Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 You do the rest of the math and tell me how much is left from that $302.7 billion dollars a year. I'd like to know how much "Hush Money" was paid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Jesus is an heir to the Throne of David. Not according to the experts... The Jews. Or do you presume to know more about their religion than them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'd like to know how much "Hush Money" was paid out. Trying to make amends is not a bad thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Trying to make amends is not a bad thing Covering up wrong doings are a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Not according to the experts... The Jews. Or do you presume to know more about their religion than them? Experts? You mean the one's who had their Temple destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans as JESUS CHRIST PREDICTED HIMSELF before it happened? LOL Jesus is an heir to the throne of King David. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Covering up wrong doings are a bad thing. Sure enough. The CC has cleaned up it's act. I wish other "churches" would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Experts? You mean the one's who had their Temple destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans as JESUS CHRIST PREDICTED HIMSELF before it happened? LOL Jesus is an heir to the throne of King David. It is impossible for Jesus to be an heir to the throne of King David. Problems with Jesus' Lineage Was Jesus A Legitimate Heir to The Royal Line of David? According to Judaism, a primary consideration for a candidate to be our Messiah is he must be a father-son descendant of King David - a line that was traceable even into the early Middle Ages. Jesus lived within that time, and the writers of the New Testament considered it essential that he be shown as David’s descendant. In fact, the New Testament opens up with the words: The book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David… Matthew 1:1. To determine whether Jesus was a legitimate heir to David’s line, we will now examine the New Testament. Several problems are found there that help explain why the Jewish people could not accept Jesus as our Messiah. Who was Jesus’ father? A Contradiction. Most Christians considers Jesus as both the Messiah and the Son of G-d, which poses a contradiction. Who was his father? If it is G-d, then Jesus is not someone of David’s lineage. If it is David, then he cannot be the Son of G-d. The fact that he could have only one father makes being the Son of G-d and the Messiah as mutually exclusive. Which is it? Christians contend that G-d is his father, and that Jesus got his connection to David through two lineages shown in the New Testament: one in the book of Matthew, the other in the book of Luke. Our discussion will now deal with those lineages, together with one from the book of 1st Chronicles in the Tanach for comparison. By examining these lineages, we will see that they present quite a problem for the Christian position. Point #1: Both lineages end with Joseph (Jesus’ stepfather), yet are extremely different. How can Joseph have two different lineages? It certainly challenges the credibility of one, if not both of them. The Christian response to this is that the Matthew lineage is that of Joseph, whereas the Luke lineage belongs to Mary. We will now deal with each one to examine their problems. Concerning Joseph’s Lineage in Matthew. Point #2: A stepfather is not your father. We are looking, in a sense, to find the path whereby David’s Y-chromosomes (passed father-to-son) reached Jesus. It doesn’t jump from one’s stepfather. Christians will argue that Joseph adopted Jesus, and by doing so gave over the inheritance of the royal line. Yet, just as with the Kohanim (Priests), an adopted son cannot become a Kohane. So, too, a son adopted by a member of the royal line cannot become heir to the throne. Point #3: Missing Names & Generations. When you compare the Davidic line shown in Matthew against how it is shown in 1st Chronicles, we see that 4 names are eliminated as indicated on the chart. The language in Matthew, for instance, states that Uzziah (same as Azariah) was the son of Jehoram, instead of the son of Amaziah. Christian apologists try to explain this by stating that when it says “this one begat that one”, it implies his ancestor, and not necessarily his father. The problem they create for themselves, is that Matthew states: So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. Matthew 1:17 We can accept that names could be skipped when showing an ancestral line. However, it is not fair to take a lineage that stretched from David to the exile, which included 18 generations, and claim it only contained 14. Point #4: Joseph himself was not a legitimate heir to the throne. Even if you could get your lineage through adoption, one could only pass on what you rightly own, and Joseph was of an invalid line. In Matthew 1:11 it shows that Joseph was descended from a former king named Jechoniah, or Coniah for short. He was a very wicked king, and was cursed by Hashem. In Jeremiah 22, we see that Jechoniah’s descendants are absolutely cut-off as heirs to the throne. Therefore anyone descended from Joseph was also cut-off as a candidate to be king. Is this man Coniah a despised broken vessel? An object that no one cares for? Why are they cast out, he and his seed, and banished to a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord, Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Jeremiah 22:28-30 Christians will answer that even the Talmud tells us that Jechoniah repented, and that his grandson Zerubbabel became a leader among the Jews. This they claim is proof that the curse was temporary, and was later rescinded. The fact is that Zerubbabel only became a governor. Neither he nor anyone else from this line ever sat on the throne again. The curse remained. As a descendant of Jechoniah, Joseph’s lineage was not valid. The reality is that very few Christians attach Jesus to David through Joseph anyway, relying more on the line of Mary. Which leads us to wonder, why was the lineage of Joseph even mentioned to begin with? Concerning Mary’s Lineage in Luke. Point #5: Mary’s name is not mentioned anywhere in connection to Luke’s lineage. How would we know this is Mary’s line? Some will contend that Heli is really Mary’s father, and when it says that Heli is the father of Joseph, it really means father-in-law. Yet, the New Testament says nothing about who Heli was anywhere, and he is only mentioned here. Others contend that Joseph was also the name of Mary’s father, and that the Joseph mentioned here was really Mary’s father, not husband. The bottom line is that one cannot substantiate this as Mary’s lineage by anything written in the New Testament, but must rely on a Christian oral tradition. This is ironic, since Christians are so adamant in condemning the legitimacy of Jewish oral traditions, insisting on a strict reliance on scripture alone. Point #6: The royal line is only passed through the father, never the mother. Even if the lineage mentioned in Luke is Mary’s lineage - that presents a problem in of itself. True, one’s Jewishness is passed through the mother, yet one’s tribal inheritance passes through the father. Christians argue that the Book of Numbers shows a case where a father had no sons, and his estate of land went to his daughters, who it is presumed could pass it on to their children. The Jewish position, however, is that this may apply to property, but not to one’s rights to the throne. Yet, even if we were to assume that the lineage could pass through the mother, and we assume that Luke’s lineage did in fact belong to Mary, was Mary’s lineage a legitimate one? Point #7: David-to-Solomon. According to Judaism, the Davidic line had to pass through David’s son Solomon, and no other son. As I swore to you by the Lord G-d of Israel , saying, assuredly Solomon your son shall reign after me (David), and he shall sit upon my throne in my place… I Kings 1:30 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies around; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. 1 Chronicles 22:9-10 Luke’s lineage shows that Mary is not from Solomon’s line, but rather from another of David’s sons, Nathan (Luke 3:31 ), who was not the royal heir. Since Mary is not from Solomon’s line, she and her descendants do not have a legitimate connection to the royal line of David either. Point #8: Unlikely Marriage. If in fact the lineage shown in Matthew was Joseph’s (27 generations from David to Joseph), and the lineage in Luke was in fact Mary’s (43 generations from David to Mary), then Mary married someone 16 generations older than herself. Quite unlikely. Having seen that neither Matthew’s lineage of Joseph, nor Luke’s (supposed) lineage of Mary is legitimate, how can one consider Jesus as a legitimate descendant of David? One cannot. Without this, an honest person cannot accept Jesus as the Messiah, since this is the most important criterion, and Jesus does not have it. http://www.torahatlanta.com/articles/Probl...;%20Lineage.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I am new to the area and I'm looking to find a Christian church with a large young adult fellowship. Any suggestions? Looks like to me that if you managed to get your head out of your rectum for a spell that you should be able to find a God-fearing conservative non-Catholic Church without posting about it here. Anyway, God says that faith comes through hearing and that hearing comes through reading the word of God. I suggest that you seek Grace via reading the Bible before you concern yourself with finding a building/temple to hang out in. I wish you well on your search for the Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Looks like to me that if you managed to get your head out of your rectum for a spell that you should be able to find a God-fearing conservative non-Catholic Church without posting about it here. Anyway, God says that faith comes through hearing and that hearing comes through reading the word of God. I suggest that you seek Grace via reading the Bible before you concern yourself with finding a building/temple to hang out in. I wish you well on your search for the Truth. What Church would you belong to before 1000 AD? How about 400 AD? Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 It is impossible for Jesus to be an heir to the throne of King David. Not at all: "Let’s take a closer look at Lk. 3:23. The NASB says “ . . . being supposedly . . . †The NIV says “ . . . so it was thought . . . †Nomizo, when used by Luke, almost always means that the situation is not what people think it is. Why does Luke insert this qualifier? Most likely, he is really referring to Mary, who was Jesus’ actual human ancestor. This is likely for several reasons: Luke has already made it clear that Joseph is not the father (1:31-35), so his readers would understand nomizo in the above way.. Luke has probably interviewed Mary, so it makes sense that he would provide her family’s genealogical record. NOTE: The official records always went from the earliest descendent down, while the personal records went from the most recent descendant back.[1] Thus, it would appear that Matthew is working from the official records, while Luke is working from personal records from Mary’s family. Since Jewish genealogies usually didn’t mention mothers, this would be an appropriate way to state it. (Matthew mentions some of Messiah’s female ancestors—probably to emphasize God’s grace to sinners.) Interestingly, the Talmud contains a possible reference to Mary, and names her father as “Heli†(Chagigah 77:4).[2] So if Lk. 3 is Jesus’ genealogy through Mary and Matt. 1 is his genealogy through Joseph, there is no contradiction between them. On the contrary, these two genealogies provide us with the full picture of Jesus’ ancestry. This deals with the first problem. By the way, most apparent contradictions between the gospels are resolved through careful examination of the texts and additional historical background (EXAMPLE: old and new Jericho and the synpotic accounts of Jesus healing the blind men). But what about the problem with the cursed line of Jeconiah? Because Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, he is still legally in the kingly line. According to Jewish law, the first-born son, whether natural or adopted, had the right of inheritance.[3] But because Jesus’ human blood lineage goes back to David through Nathan, he avoids the curse! " @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 What Church would you belong to before 1000 AD? How about 400 AD? Discuss. I will not discuss anything with you as it would be complete waste of my time. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I will not discuss anything with you as it would be complete waste of my time. Translation: YOU SUCK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Not really because not everyone was an APOSTLE nor KEEPER of the KEYS to HEAVEN and nor CHOSEN to be the Shepard of the Lord's Church. All men are born equal. Period. (or as you say: "End of story.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 What Church would you belong to before 1000 AD? How about 400 AD? Discuss. What Protestant-burning squad would you belong to in 1557 AD, AFC ? "Discuss". "THE BURNING OF RICHARD WOODMAN AND NINE OTHER PROTESTANT MARTYRS Before the Star Inn, Lewes, Sussex on June 22nd 1557." http://www.fotosearch.com/IST524/2321400/ http://www.fotosearch.com/IST501/1151641/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 What Protestant-burning squad would you belong to in 1557 AD, AFC ? Red Herring and way off topic None. Which priests would you have killed?: List of Catholic clerics executed in England 1530 - 1680 1530 - 1560 * Thomas Abel, priest, 1540 * John Allen, priest, 1538 * George Ashby (Asleby), monk, 1537 * Ralph Barnes, monk, 1537 * Elizabeth Barton, Benedictine nun, 1534 * John Beche, Abbot, Chester, 1539 * Thomas Belchiam, Franciscan friar, 1538 * Arthur Bell, Franciscan friar, 1543 * Richard Bere, Carthusian monk, 1537 * Robert Bird, priest, 1540 * William Bird, priest, 1540 * Laurence Blonham, monk, 1537 * Edward Bocking, Benedictine, 1537 * Edmund Brindholme, priest, 1544 * Anthony Brookby, Franciscan, 1538 * Thomas Brownel, Brigittine brother * Edward Burden, priest, 1538 * William Burraby, priest, 1537 * James Cockerell, Prior of Gisborough Priory, 1537 * William Coe, monk, 1537 * Lawrence Cook, Carmelite. Prior of Doncaster Friary, 1540[1] * Richard Coppinger, Benedictine, 1558 * Thomas Cort, Franciscan, 1537[2] * Martin Coudres, Augustinian monk, 1544 * William Cowper, monk, 1537 * George Croft, priest, 1538 * John Davy, Carthusian, 1537 * John Dering, Benedictine, 1537 * John Eastgate, monk, 1537 * Richard Eastgate, monk, 1537 * Thomas Empson, Benedictine, 1540 * William Exmew, Carthusian monk, 1535 * John Eynon, Benedictine monk, 1539 * Hugh Faringdon, Abbot of Reading, 1539 * Richard Featherstone, Archdeacon, 1540 * John Fisher, Saint, Bishop, 1535 * John Forrest, Franciscan friar, 1538 * John Francis, monk, 1537 * German Gardiner, 1548 * Henry Gold, priest, 1537 * William Greenwood, Carthusian brother, 1537 * William Gylham, monk, 1537 * John Haile (or Hale), priest, 1535 * Richard Harrison, Abbot of Jervaulx, 1537 * William Haydock, monk, 1537 * Nicholas Heath, Prior of Lenton, 1537 * John Henmarsh, priest, 1537 * Robert Hobbes, Abbot of Woburn, 1537 * John Houghton, Saint, Carthusian prior, 1535 * John Ireland, priest, 1544 * Roger James, Benedictine, 1539 * Henry Jenkinson, monk, 1537 * Thomas Kendal, priest, 1537 * John Larke, priest, 1543 * Richard Laynton, monk, 1537 * Robert Leeche, layman, 1537 * Hugh Londale, monk, 1537 * Matthew Mackerel, Premonstratensian abbot, titular bishop of Chalcedon, 1537 * James Mallet, priest, 1537 * Richard Masters, priest, 1537 * Humphrey Middlemore, Carthusian monk, 1535 * Sebastian Newdigate, Carthusian monk, 1535 * John Paslew, Abbot of Whatley, 1537 * Paul of Saint William, Augustinian monk, 1544 * William Peterson, priest, 1540 * John Pickering, Benedictine, prior of York, 1537 * John Pickering, priest, 1537 * Walter Pierson, Carthusian, 1537 * Edward Powell, priest, 1540 * Thomas Redforth, priest, 1537 * Hugh Rich, Franciscan friar, 1534 * William Richardson, priest, 1540 * Richard Risby, Franciscan friar, 1534 * John Rochester, Carthusian monk, 1537 * John Rugg, monk, Reading, 1539 * Adam Sedbar, Abbot of Jervaulx, 1537 * Robert Singleton, priest, 1544 * Thomas Slythurst, priest, 1560 * John Stone, Saint, friar, 1538 * William Swale, monk, 1537 * John Tenant, monk, 1537 * John Thorne, monk, Glastonbury, 1539 * William Thyrsk, Cistercian, 1537 * William Trafford, Abbot of Sawley, 1537 * John Travers, monk, 1539 * Richard Wade, monk, 1537 * Friar Waire, Franciscan, 1539 * James Walworth, Carthusian monk, 1537 * Augustine Webster, Saint, Carthusian monk, 1535 * Sister Isabel Whitehead, Benedictine nun * Richard Whiting, Abbot of Glastonbury, 1539 1561 - 1600 * John Ackridge, priest, 1585 * Thomas Ackridge, Franciscan, 1583 * John Adams, priest, 1586 * Thomas Alfield, priest, 1585 * John Almond, Cistercian, 1585 * John Amias, priest, 1589 * Robert Anderton, priest, 1586 * William Andleby, priest, 1597 * William Baldwin (Bawden), priest, 1588 * Christopher Bales, priest, 1590 * Thomas Bedal, priest, 1590 * George Beesley, priest, 1591 * William Blackburne, priest, 1586 * John Bodey, priest, 1583 * John Boste, Saint, priest, 1594 * Richard Bowes, priest, 1590 * John Boxall, priest, 1571 * Alexander Briant, Jesuit priest, 1581 * James Brushford, priest, 1593 * Christopher Buxton, priest, died Canterbury, 1588 * Edmund Campion, Jesuit priest, 1581 * James Claxton (Clarkson), priest, 1588 * James Clayton, priest, 1588 * Henry Cole, priest, 1580 * Laurence Collier, Franciscan, 1590 * John Collins, priest, 1584 * Henry Comberford, priest, 1584 * John Cornelius, Jesuit priest, 1594 * Thomas Cotesmore, priest, 1584 * Thomas Cottam, Jesuit priest, 1582 * Richard Creagh, archbishop of Armagh, 1585 * Ralph Crockett, priest, 1588 * Alexander Crowe, priest, 1587 * Thomas Crowther, priest, 1585 * Robert Dalby, priest, York, 1589 * William Davies, priest, 1594 * William Dean, priest, 1588 * Richard (Robert) Dibdale]], priest, 1586 * Francis Dicconson, priest, 1590 * Roger Dicconson, priest, 1591 * George Douglas, priest, 1587 * Anthony Draycott, priest, 1570 * Edmund Duke, priest, 1590 * Edward Edwardes (alias Campion), priest, 1588 * John Feckenham, Benedictine, abbot of Westminster, 1585 * Thomas Felton, Franciscan, 1588 * James Fenn, priest, 1584 * John Fenwick, Jesuit priest, 1579 * John Finch, 1584 * John Finglow, priest, 1586 * William Freeman, priest, 1595 * Thomas Gabyt, Cistercian, 1575 * Nicholas Garlick, priest, 1588 * Miles Gerard, priest, 1590 * Nicholas Grene, priest, 1571 * - Gretus, priest * John Griffith (alias Jones), Saint, Franciscan friar, 1598 * William Gunter, priest, 1588 * William Hambledon, priest, 1585 * John Hambley, priest, 1587 * Everard Hanse, priest, 1581 * Nicholas Harpsfield, priest, 1575 * William Harrington, priest, 1594 * John Harrison, priest, 1586 * William Harrison, priest, 1594 * William Hart, priest, 1583 * William Hartley, priest, 1588 * Thomas Harwood, priest, 1586 * Richard Hatton, priest, 1584 * George Haydock, priest, 1584 * Thomas Hemerford, priest, 1584 * John Hewitt, priest, 1588 * Richard Hill, priest, 1590 * John Hogg, priest, 1590 * Thomas Holford, priest, 1588 * Richard Holliday, priest, 1590 * Robert Holmes, priest, 1584 * Richard Horner, priest, 1598 * Francis Ingleby, priest, 1586 * John Ingram, priest, 1594 * Edward James, priest, 1588 * Edmund Jennings (Genings), Saint, priest, 1591 * John Jetter, priest, 1585 * Lawrence Johnson, priest, 1582 * Robert Johnson, priest, 1582 * Edward Jones, priest, 1590 * Luke Kirby, Saint, priest, 1582 * Joseph Lambton, priest, 1593 * Richard Leigh, priest, 1588 * James Lomax, priest, 1584 * John Lowe, priest, 1586 * Robert Ludlam, priest, 1588 * William Marsden, priest, 1586 * Roger Martin, priest, 1592 * Cuthbert Mayne, Saint, priest, 1577 * Thomas Metham, Jesuit, 1592 * Anthony Middleton, priest, 1590 * Robert Morton, priest, 1588 * Thomas Mudde, Cistercian, 1583 * John Munden, priest, 1584 * John Nelson, priest, 1577 * George Nichols, priest, 1589 * John Nutter, priest, 1584 * Robert Nutter, priest, 1600 * Edward Oldcorne, Jesuit priest, 1561 * Edward Osbaldeston, priest, 1594 * Antony Page, priest, 1593 * Thomas Palasor, priest, 1600 * William Patenson, priest, 1592 * John Payne, Saint, priest, 1582 * Thomas Pilchard, priest, 1587 * Polydore Plasden, priest, 1591 * Thomas Plumtree, priest, 1570 * Edward Pole, priest, 1585 * Thomas Pormort, priest, 1592 * Alexander Rawlins, priest, 1595 * Christopher Robinson, priest, Carlisle, 1598 * John Robinson, priest, 1588 * John Roche, priest, 1588 * Stephen Rowsham, priest, 1587 * John Sandys, priest, 1586 * Montford Scott, priest, 1591 * Thomas Sedgwick, priest, 1573 * Richard Sergeant, priest, 1586 * Martin Sherson, priest, 1587 * John Shert, priest, 1582 * Peter Snow, priest, 1598 * Robert Southwell, priest, 1595 * William Spenser, priest, 1589 * Thomas Sprott, priest, 1600 * James Stonnes, priest, 1585 * John Story, Chancellor to Bishop Bonner, 1571 * Edward Stransham, priest, 1586 * Robert Sutton, priest, 1587 * Edmund Sykes, priest, 1587 * Robert Sympson (or Richard Sympson), priest, 1588 * Gabriel Thimelby, priest, 1587 * Richard Thirkeld, priest, 1583 * James Thompson, priest, York, 1582 * John Thompson, Jesuit * William Thomson, priest, 1586 * Hugh Taylor, priest, York, 1585 * Robert Thorpe, priest, 1591 * Edward Thwing, priest, 1600 * Lawrence Vaux, priest, 1585 * Roger Wakeman, priest, 1584 * Sir Edward Waldegrave, 1561 * Henry Walpole, Saint, priest, 1595 * Edward Waterson, priest, 1593 * William Way (alias May or Flower), priest, 1588 * Swithin Wells, priest, 1591 * Richard Weston, Jesuit * Christopher Wharton, priest, 1600 * Eustace White, priest, 1591 * Robert Wilcox, priest, 1588 * Richard Williams, priest, 1592 * Thomas Wood, priest, 1588 * John Woodcock, Franciscan, 1646 * Nicholas Woodfen, priest, 1586 * Richard Yaxley, priest, 1589 1601 - 1680 * Placid Aldham (Adelham), Benedictine, 1679 * William Allison, priest, 1681 * John Almond, Saint, priest, 1612 * Edmund Arrowsmith, Jesuit priest, 1628 * Ralph Ashley, Jesuit priest, 1606 * William Atkins, Jesuit, 1681 * Nicholas Atkinson, priest, 1610 * Thomas Atkinson, priest, 1616 * Edward Bamber, priest, 1646 * Mark Barkworth, Benedictine, 1601 * Ambrose Edward Barlow, Saint, priest, 1641 * Thomas Bedingfeld, Jesuit, 1678 * William Bentney (alias Bennet), Jesuit, 1692 * Richard Birkett, priest, 1680 * Thomas Blount, priest, 1647 * Richard Bradley, Jesuit, 1645 * Matthew Brazier (alias Grimes), Jesuit, 1650 * James Brown, Benedictine, 1645 * Thomas Bullaker, priest, 1642 * Roger Cadwallador, priest, 1610 * Edmund Cannon, priest, 1651 * Brian Cansfield, Jesuit, 1643 * Edmund Catheriok, priest, 1642 * Walter Coleman, Franciscan, 1645 * Benedict Constable, Benedictine, 1683 * Ralph Corbie, Jesuit, 1644 * Robert Cox, Benedictine, 1650 * Christopher Dixon, Augustinian, 1616 * Robert Drury, priest, 1607 * John Duckett, priest, 1644 * Thomas Dyer, Benedictine, c.1618-1630 * Robert Edmonds, Benedictine, 1615 * Philip Evans, Jesuit, 1679 * Roger Filcock, priest, 1601 * Matthew Flathers, priest, 1607 * Thomas Foster (Forster), Jesuit, 1648 * Andrew Fryer (alias Herne or Richmond), priest, 1651 * Henry Garnet, Jesuit, 1606 * Thomas Garnet, Saint, Jesuit priest, 1608 * John Gavan, Jesuit priest, 1679 * John Gerard (Jesuit), priest, Jesuit, 1637 * George Gervase, Benedictine, 1608 * John Goodman (Jesuit), priest, 1645 * Hugh Green, priest, 1642 * William Harcourt, Jesuit, 1679 * James Harrison, priest, 1602 * Hebry Heath, Franciscan friar, 1643 * Ildephonse Hesketh (alias William Hanson), Benedictine, 1644 * Thomas Holland, priest, 1642 * Thomas Hunt, priest, 1600 * Thurstan Hunt, priest, 1601 * William Ireland, Jesuit priest, 1679 * Thomas Jennison, Jesuit, 1679 * John Kemble, Saint, priest, 1679 * David Joseph Kemys (Kemeys), monk, 1680 * Richard Lacey, Jesuit, 1680 * Francis Levison, Franciscan, 1679 * David Lewis, Jesuit, 1679 * John Lloyd, Saint, priest, 1679 * William Lloyd, priest, 1679 * John Lockwood, priest, 1642 * Laurence Mabbs, Benedictine, 1641 * Charles Mahoney (alias Meehan), Franciscan friar, 1679 * Thomas Maxfield, priest, 1616 * Edward Mico, Jesuit, 1678 * Robert Middleton, priest, 1601 * William Middleton (alias Heathcote), Benedictine, 1644 * Thomas Molineux, Jesuit, 1681 * Edward Morgan, priest, 1642 * Henry Morse, Saint, Jesuit priest, 1645 * George Napper, priest, Oxford, 1610 * Francis Nevil, Jesuit, 1679 * Richard Newport, priest, 1612 * Francis Page, Jesuit, 1602 * Placid Peto, Benedictine, 1642-1643 * John Pibush, priest, 1601 * Thomas Pickering, Benedictine, 1679 * William Plessington, priest, 1679 * Nicholas Postgate, priest, 1679 * Philip Powel, Benedictine, 1646 * Thomas Preston (alias Roger Widdrington), Benedictine, 1640 * Francis Quashet, priest, 1642 * Thomas Reynolds (alias Green), priest, 1642 * William Richardson, priest, 1603 * John Roberts, Saint, Benedictine, 1610 * Alban Bartholomew Roe, Saint, Benedictine monk, 1642 * William Scot (Maurus Scott) 1612 * Thomas Somers, priest, 1610 * William Southerne, priest, 1618 * Saint John Southworth, priest, 1654 * John Sugar, priest, 1604 * John Thulis, priest, 1616 * Thomas Thwing, priest, 1679 * Thomas Tichborne, priest, 1602 * Cuthbert Tunstall, priest, 1616 * Thomas Tunstall, priest, 1616 * Anthony Turner, Jesuit, 1679 * Edward Turner, Jesuit, 1681 * John Wall, Saint, Franciscan friar, 1679 * William Ward, Saint, priest, 1641 * Robert Watkinson, priest, 1602 * Thomas Whitaker, priest, 1646 * Thomas Whitbread, Jesuit, 1679 * Edward Wilkes, priest, 1642 * Thomas Woodhouse, priest, 1572 * Peter Wright, Jesuit, 1651 No precise date of martyrdom available * Richard Adams, priest * Thomas Belser, priest * William Bannersley, priest * Humphrey Browne, Jesuit * George ab Alba Rose, Augustinian * James Gerard, priest * John Hudd, Jesuit * Thomas Moyne * John Pearson, priest * John Penketh, Jesuit * Cuthbert Prescott, Jesuit * Ignatius Price, Jesuit * Charles Pritchard, Jesuit * Thomas Ridall, priest * John Rivers (alias Austen Abbot), priest * Francis Simeon, Jesuit * James Swarbrick, priest * Charles Thursley, Jesuit * Thomas Vaughan, priest * John Young, priest * Boniface Wilford, Benedictine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catho...ish_Reformation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 All men are born equal. Period. (or as you say: "End of story.") Yep. Holy Orders is a gift and not a right. No one has a right to be a priest, but is a gift from God. 1591 The whole Church is a priestly people. Through Baptism all the faithful share in the priesthood of Christ. This participation is called the "common priesthood of the faithful." Based on this common priesthood and ordered to its service, there exists another participation in the mission of Christ: the ministry conferred by the sacrament of Holy Orders, where the task is to serve in the name and in the person of Christ the Head in the midst of the community. 1592 The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). TWO DIFFERENT PRIESTHOODS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Red Herring and way off topic None. Which priests would you have killed?: List of Catholic clerics executed in England 1530 - 1680 <ETC> AFC, I don't know how you can complain about red herrings when you yourself shelter in shoals of them regularly. And do you even know what 'the topic' is? I doubt that I would have killed any Priests. I wouldn't have been interested enough unless defending my own life. Unlike you I won't subject readers to yards of unnecessary cut and paste. Instead I'll keep it short: After the accession of Queen Mary I to the English throne in 1553, and Mary’s subsequent decree of Catholicism, Protestants faced a choice: exile, conversion, or punishment.[2] Several of those who remained in England to profess and defend their Protestant beliefs would be burned as martyrs in the four-year-long Marian Persecutions. All told, some 284 Protestants (56 of them women) were executed; 30 died in prison, but the majority of the 284 were burned alive.[3] While the so-called “Marian Persecutions” began with four clergymen,[4] relics of Edwardian England’s Protestantism, the detailed record of events Foxe’s Book of Martyrs illustrates the full extent of the burnings, which branched well beyond the anticipated targets - high-level clergy. Tradesmen were also burned, as well as married men and women, sometimes in unison; at least one couple was burned alive with their daughter.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Persecutions Besides, the English experience pales into insignificance compared with deaths of some 25,000 Huguenots (Protestants) in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572 at the hands of French Catholic forces. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/St+Bartholo...;s+Day+Massacre Let's see you trivialize that as an 'isolated incident'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yep. Holy Orders is a gift and not a right. No one has a right to be a priest, but is a gift from God. So the Pope's popeship is a 'gift from God? I suppose all those little puffs of black or white smoke from the Vatican chimney were Divine too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 So the Pope's popeship is a 'gift from God? I suppose all those little puffs of black or white smoke from the Vatican chimney were Divine too?� Investigate how Mathias was chosen and get back with me. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not running any errands for you, AFC. Explain yourself or hold your peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 AFC, I don't know how you can complain about red herrings when you yourself shelter in shoals of them regularly. And do you even know what 'the topic' is? I doubt that I would have killed any Priests. I wouldn't have been interested enough unless defending my own life. Then why the cheap shot? Unlike you I won't subject readers to yards of unnecessary cut and paste. Instead I'll keep it short: Besides, the English experience pales into insignificance compared with deaths of some 25,000 Huguenots (Protestants) in the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre of 1572 at the hands of French Catholic forces. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/St+Bartholo...;s+Day+Massacre Let's see you trivialize that as an 'isolated incident'. You act as though the protestants are some kind of innocent figures in history.....wrong. They are responsible for much killing. Besides, it was the CHURCH OF ENGLAND that killed those Catholic Martyrs in England, ordered by Henry the VIII, the first leader of it. It was the French government that killed those people in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 I'm not running any errands for you, AFC. Explain yourself or hold your peace. You apparently don't know what you are talking about in that snide remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 What Church would you belong to before 1000 AD? How about 400 AD? Discuss. THE SECT THAT RECORDED THE "DEAD SEA SCROLLS" WHICH RECORDED THE WORD OF GOD AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CATHOLICS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 THE SECT THAT RECORDED THE "DEAD SEA SCROLLS" WHICH RECORDED THE WORD OF GOD AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CATHOLICS!! Ummmm......no fooling....They were JEWS John 4:21-24 JESUS DECLARED, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; WE WORSHIP what we do know, for SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS. Yet a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=NIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Ummmm......no fooling....They were JEWS John 4:21-24 JESUS DECLARED, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; WE WORSHIP what we do know, for SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS. Yet a time is coming and HAS NOW COME when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth." http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...amp;version=NIV Who wrote that? Not Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.