Teachings of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Protestants~Why Doesn’t Everyone Know This?

Whew, what a week!  I knew I would rattle some feathers on the videos last week, but I did not mean nor want to attack anyone.  I cannot help what the Lord puts upon my spirit and upon others (as he always confirms with others who share His Word) but I know it’s something He wants “out-there”!  He is not playing anymore…there is no time for anyone to continue down the path they are on celebrating, praising and worshiping Him via man-made rituals and traditions!  He wants everyone to know HIM, not what this world has manifested within it’s own matrix, telling us who THEY want us to think He is.

Why all this now?  Well, because time is all but run out for the small talk and we don’t have an indefinite amount of time left on this earth to learn on a “trial-n-error” format, hoping that whatever we got wrong will be corrected in the future when we are more mature in Christ.  The Lord is spilling the beans on the “do’s” and the “don’ts” right now, just pouring these warnings out to His Church but no one seems to want to listen or if they listen, they do not want to apply these changes/warnings to themselves and their walk, or their association with a earthly denomination.  What?  Why?  You know, I don’t care how much I loved my church – if they Lord was telling the world what He is now telling the world, well, I would run out that door and never return!  It’s truly a shame so many will go down with their sinking ship all because they liked their captain and his stories.  All they would have had to do was look around to the open seas, see the tossing, turning and rolling of the vicious waves and stormy skies to see that their faithful captain was not aware of the trouble ahead and/or chose to ignore all the constant continual warning signs!  Those that have eyes and ears, should be able to use the good sense God Himself gave them and see the truth of what is really going on around them on all sides.  Why do people chose to disregard what is meant to help them – treating the truth of the matter as an attack on their persons?

Someone left a comment under the video where I spoke about the Catholic Church and it’s standing role during these end times.  They said that now I’m showing my “true” colors – my narrow minded thinking was now coming out and into the open because I attacked/spoke up about the Vatican, Pope and Catholic faith.  Really?  It took over a 140 videos for my true colors to finally be exposed?  How about that – I hit a nerve and now, I’m narrow minded.  You know, you can’t make this stuff up, it is what it is, what has always been and unfortunately, what will always be.  When people feel attacked, they speak meanness, wanting so bad to hurt the person that spoke words that offended them – it happens over and over and over, comes to the surface like clockwork, doesn’t it?

I’m sorry that it just happens to be the church who I spoke of – if it was another, I would have spoken out about them because it doesn’t matter who it is, what denomination, religion, etc, it’s just that in this case, it is the Catholic Church.  The only ones that do not see it, is the Catholic’s themselves.  Does any non-Catholic person deny this?  In God’s Word, He clearly says all this would happen and it is, so again I ask, why is it that the messenger is always the one to get shot?  I am not promoting any organized religious denomination or congregation – I am not partial to any here on this earth but what I am advocating is for God and His Word, His Original Truth that was laid out from the beginning but through time, has been manipulated by men of flesh then followed and accepted as God’s True Doctrine by other men of flesh.  I’m against any organization who changes God’s Word to fit their own “in-house” teachings.  I feel the same about the Mormon faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Scientology as they all have their own books, their own beliefs, rites, doctrine and all steer God’s Children away from His Original Message, Truth and Laws.  What is the underlying reason for changes as God is clearly not a God of confusion and He left us His Plan that was written to teach all men of all ages for all time…if that was not enough, He would have told us so and left us more, would He not?  So why do these others faiths feel His Word lacked teaching, or for that matter, lacked anything?  Why rewrite what was made to be untouchable and left alone to stand on it’s own?  Why wasn’t God’s Word enough for us to know Him?  Exactly!  He has no lack, therefore He would never leave us without so if He left us one book that tells just what it is He needed us to know, why is it not good enough for us?  Why is it that throughout time, people in positions of authority and/or power felt the need to increase or decrease the Author’s Story and leave it standing with a million edits subject to interpretation?  His Word is not subject to interpretation…it is just as it is, pure, true and His Word!  The reason for the changes – power, control and of course, the enemy.

Below is a small chart showing when certain rites/traditions were indoctrinated into the church which again, came after the Original True Word of God.  Isn’t it at least worth the time, effort and pride-swallowing to research the “real” truth on your own?  Why-oh-why would anyone leave something this important to people, yes people, who change the rules which clearly did not originate from The Father in Heaven but from man’s father on earth?

 When Constantine married paganism and Christianity, the door was opened for false doctrines to creep into the early Christian Church, and they were gradually introduced into the system. The Church became divided into the Catholic Church who accepted the pagan doctrines, and the true Christian Church who resisted Constantine’s indoctrination.

“Like the successive strata of the earth covering one another, so layer after layer of forgeries and fabrications was piled up in the Church.”

The church historian Philip Schaff says, “No church or sect in Christendom ever sank so low as the Latin church in the tenth century.”

Many of Rome’s documents used to validate its authority and origin have been established as fakes. These unusable sources include The Donation of Constantine, which claim to establish the papal domain and jurisdiction, and The Decretals of Isidore, which were touted as establishing pontifical supremacy. According to J. A. Wylie’s book The History of Protestantism, the Greeks reproachfully named the fledgling Roman Church as “the native home of inventions and falsifications of documents.”iii These forgeries, nevertheless, succeeded in establishing Catholic doctrines.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception_end-time_paganism_Catholic_Mithraism

 

From the beginning, I have clearly stated over and over just what it is I believe in – what my foundation beliefs were and still are, I’ve not changed nor have they.  I am in no way saying that people who belong or believe in these faiths do not love the Lord or that they will not be taken to Heaven, no, I’m not saying that at all!  What I am saying is at some point, the Lord will demand that eyes open and discernment a must to His Truth…it will have to be done prior to arriving in Heaven as all must know the Truth beforehand so the sooner one has true sight, the sooner they will get to go because they have nothing to be taught, reconcile or atone for…they knew the Truth and they knew the False.  This is not decided in Heaven – it’s decided here so again, would one not want to have all this sorted out prior to the taking of the Bride?  It’s not a “right or wrong” thing…it’s a “God-Thing”!  He is the only Right One.  He is the only One whose teachings matter.  How can a Mormon look at a Jehovah’s Witness with condemning eyes or thoughts when both organizations follow one man’s word or teaching?  How can the Catholic Church look upon these to with pity when they too have had so many men “enhance” His Word, Commandments and ultimately, His Love?  When you enhance something, you are to make it better than it was before – again, really?  Bottom line – whoever or whatever earthly person, place or thing that follows a doctrine that was oversaw by someone of the flesh, you need to rethink what it is you are learning and just what it is you are filling your mind, spirit and soul with.  I would not leave my salvation in the hands of man and that is exactly what one does if they do not study and learn who God is from their heart, going back to the very beginning to His Raw, untainted Word.  If that Word is not the same today as it was yesterday, why would anyone stay seated in a place knowing all they were taught would surely be changed tomorrow?  Nothing changes with God, nothing.

It saddens my heart to know that someone must go to the “mean-zone”, validating every push, taunt and whisper the enemy has placed upon their hearing just because I’m stating what is clearly out in the open.  I am the same person I was in the beginning and whatever I share with my friends in Christ, I do so with an abundance of love and care as the Holy Spirit is my word’s Originator, not me as I never know what I’m going to talk about so if this is on my heart, out it will come because out it is meant to be.  I don’t make the rules, I’m just trying to follow them the best I can and I just want all to get to go “early” as that will be a special reward for The Bride of Christ for their love of the Truth, God’s Truth and not man’s.  If this is not brought up front and center for all eyes to see and all ears to hear, how can understanding come to those who need it, who are not thinking or who do not confront what God is clearly placing right before them because He wishes for none to be detained even for a short-time?  You will have to be made to see the falseness in the praise and worship you give to the Lord and see for yourselves that the practices followed here while on this earth was not of Him but of man.  So, my question is – why would anyone who truly loves the Lord with all their heart, spirit and soul not want to know the Truth prior to this time and why would anyone want to tamper with the idea or take a chance to lose their reward of going early as The Bride surely does?  The Bride has seen the Truth – the Church will have to be shown the Truth and until each member can reconcile their misunderstood loyalty to what Jesus clearly warned them of, well, they will have 40-days to kick themselves in the butt for not listening to what He was showing them sooner.  He is trying to help you here – I am trying to help you here but this is far-above my pay grade and the only power I have is the power of prayer so that is what I will do…pray!

I’ve been called many things in my life but never have I been called “narrow-minded” but you know, now that I think about it, I will take that as a compliment because being on the “narrow” side of things isn’t a bad thing you know.  I’ve been on that ‘ole narrow path for quit some time now and it’s been pretty good to me so if believing in the True Word of God and loving everything He loves and hating all He hates is where His Truth is,  I’ll remain just where I’m at!

 

THE BELIEF/TEACHINGS OF THE JEHOVAH WITNESSES

 

 

Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Magazine, was also a 33rd Degree Freemason and below is pictures of his “pyramid” headstone with all the pagan bells and whistles.  He was buried on the grounds of the Greater Pittsburgh Masonic Center.

C

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/jw.html

The Bible vs. The Jehovah’s Witnesses

In 1870, at the age of eighteen, an ex-Congregationalist by the name of Charles Taze Russell started a Bible class in Pittsburgh. In 1876, the class elected Russell as their Pastor.Russell was a freemason. It has been recorded in his own material, his admittance to being a Freemason.” I am very glad to have this particular opportunity of saying a word about some of the things in which we agree with our Masonic friends, because we are speaking in a building dedicated to Masonry, and we also are Masons. I am a Freemason.” Charles Taze Russell. (The Temple of God-Pastor Russell page 120)

He founded the “Herald of the Morning” in 1879, which eventually developed into what is known today as “The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah’s Kingdom.” Today this publication has grown to over seventeen million copies per month in over one hundred languages.

In 1884, Russell incorporated the “Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society” at Pittsburgh. Today this organization has branches in over one hundred countries, and it has missionary works in over two hundred and fifty. With over one-half million volunteer workers, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have become a serious threat to Bible believers throughout the world.

Russell died in 1916, and Judge J.F. Rutherford took over the Society’s leadership. It was under Rutherford’s leadership that the group took the name “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” and Society headquarters moved to Brooklyn. Rutherford died in 1942, and Nathan Knorr took control and boosted the membership to over two million. In 1961 the Society published its own “translation” of the scriptures, called “The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.” Knorr died in 1977, and Frederick Franz took over the leadership of the Watchtower Society. Franz is the current leader of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1991).

Rather than bore ourselves with the corrupt history of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, we shall get straight to the main issue at hand: What does the Bible say about their DOCTRINES? The true Bible-believer realizes that the primary purpose for the Lord giving us the Scriptures is DOCTRINE (2 Tim. 3:16), and we are supposed to KNOW sound doctrine from false doctrine. Many have departed from the faith and have given themselves over to “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1), and it is our Christian duty to check these people and arm ourselves against their false teachings.

The main false doctrines taught by the “JW’s” (Henceforth used to abbreviate “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) are as follows: (1) that God is not a Trinity, (2) that Jesus Christ did not physically rise from the dead, (3) that there will be no literal and physical Second Coming of Christ, and (4) that there will be no place of eternal torment for the wicked. These are the major heresies taught by the JW’s, and we shall examine each of these in light of God’s pure and preserved words. Let us begin with a look at the Trinity.

Is God A Trinity?

According the Bible, God is a Triune Being. As all humans are a trinity (soul, body, and spirit–1 Ths. 5:23), God is also a Trinity. In Genesis 1:26, God said, “Let us make man in our image. . .” In Genesis 11:7, God said, “. . . .let us go down, and there confound their language. . .” The terms “us” and “our” obviously refer to the Holy Trinity. So the Trinity is found in the very early chapters of the Bible.

In the New Testament, we can see all three Members of the Trinity at the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew chapter three. God the Father is speaking from Heaven. God the Son is being baptized, and God the Holy Ghost is descending like a dove. When Jesus gave the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, He said in verse 19, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 1 John 5:7 tells us that there are THREE that bear record in Heaven: “. . . the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (The “Word” is Christ according to John 1:1-3, 14, and 1 John 1:1-3.)

God is a Trinity. He isn’t three Gods, like the JW’s accuse us of believing, but He is ONE Triune God. The pagans who worshipped three gods did so because they knew from observing the creation that God must be in some way associated with the number “THREE.” They never fully understood the Holy Trinity, but you must admit that they came much closer than the JW’s.

As a man is a soul, a body, and a spirit, God the Father is the Soul of the Trinity, God the Son is the Body, and God the Holy Ghost is the Spirit.

According to Psalm 19:1 and Romans 1:20, God’s creation actually declares the Trinity doctrine. One can see PROOF of the Trinity everywhere in the universe. The universe consists of three parts: Time, Space, and Matter. Time consists of three parts: Past, Present, and Future. Space consists of three parts: Length, Width, and Height. Matter consists of three parts: Energy, Motion, and Phenomena. There are three heavens in 2 Cor. 12:2, and on earth there are three forms of life: Man, Plant, and Animal. These forms of life are found in three places: Land, Sea, and Air. God is continually showing us through His creation that He is a Trinity.

A perfect example of this is the sun. The sun has three kinds of rays: chemical rays, light rays, and heat rays. Chemical rays cannot be seen or felt, but they can be very powerful. When one receives a sunburn, it is from the sun’s chemical rays. This is a type of God the Father. Light rays are sometimes visible to the human eye. This is a type of Jesus Christ, the “light of the world” (John 8:12) and the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal.4:2). Heat rays are a type of the Holy Ghost for they bring comfort to us by warming our bodies, just as the Holy Ghost, the Comforter (John 16:7), brings comfort to us.

So one can clearly see that God’s word and God’s creation both testify to the fact that He is a Trinity. However, some people aren’t getting the message. The book, “Let God Be True”, (Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc., 1952) says the following on page 92:

“The trinity doctrine was not conceived by Jesus or the early Christians.”

Then on page 93, this book says:

“…the plain truth is that this is another of Satan’s attempts to keep the God-fearing person from learning the truth of Jehovah and His Son Jesus Christ.”

On page 102 of the 1946 edition of “Let God Be True,” the JW’s make a very blasphemous statement concerning the Holy Trinity: “…Sincere persons who want to know the true God and serve Him find it a bit difficult to love and worship a complicated, freakish looking, three-headed God.”

 

Such a remark is entirely uncalled for and is a blank misrepresentation of what Christians really believe about the Trinity. The JW’s cannot UNDERSTAND the Trinity, so they CONDEMN the Trinity. They fail to realize that it is not our job to tell God WHAT HE IS or to even FULLY UNDERSTAND how He can exist. Our responsibility is to BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS, AS HE SAYS IT, WHERE HE SAYS IT, WITHOUT CHANGING A SINGLE WORD! The Scriptures already presented in this study clearly show that God is a Trinity. Your responsibility is NOT to attempt reasoning out the eternal decrees of God in your small finite mind. Your responsibility is to BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS. Now either you DO, or you DON’T. The JW’s DON’T.

The JW’s believe that Jehovah is God the Father, and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not God. They’re wrong. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are both Deity.

Jesus Christ Is Deity

As the Second Member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ stands co-existent in Eternity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. There are many proofs in the scriptures for the Deity of Christ. We shall now list several of them.

(1) In Zechariah 12:10, Jehovah speaks of the future return of Christ and says, “. . . They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourne for him, as one mourneth for his only son . . . .” This is spoken again in Revelation 1:7, which is clearly a reference to Christ Himself, but in Zechariah 12:10 GOD said, “. . . They shall look upon me whom they have pierced . . . .” The One that they pierced was Jesus Christ! So, in Zechariah 12:10, God is saying that He is Jesus Christ.

(2) In John 1:1, John 1:14, 1 John 1:1, and in 1 John 5:7, Jesus is called “the Word,” and John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.”

 

(3) Thomas referred to Jesus as “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28, and Jesus did not see the need to correct him.

(4) Isaiah 7:14 gives us the prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ and states that His name would be “Immanuel.” Matthew 1:23 tells us that this word means “God with us.”

 

(5) In Isaiah 9:6, Jesus is called “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” The Bible certainly would not say this about anyone less than God.

(6) In John 10:30, Jesus says, “I and my Father are one.” Jesus is not a lesser god; He is ONE with the Father.

(7) Micah 5:2 tells us that Jesus is “from everlasting.”

 

(8) In John 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I am.” He claimed to be the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14, which is God Almighty.

(9) Jesus allowed others to worship Him (John 9:38; Matt. 14:33; and Luke 24:52), which was forbidden, unless He was God (Rev. 22:9).

(10) Jesus forgave sins (Mark 2:5), which only God can do (Mark 2:7).

(11) The Lord Jesus Christ is omnipresent (Matt. 18:20; 28:20; II Cor. 13:14; I John 5:7). We know He is God because He is capable of being everywhere at once.

(12) Jesus is omniscient (Mark 11:2-6; Matt. 12:40). He is God because He knows all things.

(13) The Lord Jesus is also omnipotent (Rev. 19:6; Matt. 28:18). He has all power.

(14) According to John 1, 1 John 1, Colossians 1, and Hebrews 1, Jesus Christ is the Creator of Genesis 1!

(15) Jesus never sinned! Romans 3:23 says that ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the glory of God, but Jesus did not sin (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18). So Jesus had to be God.

Now, if you’ve taken time to check these references, then the Holy Spirit has attempted to show you one great truth: The LORD JESUS CHRIST IS GOD. That much is clear to any honest Bible student. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are not honest Bible students. One only has to pick up a copy of their “New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures” to see how dishonest and unfaithful they are with God’s word. We shall list a few examples of how the New World Translation ATTACKS the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ:

(1) It changes Zechariah 12:10 to read, “. . . they will certainly look to the one whom they pierced. . . .”

 

(2) John 1:1 in the N.W.T. says that “the Word was a god,” instead of “the Word was God.” The definite article “the” is replaced with “a,” and the capital “G” is replaced with a lower case “g.” The last half of 1 John 5:7 is omitted in the N.W.T., because it says that the Father, the Word (which is Christ in John 1:14), and the Holy Ghost “are one.”

 

(3) The Virgin Birth is attacked in Isaiah 7:14 of the N.W.T. by translating “maiden,” instead of “virgin,” even though Matthew 1:23 TOLD THEM that it should read “virgin!” The JW’s will attack anyone or anything associated with the Lord Jesus Christ.

(4) They change “from everlasting” in Micah 5:2 to read, “time indefinite,” which is not the same at all.

(5) John 8:58 is where Christ said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” This matches God’s statement to Moses in Exodus 3:14, meaning that Christ is God. However, the N.W.T. says, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” This destroys the valuable cross reference to Exodus 3:14. The JW’s believe that Jesus was “a god” before the time of Abraham, but that He was NOT the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14.

(6) In John 9:38, Matthew 14:33, and Luke 24:52, the JW’s have replaced the word “worshipped” with the words “did obeisance,” which is not the same (See Gen. 37:7, 43:28; Exodus 18:7; 2 Sam. 1:2; 2 Chr. 24:17).

The matter is clear: the JW’s will attack the Lord Jesus Christ every time they have a chance. Their “bible” proves it. Their WRITINGS also prove it. Here are a few blasphemous remarks made by the JW’s over the years concerning the Lord Jesus Christ:

 

“. . . he was the first and direct creation of Jehovah God” (The Kingdom is at Hand, p. 46, 47, 49).

 

“If Jesus were God, then during Jesus’ death, God was dead in the grave” (Let God Be True, p. 91).

 

“. . . the true Scriptures speak of God’s Son, the Word, as ‘a god’.” He is a “mighty god,” but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah” (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 47).

 

“The very fact that he was sent proves he was not equal with God, but was less than God his father” (The Word: Who is He, p. 41).

This is how a cult deals with the written word of God. HUMAN REASONING is the final authority of all cults. Rather than to take God at His word BY FAITH, a cultist will always REJECT God’s word and attempt to reason things out for himself. All cults will ADD TO, SUBTRACT FROM, OR IGNORE the written revelation of God.

For those of us who BELIEVE the scriptures, we are now well aware of the fact that Jesus Christ is God. Those who believe otherwise will have to CHANGE or IGNORE the Bible, because the Bible testifies of none other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself (John 5:39).

The Holy Ghost Is Deity

The JW’s believe that the Holy Ghost is only “God’s active force.” They deny the scriptural teaching that the Holy Ghost is a Member of the Holy Trinity:

 

“The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will” (Aid to Bible Understanding, pg. 1543).

 

“The Holy Spirit is the invisible active force of Almighty God that moves his servants to do his will” (Let God Be True, pg. 108).

Not only do the JW’s deny the DEITY of the Holy Spirit, they even deny that He is a person. So, in this sense, Satan has been exalted ABOVE the Holy Ghost by the JW’s! The reason given by the JW’s for the personality of Satan is that:

“. . . the Bible calls Satan a manslayer, a liar, a father (in a spiritual sense) and a ruler. (John 8:44, 14:30) Only an intelligent person could fit all those descriptions.” (See “Awake!”, December 8, 1973)

We agree, but how can any honest person say that and then DENY the personality of the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost ALSO has attributes that only a PERSON can have. For example:

(1) Only a person could SPEAK, which the Holy Spirit does (Acts 2:11; 13:2; Rev. 2:7).

(2) Only a person could TEACH and COMFORT (Jhn. 16:7, 13).

(3) Only a person could have a MIND (Rom. 8:27).

(4) Only a person could possess the POWER that the Holy Spirit possesses (Rom. 15:19).

(5) Only a person could be INSULTED and GRIEVED (Heb. 10:29; Eph. 4:30).

So the Holy Ghost certainly IS a Person, but more than that, He is GOD, the Third Member of the Holy Trinity. There are several scriptural proofs for the Deity of the Holy Ghost:

(1) In Acts 15:3 Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Ghost, and then in verse four Peter tells him that he had lied unto GOD. The Holy Ghost is God.

(2) The Holy Ghost says in Acts 13:2, “Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” GOD is the one who calls men to do His work (Rom. 8:28; Gal. 1:6; 1 Ths. 2:12; 4:7; 2 Ths. 2:13-14); so, the Holy Ghost is God.

(3) Only God could perform all the great wonders that the Holy Ghost performs (Psa. 104:30; Jhn. 14:16, 26; 16:8-14; Job 33:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

(4) The Holy Ghost is God because blasphemy against Him shall not be forgiven (Mat. 12:31).

(5) The Holy Ghost is God because He is ETERNAL (Heb. 9:14).

(6) The Holy Ghost is God because He is OMNIPRESENT (Psa. 139:7-8).

(7) The Holy Ghost is God because He has the power to give life (John 3:6; 6:63).

(9) The Scriptures are God’s word, and 2 Peter 1:21 says that the Holy Ghost INSPIRED the Scriptures. Therefore the Holy Ghost is God.

The Bible clearly reveals to us that the Holy Ghost is a Member of the Holy Trinity. To deny this truth is to openly deny God’s word.

The Trinity doctrine is a BIBLE doctrine. It is true that Satan has counterfeited the Trinity doctrine for many centuries in many pagan religions, but that doesn’t change the truth. God’s word declares that He is a Trinity, and it is our responsibility to BELIEVE it.

Did Jesus Christ Rise Physically From the Dead?

According to the JW’s, He did not. The Bible speaks of a literal and physical resurrection, but the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus only rose from the grave spiritually. Their literature speaks for itself:

 

“. . . So the King Christ Jesus was put to death in the flesh and was resurrected an invisible spirit creature.” (Let God Be True, pg. 138)

 

“Therefore the bodies in which Jesus manifested himself to his disciples after his return to life were not the body in which he was nailed to a tree. They were merely materialized for the occasion, resembling on one or two occasions the body in which he died…” (The Kingdom Is At Hand, pg. 259)

 

“Our Lord’s human body . . . did not decay or corrupt . . . whether it was dissolved into gasses or whether it is still preserved somewhere . . . no one knows.” (Studies In The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pg. 129)

According to the words of Jesus Christ Himself, He is NOT merely a spirit being. He is a literal and physical risen Savior. In Luke chapter twenty-four, beginning at verse thirty-six, the disciples see the risen Christ and they supposed they had seen a spirit (vs. 37); but Jesus cleared the matter up for everyone when He said, “. . . Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luk. 24:38-39)

 

He then SHOWED them His hands and feet, and they believed. What did they believe? They believed that He was a literal and physical being in a literal and physical body.

When Jesus appeared to Thomas He said, “. . . Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.” (Jhn. 20:27) The risen Christ had the crucifixion scars in His body to PROVE that He had been physically resurrected from the dead.

If Jesus didn’t rise physically then He lied in John 2:18-22 when He said that His “body” would rise in three days. He didn’t say His spirit would rise. He said that His BODY would rise. When He arose His disciples actually REMEMBERED this prophecy and believed. Too bad the JW’s can’t do the same.

The JW’s claim that Jesus appeared in different bodies after His so-called “spiritual resurrection.” Their “proof” for this is the fact that the Emmaus disciples didn’t recognize Him in His resurrection body, so it couldn’t have been the same body. That’s nonsense. Luke 24:16 tells us why they didn’t recognize Him. It had nothing to do with a spiritual body. The problem was their EYESIGHT: “But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.”

 

The bodily resurrection of Christ is a fundamental Bible doctrine. The salvation of a person’s soul rests upon this doctrine, because if Jesus didn’t physically rise from the dead AS HE SAID HE WOULD, then we’re all lost and going to Hell according to 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (JW’s included).

Will There Be A Literal and Physical Second Coming?

If the Lord Jesus Christ was resurrected literally and physically from the dead, and if He appeared physically to His disciples, then His Second Coming must also be literal and physical.

Acts 1:11 tells us that Jesus will return “in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Jesus ascended into Heaven literally, physically, and visibly, so He will return “in like manner.”

 

The JW’s deny this. They insist that the Second Coming of Christ will be SPIRITUAL, rather than literal and physical:

 

“Christ Jesus comes, not again as a human, but as a glorious spirit person.” (Let God Be True, pg. 196)

 

“Since no earthly men have ever seen or can see the Father, they will be unable to see the glorified Son.” (Let God Be True, pg. 197)

 

“It is a settled Scriptural truth, therefore, that human eyes will not see him at his second coming, neither will he come in a fleshy body.” (The Truth Shall Make You Free, pg. 295)

The word of God says otherwise. Paul says in Titus 2:13 that we should be LOOKING for that blessed hope and the glorious APPEARING of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ. If the JW’s are right in saying that we will not be able to see Christ, then why did Paul tell us to be LOOKING for His APPEARING?

The New World Translation has very conveniently removed the word “appearing” from Titus 2:13 and replaced it with “manifestation.” The same has also been done in 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 1:10, and 2 Timothy 4:8. (You can make the Bible teach ANYTHING if you just CHANGE THE WORDS!)

 

Now we know that the Second Coming of Christ will NOT be a spiritual and invisible return. Revelation 1:7 says, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” In Matthew 24:30, Jesus Himself says, “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Zechariah 14:4 says, “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.” The literal and physical feet of Luke 24:39 will literally STAND upon the literal, physical, and very visible mount of Olives. That’s perfectly clear to anyone with reading ability.

There’s nothing spiritual or invisible about the Second Coming of Christ. The “clouds” will be literal (Rev. 1:7), as will the “fire” (2 Ths. 1:8), the “saints” (1 Ths. 3:13), the “mountains and rocks” (Rev. 6:16), and, of course, the thousand-year reign (Rev. 20:1-7). A “spiritual” or “invisible” Second Coming is totally foreign to the written revelation of God.

Now, it is also noteworthy to point out that the JW’s have quite a record when it comes to DATING the Second Coming. Listed below are five separate instances where the JW’s have predicted the Second Coming and missed:

(1) In 1897, a book titled “The Battle of Armageddon” stated on page seventy-five that Jesus’ Second Coming had ALREADY HAPPENED INVISIBLY in the year 1874, and the Watchtower publication re-stated this in the September 15th issue of 1922 and also in the January 1st issue of 1924.

(2) On January 15th, 1892, the Watchtower claimed that Armageddon began in 1874 and would end in 1914. This became quite an embarrassment for the JW’s because 1914 was the beginning of World War I!

(3) The book Millions Now Living Will Never Die claimed that the year 1925 would actually bring about the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old. Page eighty-nine of this book claimed that “the earthly phase of the kingdom shall be recognized.” However, when the January 1, 1925, issue of the Watchtower was published, it said, “This may be accomplished. It may not be.”

 

(4) The December Watchtower for 1941 claimed that World War II would turn America and England into dictatorships, that the end of Nazi rule would mark the end of demon rule, and that God would rule when the Nazis were defeated.

(5) In 1942, the JW’s were still talking about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob returning “any day now!” (Consolation, May 27, 1942, Pg. 13)

So the Watchtower Society will continue right along with it’s foolish date setting–keeping it’s members in constant fear and confusion. It is true that the Bible gives us many definite signs which indicate the Lord’s return is getting very near, but no one knows the day nor the hour (Mat. 24:36).

Is Hell A Literal Fiery Place?

The JW’s have traditionally believed and taught that there is no eternal punishment for the wicked:

 

“. . . the Bible hell is mankind’s common grave…” (Let God Be True, pg. 92. Page ninety-eight of this book refers to the doctrine of Hell as a “God defaming doctrine.”)

 

“The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally after death cannot be true . . . .” (Let God Be True, pg. 99)

We call it to the reader’s attention that it was none other than the Lord Jesus Christ who first used the term “hell fire” (Mat. 5:22), and it was Jesus Christ who said in Matthew 25:41, “. . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” When the JW’s attack the Hell doctrine they are attacking the very words of Christ.

A JW believes that Hell is only the grave that everyone goes to at death. He believes that the saved ones in the graves will be given eternal life on earth after the White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, while the unsaved in the graves will be annihilated once and for all in the Lake of Fire. JW’s refuse to believe that God will punish the wicked forever in the Lake of Fire. Of course, the Scriptures say something entirely different:

(1) There is no FIRE in the grave, but there certainly is fire in the “hell” of the Bible (Luk. 16:23; Deu. 32:22; Mat. 5:22; 18:9; Jas. 3:6).

(2) No one PRAYS from the grave, but they certainly do in Hell (Luk. 16:24; Jon. 2:2).

(3) Hell was originally made for the Devil and his angels (Mat. 25:41), but the grave was not.

(4) A Christian’s SOUL does not go to the grave at death (Phi. 1:21-23; 2 Cor. 5:1-10; 1 Ths. 5:10). Only the BODY goes to the grave. An unsaved man’s body also goes to the grave at death, but his SOUL goes to a place of TORMENT and FLAMES (Luk. 16:22-23).

(5) The grave cannot possibly be Hell because Jesus said it would be better to enter into life (eternal life) without a hand, a foot, or an eye, than to go to Hell (Mat. 18:8-9). How could it be “better” if Hell is only the grave where there is no suffering at all? According to Jesus Christ, Hell is a lot WORSE than losing a hand, a foot, or an eye forever.

(6) Annihilation cannot be true because the Bible uses such terms as “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2) and “torment . . . forever” (Rev. 14:11). Shame and torment are sufferings that are experienced by a LIVING BEING, not an annihilated corpse.

God is an ETERNAL Being; therefore, an eternal payment is required for sin (Mar. 9:44-48; Isa. 66:22-23). You can have a FAIR TRIAL, or you can have a FREE PARDON. In a fair trial before God, you will be eternally damned to Hell because you are a sinner against a Holy God. God will have no choice but to sentence you to Hell forever.

If you are wise you will receive God’s FREE PARDON. Jesus Christ has ALREADY paid for your sins, but you must RECEIVE Him as Savior. John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:“

Friend, have you ever turned from your sins and received the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior? The Bible says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Jhn. 3:16)

 

Many have the idea that our good works can save us and get us into Heaven, but the Bible says this isn’t so:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Rom. 3:10)

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Rom. 3:23)

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8-9)

We have no really “good” works, because we’re all SINNERS by nature. We were born into this world as sinners (Psa. 51:5), and this is why Jesus said we must be “born again” (Jhn. 3:3).

This new birth is given to us freely, and was made possible when Christ died and shed His blood at Calvary for our sins. By receiving Jesus Christ as your Savior, trusting Him alone to save you, you can be born again. You can have eternal life TODAY by faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 10:13 says, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:9-10 says, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.“

Friend, why not turn from your sins right now and call upon the Lord to save your soul? Receive Jesus Christ as your Savior and serve Him faithfully until He returns.

If you’ve received Christ as your Savior, then we urge you to follow the Lord in baptism, and we also advise you to find a good Bible-believing church and join it. Don’t allow such false teachers as the Jehovah’s Witnesses to lead you astray!

http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/bad-translations-jehovahs-witness-bible-new-world-translation

Bad Translations of the Jehovah’s Witness Bible, the New World Translation (NWT).

1. Gen. 1:1-2–“In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
   Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.” (New World Translation, emphasis added).

1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive–the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of ” . . . the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters,” to say ” . . . and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.”

• Zech. 12:10–In this verse God is speaking and says, “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” (Zech. 12:10, NASB).
  1. The Jehovah’s Witnesses change the word “me” to “the one” so that it says in their            Bible, ” . . . they will look upon the one whom they have pierced . . . ”
     Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems–so they changed it.
• John 1:1–They mistranslate the verse as “a god.” Again, it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah’s Witness version is this: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
• Col. 1:15-17–The word “other” is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek–nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah’s Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word “other” to show that Jesus was before all “other” things and implying that He is created.
  1. There are two Greek words for “other”: heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah’s Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their aberrant theology.
• Heb. 1:6–In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as “obeisance.” Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect–even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9.
• Heb. 1:8–This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: “But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'” Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t agree with that, they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as ” . . . God is your             throne . . . ” The problem with the Jehovah’s Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as ” . . . Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.” To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with
• their theology, too!

• reprinted from the May/Jun 1994 Free Minds Journal

   

   Misleading Revisions in the New World Translation 

  by Andy Bjorklund

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (WTBTS) has inserted numerous changes into a proper translation of the Bible in an effort to validate the non-Christian doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs). Consequently, they claim that their New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) is superior to all others.

  In the examples below, the New International Version of the Holy Bible (New York International Bible Society, c. 1978) has been used to depict a correct translation in the first quotation. (The translators’ choice of words is further verified by highly similar renditions in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible.)

  The second quotation in each example is derived from a post-1989 edition of the NWT (WTBTS of Pennsylvania and International Bible Students Association, c. 1984). References to actual Hebrew and Greek words are derived from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Thomas Nelson, c. 1990), the Greek-English New Testament (Christianity Today, c. 1975) and Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words(McDonald, unabridged ed., n.d.)

  Genesis 1:2

  “Spirit of God” changed to “God’s active force.”

  The revision modifies the original noun with a more impersonal form as the JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit.

   

  Exodus 3:14

  “I am” changed to “I shall prove to be.”

  The revision clouds the connection between God’s self proclaimed title and Jesus’ proclamation of being the same in John 8:58, as the JW rejects the deity of Jesus.

  Numbers 1:52

  “Under his own standard” changed to “by his [three-tribe] division.”

  The Hebrew word degal translated as “standard” literally means flag or banner. Since the JWs regard saluting a flag as an act of idolatry, the text has been altered according to their doctrinal bias. (Same revision found in Num. 2:2, 3, 10, 18, 25; 10: 14, 18, 22, 25.)

  Isaiah 43:10

  “Nor will there be one after me” changed to “after me there continued to be none.”

  The original future tense of the verb indicates that there will never be another being sharing in God’s divinity. The altered tense suggests credibility to the JW doctrine of Jesus’ becoming a “mighty god” while still being less than Jehovah in nature. (See the John 1: I discussion below for another expression of this JW distortion.)

  Ecclesiastes 12:7

  “The spirit returns” changed to “the spirit itself returns.”

  The passage indicates the return of a human spirit to God after death. Since the JWs believe in an unconscious state after death, “itself’ has been inserted to suggest a more impersonal reference to spirit.

  Matthew 2:11

  “Bowed down and worshipped him” changed to “did obeisance to it”

  The JWs evade recognizing Jesus as worthy of worship as a divine being by altering the form of honor that he receives from men and angels. The Greek word proskuneo literally means “worship.” The use of “obeisance” is a NWT adaptation. (Same revision found in Matt. 8:2; 9:18, 14:33; 15:25; 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; 15:19; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6.)

  Matthew 5:19

  “Least in the kingdom of heaven” changed to “least in relation to the kingdom of the heaven.”

  The passage indicates that a disobedient believer who sins can still find forgiveness and eternal life. The JWs believe heaven is reserved for only 144,000 specially designated servants of God. The revision suggests more separation between these groups through a status hierarchy.

  Matthew 25:46

  “Eternal punishment” changed to “everlasting cutting-off.”

  The Greek word kolasis translated “punishment” indicates continuous torment, but the NWT revision suggests “termination,” as the JWs promote the doctrine of annihilationism regarding condemned souls.

  Mark 1:4

  “Baptism of repentance” changed to “baptism [in symbol] of repentance. ”

  Nothing in the original Greek text justifies the insertion of “in symbol.” The revision undermines the significance of John the Baptist’s ministry, the Jewish meaning of baptism and the Christian sacrament of baptism in contrast to the more regimented JW baptism requirements.

  Luke 12:8

  “Acknowledges me” changed to “confesses union with me.”

  The addition of “union” suggest something more than what the original Greek actually states and adds further credibility to the NWT distortion presented in John 6:56 below.

  Luke 23:43

  ‘Today you will be with me” changed to “I tell you today, You will be with me.”

  Jesus assured the thief on the cross that their spirits would soon enter the spiritual/heavenly realm together. As the JWs reject the belief in the conscious survival of the human spirit after death, their revision suggests that “today” deals with the time of the statement rather than the relocation of their spirits.

  John 1:1

  “Word was God” changed to “Word was a god.”

  The JWs reject the orthodox Christian belief in the deity of Jesus. The revision asserts that Jesus was someone other than God Himself.

  John 1:12

  “Believe” changed to “exercise faith.”

  The orthodox Christian doctrine of spiritual justification and rebirth before God by belief in Jesus is in conflict with the JW doctrine of salvation by works (i.e., obedience to their organization). The revision attempts to describe salvation as a continuous process rather than a radical encounter and transition (Same revision found in John 3:16, 18; 6:29; Rom. 4:3, 10:4, 9, 10.)

  John 6:56

  “Remains in me” changed to “remains in union with me.”

  The mystical union between the individual human spirit and the Spirit of Jesus is obscured by restructuring “in” with a compound form. The substitution implies more separation between a Christian and Jesus. (Same revision found in John 14:20; Rom. 8:1, 2, 10; 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 3:28; Eph. 1:13*; 2:10, 13, 15, 21, 22; 3:6; Col. 1:14*, 16*, 27; 2:6, 10*, 11, 12*; 3:3; 1 Thes. 4:16; 5:18; 1 John 3:24; 4:4; 5:20. Verses with an asterisk (*) indicate where the revision uses “by means of” or “in relationship to” rather than “in union with.”)

  John 8:58

  “I am” changed to “I have been.”

  Same intent as described in Exodus 3:14 above.

  John 14:17

  “Beholds him or knows him” changed to “beholds it or knows it.”

  The revision ignores the context of the pronoun with the Comforter role in the preceding verse to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

  John 17:5

  “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you” changed to “glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you.”

  The original text reflects the shared deity of God the Father and Jesus before the creation of the world, but the revision suggests different natures as implied by different states of glory.

  John 17:21

  “Are in me” changed to “are in union with me.”

  The original statement by Jesus indicates his shared deity with the Father. The revision undermines this by suggesting a greater separation between them.

  Acts 2:17

  “Pour out my Spirit” changed to “pour out some of my spirit.”

  The revision evades recognition of the Holy Spirit and His activity at Pentecost by suggesting an impersonal force activated to a more limited degree by God.

  Acts 2:42

  “Breaking of bread” changed to “taking of meals.”

  The passage demonstrates the frequency of the communion sacrament among the earliest Christians. The revision is an attempt to disguise this practice as the JWs teach that communion is reserved for only the 144,000 special saints. (Same revision found in Acts 20:7.)

  Acts 4:12

  “Be saved” changed to “get saved.” The revision avoids recognizing that an individual commitment to Jesus provides immediate and complete salvation, as the JWs believe in an alternative salvation as prescribed by their organization. (Same revision found in Acts 16:30-31.)

  Acts 10:36

  “Lord of all” changed to “Lord of all [others].”

  The revision suggests that even though Jesus is highly honored, he is still one among many of God’s created beings. (Similar revisions found in Rom. 8:32; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1: 16-17.)

  Romans 2:29

  “By the Spirit” changed to “by spirit.”

  Although the definite article ‘the” does not literally appear in the Greek, it is implied by the form that (pneuma) appears in. The revision, however, translates pneuma in a more abstract form to evade the reality of the Holy Spirit. (Same revision found in Rom. 15:19; Eph. 2:22; 3:5; Titus 3:5; James 2:26; 2 Peter 1:21.)

  Romans 8:23a

  “Have the firstfruits of the Spirit” changed to “have the firstfruits, namely the spirit.”

  This represents another form of disguising the separate personality of the Holy Spirit as in Rom. 2:29 above. The original text refers to the derivatives of the Spirit, but the revision identifies the spirit as a derivative.

  Romans 8:23b

  “The redemption of our bodies” changed to “the release from our bodies by ransom.”

  This revision avoids the suggestion that there is continuity of either body or soul after death. Their teaching that the soul ceases to exist at the death of the body precludes the ownership of, or relationship to, a body that must be redeemed.

  Romans 8:28

  “All things” changed to “all his works.” The revision undermines the sovereignty of God by suggesting that He controls only the things He is directly involved in doing.

  Romans 8:29

  “Those God foreknew” changed to “those whom he gave his first recognition.”

  The revision obscures the nature of God’s knowledge and power as a first recognition may or may not be foreknowledge.

  Romans 9:5

  “Christ, who is God over all, forever praised!” changed to “Christ, [sprang] according to the flesh: God who is over all, [be] blessed forever.”

  The direction proclamation that Christ is God is obscured by the altered text.

  Romans 10:13

  “Lord” changed to “Jehovah.”

  This revision obscures the fact that the Lord referred to in verse 13 is the same Lord called Jesus in verse 9. Since the JWs reject the deity of Jesus, the revision is made accordingly.

  The Greek word, kurios, translated “Lord” has been revised to “Jehovah” over 200 times in the NWT. The JWs insist that this is the only valid title for God, even though Greek-speaking Jews used “Lord” and “God” in place of “Yahweh” (the source of “Jehovah”) throughout their Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Furthermore, the Bible contains dozens of names for God other than Lord, Yahweh, or Jehovah.

  Romans 13:1

  “Authorities that exist have been established by God” changed to “authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God.”

  Since the JW regard saluting a flag, military service and similar forms of submission to government as idolatry, they have added words to the text to weaken the proclaimed authority of government. 

  1 Corinthians 6:19

  “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit” changed to “the body of YOU people is [the] temple of the holy spirit.”

  To avoid recognition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the individual believer, the revision modifies “body” to a more collective form in harmony with the opposing JW doctrine. 

  1 Corinthians 10:4

  “The Rock was Christ” changed to “that rock-mass meant the Christ.”

  The passage depicts the preincarnate Jesus exhibiting his divine nature by being present many centuries earlier. This revision tries to conceal his eternal nature with a more figurative interpretation of “the Rock.”

  1 Corinthians 12:11

  “As he determines” changed to “as it wills.”

  The NWT finds many ways to disguise the personality of the Holy Spirit. In this case the third person pronoun exercising individual conscience and will is replaced with an impersonal pronoun.

   

  1 Corinthians 14:14-16

  “Spirit” changed to “[gift of the] spirit.”

  Like several other Biblical passages, this one indicates the distinctive presence of the human spirit as distinguished from the mind and body. The JWs evade these distinctions and try to disguise them with related revisions.

  1 Corinthians 15:2

  “By this gospel you are saved” changed to “through which YOU are also being saved.”

  Similar to the Acts 16:30 revision above, this one again obscures the completeness of salvation by grace. The JW’s salvation exists as an extended process (“being saved”) with the outcome being uncertain until final judgment before Jehovah.

  Galatians 6:18

  “Your spirit” changed to “the spirit YOU [show].”

  Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision above, this one attempts to obscure the reality of the individual human spirit by presenting it more as an attitude of action than an entity.

  Philippians 1:23

  “To depart and be with Christ” changed to “the releasing and the being with Christ.”

  Paul’s eagerness indicates that the believer’s spirit goes immediately into Christ’s presence at death. The revision suggests that death and being with Christ are two separate steps in an extended process, as the JWs believe in soul sleep (i.e., the unconscious state of the human spirit awaiting the resurrection).

  Colossians 1:19

  “His fullness” changed to “fullness.”

  The definite Greek article (to), translated “his,” indicates that Jesus shares the Father’s divine nature as also shown in Col. 2:9. The revisions evade the truth by concealing the similarity of the two passages.

  Colossians 2:9

  “The fullness of deity” changed to “the fullness of the divine quality.”

  The Greek theotes, translated “deity,” literally means divine essence or divinity. As the JWs reject the divine nature of Jesus, a revision is inserted to suggest that Jesus is limited to only divine-like characteristics.

  I Timothy 4:1

  “The Spirit” changed to “the inspired utterance.”

  This revision attempts to obscure the reality and activity of the Holy Spirit by representing it as a message instead of an entity. (Similar revisions found in 1 John 4:1, 3, 6 with “expression” being utilized in place of “utterance.”)

  Titus 2:13

  “Our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” changed to “the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus.”

  Similar to the Rom. 9:5 revision shown above, a distinct proclamation of Jesus as God is obscured by the altered text. (Similar rewording also found in 2 Peter 1:1.)

   

  Hebrews 1:8

  “Your throne, 0 God” changed to “God is your throne.”

  The revision avoids addressing the Son, Jesus, as God to validate the JWs’ rejection of his divine nature.

  Hebrews 9:14

  “The eternal Spirit” changed to “an everlasting spirit.”

  Similar to the Rom. 2:29 revision above, the switching of the article before the adjective represents the work of the Holy Spirit in a more indirect/ impersonal manner.

  Hebrews 12:9

  “Father of our spirits” changed to “Father of our spiritual life.”

  Similar to the I Cor. 14 revision shown above, this one tries to obscure the distinctive reality of human spirits by replacing them with a more abstract noun.

  Hebrews 12:23

  “The spirits of righteous men” changed to “the spiritual lives of righteous ones.”

  This revision represents the same noun-switching as described in Heb. 12:9 above.

  Hebrews 12:28

  “We are receiving a kingdom” changed to “we are to receive a kingdom.”

  An orthodox Christian understanding of the Kingdom recognizes it as primarily established through Jesus’ victorious death, then further through post-resurrection displays of his power, and perpetually through the addition of new believers into God’s family. The JWs teach that Jesus’ Kingdom did not begin until his invisible return in 1914. The form of the Greek word for “receiving” (paralambano) implies a current condition, but the revision suggests a future event according to the JW doctrine.

  1 Peter 1:11

  “Spirit of Christ in them was pointing” changed to “the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ.”

  Another example of the supernatural presence of Jesus in the life of a Christian is obscured again by this revision as the JW doctrinal view presents him as more limited.

  I Peter 3:18-19

  “By the Spirit, through whom” changed to “in the spirit. In this [state].”

  Similar to several examples presented above, in this passage the presence and personality of the Holy Spirit is obscured with a more abstract representation of the Holy Spirit to accommodate the JW doctrine.

  Jude 19

  “Have the Spirit” changed to “having spirituality.”

  Similar to Gal. 6:18 above, this revision attempts to obscure the separate presence of the Holy Spirit.

  Revelation 3:14

  “Ruler of God’s creation” changed to “beginning of the creation by God.”

  The altered prepositions distract from the sovereignty of Jesus indicated in the passage and suggests that the real power of creation was accomplished through the Father, as the JWs believe that Jesus is a created being.

   

  Author’s Note

  Approximately one-forth of the verse citations above were derived from The New World Translation on Trial by Robert Bowman in the Christian Research Journal, 11: 3 (Winter/Spring, 1989), p.20. The rest of this inventory was compiled from the author’s own comparisons of doctrinally critical verses with the references cited in the introduction. There are many more examples of Biblical distortions by the JWs than those presented here. This assortment is limited to the more detectable and doctrinally significant examples.

  

  THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FROM THE CONTENDERMINISTRIES.ORG WEBSITE (Information is being used for informational/educational purposes only)(http://contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php

  Problems with the Book of Mormon

  We recently received an email from a Mormon elder.  In it, he said, “I read in your site about the Mormons, and I have a question.  Is the Book of Mormon true?  I couldn’t find anything on your site to prove the Book of Mormon false.  And if you can’t prove false the Book of Mormon, how can you prove that Joseph Smith is a false prophet?”  This elder’s question really goes to the heart of the matter with Mormon apologetics.  If the Book of Mormon is false, then Joseph Smith was obviously a false prophet.  If Joseph Smith was a false prophet, then millions of decent people have been deceived away from the truth.

  Former LDS President and Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith once said of his namesake, “He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds the world has ever seen, there is no middle ground.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:188).  There have been some stories in the news recently about Mormon scholars who have been excommunicated for research papers that showed that the Book of Mormon is more fiction than fact.  But rather than present those news articles, let’s examine some of the problems with the Book of Mormon.

  First, let’s take a look at some logistical problems, beginning with those that concerned LDS apologist and theologian Brigham H. Roberts.  Roberts authored the six-volume Comprehensive History of the Church.  In 1921, a man investigating Mormonism asked Roberts to answer five questions.  These questions vexed Roberts, because he could find no suitable answer.  He then posed those same five questions to LDS President Heber J. Grant, Grant’s counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and to the Quorum of the Seventy.  They too, were unable to provide suitable answers.  Many of the recently excommunicated Mormon scholars mentioned in the last paragraph wrote academic articles conceding to these same difficulties.  These five questions are:

  1. Linguistics.  Why, if the American Indians were descended from Lehi, was there such diversity in their languages, and why were there no vestiges of Hebrew in any of them?
  2. Why does the Book of Mormon say that Lehi found horses when he arrived in America?  The horse did not exist in the Americas until the Spaniards brought them over in the sixteenth century.
  3. Why was Nephi stated to have a bow of steel?  Jews did not have steel at that time, and no iron was smelted in the Americas until the Spanish colonization.
  4. Why does the Book of Mormon mention “swords and cimeters” when scimitars (the current spelling) did not come about until the rise of Islam after 500 A.D.?
  5. Why does the Book of Mormon mention silk, when silk did not exist in the Americas at that time?

  Let me add my own question here.  Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth (History of the Church, 4:461).  If that’s true, why has it been subjected to thousands of corrections and alterations since it was first published?  Also, some of the LDS scholars to whom I referred in the second paragraph found that the American Indians are genetically more similar to Asians.  No Hebrew link can be made through DNA analysis.

  There are also doctrinal discrepancies between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and other source of LDS doctrine.  If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, then why the contradictions?  For example:

  • D&C 130:3 says, “The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.”  But in Alma 34:36, it says, “And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell.”
  • Joseph Smith said, “We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity.  I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345)  This introduced the doctrine of eternal progression, which Brigham Young forcefully expounded upon.  [Eternal Progression teaches that God was once a man who progressed to Godhood, and we humans have the ability to do the same through strict adherence to LDS doctrines and temple rites.]  Yet Moroni 8:18 says, “For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable, from all eternity to all eternity.”

  When Joseph Smith contradicts the Book of Mormon, we can reach only one of two conclusions.  Either he did not write the Book of Mormon under divine guidance and is therefore a false prophet, or he decided to contradict the teachings of God, in which case he is a false prophet.  Smith also stated that no one could see God without the Holy Priesthood.  Yet according to his own account, he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ nine years before he himself received the priesthood!

  We can also look at Smith’s prophecies directly.  In Doctrine and Covenants 87:2, Smith predicted that the American Civil War would “be poured out upon all nations.”  This did not occur.  In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5, he prophesied that a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri during that generation.  There is still no such temple.  The list goes on.  He obviously fails the test of a prophet as outlined in Deuteronomy 18:21-22.

  Paul warned of false prophets in 2 Corinthians 11:13, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.”  As for the Book of Mormon, and its claim as the “fullness of the everlasting gospel,” Paul wrote in Galatians 1:8-9, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

  The evidence is clear that the Book of Mormon cannot be correct, and Joseph Smith was a false prophet who has deceived many.  The truth is that the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  We cannot and should not blaspheme Almighty God by presuming that we can someday become gods, as the LDS doctrine of eternal progression teaches.  Satan’s first recorded lie to Adam and Eve was a promise that they would be godlike in their knowledge if they simply disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit.  False prophets have perpetuated the lie that promises godhood or godlike qualities ever since.

  Someone asked me once why there isn’t a huge apostasy from Mormonism in light of the compelling evidence.  I can think of two primary reasons.  Many sincere Latter Day Saints simply do not know the evidence, and are discouraged from investigating it.  An LDS friend of my wife’s was told by her Bishop and her husband to stop investigating the claims of their founding “prophet.”  Why discourage honest investigation?  Acts 17:11 tells us that the Bereans were of noble character because they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if what Paul was preaching was the truth.  Unfortunately, my wife’s friend yielded to pressure from her husband and bishop, and ultimately broke off social contact.

  The other reason has to deal with courage versus comfort.  I’ve personally known a couple of Mormons who left the LDS Church for the true gospel of Jesus Christ after they realized that Joseph Smith was a false prophet.  Those are two of the most courageous people I know, as they suffered severe pressure, persecution, and isolation from their LDS families, friends, and community.  I’ve known other Mormons who admitted to me that they knew Mormonism was a false religion based on the lies of a false prophet, but were too afraid to leave the Church for fear of the same kind of treatment.  They had comfortable lives as tithing members of the LDS Church, and were too afraid to face the potential loss of family, friends, and indeed, their entire social circle should they leave.

  Most Mormons I’ve known have been very sincere, decent people.  Many hold their religious beliefs strongly.  When those beliefs are shown to fail the test in the light of the truth of the gospel, it can be a frightening and life-altering event.  Members of the LDS Church can choose to ignore or excuse the evidence, or they can face it with courage.  Mormon missionaries tell people to pray to see if the Book of Mormon is true.  I encourage the reader to read your Bible in depth, as a Berean would, to see if the points in this article are true or false.

  If you are led to witness to a Mormon, remember always to share the truth in love.  The facts and truth will shake the foundations of religious beliefs that are often strongly held in the life of a Mormon.  Letting God’s love and compassion shine through you as you witness is extremely important.  In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.”  Jesus is the way, and He is the only way.  Many have been deceived by Joseph Smith Jr., and need to come face to face with the fact that their founding prophet was a false prophet who introduced a false gospel.  Facing the truth can sometimes have some difficult consequences on earth, but life on earth is temporary.  Denying the truth can have eternal consequences.

  

  http://blog.evidenceministries.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/TheImpossibleGospelOfMormonism-v08-3.png

   

  What Does Mormonism Teach?

  by Matt Slick

  The doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are very interesting. Most of the ‘odd’ ones are not initially taught to potential converts, but they should be. Instead, “they are revealed later as one matures and gains the ability to accept them.” The LDS Church tries to make its official doctrines appear Christian, but what underlies those Christian-sounding terms is far from Christian in meaning.

  Following are the teachings of its officials throughout the years. Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers–not anti-Mormon writers.

  Finally, many Mormons respond that most of the citations below are not from official Mormon writings as if that disproves the doctrines they teach. If they are not official, fine. But if not, then why have the Mormon apostles and high officials taught them and written them, and why are their books sold in Mormon bookstores? The truth is the following is what Mormons are taught.

  1. Atonement
     1. “Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane,” (Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” Friend, Mar. 1989, p. 39.).
     2. “We accept Christ’s atonement by repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeying all of the commandments,” (Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, p. 68.).
  2. Baptism
     1. Baptism for the dead, (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. II, p. 141). This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the “newly baptized” person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
  3. Bible
     1. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. . .” (8th Article of Faith of the Mormon Church).
     2. “Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God,” (1 Nephi 13:28).
  4. Book of Mormon
     1. The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, 4:461).
  5. Devil, the
     1. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).
     2. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).
     3. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).
  6. God
     1. God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
     2. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s . . . ” (D&C 130:22).
     3. God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
     4. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
     5. God the Father had a Father, (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).
     6. God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
     7. God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, 1857, p. 218; vol. 8, p. 115). This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always ‘officially’ taught and believed. Nevertheless, Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
     8. “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
  7. God, becoming a god
     1. After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
     2. “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (D&C 132:20).
  8. God, many gods
     1. There are many gods, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).
     2. “And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light,” (Book of Abraham 4:3).
  9. God, mother goddess
     1. There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
     2. God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
  10. God, Trinity
      1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).
  11. Gospel, The
      1. The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 182-185.)
      2. Consists of laws and ordinances: “As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements–‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'” (Articles of Faith, p. 79)
  12. Heaven
      1. There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348).
  13. Holy Ghost, The
      1. The Holy Ghost is a male personage, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, (Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 179).
  14. Jesus
      1. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129).
      2. Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163; Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15).
      3. Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).
      4. “Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).
      5. “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood–was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).
      6. “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers,” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 547).
      7. “Christ Not Begotten of Holy Ghost . . . Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!” (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).
      8. “Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh . . . ” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, “God the Father,” compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).
  15. Joseph Smith
      1. If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation.  There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).
  16. Pre-existence
      1. We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth, (Journal of Discourse, vol. 4, p. 218).
      2. The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129).
      3. The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).
  17. Prophets
      1. We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 444-445).
  18. Salvation
      1. “One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation,” (Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).
      2. A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).
      3. Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).
      4. Good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 92).
      5. There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).
      6. “The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79).
      7. “As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements–‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,'” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 79).
      8. “This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts,” (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).
      9. “We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do,” (2 Nephi 25:23).
  19. Trinity, The
      1. The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).
      2. “Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God [anyhow]–three in one and one in three. . .It is curious organization . . . All are crammed into one God according to sectarianism (Christian faith). It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God–he would be a giant or a monster,” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 372).

  Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing of the Mormon church.

 

 

Some of the Many Changes in the Book of Mormon

by Matt Slick

Joseph Smith said “that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book,” (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461). Allegedly it was translated by the power of God. Nevertheless, it has some 4,000 changes in it. Some are mere spelling corrections, but others are significant changes. Why is this so if the book of Mormon was translated accurately by the hand of God? Why would the Mormon Church continue to change the work even after Joseph Smith’s death?

Following is a very small sample of the changes in the Book of Mormon.

Check them out for yourself.

	1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon	1981 Edition of the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:18	“And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of [ . . . ] God, after the manner of the flesh	“And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.”
1 Nephi 11:21	“And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the [ . . . ] Eternal Father! . . . “	“And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . . “
1 Nephi 11:32	” . . . And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, [ . . . ] the Everlasting God, was judged of the world . . . “	” . . . And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son ofthe everlasting God was judged of the world . . . “
1 Nephi 13:40	” . . . and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is [ . . . ] the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world . . . “	” . . . and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World . . . “
1 Nephi 19:20	” . . . for had not the Lord been merciful, to shew unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old; [ . . . ] for he surely . . . “	” . . . for had not the Lord been merciful, to show unto me concerning them, even as he had prophets of old, I should have perished also.”
1 Nephi 20:1 changed in 1964 ed.	“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, [ . . . ] which swear . . . “	“Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear . . . “
Mosiah 21:28 changed in 1964 ed.	” . . . king Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; . . . “	” . . . king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; . . . “
Alma 46:40	” . . . because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared, to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to man by the nature of the climate.”	” . . . because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to removed the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate.”
3 Nephi 3:23	“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land of Zarahemla and the land Bountiful.”	“And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla [ . . . ] and the land Bountiful . . . “
3 Nephi 10:4	“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen which are a descendant of Jacob; yea which are of the house of Israel; O ye people of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you . . . “	“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, [ . . . ] how oft have I gathered you . . . “
3 Nephi 16:10	“and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you at that day, When the Gentiles shall sin against my Gospel, and shall subject the fulness of my Gospel, and shall be lifted up . . . “	“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,[ . . . ] and shall be lifted up . . . “
3 Nephi 22:4	” . . . for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, [ . . . ] and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”	” . . . for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth,and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.”
Ether 9:2	” . . . nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons and to his daughters,which were not, or which did not seek his destruction.”	“Nevertheless, the Lord was merciful unto Omer, and also to his sons, and to his daughters [ . . . ] who did not seek his destruction.”

As you can see, the Book of Mormon is a changing document. Where will the Mormon Church change it next?

The primary research for this information was taken from the book 3913 Changes in the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. To obtain copies of their work please write to Utah Lighthouse Ministry P.O. Box 1884 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 or visit their website.

The Fallacy of Catholicism’s Papacy

  JOHN

  SCHROEDER

Contender Ministries

Posted:  August 9, 2003

Of the numerous doctrines Roman Catholics must believe under pain of grievous sin, there are two upon which the entire religion is dependent for its continued existence.  Without these two foundational doctrines, the Roman Catholic religion comes crashing down to the ground of irrelevancy. In my Catholic childhood, I learned these two doctrines before I could read or write. To the question, “Which is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ?” I learned as a little shaver to answer, “The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ.” To the second question, “And upon what did Jesus found His Church?” my response was, “Jesus founded His Church on the rock of Peter who was the first pope.”

 

When the Lord Jesus saved me at the advanced age of 52, it became obvious very soon thereafter that there is something radically wrong with those two foundational doctrines.

And, since the first – the true Church claim – rests squarely on the allegation that Peter was ordained to be its first pope, it is quite appropriate to seek in the Scriptures proof that Jesus really did give Peter such an assignment. There, in the inerrant Word of God, we  have every right to expect to find Peter’s appointment clearly set forth, established as a  fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. What we do find, though, is what follows.

 

The English word, “pope,” comes from the Latin word, “papa,” which means “father.”

But our Lord told His disciples, (and us through them), “…call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) This had to be meant in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our heavenly Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24) And based on this admonition from Jesus, there shouldn’t even be a Catholic priesthood much less a papacy, for all Catholic priests are addressed as, “Father.” More on that later.

 

On another occasion, when His Apostles were disputing about leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any “prince” or “princes” exercising dominion over His flock.

 

Historically, it was not until the 3^rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 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.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

 

In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,

petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou artLittle Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”

 

To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of

Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom.

 

Unfortunately, what the most famous early believers taught is not always considered by the Vatican to be the “Sacred Tradition” on which doctrines are based. For example, the great Augustine, besides opposing Peter as the Church’s foundation rock, staunchly opposed the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception which budded in the 5^th century. The equally influential Aquinas did the same 800 years later. Hence, as in the Immaculate Conception matter, the Vatican totally disregarded the early theologians’ teachings about Matthew 16:18, even though Christ – as recorded in John’s Gospel – had given Peter the same name of small rock or stone in Aramaic long before the events at Caesarea Philippi.“when Jesus beheld him, (Peter) he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” (John 1:42) That Matthew 16:18 can in no way be interpreted as an appointment of Peter to be the first pope is even more evident when other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament are considered.

 

Beginning in Exodus, the Old Testament is full of references to Jesus, the coming Messiah, as the foundation rock of saving faith. He it is who is symbolized by the rocks out of which came fresh water in Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:10. Moses, in Deuteronomy 32:4, wrote, “He (Jesus) is the ROCK.” Rebuking the Nation of Israel in 32:18, he said,“Of the ROCK that begat thee thou art unmindful.” And in 32:31, he said, “…their (the enemy’s) rock is not as our ROCK.” In her prayer for a man child recorded in 1 Samuel 2:2, Hannah says, “…neither is there any ROCK like our God.” And David, just escaped from Saul, in 2 Samuel 22:2 gives credit for his safety this way: “The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer.”

 

Clear references to our Lord as the ROCK spoken of throughout the Scriptures, also are found in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42, 61, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. See also Isaiah 8:14, 17:10, and 51:1. In Hebrew, the word for rock is cela, and its definition is “crag, cliff, rock,” definitely not the kind of rock or stone one launches at a squirrel on the bird feeder.

 

In the New Testament, our Lord’s parable of the wise and foolish builders, recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6, leaves no doubt that Jesus, not Peter, is the foundation rock on which those who are wise establish their faith. Paul recognized Christ was the nation of Israel’s rock and the foundation of Christianity as well. “….(they, the Jews) did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4) Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul made absolutely certain there would be no mistaking upon whom Christ’s Church was being built. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

 

The foregoing cited Scriptures not only don’t support Rome’s claim that Peter was ordained a pope, the first in the Vatican’s alleged unbroken chain of popes, they actually contradict the claim, and they contradict it most emphatically. Moreover, one comes up “empty” again when trying to find passages that show Peter and the other Apostles, Paul included, were clearly aware of Peter’s election to leadership by Jesus. Nor is it obvious from God’s Word that Peter spent enough time in Rome to have functioned as that city’s first bishop.

 

In his own first epistle, Peter acknowledges a title far different from bishop or pope. Says he, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an ELDER.” (1 Peter 5:1)

Then he says: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;Neither as BEING LORDS over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” From these words in particular, and from the general tenor of both his letters, one concludes that Peter had no idea he had been ordained the first pope of a Church that did not come into existence until the 5^th century.

 

In the account of the Church’s first general council reported in Acts 15, it is James, the brother of Jesus, and not Peter, who provides the solution to the problem under discussion. (Cf. Acts 15:13-23.) Even before that council, Peter was not acting like the supreme leader of the flock. Rather than directing the actions of others, he was being directed, as the following attests. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY SENT unto them Peter and John.”(Acts 8:14) It was the same John, who, along with his brother James, had sought

from Jesus the promise of sitting one on His right hand, and one on His left in the coming kingdom. This, long after Matthew 16:18 had taken place, and a clear indication that the Apostles had no idea Peter had been ordained their leader.

 

There is additional biblical evidence refuting the Vatican’s alleged Petrine papacy to be found in Paul’s letter to the Roman Churches. At the end of that letter, he salutes 27 named individuals, none of whom is Peter. Why is that if Peter was bishop of Rome? Also, in Acts 23, Paul not knowing it was the High Priest he was addressing, called him a “whited wall.” (Acts 23:3) When informed that his epithet had been directed at the High Priest, Paul was instantly repentant. Said he, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” But in his

letter to the Galatian churches Paul is openly critical of Peter, saying, “when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Acts 2:11) What Paul said directly to Peter in front of many witnesses was this: “…If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Acts 2:14) If Peter had been ordained bishop of Rome and head of the Church, Paul certainly would have been aware of the fact and would not have been openly critical of him in front of others.

 

Finally, still consulting the Scriptures, we learn that Paul, not Peter, received the Gospel directly from the lips of Jesus. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11,12) And in 2 Peter 3:16, we get the impression that at least some of what Christ had given to Paul was not known to Peter, for he says that in Paul’s letters “are some things hard to be understood.”Inevitably comes this question, if Jesus made Peter head of the Church, why was Paul the one chosen to receive the Gospel directly from our Lord?

 

The binding and loosing authority the Vatican claims exclusively for its popes was given

to all of the Apostles, not just Peter; (Matthew 18:18) and, in fact to all believers when

Jesus said, “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven; For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18: 19,20)

 

When all of the Scriptures having to do with Peter’s alleged ordination as pope are reviewed it becomes manifestly clear that he was only one of twelve chosen men, who will sit on twelve thrones in the millennium, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). A bishop of Rome he was not. A pope he was not. And when historical facts are studied – as will be done in a separate article – they will positively confirm what has already been seen in the divine Scriptures.

 

John Schroeder is the author of Heresies of Catholicism…The Apostate Church.  John was reared in a devout Catholic family, and educated from elementary school through university in Catholic institutions. At age 52, a gift Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit brought about his conversion to Biblical Christianity. Now retired, he resides with wife, Claudia (also delivered from Catholicism into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ), outside Atlanta, Georgia.  Contender Ministries is happy to welcome him as a contributing author.  He has a love and a burden for the Catholic people surpassed only by his love for God.  Please visit John’s website, “Escaped Catholics Saved by Grace“.

The Fraudulent Papacy – A History LessonThe Fallacy of Catholicism’s Papacy, Part II   JOHN   SCHROEDER Contender Ministries Posted:  September 5, 2003

As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:”Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Those words, I was taught, spoken by Christ to the Apostle Peter, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope, and that he was the rock on which Christ built His Church – the Roman Catholic Church, the only true Church. It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic “heretics” – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy. It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.” In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter. Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear. “Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.” Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures – that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time. Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I. So, even when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Rome’s papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus – highest priest.  Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea. In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention. More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See. The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasn’t really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Rome’s self-assumed primacy. For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity – the Latin churches – we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, “Primate of All Bishops,” and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III.  Wonderful! A self-styled “Vicar of Christ” seeking – not the approval of God – but the approval of a secular entity to be the “Vicar of Christ.” Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord of the Whole Church,” but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down. Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy. What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of “apostolic succession” and an “unbroken chain of popes” stretching all the way back to Peter. The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say: “I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.”  To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was: “profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate.” No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Rome’s claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods. And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by “popes” prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.) Also included in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4th century) to Gregory II (8th century) in which are more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion in the decretals was a document entitled, “The Donation of Constantine.” Thought to be authentic for 600 years, and used successfully by bishops of Rome as grounds for their claims to primacy, it actually contained the ultimate proof that popes and the papacy are NOT DIVINELY ORDAINED, but are simply another invention of mere mortals. On the one hand, Rome teaches that Christ ordained Peter as the head of His Church, the rock on which it was founded, and the first pope. But for 600 years – from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the Donation of Constantine was invoked as the historical event granting to bishops of Rome ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom and its episcopates, and temporal power over Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire. Allegedly donated by Constantine the Great to Sylvester 1, bishop of Rome AD 314-335, it was used by Nicholas I to dispel opposition to popes and the papacy, and history shows that, from the ninth century to the present, bishops of Rome have been unopposed as exclusive occupants of the office of pope. In AD 1054, Leo IX tried to use the Donation of Constantine to secure control of the eastern as well as the western churches. The patriarch of Constantinople suggested Leo should mind his own business, and the split of the eastern (Orthodox) churches from Rome became permanent thereafter. The Donation of Constantine was shown to be a deliberate forgery in AD 1440 by Lorenzo Valla, but not before the Vatican had used it to permanently secure its position of primacy over the entire western church, and to exercise nearly absolute control over kings and nations for 500 years as well.  What is most interesting about this forged document and Rome’s use of it, is the secular source from which Rome allegedly derived its ecclesiastical and temporal power – its papacy. Where in history do we find Constantine invested with the power and authority to appoint a monarch over the Church of the living God? Isn’t the use of the Donation of Constantine by numerous popes eloquent proof that popes and the papacy are frauds, not initiated by Christ, but founded on the forged documents of men greedy for power?

The Myth of Mary’s Lifetime Virginity  JOHN   SCHROEDER Contender Ministries Posted:  January 11, 2004

Both direct and circumstantial evidence in God’s Word – the Bible – clearly disproves the Roman Catholic Church claim that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin, not only prior to, but during and after our Lord’s miraculous birth. It was this “perpetual virginity” doctrine and several others that forced the infamous 16th century Council of Trent to declare “Sacred Tradition” equal in every way to the divine Scriptures, and to arrogate to itself alone the right to interpret both Scripture and so-called “Sacred Tradition.” As we review the Scriptural evidence applicable to this false doctrine, it will become crystal clear why the Vatican insists that its members abide by Rome’s determination of what certain controversial Scriptures actually mean.Our first inkling that the lifetime virginity doctrine is only a myth is found in the first chapter of Matthew’s Gospel. In verse 18 and following, God’s Word tells us that Mary was espoused (engaged) to Joseph, but that, “before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” In the original Greek, the phrase “came together” is contained in the word, sunerchomai, {soon-er’-khom-ahee} whose meaning to the Jews of that era (Matthew was a Jew) meant conjugal cohabitation. A modern paraphrase of the Bible’s statement would go something like this: “Mary was found to be pregnant….before they consummated their marriage through normal sexual intercourse.” Jewish marriages in the time of Christ consisted of a period of betrothal that preceded by several months the actual “coming together” in sexual union. Espousal, or betrothal, however, confirmed the marriage as a valid contract, so, for Joseph to have “put away secretly” his espoused bride, he would have had to obtain a legal writ of divorcement. While he pondered the advisability of such an action, he was informed by an angel in a dream that Mary was not guilty of adultery; that the Holy Ghost was the child’s sire, and to have no fear of proceeding with the contracted marriage. (Matt 1:20, 21) There is not even the slightest hint in the angel’s words that a marital union with Mary was to be free of the normal physical privileges. Thus reassured, Joseph, “being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Mat 1:24, 25) Two phrases in those Scripture verses, when added to the phrase, “before they came together,” create a very rocky road to lifetime virginity for Roman Catholic apologists. The phrase “knew her not till” is translated from the Greek words, 1) ginosko{ghin-oce’-ko}, 2) ouk {ook}, and 3) heos {heh’-oce}. Ginosko, here translated “knew,” is a “Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.” (Strong’s Lexicon #1097) The word ouk, here translated “not,” is clearly a negative denoting the act had not taken place. But heos, here translated “till,” is confirmation that the act did, in fact, take place after the child was delivered. To obviate in advance claims that the word “till” does not confirm that Mary and Joseph engaged in normal marital relations following Christ’s birth, the child Jesus is referred to in God’s Word as, “her firstborn son:” (Matt 1:25) Roman Catholic apologists proclaim quite falsely that the word “firstborn” applies to an only child as well as to the first of multiple children. But a check of how the Greek word,prototokos {pro-tot-ok’-os} is used in the New Testament shows that claim to be quite without biblical support. The word appears nine times in the New Testament, and with one possible – but far from certain – exception, it always means the first of more than one. Six of the times it appears it is in reference to Jesus as either the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of mankind, or the firstborn of man who would come to believe in God through him. Bible references are: Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15 and 1:18; Hebrews 1:6 and 12:23; and Revelation 1:5. The one time it could possibly mean an only child is found in Hebrews 11:28. This particular verse is among several recounting the faith Moses exhibited as he led the children of Israel out of Egyptian captivity. “Through faith he (Moses) kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.”Reference here is made to the final plague visited upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians – the death of every firstborn of man and beast not covered by the blood of the Passover sacrifice. Roman Catholic apologists speculate that some Egyptian families had but a single child, and therefore the word firstborn can apply to an only child, in this case, Jesus. But this is both an unprovable presumption, and not very likely, because large families were an economic necessity, a hedge against starvation and aggression. The other two times prototokos appears in the New Testament are in Matthew 1:25, (previously cited) and Luke 2:7, which reads as follows: “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” Twice, then, the inspired writers referred to our Lord as Mary’s firstborn son. But when Christ’s relationship to the Father is studied, we find Jesus the man described as God’s “…only begotten Son.” For examples, see John 1:14, 1:18, 3:18; Hebrews 11:17; 1st John 4:9. The author of God’s Word – the Holy Ghost – has made it absolutely clear that the man Christ Jesus was the only human offspring of the Father. With this in mind, one questions why that same Holy Ghost – if Jesus really was an only child – did not inspire Matthew and Luke to describe Mary’s delivery the same way. All speculation would have been obviated had they written: “And she brought forth her only son, etc.” To make the road even more difficult for Roman Catholic apologists, Scripture contains a parallel situation in which the birth of a genuine only child is reported. Recall if you will that Mary’s cousin, Elisabeth, and her cousin’s husband, Zacharias, not only were childless, but actually were past the time of life when they could expect to be blessed with offspring. The Bible tells it like this: “And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.” (Luke 1:7) Their advanced years notwithstanding, Elisabeth and Zacharias were blessed by the Lord with the miracle of John the Baptist. Gabriel brought the good news to Zacharias as he performed his priestly duty in the Temple. “…the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.” (Luke 1:13) It is the following Scripture, the inspired writer’s description of John’s birth, that is especially worthy of note. “Now Elisabeth’s full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.” (Luke 1:57) John the Baptist was the only son of Elisabeth and Zacharias. And so, the inspired writer correctly relates that Elisabeth brought forth – not a firstborn son to be followed by other sons – she simply brought forth…a…son. Since both the inspired writers say that Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son, we can be sure – without going one bit further into the matter – that at least one other son followed. In fact though, if the divine Word of God is to be believed, four other sons followed, and at least two daughters. The following is from the Gospel of Matthew, an Apostle who knew Jesus and His family background intimately, even without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit: “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Matt 13:55, 56) These comments were made by people who knew Joseph and Mary and their family, for the Scripture tells us in the preceding verse:“And when he (Jesus) was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? (Matt 13:54) It bears repeating that these comments were made by people who most certainly knew the difference between blood brothers and sisters and mere cousins or kinfolk. We find a second report of this incident in the Gospel of Mark. “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mark 6:3) As additional assurance that those who were making these comments were very well acquainted with our Lord’s earthly family, we read: “But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.” (Mark 6:4, 5) In Greek, the language of the New Testament, the word for brother/ brethren is adelphos {ad-el-fos’}; for sisters, it’s adelphe {ad-el-fay’}. The word for cousin/kinfolk issuggenes {soong-ghen-ace’}. To think or believe that the inspired writers of Scripture were unfamiliar with these terms and therefore subject to misusing them, is to question the very integrity of the Holy Spirit who directed their efforts. And that is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church does in the following entry from the 1994 Catechism.   Against this doctrine (Mary’s lifetime virginity) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (¶500, Page 126, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994)   What the Roman Catholic Church has “always understood,” and what the Scriptures clearly say are as far apart in this case as Rome is from the South Pole. When the wordadelphos is used in the Gospels in reference to a specific name or names, it always means blood brother(s). There are no exceptions. That is how we know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3) For the Vatican to suggest that two of Christ’s named brothers were the sons of another Mary without accounting for the other two named sons is absurd. To imply that the Holy Spirit didn’t “get it right” is blasphemy, and Jesus had some choice words regarding those who blaspheme His Holy Spirit. (Cf. Matthew 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10) The Word of God could not have made it any clearer that Mary had four sons besides Jesus, and that Jesus had both brothers and sisters. Following is a list of New Testament verses that simply cannot be misconstrued no matter how loudly the Roman Catholic apologists protest.   Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Mark 6:3 Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; 1Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1 (probable).   In the Galatians reference cited above, Paul identifies James as the Lord’s adelphos, (brother) not as His suggenes, (cousin or kinfolk). It is out of the question to think or believe that Paul didn’t know the difference between a brother and a cousin. Moreover, the great historians of the patristic age – Josephus of Judaism, and Eusebius of Christianity – made reference to brothers of the Lord in their respective histories. In his Antiquities XX, 200, Josephus reported that, “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ” had been put to death. And Eusebius, in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3, refers to “James the Lord’s brother.” Then, in Book 3, Chapter 20:1, this appears: “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” His meaning could not be clearer. The Jude he refers to was a blood brother of Jesus, not a brother by faith. But the doctrine of Mary’s lifetime virginity, the denial that she and Joseph enjoyed a normal marriage as commanded by God in 1st Corinthians 7:4, 5, actually was obviated about 800 years before the births of Mary, Joseph or Jesus. In Psalm 69 is contained the following clearly Messianic prophecy: “I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.” (Psa 69:8, 9) How do we know that these verses are a Messianic prophecy? Because we read in the Gospel of John: “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” (John 2:15-17) And in Romans, we read: “For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Romans 15:3) The Roman Catholic doctrine stating that Mary the mother of Jesus retained her virginity after Christ’s birth and for the rest of her life is just plain heresy. Worse, it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, author of the Scriptures, because it in effect accuses the Word of God of lying to us.       John Schroeder is the author of Heresies of Catholicism…The Apostate Church.  John was reared in a devout Catholic family, and educated from elementary school through university in Catholic institutions. At age 52, a gift Bible and the guidance of the Holy Spirit brought about his conversion to Biblical Christianity. Now retired, he resides with wife, Claudia (also delivered from Catholicism into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ), outside Atlanta, Georgia.  Contender Ministries is happy to welcome him as a contributing author.  He has a love and a burden for the Catholic people surpassed only by his love for God.  Please visit John’s website, “Escaped Catholics Saved by Grace“. The Roman Catholic View of Protestantism By Ben RastContender Ministries Posted:  June 27, 2002  I have never attended a Catholic Mass.  The first inside glimpse I got of Catholicism occurred during one of the memorial services following the terrorist attacks of 9/11.  I observed a man – an archbishop, being trailed by a cadre of priests and altar boys.  The bishop was dressed elegantly, and was the object of unusual (to me) veneration.  When I saw the priests kneel before the bishop (who was seated on what can best be described as a throne) and kiss a ring on his hand, I felt extremely uncomfortable.  It seemed so sacrilegious to me to afford another human being of what seemed like worship.  It brought to my mind the Pharisees whom Jesus chastised in the gospels.  It was then that I started researching Catholicism.In other sections, I have tried to define Catholicism by its history, doctrines and practices.  Another effective way to define Catholicism is to study how Catholics define Protestants.  To do so, I have selected several excerpts from the definitive Catholic work, The Catholic Encyclopedia.  As a reference for rebuttal, I will frequently quote from another Book – the Bible.  As you will see, even the Catholics see the Bible as one of the definitive differences between Catholicism and Protestant Christianity.  So what are the main differences as defined by the Catholics? The Catholic Encyclopedia lists three, main categorical distinctions in Protestant beliefs:  Sola Scriptura (recognition of the Bible as the only infallible Word of God), Sola Fide (the belief in justification by faith alone), and the priesthood of all believers, as opposed to a few, select men. It is true that Christians recognize the Bible as the only infallible Word of God.  It contains the fullness of the Gospel, and was divinely inspired.  Catholics believe in the Bible (or at least their version of it, with several extra books added), but contend that Catholic Tradition (decrees of the various popes and councils) shares an equal footing with the Bible.  Moreover, the Catholic doctrine holds that the laity (non-clergy) are incapable of properly discerning and interpreting the Bible without help from priests and church authorities.  The Catholic Encyclopedia says this of the Christian view of Biblical infallibility: “The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants.” “The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity.” “Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority.” “Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says “I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians, is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves” (“Discourses to Mixed Congregations”, Faith and Private Judgment).” These excerpts clearly demonstrate the Catholic belief that common men are incapable of rightly discerning the truth by reading the Bible.  Only select men with supernatural gifts (priests) are allowed to interpret the Bible among Catholics, and the Catholic Church hierarchy acts as its sole authority.  In other words, “You’re too dumb to understand the Bible, so we’ll tell you what it means.”  The Catholics are not through insulting your intelligence yet, though.  The passage continues: “The first limitation imposed on the application of private judgment is the incapacity of most men to judge for themselves on matters above their physical needs.” “By pinning private judgment to the Bible the Reformers started a book religion, i.e. a religion of which, theoretically, the law of faith and conduct is contained in a written document without method, without authority, without an authorized interpreter. The collection of books called “the Bible” is not a methodical code of faith and morals; if it be separated from the stream of tradition which asserts its Divine inspiration, it has no special authority, and, in the hands of private interpreters, its meaning is easily twisted to suit every private mind.” To contend that the individual believers are incapable of understanding the Bible is the height of arrogance.  In Matthew 11:25, Jesus said, “I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.”  In writing to the church in Corinth, Paul said, “When I came to you brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.  For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.  I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling.  My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:1-5).  These are not the words of an elevated man in flowing robes.  These are not the words of a man who sits on a jeweled throne while subjects kneel before him and kiss his ring.  These are the words of Paul, a simple man who carried the greatest message the world has known.  Pay special attention to what he said in verse 5: “so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.”  And let us not forget the Bereans that were praised in Acts chapter 17, verse 11 because they “searched the scriptures daily” to see if what Paul told them was true.  The Bible is not an obtuse document reserved for an elite few; it is the Word of God for all His followers. The next distinction listed is Sola Fide – the belief in justification by faith alone.  In Roman Catholicism, justification is a lifelong process that can only be achieved by participation in the seven catholic sacraments.  The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the doctrinal difference this way: It has reference to the personal appropriation of the Christian salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e. is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification. This definition alone is quite telling.  Why shouldn’t all glory be given to Christ?  Nevertheless, let’s continue with the Catholic viewpoint on justification by faith: This principle bears upon conduct, unlike free judgment, which bears on faith. It is not subject to the same limitations, for its practical application requires less mental capacity;….On the other hand, as it evades coercion, [it] lends itself to practical application at every step in man’s life, and favours man’s inclination to evil by rendering a so-called “conversion” ludicrously easy, its baneful influence on morals is manifest….As a matter of history, public morality did at once deteriorate to an appalling degree wherever Protestantism was introduced. What the author is saying here is that justification by faith is an easy way out.  The implication is that a person will accept salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, then ignore the Word of God and live sinfully in the world.  If an individual truly places their faith in Jesus Christ, then they will desire to do His will.  If someone makes no effort to repent from sinful behavior after becoming a Christian, their faith would then be in question.   That’s what James referred to when he said that faith without works is dead (James 2:17).  If good works and participation in the sacraments were necessary for salvation and justification, then Jesus lied to the criminal on the cross next to Him when he said, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.”  This criminal was justified solely on the basis of his faith in Jesus Christ.  He did not have the opportunity to participate in ritualistic sacraments, nor did he have time to do “good works.”  Moreover, Paul told the church in Ephesus: “8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast” Ephesians 2:8-9.  If that were not convincing enough, consider the following passage, Romans 3:23-28: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. 27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. The final doctrinal distinction listed in The Catholic Encyclopedia is what it refers to as the universal priesthood of believers.  In Catholicism, ordained priests are believed to be imbued with supernatural spiritual powers of mediation.  Let’s take a look at what the Catholic book has to say on this issue: The “universal priesthood of believers” is a fond fancy which goes well with the other fundamental tenets of Protestantism. For, if every man is his own supreme teacher and is able to justify himself by an easy act of faith, there is no further need of ordained teachers and ministers of sacrifice and sacraments. The sacraments themselves, in fact, become superfluous.  The abolition of priests, sacrifices, and sacraments is the logical consequence of false premises, i.e. the right of private judgment and justification by faith alone; it is, therefore, as illusory as these. It is moreover contrary to Scripture, to tradition, to reason. The Protestant position is that the clergy had originally been representatives of the people, deriving all their power from them, and only doing, for the sake of order and convenience, what laymen might do also. Sects which are at best shadows of Churches wax and wane with the priestly powers they subconsciously or instinctively attribute to their pastors, elders, ministers, preachers, and other leaders. It’s important to take a look at just what a priest is.  Quite simply, a priest is a mediator and an intercessor.  2 Timothy 2:5 tells us, “For there is one God and onemediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  Jesus became the mediator for all of mankind, disposing of the need for a priesthood.  Under Jewish law, the temple priests conducted the sacrifices for the cleansing of sin.  When Jesus took our sins upon Him and died on the cross, he became the final sacrifice.  The following passage from Hebrews chapter 7 clarifies the eternal priesthood of Jesus: 11If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come–one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 13He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” 18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. 20And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’ ” 22Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.  23Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. 26Such a high priest meets our need–one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.  [Emphasis added] The passage is clear that Jesus is our priest.  The priesthood claimed by the Catholic Church is extraneous and – as it says in verse 18 – useless. The passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia do a good job of demonstrating the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.  The passages from the Bible illustrate clearly that the doctrines espoused by the Roman Catholic Church fly in the face of what the Bible tells us.  The Bible is the complete and inerrant Word of God, and was meant to be read and understood by all of God’s children, we are saved by grace through faith, and our only priest and mediator is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.