Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was Erasmus’ New Testament translation in 1516 that influenced so many of the protestant reformers. He would attack Jerome, of a thousand years before, with his new commentary of what the Bible text means; John the Baptist’s cry in the wilderness as strictly a cerebral notion, as opposed to Jerome’s penance, any hint of Mary in the Old Testament being unfounded allegory…
Erasmus, the prince of humanist was a master of compromise. Erasmus fled the monastic life, having fallen in love with a fellow monk, Servatius Rogerus, to rove about living off the writings of his letters.
He would continue to grub about with his new revision three years later in 1519, attacking Gabriel’s greeting to Mary as simply gracious, as opposed to full of grace…
Luther’s rift with Erasmus was based on Luther’s increasingly dark view of human potential as opposed to Erasmus’ humanistic ideology of how the world might be changed with reasonable reform. Luther, of course, insisted that human reason was totally corrupted and useless in the theology as a result of the “fall”. Erasmus would eventually be forced back to the existing structures of the Catholic Church as a result of his disputations with reformers like Luther saying, “Therefore I will put up with this Church until I see a better one; and it will have to put up with me, until I become better.”
Tragically, Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Calvin and the rest would, as Erasmus bemoaned, choose their ideas of Augustine’s doctrine of grace, and reject his doctrine of the Church.
Luther, the unhappy monk, devised a barbarian creed - salvation by faith alone. Luther, known to have bouts with the devil as they hurled insults and feces at one another, and engage in battle by fart, would be set free from his own sinfulness by faith alone! while being relieved of a bout of constipation. “Knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy, in the tower”, Luther would say. His theology was morally deficient of any intelligence or forethought.
The dump that Luther left on the theological landscape is of no ‘value’ to the Church. This would be Luther’s throne, the toilet. He should have wiped his mouth before he flushed.
The identification of the Church and Commonwealth became a big problem for Luther. Luther could not help but get involved with politics. That was the foundation of his theology, the integration of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities, a state church – the godly Prince replaces the Pope.
Calvin’s Geneva, however, would become a police state. His philosophy was to keep the Church separate and distinct from the secular authorities as two distinct entities working together for the good of God. This worked well for Calvin when he had Michael Servetus burned at the stake, and several of his opposition who objected to his increasing support from the civic elite, beheaded with their heads nailed up.
Zwingli had a more humanistic view of the commonwealth, following the teachings of Erasmus; viewing the community as the church, one in the same. Baptism didn’t wash away sin, is simply welcomed one into the community of believers. This would eventually be a problem for him however, as radical separatists would reject infant baptism because babies couldn’t have faith – this didn’t work well for Zwingli’s attempt at an orderly Christian community. Zwingli, the “preaching pacifist” would show up at his major dispute with Luther wearing a wooden sword on his side, as some kind of demonstration of his goofy theology, much to the shock and repudiation of all those present – only to untimely be thrust through and die in battle himself as he rode out to defend his village from a motley crew of rapists and marauders intent on pillaging his women and children. Luther of course couldn’t resist the temptation to ridicule Zwingli upon his death with one of his infamous scriptural jabs, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!” Luther, hu..
Eucharist theology was a big part of the picture as the opposing camps attempted to distinguish themselves from one another in their understanding of Communion.
Luther would eventually advocate a consubstantiation of some sort. Zwingli rejected any notion of the presence of Christ in the bread. To him it was just a symbolic expression of a believer’s faith. Calvin, well his ideas were a little more complicated. The poor fella became hopelessly confused because of his utter rejection of Mary as anything more than a sack, and eventually ended up advocating some kind of symbolic instrumentalism – something about signs of a reality that become instruments of grace that unite, bla bla blaaa. I could go on, but it’s so difficult for me to dwell on this kind of nonsense.
A Catholic mystic is never outside the Magisterium of the Church. The heretical spirituali however, like John Wyclif and the Lollards, Hussites, and those who would follow the pernicious ways of the Protestants all rejected the Church, and the Truth Jesus Christ teaches through Her.
The protestant reformation has been a colossal failure all around.
The protesters reject the Eucharist as a popish trick, but demand that you swallow their heretical counterfeit religion as the Gospel. Whatever we gain through compromise, we will ultimately lose.
Isn’t it interesting that the birth of “open-air” preaching originated with the Barnibites, as an order of priests whose mission was to foster enthusiasm for worship among the laity? Modeled after the Theatines, an order of clergy with special vows that would provide an example of consciencoiusness and a high level of serious minded commitment, the Barnibites pioneered preaching missions and open-air devotional processions in the mid 1530’s.
They would set the example for the disciples of none other than Inigo Lopez Do Loyola – Ignatius. These bold preachers of hell fire were actors and showmen – they brought Gods circus to town. First order of business was to find some central market town conveniently located with outlying villages. They would set out to draw a crowd, and draw a crowd they did! They were specialists in the dramatic. There’s was a theatrical show like none other – heart stopping reality unlike anything people had ever seen. And having successfully set the stage, they would conduct what they called mission ‘raids’ in the outlying areas. Along with their radical preaching techniques, were the triumphant revivalist processions through the streets with the Blessed Sacrament. Devotional expeditions’ and processional drama was their specialty.
Let me set the stage: Its sixteenth century Italy in the city of Macerata . The carnival is coming to town. Social values will be turned on their head as a result of the revelry. Not to be undone, the Jesuits schedule their appearance in direct conflict. They are over the top with their dramatic exaggerations of ‘the slave of the virgin’ procession with participants loaded down with chains. They would out-do their competition. Carnival or no – they got their point across.
Suddenly one of them gains the crowd’s attention, and having previously obtained a list of the dead dignitaries, he begins calling out names one by one. Someone finally says, ‘they’re all dead’!
“Pressed together, distilled in decaying and contagious humors, and touching mouth to mouth!” cracks the Jesuit voice - both respectable and peasant together in hell, being his main point.
“The world is our house”, was the Jesuit calling card, preaching and hearing confessions as ordained; something that would be copied two centuries later with a protestant slant by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism – “The world is my parish”. As a mouthpiece for the Hussite and Lollard heresies of the fourteenth century, curiously finding their way onto the theological landscape of eighteenth century England, Wesley would have a profound effect in America through his disciple Francis Ashbury. Wesley of course would fail in his attempts at religion in America, having sided with the British in the Revolutionary war.
Francis would continue to carry Wesley’s mixed bag of theology throughout land however, and have continuing influence in American politics, etc. Many today continue outside the structures of traditional Methodism with their semi-pelagian smack; used to be “field preaching” when John and Charles Wesley couldn’t get into the church house to preach – now it’s just some kind of bizarre street screaming. Pity.
In any event, we must continue to preach the True Gospel and expose heresy where we find it.
Zwingli considered Luther to be some kind of prophet, and even labeled him as Elijah at one point, something he would come to regret, I think, even though he was the first person to do it. But Zwingli’s radicalism was something that Luther never anticipated and eventually repudiated. Luther had opened a huge can of ‘ Worms ’, no pun intended (I’m sorry – I couldn’t resist) that fateful day of October 31, 1517. Meanwhile, Our Lady of Guadalupe was preparing to appear in the mountains of Mexico to a peasant man named Juan Diego.
He was wearing a poncho, upon which Mary’s likeness supernaturally appeared, when he poured forth the roses he was carrying before the Bishop. These roses were to be a sign to the Bishop that what Juan was trying to say about the beautiful woman that he has seen was true. No roses were blooming in Mexico at the time. This poncho still hangs behind the Alter at this Church, and has been under more critique and scientific examination than the Shroud of Turin, with no satisfactory explanations as to its origin.
Zwingli took things further than Luther could approve of in his evangelical zeal. Zwingli claimed that he owed Luther nothing in the development of his reformation theology; just a mere sixteenth century coincidence, that’s all. Well, he eventually jettisoned the whole idea of communion being a sacrament at all, since the term was appropriated by the Latin Church from the Roman army’s idea of a soldier’s oath anyway.
There was no presence of Christ in the bread at all; no transubstantiation, no consubstantiation, no nothing, just a remembrance, that’s all, and Luther couldn’t agree with that. Infant baptism fell by the wayside as a result of dissident ultra-Zwinglians insisting it wasn’t necessary since babies couldn’t have faith anyway. It was in 1523, after a rough time of iconoclastic vandalism, that Zurich produced the first official statement of doctrine of the reformation, banning images and then the Mass; kind of like a city ordinance concerning parking violations, I suppose.
In any event, Zwingli sure was successful in shinning off the established Church and putting his theology to the civil authorities.
Well, it didn’t take long for Zwingli to be renounced as a backslider by some in the city who decided to baptize each other as well demonstrate their newly found priesthood of the believer by communicating with bread and drinking wine. They were subsequently mocked and ridiculed as Anabaptist – rebaptizers. Of course, all this nonsense required more legislation, which eventually led to some of these criminal radicals being solemnly drowned in the River Lammat.
Martyrs I suppose, but martyrs for what, a tragic misconception? They believed what they believed. And so, we see the radical reformation taking shape, rejecting what is referred to as the magisterial reformation, promulgated by Luther and Zwingli and those who would follow. Their alliances weren’t with the civil magistrates to further the Kingdom on earth, no way! There’s was with God alone! All others had confused the Church with the world in their attempts at a Christian commonwealth! And hence, the Schleitheim Confession of 1527, bemoaning false brethren, and calling all to a separation from the abomination. And on and on and on…
Meanwhile Luther was having similar problems of his own – he had started civil war! And what would be the end result of all of this? Revolution.
Once upon a time, there was a little boy, a very loving and beautiful boy, who loved his parents so. One day he was arrested and thrown into the dungeon. Above him his mother and father were brutally murdered, yet, he never knew it. After such a long time of mistreatment by his captors, he was very sick and near death from starvation, when one of the jailers came into his cell to show him a little kindness as he died.
Let me riddle you this. Who was this boy? No, I’ll tell you.
He was the last King of France! The last divinely appointed Monarch.
His parents were executed by a motley crew of rabble rousers under the influence of protestant theology who couldn’t leave well enough alone. They had to finish the dirty deed done cheap. The heir to the throne was a real problem for them, wasn’t he? And why was that? What were they so afraid of? A ten year old boy?
Luther, Calvin, and the radicals following, would appeal to the writings of Augustine to justify their schismatic rebellion against the Church; and in the process develop various heretical doctrines, irresistible grace being one of them. The Augustinian - Pelagian debate, however, was not central to their cause. Jakobus Arminius’ theology was condemned at the Synod of Dordt in 1618 for daring to suggest that one could resist the grace of God and be lost; this didn’t set well with the Dutch Calvinist’s idea of predestination in the northern Netherlands .
The whole thing became such a powder keg, that it was eventually turned over to the political establishment and became a power struggle between the veteran statesman Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt and the life long military leader Prince Maurits. The lines were drawn, and after a successful military coup by the prince, the Arminian Remonstrants were defeated both theologically and politically, and the Synod concluded with Oldenbarnevelt’s judicial murder.
Jakobus Arminius was seen as a traitor against the Duthch Calvinists’ struggle for independence from Spain , and their theology was part of their national identity, so it is understandable why they were so serious about their religion. The five point of Calvinism that were articulated at this disputation with such ferocity against the Arminians remain unchanged to this day.
It was Calvin’s main disciple, Theodore Beza’s double predestination; that both the elect and the dam*ed were predestined, and hence the limited Atonement, that was so troublesome to the acute mind of such a one as one Jakobus Arminius. Arminius would reject Beza’s supralapsarianism and begin to publicly express his doubts about all of it.
Of course, all of this is not to be confused with English ‘Arminians’ who were more concerned with distinguishing themselves from reformed Protestantism in their ceremonial worship and emphasis on the sacraments in the Church of England. I know, it can get confusing, but there were really no parallels between Dutch and English Arminianism except in name only: probably to express a similarity in the seriousness of the rebellions that affected both reformed orthodoxy and as well as Dutch Protestantism.
The English Arminians would ultimately be the ones who would persecute the puritans as separatists, cropping off the ears of the more noisome of the bunch. In some respects the English saw themselves as offering a more authentic Catholicism that what one could find in Rome . The puritans would get no concessions for church reform from the King; however they did get their King James Bible in 1611, which they would bring to New England along with the covenant theology of William Perkins.
The Catholic Church condemned the kind of savage pessimism in the writings of Michael Baius in 1567 and 1579 that Arminius found so objectionable in Calvin’s theology. One Jansen Cornelius couldn’t take a hint apparently, and continued the rebellion of Baius, developing a theology that he saw reflected in the writings of Augustine that contrasted with Jesuit teachings in safeguarding the will. It was from the thoughts of Luis de Molina where the Jesuits got their inspiration. Molina developed a theology of future contingencies that was consistent with Augustine’s theology as well as the free will of man. Jansen would eventually refuse to accept the appointment of a Bishop by the Pope, influence another Bishop to appoint someone else, and advocate for what he called the ‘Old Catholic Church’, as opposed to the one in which he found himself. What has come to be referred to as Jansenism would eventually be condemned by the Church as heretical.
Jansen would devote some twenty years of his life to the development of a treatise on grace entitled “Augustinus” and leave it for publication upon his death; this work contained a detailed critique of that age old controversy between Augustine and Pelagius and continuing with the dismantling of Molinism.
This is where we can find the Augustinian – Pelagian debate within the context of the reformation period, not within the protestant divisions. Jansen would conduct his own reformation within the Catholic Church while the Jesuits were conduction the counter-reformation without. It was the genius of Molina and the commitment of both schools of thought to Augustine’s theology of the Church that allowed truth to prevail. The issue of the nature of sin and how it is to be viewed within the human condition was settled here, not in the protestant camp, or the mind of someone who rejects the Magisterium.
The Molinism as articulated by the Jesuits, in competition with Jansen’s thesis of Augustine, incorporates not only the issue of free will and future contingencies and Augustine’s theology of Soteriology, but also brings the issue of original sin into view in a way that the Arminians’ conflict with the Calvinists could not.
The bitter resentments between protestant camps in their reformation cause pale in comparison to the viciousness inflicted upon the Jesuits by the Jansenists. It is here that we must look to view the fundamental and underlying issues that confronted and shaped the reformation dilemma in order to see them take shape and play out in a manner that brings resolution and satisfaction to a mind that demands it.
To continue to look to those who would follow in the footsteps of the protestant reformers in the hopes of finding a satisfactory resolution to these all important theological difficulties that confront us is folly. It is like a man who looks down a well to find the answers to his problems, only to see a reflection of his own face instead.
The distinction between the various protestant confessions that developed after the reformation turned on the definitions of predestination as well as the relationship the Sacraments had with Soteriology.
Christendom is at stake. Just as the radical reformers attack on infant baptism was perceived as an attack on Christendom by the magisterial reformers as well as the Catholic Church; so it is today. As schismatic radicals continue to baptize adults into heretical belief systems that deny original sin and advocate some kind of perfectionism, they continue to foster a fractionalization of an integrated Divine view of Christendom.
What protestants are advocating is anathema to a Divine view of community. They are creating the very societal anomalies that they rail against.
The establishment of an empire through the union of culture religion and society, with its members sealed through Baptism was not a corruption of the Church; it is the fulfillment of the Great Commission. Christ told His Apostles, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”
And that’s exactly what they did, and have been doing through Apostolic succession.
It is what awaits us when the Church will once again worship God, as in ancient days.
Once upon a time, there was a man who was lost at sea;
a sea of doctrinal confusion and despair.
He had been tossed to and fro, by wave after wave for many days,
until finally, he had reached his demise,
he would drown.
Suddenly, he spots something on the horizon!
His hope is renewed.
And then, as suddenly as it appeared, a huge wooden ship pulls up alongside him,
with Eternal Father written across the bow.
He looks up and sees the Captain of his Salvation in the wheel house,
with the Holy Ghost as Her main Sail.
But wait, there more. There’s someone running up the Vessel’s starboard side,
with something in hand.
It’s a Woman!
She leans back and heaves Her buoy with rope attached.
It lands besides him.
He reaches out and grabs the lifesaver with his last dying breath
before he goes under for good.
Without strength and exhausted, he can do little more.
She begins to haul him in, hand over hand;
he’s amazed by Her strength and unflinching determination.
Finally, as She reaches out to grab him by the hand,
he looks up to notice Her sleeves are rolled up,
revealing Her powerful forearms and weather beaten hands.
He realizes whoever this Woman is, She’s been doing this for a long time.
And as She clasps him tightly, he looks up and realizes -
It’s Mary!!
She pulls him safely on board,
as She turns and looks up towards Her Soverign.
They briefly meet eye to eye,
as He turns His mighty wheel, and sails away.
Just one point, Janesen did not conduct any reformation within the Catholic church, or outside of it for that matter. He was dead when "Jansenism" began to be aggressively promoted. Jansen himself while alive was simply one of hundreds of gnats stinging the Catholic church, and not a person of major importance. "Jansensists" and "Jansensism" postdate the man himself.
You are clearly a devotee of the cult of Mary. Mariolatry has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament, it was a historical development, undoubtedly influenced by the high place that female deities enjoyed in the Roman religious sphere and the desperate desire of gentile converts to find the same in their new religion. There is no record of any exaltation of the Virgin Mary until the fifth century, when she was first called the 'Mother of God'. The traditions concerning her were added from time to time until the latest pronouncement by Pope Pius XII on October 11, 1954, relating to the Assumption of Mary, though he was well advised to restrain his eagerness to proclaim a dogma that she was "Co-Redemptress," though the apellation "Queen of Heaven" is only a poetic step from that.
Having been a Catholic once upon a time, I have to say that the Catholic church's justifications for it are shockingly and embarrasingly threadbare; and as I experienced in the hoary era of Pius XII, Mariolatry had become virtually a substitute for Jesus and the worship of the Trinity as the focus of the Christian religion. And that is no minor accomplishment, though an appalling one. In this respect (ignoring others) the Roman Catholic church is so far off the NT Christian track that it can be considered to have derailed itself entirely. In actual daily practice when I was growing up as a Catholic, I would have to say that the Roman Catholic church of popular worship was polytheistic.
Other than being a major part of the history of Christianity, I would not consider the Roman Catholic church to even be a Christian denomination at this point and for many, many centuries.
In rejecting the Roman church the various reformers were totally right.
Actually, in one of the great ironies of history, the Protestant Reformation likely saved the Catholic Church from itself, for it was unspeakably corrupt. It was involved in continental politics. It had allowed evil people such as the Borgias into the power structure. It was robbing the people of Christendom blind. It was wallowing in greed by selling indulgences. It tortured people. It killed people. It imprisoned people. It suppressed science and commerce.
In short, the Catholic church had gone from being a vessel of God to an institution of men serving themselves. Had the Protestant Reformation not occurred it is highly unlikely that it would have survived another 100 years.
So the attack is REALLY on the Recieved Text/Textus Receptus ( the underlining text used in teh authorized/1611 King James New Testament). This would imply that you are in favor of the products of Wescott and Hort which were GNOSTICS not Christians. They denied the deity of the Lord and ERASED much of Scripture in key areas such as the resurrection account. << the fundamental HOPE for Christians!
If you would like to speak up Wescott and Hort fine, but do NOT call it Christendom. Call it what it is... GNOSTICISM. The idea that through perfect living one can obtain the same level of divinity of Jesus or "Christ consciousness" .. << this is a confirmed FACT it is what they believe, and it is not only heretical but ANTI CHRIST to the core. It is SATANIC doctrine.
You provide Character attacks with ZERO evidence, and even if evidence was fabricated it does not matter. If you believe that infant baptism actually saves anybody that you are deceived. This has to be one of the most glaring deceptions floating around.. I was infant baptized and I was LOST as could be living like a DEVIL with God's Just condemnation hanging over my head. It wasn't until I was saved by the Grace of God by believing on him in Jesus Christ for salvation until I starting changing my LIFE.
God is not in the RELIGION business but the LIFE GIVING business. HE is the great heart surgeon. If you have a legal relationship with God you have nothing. God wants a LOVING relationship with his Creatures, and this can only happen when the SIN issue is taken care of. This happens when the INDIVIDUAL voluntarily comes to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of sins. God in his love reaches down, picks you up, cleans off the mud, and clothes you with HIS garments/righteousness.
The Reformation could have been better, but anything is better than the DARK AGES! The reason why they were DARK is because the Word of God was not in the hands of the people but the few "esoterics" that wanted to CONTROL the populace by their GREED. Modern day "protestantism" is a mess. I do not condone it at all either.
God is working in people's lives that doesn't adhere to labels. These people meet and love and live for God. << That's what it's all about.. It's not about a denomination it is about a PERSON. His name is Jesus Christ, and he is sitting at the right hand of God right now waiting for an appointed time in which he will END the LIES, DECEPTION, and REBELLION.
And Praise the Lord.. All enemies will be under his feet!
If you are not already, better get Saved by the blood of Jesus Christ trusting in HIS works in the atoning death, burial, and resurection putting your faith in Him. Don't be an enemy of the cross. All that are not covered by the Passover Lamb sacrifice will be deemed enemies of JESUS when he returns and as the Scriptures say, he will have no Pity.
It's quite a TERRIFYING thing to behold that the SAME GOD that offered his life FOR US offering us mercy and Grace is going to WITHDRAWL his hand of mercy at some time and start preparing for battle to wage war AGAINST those that rebel.
If this does not put the FEAR of the Living God running through your veins I do not know what will.
Isaiah 13:8
And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
Isaiah 63
1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.
2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment.
4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come.
5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me.
6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.
It is described quite extensively as a blood bath, and we do not want to be lost when this happens.
We want the Mercy of God through Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 63 7-8
7 I will mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord, and the praises of the Lord, according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses.
8 For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour.
If you are rescued by Mary and not Jesus Christ, than you are in big trouble; but there is still time to repent of this idolatry. Hail Mary full of Grace? GOD is to be Hailed in Jesus Christ who is full of Grace! What utter blasphemy, and God's going to deal with it.
Rescued by Mary: If I take your screen name to heart, I assume that you mean you have been saved by a Christian who has been dead for almost 2000 years. There is nothing in scripture to justify the RC's teaching that Mary is coredemptrix, Queen of Heaven, can hear prayers, or intercedes for anyone. Prayer to her is therefore Idolatry. Luke 4:8 You shall love the Lord your God and serve Him only. You are certainly free to trust the words of men. I'll stake my faith on the words of God.
The reformation was inevitable. Perhaps it would have been better if it happened in an era where people were less power crazed and violent in general and with less flawed reformers, but the Catholic Church brought much of this on themselves through their own violent, power crazed, and oppressionist history. This is what happens when scripture is kept from the masses for too long and people start to talk.
Among the other abuses that Rome was guilty of was the sale of indulgences, that is the sale of the forgiveness of sins, simony, the sale of the church offices, the inquisition, and the crusades. I also like to point out to Mary's fans that the Bible teaches that she did not remain a virgin but did have a normal sexual relationship with Joseph after Jesus birth and had other children.
Mt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Mt 13:55 "Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Mt 13:56 Aren’t all his sisters with us?
Note here that Mary's second son listed here is named after his grandfather, and next brother is named after his father. You might also be interested to know that Jesus brother James ends up becoming the bishop of the church in Jerusalem and is martyred in the early 60's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
