I think it was coolviv who implied that the woman of Revelations 12 is Mary and this is a view upheld by catholics in there assertion that it depicts Mary's "queenship". The truth however is somewhat different. It is clear from the passage that Jesus Christ is the male child being referred to but it doesn't follow that the woman referenced here has anything at all to do with Mary. The woman here is Israel. Note the description is similar to Joseph's dream in Gen 37:9-11.

One of the questions we might ask here is why is the dragon depicted as having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns. I think this is significant as I think Rome represented the dragon which stood before Israel to devour the Child. This should be clear because the depiction of the dragon is seen elsewhere in scripture by Daniel in Daniel 7:3-8. These four beasts were Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece, Rome. Rome had 10 horns and the 7 heads are the 4 kingdoms of Greece (after the fall of Alexander the Great), Babylon, Medeo-Persia and Rome. Each kingdom conquored the other until Rome controlled the whole area that the previous kingdoms previously occupied. Daniel 8 explains this further.

plappville,

One of the things I have come across when trying to tell people the truth is that they immediately go on the defensive rather than to hear you out and investigate for themselves whether these things are true. They immediately think that you are just being antogonistic and trying to insult their church rather than to apply reason and investigate for themselves whether these things were so. This applies in whatever church circle you are communicating the truth. It's human nature to judge a matter before they hear it. Just to use a wordly example, if you should say to another man that his wife is cheating on him or that she is a prostitute and was seen at a particular place, his first reaction will be that it is a lie and he might even want to pick a fight with you. So it is when you tell someone that the church that they grow up in and so love is not what it appears to do.

Like you I have been looking into the background of the unHoly catholic church for a long time now and sometimes I share what I know with others but have always been met with resistance. The catholic church is steeped in paganism at the highest level and although there may be genuine christains within this church I have to say that the heirarchy is far removed from Christ. The catholic church is built upon a single lie that Peter was the first pope and who was given primacy over the rest of the church by Jesus Christ. This lie is based on a misuse of Matt 16:18-19:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Their claim is that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His church – a mere mortal man with all his failings. A careful read of the text however will reveal that Jesus address Peter when He said “thou art Peter”, but then the object changed from Peter to “upon this rock I will build…” If Jesus was referring to Peter here He wouldn’t then treat Peter as an object but would have instead say “upon you I will build…” The rock therefore was the answer Peter gave in verse 16 – the rock was the revelation that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. The word rock here is from the Greek word “petra” which means: “a large mass of rock” such as a cliff. Peter however was called Cephas by Jesus which means a small stone (John 1:42). Peter’s name is taken from the Greek “petros” which means a small rock or stone.

It is very clear from scripture that Jesus did not give Peter pre-eminence over the church because we read later in Matthew:

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Matt 23).
If Jesus gave Peter pre-eminence then He would have been contradicting Himself here since he warned them not to appropriate titles to themselves like the Pharisees did but that all of them are BRETHREN. Scripture does not tell us that there should be a single spiritual figure head for the church here on earth but that Christ (absent in body but present in Spirit) is the only Head of the church (Col 1:18). Titles such as Pope, Metropolitan and Patriarch are invalid in the context of Matt 23.

The problem with people however is that they rather listen to the words of their pastors and priest over the very Word of God. As far as they are concerned their spiritual figureheads cannot be wrong and as such they fail to apply proper discernment of scriptures and do the Berean thing and examine if what they see, what they have heard, what they have believed is actually in line with the Word of God.

I proferred an answer to this already but I want to revisit with a more succint answers. Tithes in the biblical sense refers to produce of the land in Israel which were to be eaten by the tither, donated to the poor, widows, fatherless, strangers within the gates and the Levites - the Levites in turn gave a tithe to the priest. In answer to the question therefore it is wrong for a Christian to attempt to observe the Old Covenant Law because this would deny the work of the Cross. It is also wrong if ministers use the tithing laws to extract money under duress from congregants as there are no commandments under the New Covenant to donate 10% of earnings to the church.

Is it therefore wrong to volunteer 10% of your income to the church? No. Not as far as you are giving it according to what you purpose in your heart. Trying to observe the Law as per Malachi 3 etc is an exercise in futility.

My friend this is an interesting piece. But yet you left out perhaps the most important subject out of the equation. Why? Is it because it is taboo? The subject is conspicous by its absence and I need not spell it out here because I am sure you know what I am talking about yet without it you cannot have a happy marriage at all. It is the very foundation of what a marriage is. You said the first thing that people should do is PRAY to avoid temptation. Now there aint nothing wrong with praying but that is not what our elder brother Paul suggested as the key to avoid temptation but rather to render "due benevolence " one to another and not to "defraud" one another except it be by "mutual consent" (1 Cor 7:3-6). Many churches don't teach these things though but rather leaves this subject to be "spiritually discerned".

My friend here is an article I wrote on my blog. I think you will find it answers most of your questions on the subject of tithing.

What is tithing?

For most people in the New Testament church tithing is separating 10% of your income/earnings (indeed 10% of all you receive whether regular or unexpected) and giving it to God via the local church. It is believed by many that this portion belongs to God as this is what God commands or demands. This view is largely based upon the Law of Moses. Support for this practice is also drawn from Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek in Gen 14, where he gave the Priest a tithe of all the spoils he recovered in battle to rescueLot, and to a lesser extent Jacob’s vow to give a tithe to God of all God gave him.

Let me state categorically here that I am not against anyone giving 10% of their income to their church and neither do I wish for anyone to stop giving their 10% to their church. However 10% of ones income given to the church should NOT be confused with the tithe that God required of Israel. So what exactly was the tithe that God required? The following verses tell us clearly what these were:

Lev 27
30And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S: it is holy unto the LORD. 31And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. 32And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD.

Now some will argue here that they tithe food and animals because money was not available and that people at that time were engaged in the practice of barter. This of course is not true because money was mentioned as far back as Gen 17:12 and occurs at least 9 other times in the book of Genesis. As a matter of fact verse 31 of Leviticus where it speaks of redeeming the tithes, this was a reference to buying back part of the tithes with money as the NLT translation more clearly shows:

If you want to buy back the LORD’s tenth of the grain or fruit, you must pay its value, plus 20 percent. Lev 27:31


What we note from these verses is that although it was possible to convert (or buy back) some of the tithes with money (plus 20% mind you), God did not command Israel to tithe money specifically but only produce of the Land.


If this is not sufficient evidence that money was readily available, we also find in Deut 14:24-25 where the tithing law was more clearly outlined also mentions money – here the Lord commanded that if the way was too far so that the tither wasn’t able to carry the tithe (to the place where the Lord chose to place His name), he should convert it to money and take it and buy whatever his heart desired. What Deut 14 also shows is that tithing was not only about giving (i.e. to the Levites and the poor etc) it was also about the tither eating their tithes before the Lord and only the third year tithe was given to the Levites etc.



Was the temple financed through the tithe?

In the previous section I attempted to define what the tithe under the Law constituted and it was clearly nothing to do with income or money. Here is a puzzling thought though. If only produce of the land were to be given as a tithe then were people not engaged with agriculture exempt from tithing? The simple answer to that question is yes! We have to remember here that whilst the Land was given toIsraelas a nation the Levite tribe (from which the priests would come) did not get any portion of it. The tithe OF THE LAND was therefore given to the Levites to inherit [(Num 18:24, 26). The Levites in turn gave a tithe of all the tithes to the priests [(Num 18:28) Note they also received first fruit offerings and such as well which I will not go into as this topic is focused on tithing].



Having considered the foregoing therefore several questions might be raised. If only food was tithe to the Levites and Priests how was the tabernacle or the temple supported and how were the other needs of the Levites met such as for clothing, household things etc? Did they therefore sell some of the tithe to get money to fund their other living costs and the temple costs? Scripture does not tell us that any of the tithe was to be sold in this way. Rather, the purpose of the tithe was to provide food for the Levites (and the Priests) and there is no indication that any other expenses were to be derived from it as we see here:



12When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled; Deut 26



Mal 3:10 also demonstrates that the purpose of the tithe was so that there would be food in God’s house. Here is where “pro-tithers” argue that produce cannot pay for the needs of the church. The point needs to be stressed here though that unlike the church today the tithe was eaten and not used as a means of funding the temple. The point needs to be highlighted here also that the storehouse in Malachi’s day was NOT the temple itself so equating the church to the ancient storehouse is somewhat silly. The storehouse was where the food was kept and certain Levites acted as treasurer over the storehouse.



Where then did the money come from to meet the expenses of God’s house in ancient Israel if it did not come from the tithes (of produce of the Land)? And how were the expenses of the Priests and Levites met?



Firstly, we note from Num 35:1-4 that the Levites had possessions of goods, cattle and beasts and they were given cities to dwell in when they entered the Land and suburbs around their cities to hold their animals. Note also from Lev 25:32 that the Levites could sell their houses for money at anytime.



In contrast to the view that the tithes are used to fund the expenses of the church, money (not food) was collected separately by the priests and Levites from all Israel annually to maintain the temple (see 2 Chron 24:5, Neh 10:32). There was also other freewill giving of money to the house of God as seen in 2 King 12:4.



Aside from the tithe of produce the priests received money as a type of poll tax on the first born of Israel(Num 3:45-51). They also collected money for the atonement of sins demonstrated in Exo 30:16, and which was used for the service of the tabernacle. In 2 Kings 12:16 the priests received the sin and trespass money which was not brought to the house of the Lord but belonged to the priests.



One of the clearest passages of scripture which demonstrates that the tithe was nothing other than food can be found in Neh 10. In this chapter we see in verse 34 where wood for example, was given as an offering but it was not included in the tithes. In verse 32 we also note they contributed money annually for the service of the temple and again this was separate from the tithes which we come to realise when we get to verses 37 and 38. Here we note that the tithes were collected from the agricultural cities (cities of the tillage) only thus confirming what I said earlier that only food producers were required to tithe and that the tithe was never money. To add to that, what we notice from the New Testament scriptures is that the practice of tithing produce existed up to Jesus’ time as the Pharisees tithe herbs of mint, dill and cumin (Matt 23:23). This was clearly the practice of tithing and money was given separately to the temple treasury as we see in Mark 12:41. It is noteworthy to mention here that those who argue that Jesus did not abolish tithing, citing Matt 23:23, by the same logic refuses to acknowledge that the tithe was not money or the equivalent of earnings but food produce from food producers only. If Jesus did not change the tithe law then the tithe remains a tenth part of produce only from food producers. This point however is lost on “pro-tithers”. We note from Luke 16:14 that the Pharisees loved money yet Jesus did not rebuke them for tithing herbs instead of money and this is because under the law only produce could be tithed. It should be noted here also that people who were engaged with other professions but who also tilled the land on the side were also required to tithe of the produce of the ground. They did not however tithe of their income from their profession.



Who changed God’s Law to require a tithe of income from all Christians? By this misinterpretation of the Law all Israel would have been required to tithe yet that is not what scripture teaches.



To recap

There are a great number of misconceptions concerning the tithe and as the debate rages on the misconceptions proliferate. In this article I have merely addressed a few of them. However, I think that if we start from the position that the biblical tithe that God commanded had nothing to do with income nor had it anything to do with money or finances then we would be well on our way to resolving all the various disputes. I believe I have demonstrated why tithing is not something done in the New Testament church. Giving 10% of ones income to the church is not equivalent to the Mosaic tithe and therefore the tithing Law should not be used to support this practice in the church. I am not against anyone freely giving 10% of their income to their church if they so wish but this is not an observance of the biblical tithe, nor could it ever be. I pray that people would learn the truth about tithing and be set free of bondage.

Why is it that people speak evil of the things they do not know or understand. If Jesus really meant that we should eat His literal body and drink His literal blood then most of us living today would not be saved because how far would His body and blood have stretched from the time of His death till now? It is not literal but spiritual.

It was not a commandment it was a judgement that was pronounced upon them if they did not obey the ordinances of God. This was only one of the judgements - other judgements included that they would worship sticks and stones (animism as in parts of Africa?); they were to be scattered into all nations; the strangers among them were to rise above them and they would be the tail and not the head etc. For you to take a verse out of context to say God commanded cannibalism is misleading - neither was cannibalism a practice in scripture.

LagosShia:

^^^^^^^^^

stop talking BS and diverting the topic.

does your god in the bible order humans to eat humans or not?

You will not see anywhere in the Bible where God ordered or commanded humans to eat other humans. This is a clear "misunderstanding" on your part or you reading something into the text that is not there. The verses of scripture that you cite (except for the one in 2 Kings) was a prophecy God pronounced over Israel. When the first covenant was established God said it was to be a blessing and a curse. A blessing if they obeyed the ordinances of God and a curse if they didn't (read from the begining of Deut). So all sorts of evils were to befall Israel if they neglected to do the commandments of God. God was therefore saying to them that if they did not obey His ordinances then such evil will befall them that they would even eat their off springs for food. How does this translate to a commandment by God for them to eat human flesh?

Have you seen the film "Alive". It is based on a true story in which a plane crashed in the Andes and the survivors were forced to eat the flesh of their dead comrade in order to stay alive. We should pray we may never fall into such a similar situation.

Sometimes it is not even worth responding to doubtful disputations such as these but if this will be of any help to anybody here goes. I think with clever twisting of scripture we can always convey whatever message we want. If we read from the KJV version we note that the reference in Isa 14:12 says "son of the morning" and NOT "bright and morning star" which is what Rev 21:16 says in that same version of the Bible. Not the same reference now is it? But lets look at this from another angle, the angels that fell in Genesis were referred to as the "sons of God". These angels became demons because of their sin and were cast into the earth so is Jesus equating Himself with demons if He says He is the Son of God? Angels are sometimes referred to as stars and an example of this is Rev 9:1. Since Lucifer fell he is no longer regarded as a "star" so Isa 14:12 was being used in the reflective sense to say look how you were once enamoured in all your splendor and look how you have now fallen. The reference was really about the king of Babylon and Lucifer was being used as a synonym to describe the king who had exalted himself but who was going to be brought low.

chiteny:

Thanks for the point, but i would like a bible reference to it. I guess i would add a little comment saying that there was no tithing on the seventh year.

Sorry I should have included the reference as well. This can be found in Leviticus 25:1-12.

chitney,

The submission you attached has one small point which needs correcting. Under Question 5 you said the tithing was done yearly. This is not exactly true. In the seventh year there was to be a tithe fast where no tithing was done. The same applied to the jubilee year. This is why the tithe never equated to 10% of all gross income received.

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. 5And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

7Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. 8And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. 9When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. 10When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. 11And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. 12And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.

13And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son (see Hosea 11:1).

(Matthew 2)

One do not need to struggle with the concept that Christ was not born on Christmas Day. Christmas Day or the days surrounding it marks the winter soltice which for pagans mark the birthing of the sun. Constantine, the "Holy Roman Emperor" who was a sun worshiper in earlier life, apparently became a Christian and likewise made Christianity the religion of the state. December 25 might therefore have been chosen as the birthdate of Christ in an attempt to replace the old pagan holidays with a Christian outlook. Unfortunately along the way some some of the pagan practices associated with christmas have spilled over into Christianity and these have become somewhat of "cultural traditions" today. Easter again is similar. Easter marks the summer soltice or the death of the sun but again the Roman church have sought to cloak this day with a christian outlook.

The fact that you may choose to celebrate the birth, death and resurrection of Christ on Christmas day however doesn't mean you are being pagan.

Tithing in the church today is a principle that is based upon false assertions. Such false assertions are evident in the original post by Misoki.

Malachi 3 was not a rebuke to the church but to Israel. Why wrench it out of its original context?

If God required the tithe who does HE require for? The Levites? Who are the Levites today, the pastors?

Under the LAW God required the tithe of food and agricultural produce to be given to the Levites (who in turn gave a tithe to the Priests). That LAW was applicable in the theocracy of Israel only under what was termed the Old Covenant. Jesus Christ has since made a New Covenant with Israel thereby abolishing the first and it is through this New Covenant that we who were outside of the Commonwealth of Israel may be grafted into the olive tree. The old temple system has been destroyed and the Aronic priesthood has now been replaced by Jesus Christ. The LAWS of tithing HAVE NOT been carried over to the church. It is foolishness if not downright skullduggery to claim that the church must return to the old laws of tithing and observe them.

In the new covenant we are called to give to those in need including the elders of the church who spent their time teaching and preaching rather than going out to earn money. We are not told how much to give here but if you purpose in your heart to give a tenth of what you have then you are free in Christ to do so. In the early church people did not place limitations on what the laid at the apostles feet - some gave all they had BUT they were not left empty-handed as they all had all things in common and share what they had equally so no one lacked.

Those who teach tithing today however say you must "bring the whole tithe" even if you don't have a meal to eat that day or the next. They fill you with empty words however that the Lord will belss your giving and they send you on your merry way, whilst pastor is assured of his sustenance from the tithes - what they practice is not of Christ but faith without works.

frosbel,

Thanks for sharing such a timely message. What a blessed article in this age of great apostacy! This message knocks the prosperity crowd squarely on the head. Would that the church wake up to these truths. Many will not want to hear this message though - because through covetousness many have heaped false teachers unto themselves who teach them what they want to hear. Many have followed their pernicious ways, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, claiming that gain is godliness. Godliness with contentment however is great gain.

To put a spanner in the works - Suppose those that call themselves Israel today are really not the true descendants of Israel? Suppose they are really Gog, Magog? Afterall the scriptures do say, "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan(Rev 2:9)."

I noticed DavidDylan keeps harping on about God's covenant with Abraham. What you seem to ignore though is that God's covenant with Abraham was to be fulfilled in Christ. God said he would make a New Covenant with Israel - See Jer 31:31 and Heb 8:8. The New Covenant is fulfilled in Christ's blood and supercedes all previous covenants. Romans 10 says:

1Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

Paul also made it clear in verse 12 that: "12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him."

Further we are told in Galatians 3:
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The question of "Does God Want The Tithes of Money?" is not even worth asking. Under the Mosaic Law God required some specific things as tithes and although money was available at that time, money was never included in the tithe. The tithe was comprised of food and livestock/farm animals.

What God required in tithes from Israel has NO bearing whatsover on the church today. The commandments relating to the tithes were to Israel only and those commandments have been abolished by the New Covenant in Christ's blood. People seem to forget that the New Covenant church was founded by Jesus Christ who is the chief pastor (True Shepherd) and High Priest of the church which is His own body. Did Jesus command the church to pay tithes? Did He command the disciples/apostles to collect tithes? Did the apostles themselves command the church to tithe? I think an honest look at these questions will result in a resounding NO response.

We have freedom in Christ to give what we purpose in our own hearts. If you purpose in your heart to give a tenth (tithe) of your weekly or monthly salary to your local church then you are free to do so. Do not for one minute think that you can subject yourself to the Law by trying to giving to the Old Testament standard. This is the point that seems to be lost on supporters of the tithe today. Give what you want to freely and forget about the Malachi 3, Lev 27 and Deut 14 - all those scriptures relate to the Law of Moses and are not commandments to the church.

One of the trends I have noticed is that many people come out and attack the tithe and tithers by mocking them by asking where is there wealth etc if they have been tithing. This is the direct consequence of defiling God's name by declaring lies in His name. There are those in church today who defile God's name by declaring things He did NOT command the church to do, and tithing is one of them. I believe the Word of God, the Bible, is true and therefore the "windows of heaven blessings" spoken of in Malachi 3:10 are the truth. However this was true for ISRAEL but NOT for the CHURCH. The commandment to tithe was not given to the church but to Israel only and therefore the promises that were associated with the Law and the tithes relates only to ISRAEL. God has since made a NEW COVENANT with Israel and so they are not under that LAW anymore and neither are they required to tithe. Only those who reject God and the New Covenant would seek to return to the Old Covenant which decayed and vanished away (Heb 8:13).

Why do these lying pastors tell the church that God commands us to tithe? Is it because they have gone after the way of Balaam (2 Pet 2:15) and that they serve their own bellies (Rom 16:18)? Many of the pastors today are not much different from the pastors in ancient Israel. Indeed like the pastors of old the pastors today have become like greedy dogs (Isa 56:10-11).

21For the pastors are become brutish, and have not sought the LORD: therefore they shall not prosper, and all their flocks shall be scattered. (Jer 10:21 KJV Cambridge ed).

What I have noticed reading through some of these threads is that there is a tendency for posts to go off topic and the original point that started the thread gets losts in the point scoring exercise that follow.

To the original poster, before the Law of Moses there was no commandment given by God for anyone to pay a tithe to anybody. If there was such a commandment someone must have deleted it from the original Bible. In the absence of such a commandment Abraham gave a voluntary tithe (tenth) of the spoils he recovered in the war to rescue Lot etc. As far as we know, Abraham left his possessions in another land and it was on his way back from the war he met Melchizedek (the king priest of Salem) and gave him a tenth of the spoils. There is nothing in scripture which tells us Abraham regularly gave a tenth of his income/increase to Melchizedek or anyone else. This therefore should not be used by the church to force the church to give a tenth of their weekly or monthly income to the church. Church members should give what they purpose in their own hearts "voluntarily", not out of compulsion or out of necessity.

@italo,

My friend, I think you are the one who will flee when the truth stares you in the face. Do some research into the evil and violent past of the catholic church. Look up the oath of cardinals in which they declare the pope to be God on earth. Don't take my word for it - research. It was a former priest, Father Malachi Martin, who said the smoke of Satan was rising up in the Vatican.

Peter was not the first pope. In fact the statue in the Basillica is that of Jupiter and not Peter. Peter was a married man so how can the popes claim apostolic succession to him?

@2mch,

You talk about me judging but you make a lot of assumptions about me that you have no clue about. You assume I believe in a prosperity, seed faith doctrine without know anything of my background or my faith. How is that? I do not believe in denominations as there are no denominations in Christ. I seek only to put forward the truth where the Bible is concerned. For the pentecostal and charismatic movements also have a lot of unbiblical theological positions - certainly the prosperity doctrine is unbiblical.

Going back to the original topic though, you make some untrue claims. You claim the Bible was "put together" by the Apostles but were the Scriptures not already available to the Jews before the apostles were even called? Indeed those scriptures of the new testament may have been put together by the apostles but not the whole scriptures. King James merely authorised the translation of the Bible and the reason for this authorisation was because the Catholic church, which was the dominant church in England at that time did not want the general public to have access to the Bible - so King James being the highest power in the land gave authorisation to translate it. Who are you to say that King James wasn't acting as God's servant in fulfilling this work? Do you not know that God called Nebuchadnezzar His servant in fulfilling His will to cast Israel into exile? Do you not know that King Cyrus, king of Persia was regarded by God as His servant?

I do not condemn the catholic church and whilst I believe there are people in that church that are christians I know without doubt that the hierarchy of that church comes of evil. I present the truth so that others may take heed and flee for the sake of their souls. That is my purpose and not to antogonise catholics because I feel like it. You need to study the history of the catholic church and do not make assumptions because of bias. Why do you not investigate why Martin Luther nailed his thesis on the Wittenberg door and separated from the catholic church?

Much of what you point out about some protestant churches are true but please do not confuse me with being one of those you describe.

Hi All,

I am new to this forum and have been following this thread somewhat with intrigue. Firstly according to the original question in the title, the Catholic church DID NOT author the Bible. It may have authored some things that they have cannonised but not the Holy Bible. The Dead Sea scrolls for example confirms some of the original text in the Bible and this existed long before the Catholic Church was conceived of. If you should read the Preface to the original KJV version of the Bible you will see a note from the translators which pointed to the fact that the Pope at the time opposed the work of translating the Bible so it could be available to the common people. Back then the Bible was either in its original languages or in Latin that only Popes, priest, cardinals etc could read.

In my view the Catholic Church is anti-christian and the office of the pope is anti-christ. If you read the Catechisms of the catholic church you will see that most if not all of them directly contridicts the position of Holy Writ. If anyone don't believe study them for yourselves and see. The catholic church claims apostolic succession to Peter but Peter was never a pope of Rome - Peter did not have a chair neither was he given pre-eminence over his fellow disciples and the church. There is no evidence in scripture that Peter even visited Rome so this one claim for me was built on a lie - the central lie that the catolic church is built on. Nothing of the papacy and the Vatican resembles the church of Jesus Christ. In fact most of the practices of the catholic church is steeped in paganism. The monstrance for example is a reference to sun worship although cloaked with christianity to be used in the Eucharist. The Eucharist is also a form of ritual magic which is what transubstantiation represents. The Mary that they venerate is not really Mary the real Mother of God but the pagan representation of Isis with her baby Horus - this idea of the queen of Heavne is ancient - she is mentioned in Jeremiah and this is who the backsliding Jews were worshipping in Jermiah's day (see Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). The problem is that lay catholics do not know the truth about the their church so anything said against it will be met with kneejerk reactions rather than empircal evidence. More to come.

Bullet G,

You ask a very interesting question that I myself used to ponder. If we believe in the representations we see of Bible characters you would think Blacks played no part in Biblical history. If we go back to Eden though you will notice the Bible says it was bordered by a river out of Ethiopia, as well as other rivers.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. 11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. 14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. (Gen 2)

Eden therefore included part of Ethiopia and consequently part of Africa - the region was a tropical region since Adam and Eve walked naked so in all probability Adam and Eve were black or dark-skinned. Two perfectly black persons can produce a perfectly white offspring and this has happened in our modern day. It is one of those mysteries of nature. Two white persons cannot however produce a black person. Aside from that Ham, one of Noah's sons is the progenitor of the black peoples since the flood. One of Ham's son was Cush (the land of Sudan) another of his sons was Mizraim (the ancient name of Egypt) - the original Egyptians were not the light skinned people you see today - they were black like other Africans.