Someone recently passed this article on to me, which I posted on another board. It was promptly removed. So sad . . .

Frightening News from France

Once again, the real news in France is conveniently

not being reported as it should. To give you an idea

of what's going on in France where there are now

between 5 and 6 million Muslims and about 600,000 Jews,

here is an email that came from a Jew living in

France. Please read! Will the world say nothing - again - as it did in Hitler's time?

"I AM A JEW -- therefore I am forwarding this to

everyone on all my e-mail lists. I will not sit back

and do nothing." Nowhere have the flames of

anti-Semitism burned more furiously than in France:

Lyon, a car was rammed into a synagogue and set

on fire. In Montpellier, the Jewish religious center

was firebombed; so were synagogues in Strasbourg and

Marseilles; so was a Jewish school in Creteil - all recently.

A Jewish sports club in Toulouse was attacked with

Molotov cocktails, and on the statue of Alfred

Dreyfus in Paris, the words "Dirty Jew" were

painted. In Bondy, 15 men beat up members of a

Jewish football team with sticks and metal bars. The

bus that takes Jewish children to school in

Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months.

According to the Police, metropolitan Paris has seen

10 to 12 anti-Jewish incidents PER DAY in the past

30 days. Walls in Jewish neighborhoods have been

defaced with slogans proclaiming "Jews to the gas

chambers" and "Death to the Jews."

A gunman opened fire on a Kosher butcher's shop

(and, of course, the butcher) in Toulouse , France;

a Jewish couple in their 20s were beaten up by five

men in Villeurbanne , France . The woman was

pregnant; a Jewish school was broken into and

vandalized in Sarcelles , France . This was just in

the past week.

So I call on you, whether you are a fellow Jew, a

friend, or merely a person with the capacity and

desire to distinguish decency from depravity, to do,

at least, these three simple things:

First, care enough to stay informed. Don't ever let

yourself become deluded into thinking that this is

no t your fight. I remind you of what Pastor

Neimoller said in World War II: "First they came for

the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I

wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and

I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they

came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up,

because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me,

and by that time there was no one left to speak up

for me".

Second, boycott France and French products. Only the

Arab countries are more toxically anti-Semitic and,

unlike them, France exports more than just oil and

hatred. So boycott their wines and their perfumes.

Boycott their clothes and their foodstuffs. Boycott

their movies. Definitely boycott their shores. If

we are resolved we can exert amazing pressure and,

whatever else we may know about the French, we most

certainly know that they are like a cobweb in a

hurricane in the face of well directed pressure.

Third, send this along to your family, your friends,

and your co-workers. Think of all of the people of

good conscience that you know and let them know

that you and the people that you care about need

their help. The number one best selling book in

France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud,"

which argues that no plane ever hit the Pentagon."

That was intended as only none small area where the Catholic church was in error in this area. All the other areas of "Works" to obtain salvation are very much valid.

Your examples or Oral Roberts and Jim Baker are also valid, but their mistakes were not doctronial mistakes about salvation that could lead men to hell. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, but false teaching abvout salvation is far more grevious.

The selling of indulgences by one individual was not a matter of erroneous doctrine. Not everything a pope says/does is a matter of doctrine. And the pope, as you well know, is as capable of sin as any other human being. Popes know this too and are, by and large, very humble people.

I see everything but that! What is it near??

We DO have Spell Check here! Look in the upper right hand corner when you compose your next post. See the little Spell Check icon? It look like this...

What about Papal Infallibility?? I thought the Pope was incapible of error in doctrine?? And indulengences was official doctrine of the Catholic at a point in time.

The selling of indulgences by one individual was not a matter of erroneous doctrine. Not everything a pope says/does is a matter of doctrine. And the pope, as you well know, is as capable of sin as any other human being. Popes know this too and are, by and large, very humble people.

Point taken!

Sometimes something as little as an "IMHO" can get you farther and have more impact than pages and pages of absolutes. Even an "IMO", if one doesn't consider themselves particularly humble.

Thank you Missy! I really appriciate that. It was very encouraging to me.

Hi Ron,

I just wanted to say that I have been following this thread quietly. I just want you to know that I do not find you to be arrogant, pompous, or whatever others may have called you. I find you to be extremely passionate, and you have courage of conviction, which is inspiring. Even though everything you have put out here has been, well let's face it, attacked, you continue to answer question after question after question. After reading all these pages, I wonder if they are really after your answers or just wanting to see you flounder or mis-speak, where they will leap out and then pounce on you. Who knows, but it is clear to me that they have not been entirely civil themselves.

I find myself agreeing with your interpretation, and I also agree about the bible to be taken litterally unless context indicates otherwise. Some people can't understand this, and I can't explain it but I do believe it to be true. Anyway, I'm probably going to get flamed for what I've said.

I think your intentions are noble, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink!!

I completely agree!

True enough. But once one has accepted Jesus, one is saved, correct? So from that point on, it's about other things. How we live. What we do with what we have been given.

Fair enough! I went back and found it. The new Testament scriptures refers to all Believers as saints and the verse you quoted talks of the prays of the saints reaching the throne room of God. In Catholicism, you refer to specific, select individuals that you call saints. That explains why you were under the impression that verses meant prayers from the dead. It does not.

Ron, the quote from Revelations was in response to your statement that nowhere in the Bible did it mention praying to the dead.

You can't write your own Bible!

Why not? It's certainly been done before.

The earliest scripture is generally considered to be the “Pentateuch”, the first five books of the Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy… though there is some scholarly evidence to indicate that the Old Testament Book of Job may actually be the oldest book in the Bible. These writings were passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.

By approximately500 BC, the 39 Books that make up the Old Testament were completed, and continued to be preserved in Hebrew on scrolls. As we approach the last few centuries before Christ, the Jewish historical books known as the “Apocrypha” were completed, yet they were recorded in Greek rather than Hebrew. By the end of the First Century AD, the New Testament had been completed.

The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture.

In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.

The first hand-written English language Bible was produced in the 1380’s by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian.

The invention of the printing press in the 1450’s made the Bible widely available to lay people.

In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London.

In 1516 the scholar Erasmus published a Greek translation of the New Testament. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press.

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German from Erasmus Greek-Latin text and eventually went on to publish an entire Bible in German in the 1530’s.

William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. The first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.

John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew-Tyndale Bible.

In 1539 the Archbishop of Canterbury hired Myles Coverdale to publish King Henry VIII’s “Great Bible”. It became the first English Bible authorized for public use.

In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the Protestant reformers. Many of them met in Geneva, and under the protection of John Calvin, the Church of Geneva determined to produce their own Bible. Their New Testament was completed in 1557 and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560and1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published.

In 1568, a revision of the Great Bible known as the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, this Bible, referred to as the “rough draft of the King James Version”, never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. In 1611 the first version of the King James Bible was published.

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Spellcheck is in the upper-right hand corner of the screen as you reply to a message.

George Bush does not decide who dies on death row, quote]

When George Bush was governor of Texas he DID decide who died on death row. He did not commute one single death sentence during his time in office, by the way.

And the point is ??? If the apocrypha is supect regarding weather or not it is inspired, it might as well be considered fantacy. I don't know or care if it was included as additional reading material up to 120 years ago, the point is that they were not considered inspired by the early church and they are not now by the Christian church with the exception of the Catholic church.

I personally do not know of any Protestant denominations that only accept the KJV. Can you tell me who they are? You can't say that the apocrypha today is not a Catholic thing, because the Catholic church is the only church that insists it is inspired and of equal authority with the rest of scripture. It is a certainty that these writings were never considered inspired by Jewish theologians either, then or now.

This appears to be something you copied from some website, but I think some of it's content is suspect. Can you give me the website it came from??

Why not? It's certainly been done before.

The earliest scripture is generally considered to be the “Pentateuch”, the first five books of the Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy… though there is some scholarly evidence to indicate that the Old Testament Book of Job may actually be the oldest book in the Bible. These writings were passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.

By approximately500 BC, the 39 Books that make up the Old Testament were completed, and continued to be preserved in Hebrew on scrolls. As we approach the last few centuries before Christ, the Jewish historical books known as the “Apocrypha” were completed, yet they were recorded in Greek rather than Hebrew. By the end of the First Century AD, the New Testament had been completed.

The oldest copies of the New Testament known to exist today are: The Codex Alexandrius and the Codex Sinaiticus in the British Museum Library in London, and the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican. They date back to approximately the 300’s AD. In 315 AD, Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identified the 27 Books which we recognize today as the canon of New Testament scripture.

In 382 AD, the early church father Jerome translated the New Testament from its original Greek into Latin. This translation became known as the “Latin Vulgate”, (“Vulgate” meaning “vulgar” or “common”). He put a note next to the Apocrypha Books, stating that he did not know whether or not they were inspired scripture, or just Jewish historical writings which accompanied the Old Testament.

The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880’s, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880’s, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years.

The first hand-written English language Bible was produced in the 1380’s by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian.

The invention of the printing press in the 1450’s made the Bible widely available to lay people.

In 1496, John Colet, another Oxford professor and the son of the Mayor of London, started reading the New Testament in Greek and translating it into English for his students at Oxford, and later for the public at Saint Paul’s Cathedral in London.

In 1516 the scholar Erasmus published a Greek translation of the New Testament. This milestone was the first non-Latin Vulgate text of the scripture to be produced in a millennium… and the first ever to come off a printing press.

Martin Luther translated the New Testament into German from Erasmus Greek-Latin text and eventually went on to publish an entire Bible in German in the 1530’s.

William Tyndale wanted to use the same 1516 Erasmus text as a source to translate and print the New Testament in English for the first time in history. Tyndale showed up on Luther's doorstep in Germany in 1525, and by year's end had translated the New Testament into English. The first complete English Bible was printed on October 4, 1535, and is known as the Coverdale Bible.

John Rogers went on to print the second complete English Bible in 1537. It is a composite made up of Tyndale's Pentateuch and New Testament (1534-1535 edition) and Coverdale's Bible and some of Roger's own translation of the text. It remains known most commonly as the Matthew-Tyndale Bible.

In 1539 the Archbishop of Canterbury hired Myles Coverdale to publish King Henry VIII’s “Great Bible”. It became the first English Bible authorized for public use.

In the 1550's, the Church at Geneva, Switzerland, was very sympathetic to the Protestant reformers. Many of them met in Geneva, and under the protection of John Calvin, the Church of Geneva determined to produce their own Bible. Their New Testament was completed in 1557 and the complete Bible was first published in 1560. It became known as the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of choice for over 100 years of English speaking Christians. Between 1560and1644 at least 144 editions of this Bible were published.

In 1568, a revision of the Great Bible known as the Bishop's Bible was introduced. Despite 19 editions being printed between 1568 and 1606, this Bible, referred to as the “rough draft of the King James Version”, never gained much of a foothold of popularity among the people.

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible.

This "translation to end all translations" (for a while at least) was the result of the combined effort of about fifty scholars. In 1611 the first version of the King James Bible was published.

The Anglican Church’s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the “only” legitimate English language translation… yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants… and killed them. Throughout the 1600’s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King’s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

I know, and I also know that I am not in a position to second guess his decisions either.

George Bush does not decide who dies on death row, quote]

When George Bush was governor of Texas he DID decide who died on death row. He did not commute one single death sentence during his time in office, by the way.

What about Papal Infallibility?? I thought the Pope was incapible of error in doctrine?? And indulengences was official doctrine of the Catholic at a point in time.

The selling of indulgences was absolutely NOT a matter of doctrine, which must be declared (and recorded) as such. It was Leo X's idea of an appropriate fund raiser. Think of it like BINGO....hardly a single Catholic church in America has not hosted a BINGO game, but it's not a matter of doctrine.

Thanks! I didn't see it because I didn't scroll over. Thanks again!

Spellcheck is in the upper-right hand corner of the screen as you reply to a message.

I know, and I also know that I am not in a position to second guess his decisions either.

You are comfortable telling a large percentage of your fellow Christians that they are going to hell but you don't feel qualified to "second guess" George Bush?

There is something terribly flawed in your logic.