I agree with him on that one. But then again, there isn’t much that I disagree with him about anyway. And Image that, the press actually siding with the truth. I guess St Jude has heard my prayers at last.

Yeah, this is not the part of the Pope’s new book that looks interesting to me.  Obviously the Jews as a whole aren’t responsible for Christ’s death.  Heck, some of them stood by His cross and suffered with Him as He died (Mary, John, etc.)! 

I’m a lot more interested in some of the other stuff he will be saying in the book.  For example, I’ve already disagreed with him about the dating of the Last Supper!  Now THAT, I think, is an interesting topic.  The ultimate solution to almost all of the problems that arise with reconciling John’s Gospel and the Synoptics is in recognizing that the term “Passover” was used interchangably to refer to both the day of the Passover, as well as to the entire week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Recognizing this clears up the issues he cites as leading one to conclude that Christ celebrated the Last Supper the night before the Passover meal.

Shane, you are correct about the Passover/Thursday dating. When they were eating the Passover on Good Friday that was day two of the feast, but it was still called the Passover meal. There is no contradiction between John and the Synoptics. Friday was called the day of preparation because it was the day before the Sabbath, a Passover Sabbath, not because it was the first day of the Passover feast.

Does that mean the Bible isn’t right now:
Matthew 27:25
And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

Jesus’ blood is on all of us and our children. The Jews the same as everyone else.

David,

I don’t think you and I totally agree on this point, at least not totally.  I believe the evidence indicates that the Last Supper WAS the first Passover meal.  It’s a very complicated topic and obviously too much to attempt to discuss in a combox like this, but to specifically address the two reasons the Pope cites for rejecting the Last Supper as having been the Passover meal: 

Let’s first look at the simpler one.  He cites John’s Gospel as talking about the Crucifixion occuring on “the day of preparation for the Passover,” which he takes to mean that it took place the day before the Passover meal.  However, if John was indeed using the word “Passover” to refer to the weeklong Feast of Unleavened Bread (as was, to reitterate, often the custom), then this phrase can take on a new meaning, for the term ” day of preparation” was also a very common term used to refer to the day before any Sabbath.  Every Friday would be referred to as “the day of preparation” for that week, on which of course the Jewish people would make the necessary preparations for the day of rest to come.  Thus, John’s passage may simply mean that it was the Friday falling during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  This possibility is given rather strong support by John’s statement that the Sabbath was a high day that year (19:31), which makes it somewhat clear that the Saturday of that Week was no ordinary Saturday, but in fact fell during a Feast. 

The second item that Pope Benedict brings up is that John notes that the Jewish authorities wouldn’t enter the Praetorium so that they would not be defiled and so “could eat the Passover.” (18:28)  This is supposed to demonstrate that the Passover meal was to take place after the Crucifixion, because if they entered the Praetorium then these people would have been ceremonially unclean when the Passover approached.  In responding to this, one can note that cermonial uncleanness would only last until Sundown on a normal day, but to become clean for the Feast of Unleavened Bread would take a week.  Therefore, the concern of the Jews really doesn’t tell us too much.  They were dealing with a week’s worth of cleansing here, and so whether the “big” Passover meal was that night or it was just one of the other meals of the weeklong Feast of Unleavened Bread, they couldn’t afford to become unclean, because it would last for the rest of the Feast. 

So far, I think we’d be on the same page.  However, I think that the Synoptics pretty clearly state that the Last Supper was the “main” Passover meal - the first night.  The only reason to doubt this would be the notes of seeming contradiction in John’s Gospel, which we’ve (mostly) dealt with here.

Dolorosa, if you read the excerpts of the book that have already been released as promotion, you will see that the Holy Father goes into this very point.

The full book may even explain it further, but Mr. Akin linked the excerpts in his post. If you had read the Holy Father’s words, you wouldn’t have asked this question.

Here is the relevant portion, Dolorosa:

When in Matthew’s account the “whole people” say: “His blood be on us and on our children” (27:25), the Christian will remember that Jesus’ blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel (Heb 12:24): it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation. It is not poured out against anyone; it is poured out for many, for all. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . . God put [Jesus] forward as an expiation by his blood” (Rom 3:23, 25). Just as Caiaphas’ words about the need for Jesus’ death have to be read in an entirely new light from the perspective of faith, the same applies to Matthew’s reference to blood: read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation. Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew’s Gospel take on its correct meaning.

“Intellectual humility”! Yeah! It’s a sign of Divine Wisdom! I Love Papa! I Love Papa!! I love this Papa!!!

I saw some news articles, and many of them did mention the 1965 Church document, so that’s good.

On that point about Jesus’ blood being on “us and our children,” if that’s the kind of exegesis that Pope Benedict does in this book, I really have to say I’m not a fan.  That’s not to say that these kinds of symbolic, prophetic interpretations are not valid - they are.  However, the meaning of the words as the original speaker really meant them can’t just be *tossed out* in light of the deeper, more spiritual interpretations.  When somebody said, “His blood be on us and on our children,” that person *really did mean* that he thought there would be a collective guilt for the act.  That doesn’t mean that the Jewish people as a whole took on that guilt, or that the Jewish people exclusively took it on.  There were Romans there, and those of other religions I am sure, who were guilty of Christ’s death.  There were also other Jews who were *not* guilty for Christ’s death and who had tried to *keep Him* from death.  Recognizing this is a far more thorough, and I dare say meaningful or accurate way of helping to understand the verse in question.  Some people at the time really did believe there would be a collective guilt - maybe not *ONLY* on the Jews, but on everybody who was guilty.  On the other hand, even if the person who said it *did* mean it only to refer to the Jews, that doesn’t mean the person was *right.*  Now, I very much appreciate the Pope’s spiritual interpretation of this verse.  I think it adds a whole new dimension to things and greatly enhances ones understanding of what God may want to convey in the passage.  However, to say it’s “the correct” interpretation, which is to implicitly say that other interpretations are not correct, bothers me.  It’s taking one meaning of the text to the exclusion of the others, going against the ancient principle of the fourfold senses of Scripture.  It’s *great* that the Pope has brought forth one of the lesser known senses, but I wish he wouldn’t make it sound like the other senses were thrown out the window.

st.bart, you never say how Pope Benedict supposedly backs down from the truth.  If we Catholics remain “deceived” it’s because people like you call us cowards and liars but don’t actually say why.

Shane, perhaps you would find agreement if Pope Benedict used “fuller meaning” rather than “correct meaning” in the excerpt you sited?  I suspect Pope Benedict is using the word “correct” in that sense, at least that’s the way I take it.  What the people expressed in their intention, that Jesus’ blood be upon them and their children, God fulfilled in a way they did not intend.  I think the Pope is saying that there is some divine irony going on here.

Sorry st.bart, sounds like anti-Catholic blather.  And I haven’t been tracking your posts, so I don’t know what you may have wrote previously.  If that makes me dumber than a sack of hammers then you nailed me.  Still, you might actually get some of us hammer sacks to listen to you if you said something relevant to the topic at hand:  “Pope Benedict’s ‘SHOCKING’ Statement on the Jews!”  Or continue shooting your shotgun as you have been, it probably won’t make much difference to me.  I do a lot of studying and reading and I’m sold on Catholicism.

I know you probably don’t think I’m being serious, but thank you st.bart.  May God bless you.  If you could say a prayer for me, I’d appreciate it.

Wow, where to start with the looniness of non-st. bart? The fact that he imagines that Catholics worship the same god as Islam alone shows that he is either totally out of whack with the facts or simply a misguided liar. I’m surprised he hasn’t taken the next logical step of denouncing the Bible given it was the Jews & Catholics who assembled it. Hey Jesus liked wine too… JUST LIKE THE PAGANS! And Jesus rose from the dead… JUST LIKE THE PAGAN MYTHS OF DEATH AND REBIRTH AND REINCARNATION!!! SEE THE SIMILARITIES??? Mr.bart does! Therefore mr.bart has successfully debunked all of Christianity. Time to pack it up and go home everybody…

st.bart might be drinking too much Westboro Baptist kool-aid or whatever ilk of Christianity he follows. Concerning who assembled the Bible, evangelical Bible scholar F.F. Bruce states in his book “The Canon of Scripture”(1968)that Pope Damasus’s commissioning of the Vulgate Bible in 383 was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.
A synopsis of the Christian Bible’s history can found at Wikipedia.org under
“Christian Bible”.

Section 598 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which I hope you all have, if only as a reference book) quotes the previous universal catechism, the Roman Catechism of 1566 about who is responsible for Christ’s crucifixion—we Christian sinners, who claim to know who he is yet continue to send him to the cross with our sins.

I wonder how the media would react to similar headlines, like “President Obama not beating Michelle” or “Rabbi: mixing the blood of Christian babies into Passover Matzohs makes them non-kosher.”
(That some pof you are probably going to scream about how evil I am to even suggest those headlines only proves my point about the recent headlines about the pope repeating Catholic teaching.)

Oh, and about the problem on how to reconcile the Synoptic Gospels and that of John on which day the Last Supper was celebrated—assuming that Christ knew when he was going to be immolated on the cross, he could have simply celebrated the Passover Seder a day early.
And modern-day English translations miss out on the fact that during the Last Supper Christ refers to his sacrifice in the present tense—“This chalice is the new covenant in my blood, being poured out for the multitude.” (Luke 22:20)—which means that every Mass, being celebrated in God’s eternal time, is the sacrifice of Calvary being eternally present.

On responsibility for the death of Christ, someone has just pointed out, correctly, that the Catechism of Trent ALREADY laid that responsibility of ALL sinners back in the sixteenth century, so that what Vatican II was not a novelty but established, clear teaching.

Regarding the Last Supper’s status:  At a pure level of fact, it appears that the Synoptics and John are in conflict.  However, a very interesting possiblity exists so that both chronologies are indeed factually accurate.  That is that Jesus and the Apostles may have been following not the liturgical calendar of the Temple but of the Qumran community, which had Passover that year a day apart.  So, yes, it was a Passover meal and yes, Jesus died as the lambs were being slain at the Temple (the Preparation Day).

“Yet another example of a Catholic incapable of any deep theological, historical, or spiritual thought.”

And

“Your own lips confess that you are dumber than a sack of hammers. “

St. Bart,

Issuing insults to other believers does not seem to me to be a sign of a great spiritual maturity.

not-st. bart is right guys! The pagans have ‘sacraments’! The Catholics have sacraments! Therefore sacraments = Catholics = pagans = they are going to hell.

Omigosh, wait a minute! You know who don’t have any sacraments! Atheists don’t have sacraments! Therefore no sacraments = athiests = mr.bart = he is going to hell!

The logic is sound! Just ask any crackpot or secular fella with no instruction in Scripture. They will vouch for him!

Oh and by the way. Pope Benedict didn’t say the Jews didn’t kill Christ. He said they did, but we have no right to take any sort of revenge upon them because they are forgiven by Christ.

Maybe once colonel.bart learns to read and think better I’ll give any of his hilarious accusations more than a second’s chuckle.

Actually I should clarify… Pope Benedict didn’t say all the Jews. He said some of the Jews, which include a mix of Jewish religious authorities and people. Much the same, there were regular Jews as well as Jewish religious authorities who were on Christ’s side.

Those who denied Christ denied him in many ways, including the reality of His kingdom and His sacraments and His command to eat His body and drink His blood.

mr.bart is the sort who sides with the Jews who were agianst Christ and did not believe in Him. If mr.bart was there during Christ’s crucifixion, mr.bart would be there accusing Christ of blasphemy based on mr.bart’s faulty theological and historic distortions, just as mr.bart today has the gall to mock Christ’s kingdom (the Catholic Church), and Christ’s sacraments by saying, like the pharaisees, that it is akin to casting out devils by the work of devils. mr.bart would like us to join his divided evangelical house which will not stand.

But like Christ, we must forgive mr.bart because he does not know what he is doing. He is part of the anti-Christ, whom Jesus describes as those who deny what He will do through the Sacrament of the Eucharist found divinely enough in John 6:66. mr.bart would prefer to eat from the Tree of ‘knowledge’ rather than the tree of life that only the Catholics partake of. He should ask the Orthodox and Coptics about that one too!

Pope Benedict’s statement is, like the pronouncement of the Second Vatican Council, entirely founded on the Biblical concept (see Romans 2) that all people are judged by their own thoughts, words, and deeds—not those of the people around them or their leaders.  You are not judged by the sins of your parents or of your grandparents, you are judged through Jesus Christ based upon your own works and faith.

Of course, one cannot expect a person who, by his moniker which imputes to all Catholics the atrocities performed by hardliner Parisian Catholics, to understand this.  He believes in blood libel, and there it is.

I beg to differ with pope who had not read bible sincerely.His statement on 27th february,2011 does not support that man is sinful,and need a salvation.Jesus Christ died for all.He died for the salvation of soul.Jews and gentiles were all responsible.Instead of preaching Christ crucified pope is compromising with untruth.Let him preach the message of salvation.Today jewish nation existing because of US and European support.Christ is resurrected and ruling over all the world.Let us all praise our Lord.Pope is a human and we forgive him.

This whole argument is and always was preposterous.  Christ was born to die.  The reason the Eternal Word was incarnated in the flesh was so that he could take on the sins of the world as the ultimate Sacrifice and then open the door to Heaven for all of us through the Resurrection.  This was always God’s plan, so how can we hate those who brought it to fruition?

Instead of hating those who killed Christ, we should be grateful to them for helping to carry out God’s plan of salvation for all people.

St. Bart,

Stop reading bible.ca.  Honestly, if you want to attack the Catholic Church, you can find a LOT better arguments than what you’ll find on that website.  Heck, half of the reason I’m Catholic today is because I was originally made a rabid anti-Catholic by that site, but the arguments were so weak that it didn’t take much to show me the light.  If that’s where you’re getting your anti-Catholic stuff, you’ll be Catholic in no time.

God bless

Dear Argument Makes No Sense,

God’s plan from all eternity was not that His Son come to die.  His plan was that His Son become incarnate, to show us the way to be truly human.  The Incarnation was not God the Father’s “Plan B” because Adam and Eve screwed up.  In spite of the Exsultet’s “o felix culpa,” we ought not make the greatest event in history contingent upon a sin.  Indeed, many Fathers of the Church and theologians have maintained (starting with Irenaeus and up to and beyond Newman) would assert that, even without the sin of our first parents, the Incarnation would have happened because: a.  Man would always have needed the divine example of how to be truly human; and, b. God “needed” (metaphorically and anthropomorhically speaking) what it was like to be human—from the inside, from personal experience.  Indeed, the nature of true love is to know the other from within his experience and not as a disinterested third party.

it would sem to me, actually, that b16 is DELIMMITING NA. he divides the people into3: the priests (who accused), the followers of balaban (who prefered a terrorist to jesus) and the followers of jesus (who stayed home out of fear and were therefore silent). there is no 4th group. ie, we dont hate all jews, and certainly not for racial reasons, just those who called for his death and refuse to repent. all the other jews ... well, we know what comes next.
also, if john had meant the priests when he said the jews, why didnt he simply say “the priests”.
no, i think this book is more in keeping with B16’s evangalistic ideals than with his ecumenical ones (in the sense of dialogue not for the sake of evangalism).
but then again - you know us jews ... NEVER satisfied.

“st.bart,” if you believe that the Euchariust is ludicrous, does that also mean that you think that Jesus Christ is ludicrous?
Read
John 6:15-71
Matthew 26:26ff (& Mark 14:22ff, & Luke 22:17ff.)
1 Corinthians 11:23-29.
Catholics read the Bible as literally true.  Our logic is that if Christ, being God, said that the Eucharist is his body and blood then, since he is God and can do whatever he wants to, it is—no matter what some humans think, since “for what seems to be God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom.” (1 Corinthians 1:25)

And st. basrt, if you believe that the Bible is true, how do you handle Matthew 16:18-19?  You may try to desperatly argue tha tChrist isn’t really speaking to St. Paeter, but at the very least you have to admit that those verse don’t condemn the idea of a hierarchical Church

Ignore the troll.

st.bart,
Get a hold of your self…I haven’t heard gibberish nonsense like that since Obama told us how catholic his Obama Care was. I think you would fill more at home on a rev. wright or bill ayers blog. America’s a free country, feel free to leave….(don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Okay, I admit that it’s true that Lutherans-turned-Eastern Orthodox like Pelikan and Protestants go through “intellectual” hand-stands to “prove” that Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 26:26ff don’t mean what they seem to mean, and that what Catholics do is to simply accept those verses as the truth.  (Well, Pelikan eventually accepted Matthew 26:26ff as written.)

But who accepts the Bible, and who rejects those parts of the Bible which don’t go with their theology?

And “st.bart,” did you name yourself after the original St. Bart’s Day massacure, in which Calvinists attacked Catholics, and the re-match of a year’s later, which I suspect is the only one you know about?

Okay, “st.bart,” what do you think about this?

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp

It’s true that, as John Henry Newman discovered when he researched the history of the early Church for “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine,” there were always Protestants against the Church—but what held the Church togetther was the pope.
That’s why he left his confortable position as an Anglican theologian at Oxford to join the true Church.

st.bart,
Do you get your talking points from chris mattews or keith olberdunce…or do you actually believe you have original thoughts…your garbage has been spewed for centuries and the only institution to stand tall and glorious is the CATHOLIC CHURCH…no governments, no empires…nothing! Gods word is forever individuals like you come and go, lets just hope a pray you are granted the gift of faith before you go…and you accept…you will be eternally happy.

st.bart
What happens to be your creed? I seem to sense frustration and maybe a little hatred…maybe changing the topic to deal more with your personal issues we could actually make some progress.

St. Bart:
You might want to read the “Apostolic Fathers,” as they’re called.
Protestants wonder why St. Clement, writing from Rome about AD 80, feels he can order the Corinthians to obey THEIR bishop.
And they wonder why St. Ignatius of Antioch, the coiner of the term “Catholic,” writing about AD 110, addresses the Church of Rome as “the church which holds the presidency.”
As for 21 priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese being suspended until further investigation, if it was a separate denomination the Philadelphia Archdioces would be one of the top 20, if not top 10; and there are hundreds of priests there.
As for Protestant denominations, the largest is the Southern Baptist convention, and (as ABC News reported a couple of years back) it protects itself from lawsuits by not keeping any records about its clergy—so if a minister gets fired by his original church for sexual crimes and moves across town to another, there’s no proof that the other church knew about him.

st.bart:
The Greek word “epi-scopus” or “super-visor” is the one that the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern rites of the Catholic Church use for “bishop”—not to mention the Latin rite and even some Protestant denominations. (e.g., as in “Episcopalian Church”.)  That denominations that reject the office of bishop claim that Episcopal doesn’t mean Episcopal means nothing.
And the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t know what percentage of their clergy are homosexual because (as ABC’s “20/20” reported) they protect themselves from lawsuits by refusing to keep any records.
It’s interesting that the groups which claim that there are high numbers of homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church want more of them—for instance, “the Rainbow Sash Movement.”

St. Bart,

To put this as charitably as possible, nearly everything you said was factually incorrect. 

(1) It’s not true that the Greek words for bishop and elder are indistinguishable. The Greek word for bishop (episcopos, lit. “overseer”) has a completely different meaning than the Greek word for presbyter/elder (presbyteros,lit. “elder”). There are admittedly some ambiguous passages, since elders are also called to oversee the flock of Christ. But that’s no great point against Catholicism, or for arguing that the two offices are the same.  After all, the Greek word for deacon (diakonos) means “server” or “servant,” and Paul refers to Phoebe as a diakonos in Romans 16:1.  Yet virtually no serious Christian thinks he’s calling her a deacon.  In any case, a very clear distinction is drawn in the writings of the Greek-speaking Christians who learned from the Apostles.  St. Ignatius of Antioch is an obvious example of someone who makes it absolutely explicit that there’s a distinction (more on him next).

(2) Schaff says quite the opposite of what you claim, writing of Ignatius’ epistles on page 471 of History of the Christian Church: “In this state of the controversy, we must for the present side with the advocates of the genuineness of the shorter seven epistles; hoping that, perhaps the discovery of some new manuscripts may clear up the obscurity which still exists.”  So at the least, he feels comfortable vouching for the shorter (generally agreed upon) versions of the seven major Ignatian epistles, and the longer versions may be authentic as well (but we can’t tell).  You can read his full comments on p. 469-471 to see a more in-depth rationale, but you’re clearly wrong here.

(3) If you have personally seen the originals of Ignatius’ letters, you must be some sort of time-traveler, since they no longer exist (if we had originals, there wouldn’t be a debate over whether the short or long version better represents the original, would there?).

(4) You claim that “Ireneaus never mention[s] Peter being in Rome.  He   He mention Linus as the first bishop of Rome.” False and false. I refer you to Book III, Chapter 1 of Against Heresies (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.ii.html): “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. ”  And in Chapter III (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html) he says that Peter and Paul founded the episcopacy in Rome, and handed the keys on to Linus.

In Christ,

Joe

Joe,

I beg to differ with you in regard to what Schaff says in regard to Ignatius

“The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation.” (History of the Christian Church, Philip Shaff, Vol 2, ch 4)
“But I am content to leave the whole matter, without comment, to the minds of Christians of whatever school and to their independent conclusions.” Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.
“The reader may judge, by comparison for himself, which of these is to be accepted as genuine” Introductory Note To The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Ephesians.

2. The oldest versions of the Ignatian Epistles are in Greek are owned by the Russians. I saw them under supervision while studying in St. Petersburg.  Yes, they are not the originals, but they are heavily interpolated.  Catholics typically only have access to Latin translations, which are of questionable authenticity.

3. The discussion between elder and bishop is a long one. But let is suffice to say that every Evangelical Protestant does not distinguish between elder and bishop.  The ambiguity of Scripture as well as the testimony of the living church show that Christ never wanted an central authority for his church.  None of the Apostles deemed it necessary.  The book of Revelation was written to 7 churches, NOT one church. Thus local independent churches has always been Gods plan.  Consider that Christianity had no persecution until Nero in 64 AD.  That means the church was in existence for 34 years and never found it necessary to have a central administration. Thus the episcopal form of government is a demonic form of government and never intended by Christ, the Apostles, or the TRUE church.

Resolving Peter being in Rome
1. Many people falsely assumed that Babylon was a code word for Rome.  The Bible never uses Rome as a code word for Babylon.  The Bible refers to Jerusalem as a harlot of Babylon in the book of Revelation.  Thus when one is familiar with the Bible one begins to see that Babylon could never refer to Rome.  Thus when the Latin authors translated the Greek texts into Latin they occasionally translated Babylon into Rome.  This is how the tradition of Peter spread from Babylon to Rome.
2. Furthermore there were many legends regarding Peter.  Some ancient sources even claim Peter was crucified in Jerusalem Let me quote from newadvent.org
‘A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, Prince of Galilee, and thence concludes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The Acts of St. Peter is the also first source to claim Peter crucified upside down.  -newAdvent
Look what Justin Martyr ( 100-165 AD) writes that Simon the Sorcerer was in Rome not Peter and he was buried on Vatican Hill.  Forgeries in the 3rd and fourth century changed this to be the Apostle Peter. 

4. I can give you 10 Biblical reasons that Peter was never in Rome. But I will save that for another post.
5. Fact is that I have never met a Catholic who could discern true doctrine from false doctrine.  One of the requirements for being a mature Christian is to be able to discern between true and false doctrine. This is why Catholics prefer to trust in the age of an institution instead of doctrine.  Why? Because if Biblical doctrine were dynamite most Catholics would not have enough to blow their nose.
6. How do I know Catholicism is a false religion. Simple!  The Catholic Catechism says Muslims and Catholics worship the same god.  Let us see Muslims reject Jesus as the Son of God and thus worship a false god.  Thus Catholics create a false Christ, steeped in sacraments, and thus also worship the same false god.
8. Fun fact Judaism is a non-sacramental religion.  Apostolic Christianity in the 1st century is also non-sacramental.  Only Pagan religions of the OT and NT were sacramental.  Thus the merging of pagan sacramentalism with Christianity created a syncretic false Christianity that has been rejected by God.  You have been warned.  Now if you reject what I say then God will give a much harsher judgment for rejecting truth.
9. Christ could not convince the Pharisees and Sadducees of truth. So it is doubtful that I can convice Catholics of the truth.  When a person has a hard heart, unteachableness, loves forged decretals, Medieval superstition, and has a faulty hermeneutic than I doubt Jesus can helps such a heretic.  Thus Catholics will rot in Hell by the millions.  The righeous will rejoice at the last judgment that the Synagogue of Satan has been finally sent to the lake of fire.

I have a feeling that some day you are going to be a great Catholic…you have a lot of the same misguided and false beliefs that were once held by your counter parts…Scott Hahns, Steve Ray ....heck I could write a book with all of them…sincere men (and women) looking for the fullness of the truth and yes they came home to the Catholic Church.

The American Bible Society, in its Good News Bible has a footnote for “Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 that says “BABYLON: As in the book of Revelation, this probably refers to Rome.”  I know “st.bart” is probably going to write “The folks at the American Bible Society don’t know the Bible!”
And I think that the simplest explanation for the seeming interchangability of “episcopus” (supervisor or bishop) and “presbeteros” (elder or priest) in the New Testament is thast back when the Church was just getting started you had many one-parish dioceses.

Dr. Craig Evans, a Protestant New Testament scholar at Acadia Divinity College, praises Pope Benedict’s new book on Jesus:
“It’s a remarkable achievement, the best book I’ve read on Jesus in years,“he commented. “This is a book all Christians should read, be they Protestant or Catholic. Any Jewish person who is interested in the Christian story and who Jesus was, I think, will profit.”
Dr. Evans represents a more balanced Protestant view of the Catholic Church, not the mouth-foaming anti-catholicism of st. bart.

RE: 1 Peter 5:13
The English Standard(ESV) Study Bible,the standard Bible for Evangelicals and Calvinists like R.C. Sproul, J. Piper, John MacAthur,etc. states that “Babylon” refers to Rome, not Jerusalem.

I still think he’s really Darth Sidious.

RE: 1 Peter 5:13. “I doubt Sproul thinks Babylon refers to Rome”. I looked up 1 Peter 5:13 at www.ligonier.org(Sproul’s ministry) and found this commentary:“In 1 Peter 5:13 we find greetings to the audience from “she who is at Babylon.” This is most likely a reference to the church at Rome and continues the theme that faithful Christians are the true Israel of God. Babylon was one of the most recognizable enemies of ancient Israel, and, given that the early Christian church was scattered in exile (1:17) throughout the Roman empire just as ancient Israel endured exile in Babylon, it makes perfect sense that Peter would use “Babylon” to refer to Rome. Furthermore, by the time Peter wrote, it was not uncommon for Romans to compare their empire to the mighty Babylonian empire that ruled centuries before. “She who is at Rome” would thus refer to the true Israelites living in that city, namely, the church, which served Israel’s true king — the Lord Jesus Christ.” It appears st.bart is “heterodox”.

Dolorosa on Friday, Mar 4, 2011 12:06 AM (EST) asks:Does that mean the Bible isn’t right now:
Matthew 27:25 “And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.

Answer:  No the Bible isn’t wrong.  The people said that but they were wrong.  Many places in the Bible the people and the scribes and Pharasees say things that are recorded in the Bible even though they were speaking incorrectly. 

Example Some said “No one can forgive but God alone.”  Yet Jesus said to the TWELVE (not the multitude)(John20): “Receive the Holy Spirit, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven then.” 

The people also said “How can he give us his body to eat and his blood to drink”  but Jesus said “He who does not eat of my body and drink of my blood has no life in him” (John 6) and again at the last supper “This is my body, take this all of you and eat of it…”  Who will you believe?  I’ll stick with Christ.

By the way, Jesus answered on the cross “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing.”  Do you think His Father answered this prayer by saying; “No, My Son, never!”
Tom G.

st.bart:
You seem to have gotten your religious instruction from Jack Chick comics, and yet you claim that CATHOLICS are the ones who have “left their brains in the parking lot”?  We simply believe what Jesus said about the Eucharist, and you follow the example of the would-be followers of John 6:52-53, 60-68.
Stop reading comic books and start reading the Bible and you may come to understand why the majority of the world’s Christians believe what Jesus said.

wow. It didn’t take long for the rabid anti-Catholics to infiltrate this site, did it?

The Jack Chick types are quite obvious, they all have the same story, but of course, none of it verifiable from History.

Those are the ones we want…for some reason their the ones that tend to become militant Catholics full of zeal…maybe he’ll morph into a mini Scott Hahn!

Oh come on first.st.bart, what you offer is “sound exegesis”?  What I’m pointing out is that you Fundamentalists deny the plain meaning of Scripture, claiming that “sound exegesis” proves that Jesus was only speaking in figures of speech when he spoke against your doctrines, while we Catholics accept what Jesus said about himself as true.
Again, what’sd your “sound exegesis” on John 6:52-53, 60, 66:
“‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’  Jesus said to them, ‘I am telling you the truth: if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have livfe within you.’...
Many of his followers said, ‘This is a hard saying.  Who can accept it?’...
Because of this, many of his followers turned back and would not follow him anymore.”
Eh?...Again, we catholics follow wjat Jesus said and you fundamentalists
ignore what he said by claiming that “sound exegesis” proves that Jesus was…what?... only joking with his would-be disciples?

first.st.bart:
Yes, that’s what I wrote: we Catholics take what Jesus said as true, while you fundamentalists insist that what Jesus said can’t possibly be true.  Yes, Jesus talked about his being the Bread of Life after he feed the multitude, but you apparently missed out on the fact that he called himself that after the multitude asked him for more bread.
In other words, your “sound exegesis” is to deny the truth of what Jesus said.

Why st.bart one would have to come to the conclusion you’re brilliant…except for the fact you have none..Where in scripture does St. Paul say that the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ….and what’s with all the other protestants you name to prove your point? We’re catholics because we seek the fullness of the truth which is one concise and absolute…if we just wanted to tickle our ears with gibberish we would join your silly creed and laugh our selves to death from sheer confusion.

Historically by who??
ST. AUGUSTINE (c. 354 - 430 A.D.)
    “That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God IS THE BODY OF CHRIST. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, IS THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. Through that bread and wine the Lord Christ willed to commend HIS BODY AND BLOOD, WHICH HE POURED OUT FOR US UNTO THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.”
So can you please interpret for me Oh brilliant one what St. Augustine was actually trying to say?....Can you also inform me why you non Catholics think you can interpret the bible..it is after all the Catholics not the protestant bible and the ones protestant use are only molested versions of the catholic one. That would be equivalent to Ahmadabad interpreting our constitution.

first.st.bart:
If you believe in “the perspicuity of Scripture”—that, contrary to what the Bible says about itself (see 2 Peter 3:15-16) private interpretation does NOT distort the Scriptures—then you should be, if not Catholic, at least Eastern Orthodox.  The Catholic Church by itself is slightly over half of the world’s Christians, and if you add the Eastern Orthodox you get 62% of the world’s Christians being lead by the “perspicuity” of Scripture to read the New Testament in the same way.  (And there’s the “Anglo-Catholics” among the Anglicans and the “Evangelical Catholics” among the Lutherans.)
As for how early it was when the Church was in agreement about the church of Rome being “the church which holds the presidency” St. Ignatius of Antioch, who coined the phrase “catholic church,” called it that about AD 110.  And even earlier, about AD 80, St. Clement of Rome ordered the Corinthians to obey THEIR bishop.

Again, first.st.bart:
If you’re going to argue that St. Paul and the Church Fathers didn’t believe in transsubstantiation, it’s true that they didn’t have the philosophical terms but they did agree with Jesus that the Eucharist IS Jesus’ Body and Blood.  Even Marin Luther believed that, even if he prefered the philosophical term “consubstantiation.”
See 1 Corinthians 11.

What you call “reformed theology” denies the previous 1500 years of Christian theology.

first.st.bart:
Peter still writes in those epistles that “the ignorant and unstable” (as he calls them) distort the Scriptures.  If the majority of the world’s Christians (the Catholics, Orthodox, and high-church Anglicans and Lutherans), who all read Scriptures in the same way, can’t understand the Scrioptures, then how can the Scriptures be “perspicuitous”?  The argument that they have to go through the religious rite of “being born again” (which, unlike baptism, isn’t commanded in Scripture*) before they can understand Scripture denies the “perspicuity of Scripture.”

*Jesus speaks of being born again in baptism “which saves you now.” (1 Peter 3:21)
I know, Reformed theology denies the plain meaning of Scripture there, so it can’t be true.

first.st.bart,
Even the American Bible Society’s Good News Bible translates 1 Peter 3:20-21 as
“The few people in the boat—eight in all—were saved by the water, which is a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you.” 
Again, I admit that we Catholics take the words of Scripture as written, while “proper exegesis” (Reformed Theology) rejects those parts that don’t go along with Calvin’s heresy.

Even Martin Luther wrote, in his Small Catechism,
“[Baptism] brings about forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe it…our Lord Jesus Christ says in Mark 16:16, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved…
“the Sacrament of the Altar…is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and drink.”
(translation copyright 1994 Augsburg Fortress)
The difference between “consubstantiation” (in which the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood ‘under’ the bread and wine) and “transubstantiation” (that it IS his Body and Blood, appearances notwithstanding) is philsophical, and minor compared to the Calvinist doctrine that you can’t take what Jesus said seriously.

Again, first.st.bart, if everybody but your little denomination distorts the Scriptures, doesn’t that prove that the “perspicuity” of Scripture can’t possibly be true?
And again, we Catholics take Jesus literally when we believe that it’s WATER—not ambiotic fuid—that works with the Holy Spirit in baptism.

Don,
What is amazing is that I gave people on this blog 11 irrefutable biblical reasons why Peter was NEVER in Rome.  Catholics would rather trust tradition and interpolated church fathers than the Bible.  My heart grieves at awaits such people on the day of judgment.

st.bart
the answers you have given to either question or statements are ambiguous…miss-leading and usually just flat out miss-representation of historical facts. I have a few acquaintances that are fallen away Catholics and there are two arguments/complaints that are used 99% of the time. 1st is usually from the less educated and the 2nd from the more educated.
#1)All the church wants is your money…I felt I was being shook down every time I went….and other bs that’s flat out false.
#2)Then there are individuals like your-self that think because they know a little about the bible or jewish history they can intellectually justify themselves because someone less educated can’t refute the errors they proclaim as truths..
The truth of the matter though with fallen away Catholics lies (99.99%)with an issue called chastity…unhappy sexual relationship with ones spouse, masturbation or other sins of impurity.
Look at history and find me a great theologian a dissenter from the church that history remembers for their chastity.
Luther?Calvin?Henry XIII?
On a purely natural level, what evil or wrong the the catholic church teach??

Damien,
I agree that many Catholic fall away because of the sins you outlined.  But as a Catholic I did not drink, smoke, do drugs, chase women, was chaste, did not have sex till marriage.  Confessed sin of masturbation.  Also I did not indulge in pornography, and I was not homosexual. You have to say that now a days! Also I practice Natural Family Planning.
I am one of the few who rejects Catholicism on purely theological grounds.  It is that simple.  I can’t help it that Americans are dumbasses in droves.  Americans think that because they sent man to the moon they are still some kind of superpower. Most Americans live in the past, while I live in the year 2011.  Thus I need a theology that is relevant for the year 2011 and not one steeped in Medieval superstition.  Look Aquinas believed that if a woman caught cold she would give birth to a girl.  Scholasticism is a combination of bad philosophy and bad theology. It has so many barnacles on it that it is almost irrelevant for a 21st century person.  However, idiots that want to return to the Latin mass, and those of inferior intellect will blindly hope that this is the panacea that they need. I was hoping that a person of Dutch extraction could step up his intellectual game.  Secondly I know a lot about the Bible, Catholicism, religions, languages, hermeneutics, history, and philosophy and can say without reservation that Catholicism will send you to HELL!  Thus I find it amazing that fools will consult another fool before they will consult someone who has the answers.  As I have told many Muslims and Catholics, “Raw Stupidity is your greatest weapon, for reason can not overcome it.”

For some reason I enjoy reading your responses…
That you brought the US up…yea I really think my country is superior.
Which we could start talking about types of goverment but that would just be a distraction.
No catholic I know of believes the church hasn’t had it share of problems…also church doctors were and are not infallible creatures.
On the flip side though the church has never taught anything contrary to nature…(impressed you use NFP) on the contrary the gospel of Jesus which it does teach is synonymous with nature.
One who seeks to discover error is righteous but he who revels in the fallen nature of man must in all fairness not be bias and see it not only in himself but in his spouse children and friends…this would surely make society a miserable place and to what end?

first.st.bart:
So, not only do you deny any part of Scripture that doesn’t teach your “proper exegesis” (the Calvinist heresy), you also deny Natural Law, in that your Calvinism is at odds with normal human reason.
And if it’s true that (as you claim) there are 30,000 Protestant denominations, doesn’t that mean that Scripture can’t possibly be “perspicuitous”—unless you admit that the way that the overwhelming majority of the world’s Christians—Catholics, the Othodox, Anglicans, “evangelical Catholic” Lutherans, etc.—read Scripture has to be the “perspicuitous” one?
If you need a special anointing from the Holy Spirit to read the
Scriptures in the “right” (Calvinist) way, doesn’t that mean that the Scriptures are NOT “perspicuitous”?

st.bart,
What is your opinion of speaking in tongues? Baptists and Calvinists seem to be adamantly opposed to it and Pentecostals/Charismatics enthusiastically embrace it. Some think it’s demonic and others think it a gift of the Holy Spirit.

first.st.bart,
I agree that not even all Evangelicals are Calvinists.  That’s why not all Evangelicals agree with you.

By the way, here’s some footnotes from Protestant Bibles for 1 Peter 5:13:

Revised Standard Version (Oxford Annotated Bible, 1977)
BABYLON, a cryptic name for Rome(see Rev. 17:1n.)

Good News Bible (1992)
BABYLON: as in the book of Revelation, this probably refers to Rome.

Revised English Bible (Oxfiord Study Bible, 1992)
BABYLON: the church in Rome; see Rev.17:1-5,15.

Contemporary English Version (1995)
BABYLON: this may be a secret name for the city of Rome.

New Living Translation (1996)
Greek ‘the elect one in Bablylon,’ Babylon was probably a code name for Rome.

So are you trying to claim that all the Protestants who don’t agree with you don’t understand the “perspicuitous” meaning of Scripture?

To St. Bart, et al,
While a Catholic scholar I may be, and while I have studied the depth and breadth of the arguments that you are all making here at one time or another in my career, I have always found that there is a missing piece in this whole argument back and forth about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  You have all taken the time to painstakingly point out many of the ambiguities and contradiction between the Holy Fathers and between one interpretation or another of the Holy Word of God.  It is obvious that we can continue this discussion for no less than 500 years, give or take, and utilize our own perspectives on everything from Church history to political science in order to make our arguments continue in circles.  No doubt all of this is a waste of time much to the Devil’s delight.  It wells up anger between the combatants and nothing but doubt in the hearts of onlookers.  History bears witness to this, am I not correct, St. Bart?

Regardless, in my love for St. Paul and frequent study of his writings, I find that his theology is far simpler at its core than most other scholars do.  I take this from those themes that he oft repeats in his epistles.  For that reason, the argument that I am about to make is the most ridiculous one that you will ever hear a scholar make, as it is almost totally devoid of large words or deep theological insights.  It is an argument that only a child or a parent would understand. 

Jesus Christ came to place God in relationship with man.  St. Paul points out to us that God seeks a very specific type of relationship with his people, that of Father to son, as we are adopted into his divine family (see Gal 4:1-7).  This family is known as the Church.  As God is not a polygamist, I think we would all agree, He can have but ONE family (ONE Church), a holy family.  This family is made up of a number of people from all times and all places, in that sense it is truly catholic (yes, my farmer friend, I used a small “c”).  Thus gentile and Jew alike have become members of this family.  So Jesus established a family here on earth and then left, ascended into heaven.  He sent the Holy Spirit to be our advocate.  Keeping in mind that we have yet to receive our full inheritance as children of God, Paul points out that we must be under “the supervision of guardians and administrators until the date set by the father” until the appointed time.  It seems to me that this is the act of a good and loving parent.  Far from abandoning his children to the likes of Montanus, St. Bart, or any other scholar who might wish to give us his own interpretations of scripture or tradition, IF God is GOD, and IF we believe that he wishes to love us as a FATHER, we must also believe that he established a way to care for us in his personal absence from our midst.  This authority was set to guard our inheritance, until we are prepared to receive it.  Bad men, flawed or yes, even so flawed as to be practicing pederasts, some of our caretakers have taken on that role even so that they might steal the very inheritance they were sworn to protect.  Surely the master of the house will deal with them severely, but this does not condemn the very structure set in place by the Lord for the sake of his children.  He allows the weeds and the wheat to grow up together and later will burn the weeds and harvest the wheat.

simplistic brilliance…I do believe did not Jesus say unless we were like children we would not enter the kingdom… far to often we become so self absorbed in our intellectualism (I’m by no means claiming I’m an intellectual) that we don’t smell the roses?

I have been reading st.bart’s forum responses and I must say it is disappointing that a so-called Christian thinks he is justified in calling people “idiots, “dumb-asses”, etc.. This language and demeanor clearly goes against the Spirit of Jesus Christ:“But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”(Matt 5:22)St.bart uses the false rationalism that Catholics aren’t brothers and sisters so he can insult us with unChristlike behavior. Instead of being a humble slave of Christ, st.bart is living according to the flesh(anger,judgement,factionalism,non-forgiveness) Living in Christ, in the Holy Spirit, is characterized by love, peace, joy, gentleness and faith. St. bart is like the prodigal son’s older brother who is angry at God’s mercy for dumb-asses and idiots. Until st.bart loses his intellectual pride and arrogance and humbles himself before Christ, he is heading down the path of destruction. May God have mercy on st.bart. Amen!

Let’s talk about Facts for a minute not the distortion of history trough fate and story tellers of the ages.
Fact one:
Jesus was Born a Jew and died a Jew.
Fact two:
If jesus were to come back tomorrow he would probably feel more “at home” with Ortodox jews then in any church.
i don’t think he would even know what a church is.
and once he finds out what atrocities were done to his people trough out history in his own name he would not be happy at all.

Sorry if it’s hard to hear but it is just the Facts…

Poor st.bart, deluded and lost soul. I hope your gospel of hate is working for you. Your response confirmed what I said about you. Everything you say is just an elaborate rationalization for your false gospel of hate. And comparing yourself to Elijah and Christ reveals your truly delusional mind. Maybe St. Paul can reorient your twisted beliefs:

Ephesians 4:29-32

“Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.     

Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other,just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.”

Have a wonderful day in the Lord!

first.st.bart,
Okay if the Eucharist is an idol then Catholic worship idols; but what if the words of Christ in the Gospels concerning the Eucharist are literally true?
And I didn’t know that some people who claim to follow the Bible reject parts of that Bible (as you do Ephesians) before.
Oh wait, Martin Luther rejected the epistle of James becuase it didn’t teach “the Gospel” (Lutheranism).
As I said, we Catholics take the Bible as written while folks like you figure out ways to reject it as just figures of speech (if it doesn’t teach your doctrine).

And “the Guy on the reality side”:
Have you ever read “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope” by Rabbi David G. Dalin?  THAT teaches reality, as opposed to anti-Christian rhetoric.
And if you really believe that if Jesus came back today he would be an observant Orthodox Jew and not a Christian, you probably never read the New Testament.

st.bart,Ephesians applies to All Christians, not just the Ephesian Christians. Just another one of your false rationalizations to support your gospel of hate.
And I’ll be praying for your unfortunate wife and children because you sound like an egotistical tyrant. I’d tell you to read Ephesians 5:28-33, but—oh yeah! it only applies to the Ephesians, not st.bart(a false christian).

Have a blessed day in the Lord!

Pope Benedict’s new Jesus of Nazareth book is on the New York Times best seller list. This must really annoy the secular humanist/atheist crowd at the NYTimes.The book is receiving diverse praise:
“Global reaction to the book makes it clear that Benedict XVI has contributed a work on Jesus that is as important and historically significant as it is well-written and thorough.“Oregon Faith Report

“It’s a remarkable achievement,” said Protestant scholar Dr. Craig A. Evans of Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, in Wolfville, N.S., Canada. “It’s the best book I’ve read on Jesus in years. This is a book that I think all Christians should read, be they Protestant or Catholic.”

“(The Pope) asked for the union of theology and critical history, a response to the failure of critical historical scholarship during the last century,” said Dr. Jacob Neusner, Rabbi and Distinguished Research Professor of Religion and Theology at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson, N.Y. “And he’s accomplished something that no one else has achieved in the modern study of Scripture.”

first.st.bart:
As a matter of fact, at least as far back as 1962 the Vatican ruled that—since priests live together—homosexuals were unfit candidates for the priesthood.  But it goes back to even over 1500 years before your mini-denomination was founded that, since priests represent Christ and masculinity and feminitity are part of human nature, women cannot represent Christ.
And the Church does its best to remove active homosexuals from the ministry.  (Remember the 1984 Jack Lennon film “Mass Appeal,” which complained about this?)  And ABC News reported a few years back that denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention protect themselves from lawsuits by looking the other way, so there are no records for lawyers to sift through.  Statistics indicate that the abuse problem is at least as common with ministers, rabbis, and other professionals—and, according to a 2004 study by the US Department of Education, “at least 100 times worse” in th epublic schools.
So are you saying that your denomination is too busy complaining about the mote in the Catholic Church’s eye to notice the beams in its own?

Dear st.bart, fake christian & poser,

I suggest you stop being a goat and join the sheep. See Matthew 25:31-46.

Have a joyful day in the Lord. God loves you!

Also, first.st.bart,
If Jesus’ words in John 6:53 are true and you join the crowd who deserted Jesus over this, you don’t just “only miss out on additional graces;” according to Jesus, “you have no life within you.”  that’s why over 2/3rds of the world’s Christians—Catholics, Orthodox, “high-church” Anglicans and Lutherans—,whatever their philosophical differences on how to view the real presence of Christ—believe that the Eucharist IS the body and Blood of Christ and only a few deny the words of Scripture.
And so we Catholics take the words of Jesus as true while you insist that only the words of Jean Calvin are true.

And first.st.bart,
I agree that we Catholics accept the Scriptures as wtritten to us while you deny any part that doesn’t fit into your theology.  That isn’t a lack of scholarship, it’s the fullness of faith.

first.st.bart,
Have you bought Thomas Nelson’s “New King James Version,” or their reprinting of the original 1611 “Authorized Version,” yet?
Thomas Nelson issued both books in order to prove that the King James was revised over the years since its first edition was issued, and to provide a “New” King James.
The New Testament of the New King James contains quite a few footnotes which indicates where modern scholars think that the King James Version mistranslated the Greek.  Modern day supporters of the Greek behind the King James Version insist that they’re the ones who follow the correct manuscripts, but the same could be said of supporters of Jerome’s Vulgate—which, by the way, modern Catholic scholars don’t commit themselves to.  (The “Nova Vulgata” contains corrections.)

And first.st.bart,
I must have missed the verse in John 6 where Jesus tells his would-be followers who were leaving him that he was only speaking in figurative language.  Could you tell me which one it is—or does it only exist in your imagination?
You could twist your logic into as many knots as you want to, but the fact still remains that we Catholics are still the ones who accept Jesus’ words as the Gospel truth.

To continue, first.st.bart,
If your theology teaches that Jesus was lying when he said “I will be with you till the end of time” (Matthew 28:20) you have to arguing that while we Catholics simple-mindedly accept the words of Jesus as true, your brilliant scholarship proves that he was a liar.

first.st.bart,
Do you mean that you DON’T believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?
Then who is?
“The

first.st.bart:
You’re claiming that it’s Catholics who do mental gymnastics concerning the plain teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist is as silly as your claiming that the Calvinist denial of same is the true understanding of what Jesus meant.

first.st.bart,
go to the National Council of Churches website

http://www.ncccb.org

(if I remember)
and look up what percentage of US Protestants reject both Luther and Calvin as too Catholic.
You may regard yourself as a scholar, but then why don’t you know that you belong to a tiny sliver of US Christians, not to mention US Evangelicals?

first.st.bart,
Here’s the link to the National Council of Church’s listing of the membership of various north American denominations:

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/100204yearbook2010.html

According to it, the Southern Baptist Convention is shrinking and the Assemblies of God is growing (yes, it does list those denominations). 
the Catholic church, which grew 1.3% worldwide while the general population grew 1.1%, is several times larger than the largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention.  You don’t have to revoke my German last name, since I apparently noticed something which you failed to.

first.st.bart,
My original point (which apparently you missed) was that the small percentage of Christians, even in north America, who agree with you means that if the meaning of the Bible is “perspicuitous” you misread the Bible.
As I already pointed out, at least 2/3rds of the world’s Christians—Catholics, the Orthodox, “high-church” Anglicans and Lutherans—agree as to what the teaching of the Bible about baptism and the Eucharist is, even if they may have philosophical differences about how to express it.
So if the Bible is “perspictuitous” we’re the ones who are right.

first.st.bart,
Did the thought ever occur to you that if only those who belong to sects that you approve of read the Bible correctly, maybe the Bible is a mysterious document and NOT “perspicuitous”?
And if you want to talk about the membership of various denominations, again—the Catholic church is at least half of the world’s Christians; add the Orthodox Christians and the “high-church” Anglicans and Lutherans and you have over 2/3rds of the world’s Christians agreeing on the basis truths of the Bible.  So if the Bible is really “perspicuitous” and not a mysterious document we’re right and you’re wrong.
So which is it?  Do only Evangelicals read the Bible correctly or is the Bible “perspicuitous”?
And did you know that editors at Billy Graham’s “Christianity Today” (as one of them put it) “have beeen doing the ancient/future thing” at anglican or Episcopalian churches for a while?

Commentary from “Lumen Gentium” on today’s gospel reading from Mark 12:28-34:                                           

All Christians are called to holiness

  God is love, and he who abides in love, abides in God and God in Him” (1Jn 4,16). But, God «pours out his love into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, Who has been given to us» (Rm 5,5); thus the first and most necessary gift is love, by which we love God above all things and our neighbor because of God. Indeed, in order that love, as good seed may grow and bring forth fruit in the soul (Mt 13,35), each one of the faithful must willingly hear the Word of God and accept His Will, and must complete what God has begun by their own actions with the help of God’s grace. These actions consist in the use of the sacraments and in a special way the Eucharist, frequent participation in the sacred action of the Liturgy, application of oneself to prayer, self-abnegation, lively fraternal service and the constant exercise of all the virtues. For charity, as the bond of perfection and the fullness of the law,(Col 3,14; Rm 13,10) rules over all the means of attaining holiness and gives life to these same means. It is charity which guides us to our final end. It is the love of God and the love of one’s neighbor(Mark 12:28-34) which points out the true disciple of Christ.

I did become an agnostic as a teenager and “revert” to Catholicism after studying the various religions in college—which was, yes indeed, before I was 30.
And again, if you believe that the Bible is “perspicuitous” and yet the other 90%+ of the Bible-readers in the country, not to mention the world, are wrong, who’s the “dumbass”?

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

first.st.bart,
Even if you assume that only 5% of Catholics are Orthodox Catholics, that’s still 65 million worldwide (out of 1.3 billion), a lot more than there are Baptists, Orthodox or not.  (Have you read any of the articles in Christianity Today or First Things about how divided Evangelicalism is?)
And I wasn’t writing about how many are sinners, but about what perecentage of the world’s Christians—Catholics, the Orthodox, and “high-church” Anglicans and Lutherans—are, by your definition, “dumbasses” who believe the words of Jesus concerning the sacraments to be literally true.

first.st.bart,
Yes, I was refering to that article in First Things, and some in Billy Graham’s Christianity Today, about how divided Evangelicals are.
Your definition of “Evangeliccal thought” must be pretty narrow if you exclude Billy Graham and Chuck Colson (who writes in both First Things and Christianity Today); could it be that your definition of “Evangelicalism” is really what the rest of us call “Fundamentalism” (and that you exclude some of your fellow fundamentalists from “the mainstream of Evangelical thought”)?
Again, if that’s so, then 5% of Catholics is still much larger than all of “the mainstream of Evangelical thought”.

st.bart wrote that he belongs to the Evangelical Free Church(EFCA), but his views do not reflect that of EFCA if you go to their website. st.bart is closer to the Westboro Baptists than EFCA in his fundamentalism. Here is a quote from the EFCA website: “God commands us to love Him supremely and others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed.” This sounds more like the “liberalism” he despises than the conservative fundamentalism he espouses. I suspect EFCA would be embarrassed by st.bart.

first.st.bart,
If you think that “mainstream Evangelical thought” includes creationism, and ideas that all non-born again people will go to Hell, last Sunday on TV I saw John Macarthur complain about how few Evangelicals believe all that.  “They aren’t even Christian,” he complained (because they don’t follow him).
He also complained about “rock star pastors,” but didn’t explain how he didn’t consider himself one even though he had his own study Bible.

Oh, and let’s see: according to that National Council of Churches website that I mentioned earlier, the Evangelical Free Church has—uh, it’s not large enough to show up in the list of the 25 largest denominations (#25, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, has 1,010,000 members.)  So if only 5% of the nation’s 68,503,456 Catholics are “orthodox Catholics,” that still comes out to about 3,425,000, the eight (or seventh, if you don’t count the Catholic Church anymore) largest denomination in the country—and if the Bible is “perspicuitous,” that means that the “orthodox Catholicism” is more Biblical than the Evangelical Free Church.

Pray the Jesus Prayer and you are Born Again.

The Jesus Prayer:

“Oh Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”

As St. Paul wrote in Philippians 2, “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” Very early on, Christians came to understand that the very name of Jesus had great power, and the recitation of His Name was itself a form of prayer.

This short prayer is a combination of that early Christian practice and the prayer offered by the publican in the parable of the pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14). It is perhaps the most popular prayer among Eastern Christians, both Orthodox and Catholic, who recite it using prayer ropes that are similar to Western rosaries.

St. Paul urges us to “pray without ceasing,” and this prayer is one of the best ways to start doing so. It takes only a few minutes to memorize, after which we can recite it whenever we remember to do so. If we fill the otherwise wasted moments of our day with the Holy Name of Jesus, we’ll keep our thoughts focused on Him and grow in His grace.

first.st.bart,
The Roman rite is the largest in the Catholic Church, maybe 90%; even if you restrict your counting of Catholics to 5% of the Roman rite in the USA, that’s still a lot larger than your “mainstream of Evangelical thought”, since you reject even the editors of Christianity Today as “mainstream Evangelicals.”

And by the way, do you notice something about all these translations of Romans 3:28?
“For-we-reckon to-be justified by-faith a-man without works of-law.” (Alfred Marshall interlineal Bible)
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.” (New King James Version, 1982)
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.” (New International Version, 1984)
“For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (updated New American Standard Bible, 1999)
“For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” (Holman Christian Standard Bible, 2006)

As a footnote to the NIV Study Bible noted, “When Luther translated this passage, he added the word ‘alone’...”

Catholics follow Romans 3:28 as written, not as revised in accord to Protestant doctrine.  They also follow James 2:17 (“Faith without works is dead.”) even though Martin Luther rejected the letter of James from the “true and certain” books of the New Testament, because it didn’t follow “the Gospel”—his doctrine.

And also, first.st.bart,
I’m the one who was an agnostic for years before I reverted.  Are you sure that you’re not the one who is “kicking against the goad” (see Acts26:14)?

first.st.bart,
You’re bragging that you denomination has a church in Philadelphia?  Are you kidding?
Philadelphia not only has more than one Catholic church, it also has two Catholic cathedrals—one or the Roman rite and one for the Ukranian rite.
Bragging that your denomination has a church in Philadelphia to Catholics is like an off-shore island bragging to the mainland how large it is.

first.st.bart,
Google “evangelical free church sex abuse” and you’ll find out that your own denomination isn’t exactly pure.  (Yes, as tiny as your denomination is, one of the cases was this year in Pennsylvania.)
And when Senator Scott Brown revealed that he wss molested as a child, it was at a “non-denominational Christian” camp.
Last night ABC’s 20/20 revealed the extent of sex abuse among Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, which (since they all claim to be independent of each other) no lawyer is going to try to make a name for himself by suing.  A few years back 20/20 revealed that the Southern Baptist Convention considers all of its churches independent, and so keeps no records of its molesting preachers who move to another church when they get caught.
When you point one finger at someone else, you point three fingers at yourself.

first.st.bart,
Again, you deny the truth: only 4% of Catholic priests are accused of sexual abuse—a percentage as high as that of Protestant ministers—so, 4% are accused of pedophilia, 80% are accused of seducing teenage boys, and the rest seduced teenage girls.
The Philadelphia Archdiocesn seminary also screens out homosexuals, which is why our percentages are as small as yours.  (The numbers are smaller because your denomination is so tiny.)
Even the Southern Baptist Covention’s Holman Christian Standard Bible translates Jesus’ words as “this is my body…this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins..” (Matthew 26:26-27)  Notice that Jesus said “is my body,” not “represents my body”, and “is shed,” not “will be shed” (for everything is eternally present to God).  Jesus said it, the pope believes it, that settles it.
If you lack faith in the words of Jesus, that’s not the Church’s fault.

first.st.bart,
John Paul II taught philosophy, “Husserel personalism.”  If you don’t know what what branch of philosophy that is, you don’t have the right to judge him as a thinker.
As for your insisting that what Jesus said can’t posibly be true, so it has to be a metaphor, does that mean that you also believe that he can’t possibly be the Savior of the world?
I know about the priests who disgraced their calling, but I also know about the ministers who disgraced Christianity, and there’s just as many (percentage-wise) as ministers.  Stop covering up your eyes and google “Evangelical Free Church sex abuse”.  And then read Matthew 7:1-5.

Dear Shane and David I also disagree with the Pope on the date of the Last Supper- I believe it occurred on the second night of Pesach- Thursday Evening 16th of Nisan. see http://aronbengilad.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-16-nisan-date-of-crucifixion.html the Preparation day refers to the day before Sabbath within Pesach not the day before Passover. By the way I am a Hebrew Catholic.

Athol,
The second volume of Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” dicusses the question of the date of the Last Supper.

HERE ARE THE FACTS, I WAS THERE!  JESUS WAS HATED BY THE PHARISEES.  JESUS SAYS IN REV 2:9 WHO THE EVIL ARE.  DID YOU FORGET, OR DO THE MONEYCHANGERS HAVE YOU ALL IN “LINE” LIKE GOOD GOYIM.  FACE IT.  THEY ARE ROBBING YOU AND SENDING YOUR KIDS TO WARS.  NOT THE JEWISH PEOPLE PER SAY, AT ALL.  IT’S THE MONEYCHANGERS….REMEMBER THEM.  WE STILL FIGHT THE SAME EVIL TODAY.  THE POPE CAN’T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR BANKERS THE ROTHSCHILDS.  PEOPLE, YOU ARE LIVING IN A FALSE REALITY THESE CLOWNS HAVE BUILT.  THE ONLY MIRACLE I SEE HERE IS, THE MIRACLE THAT YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, BUT THE MEDIA, OWNED BY THE SATANIC HORD TELLS YOU LIES AND ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW BETTER IN YOUR HEART, DIDN’T YOUR MOTHER TEACH YOU RIGHT FROM WRONG, DIDN’T YOUR DAD OR BROTHER TEACH YOU NOT TO SIT AND LISTEN TO EVIL BULLCRAP?  COME ON PEOPLE, FOCUS ON WHAT JESUS SAID.  HE IS THE WORD, NOT THE GOLDEN PAGAN B.S. SQUACKING FROM THE PURPLE ROBES.  ALL THE POMP CHRIST WOULD HAVE VOMITTED ON.  WIPE THAT ONE UP.  I WOULD, FOR JESUS.  I LOVE JESUS.  MY KIDS LOVE HIS WORDS.  BUT WE AREN’T STOOGE’S OF THE PHARISEES.  WE KNOW A MIDDLE MAN WHEN WE SEE ONE.  YOU ALL THINK THAT YOU ARE SO SMART, “THE INVINCIBLE IGNORANT” HUH?  IF YOU WERE BLIND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE NO GUILT, BUT THAT I SEE THAT “YOU SEE” THE GUILT REMAINS.

Let’s get this straight.  1. Jesus had to move quickly because, remember people, “not to gallilee, for the jews will surely kill me if they see me.”
                  2. He fought tooth and nail to reform them stopping their corruption and exposing their father the devil. 
                  3. Then they killed him violently. THEN IN THE END, HE TELLS YOU PLAINLY, NO NEED FOR INTERPRETATIONS FROM ROME MY FRIEND,“THEY WILL SAY THEY ARE JEWS, BUT ARE NOT! THEY ARE A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF IT.”  COME ON PEOPLE, THEIR GMO FOODS MAKE YOU STERILE AFTER THE 3RD GENERATION.  YOU’RE BEING CULLED BUT YOUR PRIESTS ARE PAID TO “MUM’S THE WORD”.  INVESTIGATE!  THEY ARE DESTROYING YOU.  READ THE TALMUD, YOU WANT TO GRIPE ABOUT THE QORAN, GO READ WHAT THE TALMUD SAYS ABOUT JESUS.  THEY SPIT ON CHRISTIANS IN ISRAEL.  WAKE UP.  I AM JESUS’S FOLLOWER.  THOMAS JEFFERSON WROTE,“IF THE WORLD WOULD FOLLOW THE WORD OF THE MASTER, JESUS CHRIST, THE ENTIRE WORLD AND EVERYONE IN IT WOULD BE CHRISTIAN BY NOW.
STOP REWRITING MATHEW AND JOHN.  GOOD GRIEF.  JESUS IS ENOUGH.  WE DON’T NEED ANOTHER BOOK WRITTEN BY A SLAVE OF THE PHARISEES.

IS THE POPE GOING TO BE PAID TO ROUND UP ANOTHER COUNCIL OR “AGENTS” IN NICEA AND REMOVER, NICE AND QUIETLY OF COURSE, REV 2:9.?  hahaha I mean really.  They have the priests in America telling the sheep, “rev 2:9 He means, the synagogue of satan is all non-jews.  Hahahaha.  Now tell me you are being led to slaughter.  Look up KOSHER tax.  See how the Rabbis are robbing Americans hand over fist.  Just do it.  Are you afraid of truth.  You don’t have to be with Jesus words in the air. What is ROME doing to protect Christianity?  They are standing down for Satan.  The schools don’t even teach real history.  The fake jew bankers have starting and financed both sides of every War in CENTURIES.  Why hasn’t the Pope addressed that.  Because he loves those MASONIC SATANIC brainwashed minions of Satan.  Look what they’re doing to the world.  Stop watching the Pharisees media.  They Pharisees walked the streets lying to the people setting them up, they sent false rumors, just like our media today.  GET IT.  IT’S THE SAME PEOPLE, JUST DIFFERENT TIME.

in the Bible I think that Babylon means just that…or, all big cities of man.  The corrupt people.  The gold fools.  They have this false reality and have humanity struggling and dying and killing and being killed for gold.  We have cheap metals that perform the work of gold in the past, better for it’s job, cheaper and men won’t kill for it.  They have you thinking gold is precious.  It used to be, only because it was pretty, and it was easily fashioned in to shapes for usefulness without high heat.  There was NO way to achieve high temps for better suited forging.  I’m an expert on that.

The Pope giving the Jews a pass. Who is the Pope to give the Jewish people a pass from murder that is not up to the Pope/vatican it is up to Jesus. You cannot be saved by the Pope you can only be saved by on True God and that is not the Pope.It is Jesus Christ the Pope does not have permission to say when people can be forgiven. Do you still not understand the Bible??? The Pope is the Harlot on the Beast. The Anti Messiah. The evil one. Man of Perdition. Why is it Catholics and Jews and Muslims are so easily fooled. The Lord says come out of her my people. That is the Catholic Church and the Evil Popes. The Catholic Church put to death 500 million Christians and had everything to do with the Holocost. Do you research. They will kill agains this time Jews and Christians with the help of Islam. BEWARE YOU HAVE BEEN FORWARNED. Please read your Bible and study Gods meaning not the Pope or Allah.