindly tell me when it was that God told you not to go to college. I highly doubt that such a thing ever occurs. I will concede that the Bible gives quite limited commentary on formal education, but as the first modern university (a law school, incidentally) didn’t open its doors until the middle ages, it was a topic, like abortion or global warming, that the Bible had no reason to address. So it makes utterly no sense for you to accuse me of blasphemy, for my suggestion that you educate yourself. On the contrary, the scripture does order that you “gird your waist with truth” (“belt of truth” in NIV, Eph 6:14). Solomon prayed “give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may lead this people.” 2 Chron 1:10. Fools despise wisdom and instruction. Proverbs 1:7. It is clear that my suggestion that those who seek to understand the world and wish to judge and condemn others, would be wise to seek appropriate knowledge and understanding to support such endeavors. That is to say, as in many more words I said in the first place, you really should not be so quick to judge things you don’t understand.
      Gloria, your orthogonal attack on my post neglected to actually address my direct critiques of your perspective. But I think that I’ve about exhausted my study break, and it is clear to me that you will not benefit from anything that I have to share. Good day.
      Sorry, can’t just leave it there. Out of context, my favorite phrasing would be James 2:4, but alas, it only sounds appropriate. It’s funny, in a keyword search on “judge” the only favorable references to it (and there are many) put God as the subject of the sentence, and us collectively as the object. Col 2:16 says not to let anyone judge you by things which don’t matter, e.g. elements of the Mosaic law that has been fulfilled. Other examples, such as 1 Cor 11:13, give a humorously ridiculous context to the idea of examining scripture outside of the cultural context (e.g., proves either that most churches are seriously wrong, or that we need to look at a culture through its own lens). Then there’s 1 Cor 6, which can be read as anti-lawyer… I can see how you might cite 1 Cor 5 in your defense here. Interesting. None of you have, but you could.
      Eh, ok so I guess I’m stuck.
      Gloria, do you know the definition of an idol? There is a clear difference between an idol an a symbol. With an idol, you worship the thing. In your church, I almost guarantee there are idolaters who worship certain things like money. Technically, any object of worship which is not God, which draws away from God, is an idol. So money is certainly the favorite idol of Christians, but we also seem quite fond of idolizing our spouses, our kids, our pastors, and #1 our selves.
      You come back to the “persecuted Christians” thing and seem to be implying that people were killed by the church to build these structures. Where are you getting that from? I can understand if the source material may have seemed ambiguous, but the Poland site is victims of a war which was both political and religious. The Capuchin site in Rome is of course the members of the Capuchin order, who had a reputation as what we would call hospice workers today; the display relates to their social function, again had you read you would know that.
      You responded to my explanation of cultural relativism and the arbitrariness of our aversion to remains by saying “That’s disgusting.” In that comment, you have completely sidestepped any interest in actual discussion and/or knowledge that I had falsely assumed you may have. “That’s disgusting” is simply not a point of argument, but I take it you have no interest in actual argument.
      Citing Deuteronomy, you point out that the Mosaic law had burial requirements. Please tell me, in the follow up to that passage, how long the bones must remain underground. What definition of underground must be used. Must there be dirt in contact with the corpse? Then I must be exiled from America before burial, since all of our states require coffins. By the way, the Capuchin Crypt, being underground, is sufficient within the wording of the verse you cite. So again, you have not scripturally supported your assertion, but you have instead tried to use an incomplete understanding of the scripture to try to attack your own incomplete image of reality. It is akin to when I as a child had an argument between two GI Joe figures; when both sides are imaginary, there is no argument at all.
      Finally, I love how you insult my pastor. At my church we don’t use the top-down approach that I think you are referring to. to be sure, my pastor is exceedingly well educated, with PhD’s in multiple subjects, and is a college professor. But most of the teaching at my church is handled on a team basis, and I am not aware of anyone on the team who is not exceedingly knowledgable and wise. We do not use outside sources besides our hymnal in Church, and generally handle sizable and meaty passages. We went through the book of Revelation in depth for advent last year; we just did an in-depth study of Colossians, and do give equal time to the old testament, and I have learned nearly as much in my several years at this church as I did in four years of study at a Christian college and over two decades of studying the Bible rather intensely on my own. My beliefs are defined rather simply; I believe in God the Father, creator of the universe, and in his son, Jesus, who came to earth as not only a sacrifice but to live as an example to us and teach us how to treat one another. Jesus transcended traditional barriers and prejudices. He spoke to women, disabled people, sinners of all kinds, crazy people, and even members of other cultures. He defied the establishment and offended the clergy. He brought basically radical ideas about how we should interact as people, laying out in exquisite detail a set of guidelines that boil down to his paraphrase of the Shema, saying that we must love God and love others, and that everything else of value derives from those commandments. That is what I believe.
      I agree, the word of God IS relatively simple and straight forward. But it does not contain room for you to add to it your own feelings. The manner in which you are trying to use the presence of these ancient monuments to judge and demean OTHER BELIEVERS IN JESUS is thoroughly counter-Biblical. You may not, according to Matthew 7:1, do so.
      I will not reply on this site again. I do pray that you all learn to ascribe less of your own opinions to God. It may do you good.
      • Gloria says:
        James,
        Welcome Back :-)
        Your Comment: Gloria, your orthogonal attack on my post neglected to actually address my direct critiques of your perspective.
        My Comment: Where is it that you I “attacked” your post? All I did was reply to your odd belief in displaying bones.
        Your Comment: In your church, I almost guarantee there are idolaters who worship certain things like money.
        My Comment: I never said my church was perfect, and only God knows the true heart of someone which is one of the ways he will judge them.
        Your Comment: “That’s disgusting” is simply not a point of argument, but I take it you have no interest in actual argument.
        My Comment: Were we arguing? Were we not discussing the subject? And when is it not allowed to install personal opinion on a subject. Afterall, this isn’t a court room here.
        Your Comment: Finally, I love how you insult my pastor.
        My Comment: Where is it that I insulted your pastor or said a bad word against him? I said you should find a pastor who preaches from the new and old testament, and who believes Jesus Christ as their savior.
        On behalf of Ivar, the owner of this blog, you are welcome to come back to this site again.
        2 Timothy 4:2 says: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction.
        God Bless
      • Observer II says:
        Hi Gloria,
        I think the point James is making is the similar to my own in previous postings. In your own words, “My Comment: I never said my church was perfect, and only God knows the true heart of someone which is one of the ways he will judge them.” is precisely the irony here on this site.
        If no one challenges the posters, you would all follow the pied-piper leading the torch and pitchfork carrying crowd up to the proverbial “Castle of Dr. Frankenstein” to condemn those in the castle whom you’ve never met or seriously researched – but only “heard about”.
        James did a good job of calling you out and you avoided his questions like you avoided mine. Instead you’d rather just throw out random Bible verses to “settle the issue”.
        Here’s a good question for you, which version of the Bible is the authentic one we should all be using, and why? And if it doesn’t matter, then why have all these different “translations”?
      • Gloria says:
        Observer,
        Your Comment: James did a good job of calling you out and you avoided his questions like you avoided mine. Instead you’d rather just throw out random Bible verses to “settle the issue”.
        My Comment: I’ve answered all of James questions. And I’m going to ask you the same I asked him. Where is it that I “attacked” you? Please show me, where I have disrespected you, slandered you, anything. I’m curious. I answered all of your questions also. I can’t help it if you have your own “twist” as to what you think the bible should mean.
        Your comment: Here’s a good question for you, which version of the Bible is the authentic one we should all be using, and why? And if it doesn’t matter, then why have all these different “translations”?
        My Comment: The bible I currently have been using for over ten years is the New International Version. It is the one I read when I wanted to learn more, and read about God. As to why there are all different translations? Honestly, I’ve never thought about the answer to that, or even attempted to explore an answer to that. If I had to think on my feet now, a bible verse does come to my mind.
        Revelation 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
        God Bless.
      • james says:
        Gloria, you haven’t come close to answering all of my questions. Read my posts again. Observer is correct in his observation. (This reply is in the wrong spot because of WordPress’s limitations.)
        I would suggest in response to your response to Observer’s rhetorical question about the different translations, that we don’t have a perfect understanding of the exquisite meaning(s) of scripture. I know that you may regard such an assessment as heretical. But consider that the majority of Christians to have ever lived did not have access to the complete Bible. The recipients of the original gospels probably had access to at most, one gospel and the Torah. The recipients of most of the epistles didn’t have access to the other epistles, and only a small percentage of Christian scholars had access to all 66 books prior to AD 400; and even then, the access was largely limited to the scholarly. It was not until Martin Luther (and Gutenberg for that matter) that us common folk had access. (Actually as a doctoral student, I guess technically I would have had access, but not in my youth.)
        In other words, I hold fast in my belief that a detailed and specific reading and understanding of scripture is by no means essential to salvation, because were it so then Christianity would be a religion that postdated its founding by a millennium and a half; and for millions to have believed and lived in faith in vain would defy the nature of God as Christianity proclaims it. So, any esoteric interpretation of scripture, while not necessarily invalid, cannot be essential.
        One such esotericism is immersion baptism. The doctrine of immersion (that is, the strange belief that baptism doesn’t “count” if it’s performed by any means other than complete submersion in water, and the corollary that such a style of baptism is essential to salvation) is premised on an interpretation of a greek word that is not commonly known. The word “baptize,” I am told by my greek scholar acquaintances, apparently comes from a greek word which explicitly means “to submerge in water” or something along those lines. I don’t know why King James’s men chose to translate it into the unique word “baptize” although the translation error is largely irrelevant because the rite had already been modified in common practice. I see no reason why varied styles of baptism should matter any more than varied styles of communion; is it not the spiritual aspect that actually matters? Yet there are some, apparently, who would tell me that my baptism is invalid. I would agree that infant baptism is without meaning (having taken a contract law exam a few hours ago, I would say that even a modern interpretation of baptism as a covenant would require that their be knowing assent by both parties, and an infant cannot knowingly assent) but to judge that another person who does not speak greek should be at risk of hellfire for not knowing that the greek work “baptizein” means “immerse” is just ridiculous.
        Also, Gloria, don’t be concerned about “my odd belief in displaying bones.” I have no such belief. I generally don’t care about the disposal of organic remains. It seems that you’ve been missing my point from the very beginning.
        And, you did insult my pastor. When you told me I should find a pastor who preached the new and old, you were in essence claiming that my pastor doesn’t do so, and/or that there is something wrong with my current pastor. Neither is true, and you were unjustified and simply mean-spirited to say so.
      • Gloria says:
        James,
        Your Comment: Gloria, you haven’t come close to answering all of my questions. Read my posts again. Observer is correct in his observation.
        My Comment: I have answered all of your questions, in accordance to the Word of God. I may not have answered it the way you wanted or liked, but I have answered them.
        Your Comment; I would suggest in response to your response to Observer’s rhetorical question about the different translations, that we don’t have a perfect understanding of the exquisite meaning(s) of scripture.
        My Comment: I spoke the truth. I have not pondered as to why their are different translations (though the King James Version and the NIV are very much the same), but James that does not make the Word of God any less valid.
        Your Comment: So, any esoteric interpretation of scripture, while not necessarily invalid, cannot be essential.
        My Comment: Jesus Christ did say John 8:24 “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM He, you will die in your sins.”
        But that does not make his Holy Word not essential. It is needed so we can learn about Christ, accept him as Savior, read about how he died on the cross for us, resurrected, and many other true stories. For if God, did not think his words were “important/essential,” he would not have said: Revelation 22: I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
        Your Comment: When you told me I should find a pastor who preached the new and old, you were in essence claiming that my pastor doesn’t do so, and/or that there is something wrong with my current pastor. Neither is true, and you were unjustified and simply mean-spirited to say so.
        My Comment: Yes, when I told you that you should find a Bible preaching, Jesus Christ believing pastor, it was because I want you to realize that you must accept Jesus Christ, repent, believe in his Word to be saved. If that makes me mean spirited, then so be it. But the last thing, I would want you to do is lose your soul for eternity, because you chose not to believe in God’s words entirely.
        God Bless
      • Observer II says:
        By the way Gloria,
        The quote you gave from the Book of Revelation about not adding or taking away from the book does not mean the entire Bible – that is a misunderstanding of the scripture.
        The Bible is a compendium of different and complete books. Therefore, what is written in the Book of Revelation concerns the Book of Revelation (unless of course there is clear language to the contrary).
        The author was telling his readers that no one should mess with his work and that the “Revelation” he put down in the book was complete and accurate in its own right and did not need any further “editing”.
        The irony again here is found in the Gospel of John, 21:25. It is clearly written in this Book of the Bible that not everything Jesus did or said is written in that Book.
        So, if you take this to mean in the Bible instead of just that Book, the reality is that there could be other things currently not known about the Life of Jesus that could “be discovered” at some time in the future that could be claimed was truth.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear Observer II
        Shalom,
        I do not accept people that goes on writing messages, without answering question they have got from me as an editor. Please read through my replies to you, and give me feedback.
        1. Is the Pope “The Holy Father”. Yes, or no.
        2. Can the Pope be an “infallible” leader in matter of moral…..Just wondered, after all these sex abuses He knew about in advance of the media storm.
        3. Was Hitler saved, born again, in his infant “baptism” as a child? Did his confirmation as a Roman Catholic, confirm him as a child of God?
        3. Did Mussolini demand popular support for Fascism, when He gifted the Vatican statehood to the Pope?
        If you do not answer. Please stay off this blog.
        You wrote:
        The Bible is a compendium of different and complete books. Therefore, what is written in the Book of Revelation concerns the Book of Revelation.
        My reply:
        Totally wrong. The Bible is one book from A to Z, totally interconnected. It is not a collection of “different books”, placed together by men. It is collected and approved by God the Holy Spirit. The book of Revelation confirms messages from the book of Daniel, and visa versa.
        Catholics do not understand that the Bible is a 3.000 year old book. Not a Roman Catholic collection. The Jewish cannon was completed before Jesus came in flesh. The New Testament is all about Jesus, Paul and the other authors, quoting from the Hebrew Bible. Jesus walked into synagogues, opened the Torah scrolls and read. Read from the Word of God.
  8. Jes says:
    Shalom PutYHWH1st,
    Re. The sentence in your comment:
    ****I believe Yahushua is the only one ascended to Heaven,the rest of the dead lie with their fathers ,like king David sleeps with his fathers,as it is written.****
    Please DO NOT forget Enoch (the grandfather of Noah) and also Elijah who were taken up to heaven in their Body Soul & Spirit. No offense please, just a friendly reminder.
  9. Observer II says:
    Since these words have been flying off the shelf in short order around here, I wanted to provide some definitions from the Webster’s Dictionary:
    1. VENERATION: respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person
    2. WORSHIP: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power
    3. IDOLATRY: the worship of a physical object as a god
    4. PRAYER: an address to God or a god in word or thought
    5. REVERENCE: honor or respect felt or shown
    6. ADORATION: to worship or honor as a deity or as divine
    Now, knowing the definitions of the words may help to clarify what you are reading about. Catholics use the terms ADORE, ADORATION, PRAYER and WORSHIP only when the object is the One God, the Holy Trinity and none other. Before you say it, we do use the term “praying to the Saints,” but it is not meant in the same way as it is with God. For Catholics, “praying to the Saints” is like asking your Christian neighbor to pray to God for you. There are whole libraries on the subject so I won’t bore you.
    Catholics use the terms VENERATION and REVERENCE when speaking about the Prophets, Martyrs, and Saints, and yes, Jesus earhtly mother, the Virgin Mary. Mary (being of the line of King David herself) and Jesus being a Son of David and in the kingly line of Jewish Kings), we hold Mary as the “Queen Mother” of the King. But Mary is even more special than that, for Mary was chosen by God himself, not by man, to be the Bearer of Christ for all of us.
    Statues of Mary are not divine, nor do they contain any form of divinity. Kneeling before a statue of Mary and praying is akin to a knight kneeling before the Queen to ask a favor of her. The knight shows VENERATION and REVERENCE to the person (not divine ADORATION) because of their position. The Statue or picture etc. is a symbol for Mary. We do not believe that the statue or picture etc. is actually Mary incarnate before us.
    Now if someone does say this, then of course even Catholics would say that is IDOLATRY and the person needs counseling.
    Any way, hope this helps clear some things up.
    • Observer II says:
      Further, I forgot to mention WORSHIP. Add WORSHIP in the above paragraph where I talk about ADORATION and PRAYER.
      Similarly, do not add it to the paragraph where I talk about VENERATION and REVERENCE. WORSHIP is not VENERATION or REVERENCE.
      Thanks!
    • Gloria says:
      Observer,
      Your comment:
      2. WORSHIP: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power
      3. IDOLATRY: the worship of a physical object as a god
      My Comment: Are you kidding me? You bow to Mary, start your pray with Holy Mary yada yada, and expect her to heal you, to protect you. ThIS IS GOING AGAINST WHAT GOD TOLD US NOT TO DO. Yet, Catholics still do it.
      What do you think this means? Please provide “your” meaning for this verse.
      Exodus 20:4 You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
      • Observer II says:
        Good question, and here is my answer, right out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
        Begin quote
        IV. “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . .”
        2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: “Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . “66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. “He is the all,” but at the same time “he is greater than all his works.”67 He is “the author of beauty.”68
        2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69
        2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons – of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new “economy” of images.
        2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” and “whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.”70 The honor paid to sacred images is a “respectful veneration,” not the adoration due to God alone:
        Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.71
        End quote
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear Observer II
      Shalom.
      You wrote:
      Statues of Mary are not divine, nor do they contain any form of divinity. Kneeling before a statue of Mary and praying is akin to a knight kneeling before the Queen to ask a favor of her.
      My reply:
      So you accept that you are a mocker of the Word of God. Because the Word of God, says DO NOT make for your self an idol or an image of ANYTHING in the likeness of a human. DO NOT bow down to them.
      “Catholic Mary” is not a human, she is a goddess. And you can be anything by believing in the Catholic religion, but NOT a Christian.
      Deuteronomy 4:15-17
      You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air,
      Are you able to read?
      • Observer II says:
        Here is a question for you, as a Christian, are you under the impression that you must adhere to ancient Jewish Law?
        Will God hold you accountable for abiding by the Jewish Laws proscribed in the Pentateuch written by Moses or will he hold you accountable as a Christian for living according to the New Covenent of Jesus the Messiah?
        What is your evidence for determining that “Catholic Mary”, “is not human, she is a goddess.”?
        Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church about Mary’s role in the Church”:
        Paragraph 6. Mary – Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church
        963 Since the Virgin Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Spirit has been treated, it is fitting now to consider her place in the mystery of the Church. “The Virgin Mary . . . is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer…. She is ‘clearly the mother of the members of Christ’ . . . since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.”500 “Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church.”501
        Now, are there Catholics who misunderstand Mary’s true role within the Church and their Christian lives? Of course there are, just as there are people of any faith tradition who do not fully comprehend or they misunderstand what they are supposed to be doing and with what attitude etc.
        Hence, the reason for proper instruction by a mentor in the faith, a brother or sister who has more knowledge and experience than they, or a Pastor who leads his flock.
        While I must say that I am not a theologian, and my description of the use of religious symbolism in this case is probably not the most accurate, there are huge libraries of information and research into, “What Catholics believe of Mary, the mother of Jesus.” For those people seeking to study the subject on their own.
        I won’t “offend” anyone by posting up sites here, but if asked, I can point anyone to better information than I can produce here.
  10. Jes says:
    James and Observer II:
    You two have cooked up a real good gumbo (yuck)by combining the Bible with Catholicism. But, know this; Light and darkness can never mix, so instead of defending Catholicism which is no doubt FALSE Christianity, why don’t you two research on what other commenters have to say, and the Bible as well, and then come back here. Perhaps you guys may never see the LIGHT for you never study the WORD OF GOD. {{PSALM 4: Verse 4: says: Understand that GOD sets apart the Godly person to HIMSELF..}} What Godly person is King David the psalmist saying here? Of course those who Study the WORD, and the Word is Yeshua(Jesus Christ) of Israel. {{JOHN:1:1 In the begining was the WORD, and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God}}. Now do you guys see this clearly? Wake Up!! YESHUA(Jesus)is a Bonafide Jew and not a Catholic. The Catholic Jesus is the Babylonian Tammuz the sun-god with hundreds of names. The Mary you guys worship is not the real mother of Yeshua(Jesus), she is the mother of Tammuz, the wife of Nimrod, a woman of ill repute. The Catholic church is the temple of the sun-god and has absolutely nothing to do with the Jesus of Israel(period).
    WOW! your faith in Catholicism must be so strong like an iron curtain over your eyes that you guys just cannot see the evil.
    • james says:
      Frankly, at the moment I am too busy studying other things to deeply involve myself in the pettiness of shallow people. It’s finals week. But I’ll come back over the weekend to respond appropriately.
    • Observer II says:
      And your evidence for this reasoning is…..???
  11. james says:
    Also, I’m not catholic so please don’t call me catholic. I’m a Mennonite, not to imply that my “sect” matters, because it does not. And not that I have anything against Catholics, because I don’t. But if any group would have a reason to be against Catholics, it would be us Anabaptists, because Catholics killed more of us (at least as a percentage of our numbers) than any other group. Mind you, whatever sect it is that you adhere to, has most likely killed Mennonites in the past as well. But I don’t hold a grudge against you for it, because it would not be Christian whatsoever for me to judge you at all, much less for the sins of your forebears.
    • Jes says:
      James, I’m not against Catholics (they are just ignorant about the true Word of God) but I’m against the ‘System’ that has created such a terrible spiritual mess and genocides around the world of Jews and Christians and even others who would not convert to their evil church. Now they are brewing up more evil than before that is to come soon. I am a product of those martyrs and it hurts real deep.
      Thank God you are a Menonite and NOT a catholic.
      Blessings and God be with you thru your finals.
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear James.
      Shalom.
      You cal your self an Anabaptist.
      Do you still demand that Catholics must be re-baptized, or do you accept them as Christian brothers without obeying this command of Jesus?
      • james says:
        Ivar,
        I demand nothing of anyone.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom.
        You wrote:
        Ivar,
        I demand nothing of anyone.
        My reply:
        How can you call your self a Christian, if you do not obey the Masters command?
        Matthew 28:18-20 
        Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
        (end of scripture)
        This should have been words, that no man should have been able to misunderstood. Jesus was immersed by John The Baptist.
        When Jesus says: “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you”, how can you misunderstand?
  12. Jes says:
    For James & Observer II
    One more thing I want to add to my above comment is that; if you guys say that Mary is the queen of heaven, then, is she the wife of God? Show me where in the Bible it says that God has a queen or a wife?
    Next I guess you will be connecting our Holy God to hinduism and we may be hearing from you that all gods are one god, nice, here is where ecumenism walks in. You guys are so spiritually deceived and continue to wallow in deception.
    • Observer II says:
      Ok Jes,
      Since Christianity has its roots in Judaism and for Christians is considered the fulfillment of the Hewbrew scriptures, I’ll give you a little history lesson.
      In the old testament, the Jewish people demanded of God a human King to rule over them in the land of Israel, they rejected God’s rule alone. So God gave them a monarchy, which enforced a theocracy upon the Jewish people.
      That God-instituted human monarchy began with the anointing of King Saul, then fell to King David and his heirs. In the ancient Jewish tradition of monarchy, the King’s mother was known as the “Queen Mother”. The first Jewish Queen Mother was Bathsheba – the mother of King Solomon. Even though King Solomon was the wisest man on Earth, in terms of the monarchy, he often consulted with his Queen Mother, Bathsheba, and he honored her as the highest ranking member of his court.
      So, to answer your question, Mary the mother of Jesus, having been conceived in the line of King David through Bathsheba and King Solomon, is herself Jewish royalty.
      Jesus being a good and honorable Jew himself who followed the laws and traditions of Judaism, and by right of his being King of the Jews in the line of King David, has made Mary the Queen Mother of Israel. As Christians we believe in Jesus as the King of the Jews and the Messiah of all people, so in following the ancient Israel tradition, Mary is our Queen Mother.
      • Jes says:
        Ok, Observer II,
        I do not listen to anyone’s fib and that goes for yours too re.Queen Bathsheba and Queen Mary etc.. I like solid facts, so bring it on….
        Now show me in scriptures (NOT from the CATHOLIC BIBLE) but from Messianic Jewish Bibles, or Jewish history books, and/or Christian Bibles where the coronation is mentioned for Bathsheba and also Mary the mother of Jesus or any other woman that was crowned queen and given importance as queen.
        The only Jewish young lady that I know of who was crowned queen, is ESTHER (her Hebrew name HADASSAH)- in the book of Esther 2:18 BUT she was not the queen of an Israeli king, she was crowned to be the queen of the Persian king Achasuerus or Xerxes by the holy will of YHVH (G-d)for the sole purpose of saving the millions of Jews in the 127 provinces from annihilation by Haman.
        Here’s some info on the Catholic ‘queen of heaven’- This is not what I am writing but what YHVH is saying:
        Jeremiah 7:Verse 17, “Do you not see what they are doing? I mean, Look, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. The children gather wood, to make an offering, they kindle the fire, and they prepare the dough to make cakes for the . . .” what?—“for the queen of heaven.” What! They are making cakes to offer to the queen of heaven, “and they are pouring out libations (drinks) to other gods in order to spite Me.”
        The “queen of heaven” was a false god. The “queen of heaven” was a pagan idol, and she was the queen of the gods.
        Verse 19, “‘Do they spite Me?’ declares the Lord. Is it not themselves they spite, to their own shame?” They are really bringing down divine wrath on their own heads.
        verse20, “Behold, My anger and My wrath will be poured out on this place, on man and on beast and on the trees of the field and on the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched.” … read more here: http://www.craom.net/roman-catholic-mary-worship.htm
        Well, this is happening now around the world just look around you. There’s even been pillars of fire in Brazil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNXpbwvWZ5M&feature=related … and in Hawaii http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FsTObmKY6c
  13. james says:
    Ivar, how do you go from “teach” to “demand”?
    The authority belongs to Christ. It does not belong to me. I am at most an emissary. There is an absolute difference between a teaching and a demand.
    If compliance with the tenets of faith could/should be compelled, then faith would be meaningless. I prefer a meaningful faith.
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear James.
      Shalom.
      I do not say we shall burn down Catholic Churches, lead by a Pope and priests who makes a mockery of the Word of God.
      What I asked you: Do you accept them as Christians?
      • james says:
        and I again respond in kind that it is not for me to judge whether someone else it a Christian. That is entirely between them and God.
        We have a line in our hymnal that we sing, “Some say Peter, some say Paul; there ain’t but one God made them all.”
        I am firm in my commitment to peace. There are many commands in the Bible some of which seem contradictory. The way that we resolve those conflicts and decide which parts of the Bible we give priority to is certainly one of the things that separate out different sects of Christians.
        I believe that you are incorrect in your assessment of the Catholic church. Not because there is no truth to some of the allegations against the church. There is truth to many of the allegations against the Catholic portion of The Church. There is also truth to many of the allegations against The Church. It is true that, as an identified body of faith, Christianity has perpetrated some evils upon the world, upon members of other faiths, and upon our own membership, in the name of God. Persecutions have been carried out by all sides. Yes, the Catholic church is probably the largest offender, but frankly they are also the largest member, and I’m not certain (I’m also not saying it’s impossible) that its offenses are even out of proportion to its size. The institution of Rome is a behemoth. The office of the Pope has certainly been very corrupt at many points in the past. The current Pope is not perfect, but frankly he seems to be trying very hard to hold fast to God’s laws. I cannot fault him for that.
        I’m not sure what it is that you mean by saying that they make a mockery of the Word of God. I don’t think that I want you to explain. I can tell you that here in America, we have enough protestants doing that, that we don’t need any help from the Catholics. Look at Westboro Baptist Church, who have a habit of protesting at funerals and telling people that God hates them. Look at Ted Haggard, who engaged in homosexual prostitution, contradicting his teachings. Look at all the televangelists profiting by marketing their version of the Bible; Joel Osteen and the prosperity gospel; and of course our various cults. It’s not hard to find someone who is truly making a mockery of the word of God, so I’m not going to try.
        I can tell you this. I listened to a prominent Catholic comedian on television call out the hypocrisy of supposed Christians in American politics, and go on to accurately discuss the meaning of the Gospel more accurately than I hear at most churches, on network television. Even though I’m pretty sure he was literally making a mockery of the Word of God, he did so in a fashion I can thoroughly applaud, because he was in fact mocking the mockers of God, and calling out those who really do exploit and manipulate the Word for their own gain.
        I can also tell you that many Catholics whom I know personally are excellent Christians, at least to any extent that I am able to discuss. I attended a non-denominational service at a Catholic church recently (at which my Mennonite pastor preached) and I have to say that there was nothing about any of the Catholics I interacted with, including the priest, to make me doubt their faith. And frankly, I did consider becoming a friar once (I declined because I lack the courage to commit to a life of celibacy) because in my interactions with the Franciscans, I was touched by their amazing devotion to living in a Christ-like way. In fact the more I think about it the more I realize that I would quickly get boorish if I kept on trying to list examples of why the Catholic church and especially Catholic believers deserve more respect than you are offering them, but I would at least ask you to consider historical saints such as Augustine and Francis and tell me, honestly, why you feel that they should not count as Christians.
      • ivarfjeld says:
        Dear James.
        Shalom.
        You wrote:
        I am firm in my commitment to peace. There are many commands in the Bible some of which seem contradictory.
        My reply:
        You should get your self a job in the United Nation. They are committed to “peace”. You are an apostate Christian, that are unfaithful to the infallible Word of God.
    • Observer II says:
      James is a refreshing compatriot in defending Christians and historic Christianity. As Christians we are called to test everything, to separate the wheat from the chaff. In modern terms it means to use the gift of Reason that God gave to us all, not to just blindly follow the pied-piper.
      The irony is plain just in the passage and interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew you quoted:
      Matthew 28:18-20
      Read it again to yourself in your own version of the Bible. Here is the clear intent of this passage, and it is not Jesus reprimanding His disciples for presuming to take up His authority on their own. Jesus in fact is delegating his authority to his disciples, and reinforcing to them that since He is the Son of God, and all power and authority have been givein to Him by the Father, that it is His prerogative to delegate that same authority down to them. Therefore He tells them in essence, “Fear not, for what I have been given, I now share with you. Therefore go forth in my name without regrets and do as I asked.”
      Again, it is very clear from scripture that Jesus has delegated some of His authority to men so that they can do His will.
  14. Jes says:
    Observer II says:
    Comment:December 18, 2010 at 4:58 am
    Good question, and here is my answer, right out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
    Begin quote
    IV. “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE..”
    ……………………………..
    O, ho, ho, Observer II, how did I miss that out. Anyways,……
    1) Ever heard the old phrase, PRACTICE WHAT YOUR PREACH?
    In this case who is worshiping idols and preaching to whom? What a joke, thanks for making me laugh so much.
    (2) If you are quoting right out of your ‘catechism’ of the Catholic church, then why do you guys bow down, kneel down, bend your knee, pray, and kiss these statues (graven images) and icons. Also why do you have to use the beads to pray, & is it Biblical? And in whose hands was the commandment given, to the Catholic or to the Jew?
    You will be doing yourself a huge favor if you only go way back into history begining with ancient history and learn about the very roots of your beloved religion and their atrocities on human life, for religions were not made by God at all,(*) infact when Nimrod started the very first religion in order for people to worship him, G-d brought the massive tower down to the ground with a cataclysmic affect on the world and this place remains desolate until this day.
    (*)However, G-d created human beings so that HE could have a RELATIONSHIP with them like Father to His children.
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear Jes.
      Shalom.
      You wrote:
      IV. “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE..”
      My reply:
      The main problem with the Roman Catholic Church, is not that there is no Bibles among its priests. The problem is that they have been told, that Biblical messages do mean something different than what is written.
      That is why the Vatican priests do not have to pay to much attention to the Word of God. The Words of the Pope are more important. Because the Pontiff is suppose to be infallible, in regards to understanding what God Most High is trying to tell us.
      When a Catholic priest is confronted with the Word of God, He give you a Catholic dogma as a reply. Like the snake in the Garden of Eden. “Has God really said?”. Next: The snake tells us what He wants us to believe and do.
      Like: It is “Holy” to make Papal approved images and idols. You can bow down to them, and kiss them.
      Do you see the picture?
  15. Jes says:
    Hi Ivar,
    You’ve got me wrong. I was actually responding to the comment of Observe II Check above: {{Comment: December 18, 2010 at 4:58 am}} which I had missed out earlier. He is the one who quoted:
    ****IV. “YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE..” ***** not me. I was merely pointing out to him that if the Catholic cathecism teaches on this commandment, then they should practice it – but they are not. Instead they ignore G-d’s commandment and worship idols.
    I studied on Catholicism right from its roots and still learning more through your research, the skulls and bones and mummified cadavers and it doesn’t stop there I guess… Thanks to you.
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Jes.
      Shalom.
      I know we are in agreement. I know you were copying a reply from Observer II. I might not have been clear enough, that I do support your views.
  16. Goddy Harry Mba says:
    Paganism at work.
  17. HatefulBIGOTS says:
    Fucking Christian hating Jew fucks!!!
    • ivarfjeld says:
      Dear HatefulBIGOTS
      Shalom.
      I will let you comment stand, to expose what kind of filth that is manifested in the World today. Those who do not have the Spirit of God in their heart, has a heart full over everything unclean. The Messiah Jesus said that the mouth speaks about what the heart if full of. Hell will be their eternal dwelling place.
      If I do not see any sign of repentance, your next message will be spammed. Do not even bother writing one more comment.
  18. galen says:
    It shows the level of consciousness of those times. Still bi-cameral and hearing voices that told them to hang the bones!
  19. These skull chapels are nauseating..
    I’m very convinced that roman catholicism,
    is really all about ‘ worship of the dead ‘.
  20. Reblogged this on Christian Spook and commented:
    spookchristian says:
    September 16, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    These skull chapels are nauseating..
    I’m very convinced that roman catholicism,
    is really all about ‘ worship of the dead ‘.