*BEST OF DTB #190* The Catholic Defender: In Memory of an Older Brother

Posted by John Benko - May 28th, 2012

Growing up, I didn’t really get the chance to get to know my oldest Brother, David.

He was 6 years older than I was and very involved in sports when I was still in grade school. David was a standout wrestler and football player.

I grew up following his footsteps in playing sports, but I never had some of the opportunities he had, especially football.

He was a great football player who had much potential, almost went into pro-football before he joined the Marine Corps.

The Marines changed is life forever. He served in Viet Nam and been in several skirmishes, my Mother spoke of the time he had been lost in the jungle getting separated from his patrol due to a “Firefight”.

He had to survive and make his way back while being in enemy territory. That was never easy as you could not light a fire in the bush, you could invite someone you do not want to welcome into your camp. Plus there are alot of traps set out that could kill you in the jungle.

David would survive Viet Nam, but he didn’t survive the anti-war climate that was everywhere. When David’s enlistment was completed, he began going to a local college trying get his life back in order. Everytime he would drive into town, the local police would always mess with him. They would harass him, reminding me of the movie, “First Blood” with Sylvester Stallone.

David would end up moving away from home (Missouri) going ultimately to Seattle Washington where he began working at a hospital helping the physical therepy department.

After about two years David was planning to get married. Unfortunately, he was killed before the marriage.

The killers were never found but David is not forgotten. His family still remembers and honors his service to this Country and this Memorial Day I want to say this prayer on his behalf:

I saw a soldier kneeling down,
for this was the first quiet place he had found.
He had traveled through jungles, rivers and mud
He’d tasted sweat and shed his blood.

He folded his hands and looked to the sky
I saw his tears, as they welled in his eyes.
He spoke to God, and this is what he said.
“God Bless my men, who now lie dead;

I know not what You have in mind,
but when You judge them, please be kind
when they come before You, they will be poorly dressed
but they’ll walk proudly, for they have done their best.

Their boots will be muddy and their clothes all torn
but these clothes they have so proudly worn.
Their hearts will be still and cold inside,
for they have fought their best and did so with pride.

So please take care of them as they pass Your way
the price of freedom they’ve already paid.”


Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #188* Show Notes: The Catholic Defender: The Eucharist

Posted by John Benko - May 18th, 2012

These show notes correspond to this Blog Talk radio debate

I will begin by telling of the Promise God made through the Prophet Jeremiah. To understand this promise, it is important to understand something of this time period. Not far from Jerusalem was a place called “Ramah” very close to Bethlehem.
Ramah would become the staging area for the Jewish slaves taken into captivity to Babylon. The lamentation of the people was heard from heaven and God made this promise.

Jeremiah 31:31-34 says, “”Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

St. Matthew recalls how terrible the lamentation was saying, “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they were no more” (Matthew 2:18).

King Herod attempted to kill Baby Jesus in Bethlehem and in doing so killed all the baby boys two years old and younger. Bethlehem means “house of bread”.
Matthew 26:28 said “This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting Covenant, it will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven, do this in memory of me”. Jesus established the covenant of Jeremiah. When you go to Communion, you renew the Covenant with Him.

Heaven gives a very important picture through the prayer of the Angel of Portugal in 1916: “The Angel held a consecrated Host and the chalice, leaving this suspended in the air, the Angel bowed down low before the Eucharist praying these words, “O most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore you profoundly, I offer you the most precious body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in preparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which he is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg the conversion of poor sinners”.

I am reminded of some of the Old Testament types: Melchizedek,” king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High.” This prefigures Jesus Christ who is the King of Heaven who offers this living Bread which comes down from heaven.

The controversy over ‘the breaking of bread’ begins with Jesus and his early followers during Christ’s ‘bread of life’ discourse. Some of his followers began to fall away (John 5:22-59). The Apostles themselves began to question this amongst themselves (John 6:60-70).

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (John 6:53-54). (According to Robert Sungenis, “The word used in John 6:54, 56-58, when Jesus says to eat his flesh and drink his blood is an important matter to consider when doing exegesis of the passage. The word to eat, trogo, means to gnaw, crunch, so showing the physical reality, and showing the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist”.

Jesus often explained his parables to his disciples. In the case of the breaking of bread, Jesus reaffirms and clarifies his teaching (John 6:53-58). Jesus directly asks the Apostles if they too would like to leave (John 6:67).

Every Believer should respond with St. Peter as he states, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life….” (John 6:68).

The Bread of life discourse was given on Passover (John 6:4) which was no accident. The Mass would be the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover.

In the days of Moses, manna was God’s provision for food for the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness. In John 6, however, Jesus claimed to be the true manna, the bread of heaven. With this statement Jesus claimed to be God’s full provision for salvation.

Manna was God’s provision of deliverance from starvation. Jesus is God’s provision of deliverance from damnation. Just as the manna had to be consumed to preserve the lives of the Israelites, so Jesus has to be consumed (fully received by faith) for salvation to be received.

At the words of Jesus, Judas began to break (John 6:64-71), and he broke the night it was given (John 13:21-30). Judas would be the first to leave Mass early.

The Eucharist is the sign of the Lord’s Covenant, is the pure offering spoken of by the Prophet Malachi. It is written, “For from the rising of the sun, even to its setting, my name is great among the nations; and everywhere they bring sacrifice to my name, and a pure offering: For great is my name among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.

The Israelites were commanded by God to eat the unleavened bread for seven days which would become a sign as a memorial between the Lord and his people (Exodus 13:9).

The first Passover was instituted by God as a perpetual feast. The Cup of blessing which we bless was the third cup in the Passover meal.

Exodus 35:10 says, “And let every able man among you come and make all that the Lord has commanded: the tabernacle, its tent and its covering….” Consider Hebrews 13:10-14, “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. The bodies of the animals whose blood the high priest brings into the sanctuary as a sin offering are burned outside the camp. Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore.”

As the Israelite were saved from the Angel of Death by the blood of innocent spotless lambs blood applied on the lintel and two doorposts using a hyssop branch, the spotless Lamb of God was crucified between two thieves shedding his blood on behalf of all the world.

After receiving wine offered on a hyssop branch, Jesus from the cross says ”It is finished” marking the end of the old Covenant and the beginning of the new Covenant.

It was here that Jesus transforms the Passover to the Mass. He received the cup that sealed the end of the Old Covenant, it is finished. The priesthood of Levi is no more. It was destroyed at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. Just as Jesus predicted it would. The Catholic Priesthood now serves the tabernacle not holding the burned offering of animals, but the glorified risen Christ, the Eucharist.

From this point on the Mass have become the center of Christian worship. The means by which Gods people can renew the new and everlasting Covenant. From the earliest times, “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of bread and to the prayers” (Acts 2:42).

“On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread…”, St. Paul raised Eutychus from the dead, then returned, “broke the bread, and ate; after a long conversation that lasted until daybreak, he departed” (Acts 20:7,11).

I often refer to this scene as the first recorded Midnight Mass! St. Paul refers to the “breaking of bread” and the cup of the “new covenant” saying, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26).

From the very beginning, the Mass (liturgy of the word and the Eucharist) was the center of Christian worship.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17; “the chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all which partake of one bread.”

St. Paul continues, “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons”.

It is interesting that St. Paul referred to the cup as the “cup of blessing”! The cup of blessing was the third cup in the Passover meal. The fourth cup Jesus postponed until he was on the cross.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

The New Testament Scripture makes clear that the apostles recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread (Luke 24:35). St. Paul wrote that if you didn’t recognize Jesus’ body in the breaking of bread, “you bring judgment to yourself” (I Corinthians 11:29). The other apostles were in unison with this teaching (Acts 2:42-47).

The language ties in perfectly with the aforementioned statement of the apostle Paul: “present your bodies as a living sacrifice; holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12:1).

Jesus said, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will enter his house and will dine with him, and he with me. I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself first won the victory and sit with my Father on his throne.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch ordained as Bishop by the Apostle Peter, urged believers to “partake of one Eucharist, for one is the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one the cup to unite us with His blood.” St. Ignatius also warned the Ephesians that if they “abstain from the Eucharistic Celebration because of their doubts; they will die in their doubts.” During the middle of the second century, St. Justin the Martyr states, “on the day which is called ‘Sunday,’ we have a common assembly….The Eucharistic elements are distributed and consumed.”

This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning: In the Eucharist, Jesus Christ is truly present; body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus instructed the Apostles to proclaim this fact (Matthew 28:16-20).

As the Church grew under persecution during the first three centuries, the pagans thought we were cannibals because of false rumors and misrepresentations that were spread about the Christians. The Mass was done in secret because it was against Roman law.

In the year 258 A. D., Tarcisius, a young boy became the first martyr for the Eucharist. While taking consecrated Hosts to Christians in prison, he was caught and killed by Roman soldiers. They could not open his hands which held the Blessed Sacrament. Our Lord was not desecrated and clearly Tarcisius recognized Jesus in the breaking of bread.

A Eucharistic miracle occurred in early 700 A. D. A priest began to have doubts about the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. To show the priest the error of his ways, the Host transformed into flesh and the wine transformed into blood during the moment of consecration.

This act of God is known as ‘The Miracle of Lanciano’ and is kept in the Church of St. Francis, Italy. Millions of pilgrims have traveled to this site to view this now 1300-year old miracle. The Vatican recently ordered an investigation. A number of medical professionals from respected universities such as Turin and Florence spent two years conducting a thorough investigation.
They determined the flesh to be cardiac, i.e., from the heart. Furthermore, rigor mortis had not occurred, implying that the heart tissue was yet living. The examiners called it ‘incorrupt.’ The blood (which had coagulated into five blood clots as the centuries passed) was determined to be in a petrified state, but upon liquefaction of a particle of the blood, tests showed that protein and chemical compounds were wholly present.

The blood type is AB positive, the same type blood discovered on the shroud of Turin, the fabric that served Jesus Christ as His burial cloth. Another unique finding was that the blood revealed it held a feminine characteristic. What is interesting about that point is Jesus had no earthly Father. He got his DNA from His Mother, Mary.

I use to serve as an NCOIC of a Troop Medical Clinic, I was responsible for all the lab, including the drawing of blood for all kinds of testing. I went to our local hospital and ask what happens to the blood when exposed to air.

I found that blood begins to decompose after 15 minutes. Blood in test tubes is only good for a few hours. With refrigeration, blood is good for 30 days. The red blood cells begin to die after this period of time.

The blood and flesh of the ‘Miracle of Lanciano’ has been exposed to the elements for 1300 years, two of those years under intense biochemical observation. There is no natural explanation for ‘The Miracle of Lanciano.’

Some two hundred years after the Lanciano miracle occurred, controversy again appeared. A monk named Ratramnus, in 868 A. D. claimed that the Eucharist could not be the historical Jesus. He believed that it was symbolic rather than corporeal. His teaching was condemned at the Synod of Vercelli.

In 1079, Archdeacon Berenger of Tours favored Ratramnus position, but he later recanted, or repented, to Pope Gregory VII. Other men that would challenge church teaching on the Eucharist prior to the Protestant Reformation were Peter Waldo, founder of the Waldensian heresy, and priests such as John Huss and John Wycliffe.

The latter two were condemned at the Council of Constance in 1415 A. D. During the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation, no one challenged the church on the Eucharist like John Calvin, nor had his impact. Calvin claimed that the Eucharist was merely a memorial and cited Luke 22:19, “do this in memory of me.” His position is held yet today by most fundamental Protestant groups.

The Catholic Church maintains that “in memory” of His death and resurrection, we proclaim the “death of the Lord until He comes” again in glory (I Corinthians 11:26). In our generation, many Catholics appear to have lost faith in the real presence, thus fulfilling the word expressed in I Timothy 4:1-5.

Like the Disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Church has recognized the Lord in the ‘breaking of bread’ for almost 2000 years. It has His protection (Matthew 16:18), His promise (Matthew 28:20, and His Spirit (John 14:15-26).

“Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I go over there and pray’. He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to feel sorrow and distress. Then he said to them, ‘My soul is sorrowful even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me’. He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will’. When he returned to his disciples he found them asleep. He said to Peter, ‘So you could not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:36-41).

We are living in a time when many are asleep and will unfortunately undergo the test. Many will fail this test because they are asleep. Sin is dominated in their life. Jesus warns “But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth” (Luke 18:8).

St. Paul encourages us saying, “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:14).

Pope John Paul II said during his trip to Korea, “It is most fitting that my first stop among the Korean people should be in a church such as this, where the minds and hearts of the faithful are constantly raised up in adoration before Christ in the Most Holy Eucharist” (Seoul Korea, October 7, 1989).

Psalms 119:97-104 states, “How I love your teaching, Lord! I study it all day long. Your command makes me wiser than my foes, for it is always with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers, because I ponder your decrees. I have more insight than my elders, because I observe your precepts. I keep my steps from every evil path, that I may obey your word. From your edicts I do not turn, for you have taught them to me. How sweet to my tongue is your promise, sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through your precepts I gain insight; therefore I hate all false ways”.

Ephesians 5:14 says, “Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light”.

Vatican II said, “The Eucharist is the source and summit of all preaching of the Gospel”, the Catholic Church has the ability to turn the tide for the good that God wants to bestow upon His people. Jesus wants to bless you with great graces.

Philippians 4:4-9 says, “Rejoice in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice! Your kindness should be known to all. The Lord is near. Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God. Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing what you have learned and received and heard and seen in me. Then the God of peace will be with you”.

Every Catholic Church has the opportunity to spend time with the tabernacle; the faithful has the direct source where Jesus is truly present.

The Eucharist is the bread that came down from heaven. Jesus is our thanksgiving!

The prayer of the Angel of Portugal given to the Children of Fatima: “My God, I believe, I adore, I trust and I love you! I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust and do not love you”.

A true Christian is one who believes that Jesus is alive today in the Blessed Sacrament. Jesus is truly there in the tabernacle.
I have had the opportunity to go to Mass in Latin America, all over the United States, Europe, Korea, the Middle East and no matter where I have been, the Lord’s Mass is totally unified with the Church of Rome. From Jesus through his apostles, it has always been this way.

The Church in the early years had to hold Mass in secret for fear of the Jews and then of the Romans. Mass would be held at homes where people would gather. Catacombs and caves were other places that the Christians held Mass. I was in a 2nd/3rd century Catacomb is located in Salzburg Austria. I had the chance to visit this site where the early Christian celebrated Mass.There is a grave site where the Priest, Father Maximus was martyred by the Romans.They still have original utensils and altar used by the Christians when you go up into the Catacomb. I had the chance to go in there and you can feel the reverence of the praise of voices long ago.

About 140 A.D., a convert to the Catholic Faith would write about his experience of the Mass. St. Justin Martyr wrote the following:
No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.
We do not consume the Eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.
On Sunday we have a common assembly of all our members, whether they live in the city or the outlying districts.
The recollections of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as there is time. When the reader has finished, the president of the assembly speaks to us; he urges everyone to imitate the examples of virtue we have heard in the readings.
Then we all stand up together and pray.
The wealthy, if they wish, may make a contribution, and they themselves decide the amount. The collection is placed in the custody of the president, who uses it to help the orphans and widows and all who for any reason are in distress, whether because they are sick, in prison, or away from home. In a word, he takes care of all who are in need.
We hold our common assembly on Sunday because it is the first day of the week, the day on which God put darkness and chaos to flight and created the world, and because on that same day our savior Jesus Christ rose from the dead. For he was crucified on Friday and on Sunday he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them the things that we have passed on for your consideration”.

Jesus Christ is this “pure offering”. The sacrifice is the Mass, Jesus offers himself to the Father in an unbloodied sacrifice, a perpetual Sacrament offered continually.
Jesus died only once and for all, but the efficacy of that sacrifice is presented in the Mass.

“Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) means the change of the substance of host bread and sacramental wine into the substance of the Body and Blood (respectively)[1] of Jesus in the Eucharist, while all that is accessible to the senses (accidents) remains as before”.

From the Didache, “Let no one eat or drink of the Eucharist with you except those who have been baptized in the Name of the Lord,” for it was in reference to this that the Lord said, “Do not give that which is holy to dogs.” Matthew 7:6

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, “I desire the bread of GOD, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ”.St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote (106 A.D.) “stand aloof from such heretics”, because, among other reasons, “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”

St. Justin Martyr wrote (150 A.D.), “Not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”

St. Justin Martyr wrote, “Now it is evident, that in this prophecy to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom also He suffered; and to the cup which He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving of thanks.”

This is the Catholic Church, this is the Kingdom of God on earth, this is the New Testament based from the New and Everlasting Covenant established by our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Virgin Mary appearing at Fatima Portugal echoes Hebrews 13:18, “Pray for us, for we are confident that we have a clear conscience, wishing to act rightly in every respect. I especially ask for your prayers that I may be restored to you very soon”. Mary would warn us not to judge a Priest, but to pray for them. There would be Priests that will displease our Lord. They will face judgment and they need our prayers. As we go forward through the Church year, remember to pray and obey our leaders (Hebrews 13:17).

1. Since you do not hold yourself 100% infallible, how can you be sure of your opinion on the Eucharist?

2. Which Council or Pope do you think invented the teaching on the Eucharist?

 3. What does the Covenant mean to you, how do you renew it?

4. Name someone in the second or third century who believed as you believe on the Eucharist?

5. Do you crucify Christ every time you repent, do you take this as sacrificing the Lord on your “Altar”?

On September 16, 2007 while deployed to Iraq, I was preparing a number of Soldiers who were going to receive their first Holy Communion. I wrote this piece:
This morning went very well, but it had a couple of twists! It begins when one of the Candidates arrives with their sponsor. Being cordial, I simply asked him how long he had been in Iraq. He responded that he had been here almost 9 months. I asked him what Mass he went to because I never seen him before.

At this point, he admitted that he had not been to Mass since he got here. I was surprised by that and asked him how he hadn’t been to Mass in 9 months, what kind of missions did he do that kept him from going. He admitted he just preferred to sleep in on Sunday.

Considering we have Mass at Division at 10:30 and at Warrior chapel at 13:00 I began to challenge him. I noticed he had no wedding ring, but I asked him if he planned to get married some day. He responded yes! I asked him if he would want to kiss his wife when he got married.

He said all the time. I asked him what he would think if his wife would tell him she would kiss him once a year, on their Wedding anniversary or perhaps on another special day of the year. He looked at me like that would not fly well with him.

Then I told him he was acting like the wife to the Lord. I told him that Matthew 26:28 said “This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting Covenant, it will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven, do this in memory of me”. When you go to Communion, you renew the Covenant with Him.

At this point, Father just entered and I told him he needed to go to Confession. He was very surprised, but he was glad to go with Father. He came back a few minutes later actually feeling much better and glad he went. It was a great moment as it was good for our converts to see.

The other situation occurred when I was reminding those receiving their first communion that the Priest was going to say, “The body of Christ” and they were to respond, “Amen”. I then stated that in doing so, you are receiving the actual body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ. That it wasn’t symbolic as John Calvin had taught, but it was real.

At this point, I was getting ready to place everyone in line for procession when the Division “Protestant” Chaplain called me into another room and told me to have a seat. As I sat down he asked me what I thought of Jack Chick? I responded to him that Jack Chick is a liar, gave him the example about his story of Alberto Rivera who claimed to be ordained a Catholic Priest in Spain to undermine Protestant churches in Brazil.

I told him that “Christianity Today”, a respected Protestant magazine exposed the story as Alberto Rivera was actually in a Protestant seminary in Jamaica, married with two children. Jack Chick is a liar as there are many such examples. Plus he preaches hate towards Catholics.

I then compared it to the Chaplain telling him that if I planted falsehoods about his church carrying bombs in their basements with the purpose of attacking Washington D.C., I’d be doing his religion an injustice.

I don’t think the Chaplain expected this kind of response from me. He didn’t like my reference to John Calvin, but I did not speak ill of Calvin here, nor did I speak a falsehood about him. I was merely reinforcing the truth of the Gospel and giving the distinction.

I told Father about it later, he said this was the same Protestant Chaplain that was giving him a problem. He was also the same one who tried to make it difficult to pray the rosary and hold a Catholic Bible study.

I think he wants a generic Christianity that has no differences or not distinctions. I thought it was weird, especially since he did this right before Mass causing us to begin late.
In remembering this story, it reminds me of the importance of the Mass that we must be in the state of Grace when we receive the Eucharist.

The Catholic Church maintains that “in memory” of His death and resurrection, we proclaim the “death of the Lord until He comes” again in glory (I Corinthians 11:26). In our generation, many Catholics appear to have lost faith in the real presence, thus fulfilling the word expressed in I Timothy 4:1-5.

Like the Disciples on the road to Emmaus, the Church has recognized the Lord in the ‘breaking of bread’ for almost 2000 years. It has His protection (Matthew 16:18), His promise (Matthew 28:20, and His Spirit (John 14:15-26).

The question of the Eucharist is really a question of belief. Each Christian must choose to believe God, or choose to believe man. Our Lord Jesus Christ claims His presence in the Eucharist. Whom will you believe?

“Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I go over there and pray’. He took along Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to feel sorrow and distress. Then he said to them, ‘My soul is sorrowful even to death. Remain here and keep watch with me’. He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, ‘My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will’. When he returned to his disciples he found them asleep. He said to Peter, ‘So you could not keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray that you may not undergo the test. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:36-41).

We are living in a time when many are asleep and will unfortunately undergo the test. Many will fail this test because they are asleep. Sin is dominate in their life. Jesus warns “But when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth” (Luke 18:8).

St. Paul encourages us saying, “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known the sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:14).

Is this George? George, you need to be careful when you speak against sacred objects and call them graven images!

The Eucharist and the True Meaning of the Body and Blood of Christ
May 18, 2012
By George Lujack
The Catholic Church teaches that when Christ served the bread and wine at His last supper, He did so literally, miraculously transforming the bread and wine into His actual flesh and blood, which was then consumed by the Apostles.
MATTHEW 26:25-26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
MARK 14:22-24:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And He said to them, “This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.”
LUKE 22:19-20:
And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
In reality, the Catholic Church uses what Christ called His New Covenant to establish their Eucharist Doctrine. The self-serving purpose of the Eucharist is to empower the Catholic organization. It is taught that God only works through the Catholic Church and her priests, who have been given sole authority to dispense communion wafers and wine that blessed and are magically transformed to Christ’s actual flesh and blood upon consumption.
In reality, the Eucharist has been set up as a graven image idol in the Catholic Church. They proclaim that the wafer is God, or God is in the wafer. The Catholic Church keeps their flock in spiritual darkness by continually feeding them a wafer as a sacrificial offering for their sins.

The Catholic Church uses communion as a tool to strike fear and servitude into their parishioners. The fear is that if you do not receive your weekly communion – your sins will not be properly cleansed. The servitude is to continually attend mass so that you never miss receiving your wafer for the continual cleansing of your sin.

Is this what Jesus meant, for Christians to literally eat His body, and to literally drink His blood? Did Jesus mean for us to repeatedly sacrifice Himself as a “bloodless” offering? NO!

Bloodless offerings are not respected by the Lord and are completely worthless.
And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. 
The Lord did not respect Cain and his bloodless offering and the Lord does not respect the bloodless offering known as the Eucharist. Why was Cain’s offering and why is the offering known as the Eucharist not acceptable to the Lord? The Lord accepted the blood of animals as a temporary atonement for sin. An offering of fruit, a bloodless sacrifice, was not unacceptable. The Eucharist – another type of bloodless offering is not acceptable. Only blood can be used to atone for sin (Leviticus 1). No blood = no atonement.

Furthermore, sacrificial offerings of clean animals were temporary measures to atone for sin until the blood of Jesus Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot, gave His life as the once-and-forever substitute sacrificial offering for mankind (1 Peter 1:19). Jesus permanently paid for the remission of sin, therefore there are to be no more sacrifices or offerings for sin, as sacrificial offerings have been rendered obsolete (Hebrews 10:1-18).

The Catholic Church offers up a man-made communion wafer as a weekly bloodless offering, in the same manner that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Catholic priests stand ministering daily, offering the same sacrifices that can never take away sin, as Jewish priests had done so before them – Hebrews 10:11.

The Last Supper bread and wine serving WAS NOT meant as the actual sacrificial offering. Christ Himself was the sacrificial offering and the bread and wine served was a symbolic memorial of Christ’s sacrifice.

Jesus proclaimed that He did not come to abolish OT law, but came to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17-19). Therefore, the transubstantiation doctrine – an interpretation that one literally ‘eats’ the body and ‘drinks’ the blood of Christ” is NOT POSSIBLE. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood would either abolish or violate God’s PERPETUAL dietary commandments. It would make Christians that partook literal cannibals and blood drinking vampires.
It shall be a PERPETUAL statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood.
Jesus never sinned and could never advocate others to sin. Jesus never broke His laws and would never instruct others to do so. Christ was without sin and He did not abolish His laws; therefore the transubstantiation doctrine is proved false.

Does Christ have the power to transform bread into flesh and wine into blood? Absolutely. Christ turned water into wine at the wedding at Cana. But He could not have done so at His Last Supper, as this would have caused His disciples to have sinned. Christ does not lead people to sin and death, but towards truth and life. Peter, long after the Last Supper, stated that He had never eaten anything unclean in Acts 10:14. Peter did not eat human flesh or drink human blood at Christ’s Last Supper.

For those who stubbornly insist that Jesus was speaking literally, consider this; Christ said “This IS My Body; this IS My blood.” Jesus DID NOT say that this bread will BECOME My body and this wine will BECOME My blood after you eat and drink it, as the transubstantiation doctrine maintains. For those who wish to take Christ’s words at His Last Supper as being literal, examine Christ’s words and compare them to the transubstantiation doctrine and see this contradiction for yourself.

There is no scientific evidence that a man-made communion wafer or wine offered in communion is, or transforms, into human flesh and blood in the human digestive tract as the transubstantiation doctrine proclaims.

Jesus said that He is the bread of life (John 6:33,35,48,51). Jesus further illustrates that He is not literal bread, but He is the bread (substance) of God who comes down from heaven and gives life (eternal life) to the world. If anyone eats of THIS BREAD he shall live forever; and the bread that Christ gave is His flesh, which He gave for the life of the world.

JOHN 6:58:
This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

Here Jesus proclaims that this bread is Himself, who came down from heaven. It is not physical bread that the fathers of Israel ate, and are now dead. Like the manna, the Eucharist communion wafer is physical bread, something that people eat and will die.

JOHN 6:63:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.”

Here we have Jesus fully explaining that the bread He speaks of is His Spirit that gives life. Jesus’ words ARE this bread. Jesus’ words ARE spirit and they ARE life. The Eucharist is not this bread. The Eucharist wafer is physical bread that is consumed by the mortal man.

The Eucharist wafer is not Christ’s actual literal flesh. Christ did not “give” this wafer to us, but the Catholic Church ordered these wafers manufactured. The Eucharist wafer did not come down from heaven, but was made in a factory somewhere on earth. This bread that Christ speaks of, cannot be literally eaten, for whoever physically eats the communion wafer, still physically dies.

This once again proves that Catholicism is inconsistent, picking and choosing what Christ said was literal, as they proclaim “This is My body, this is My blood,” as literal, yet they then say Christ didn’t mean those who would partake in the Eucharist would not experience physical death, when Jesus said, “anyone who eats this bread shall never die.” Well, people who do partake in the Eucharist do physically die.

Christ, as the bread of life, did come down from heaven. It is through His laying of His own life down on the cross that He has given us eternal life. To eat this bread, we must literally obey Christ’s words and His commandments.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the Passover and is the New Passover. To celebrate the Passover, a lamb is slain and consumed in remembrance for when the Lord freed the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage. In the original Passover, the blood of a lamb was posted over the doorposts of the Hebrew’s homes, so that the Lord would pass over the homes of the Hebrews when He brought death to the first-born Egyptians. The blood on the doorposts of the Hebrews was a “sign” as described in Exodus 12:13. The blood itself was not what literally saved the Hebrews, but it was a sign to the Lord, and the Lord saved the Hebrews.

In likewise manner, in the Last Supper, the Lord offered bread and wine as a sign or symbol of His New Covenant with man (Matthew 26:26; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). Jesus said, For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). “This is My body which is given for you; do this IN REMEMBRANCE of Me” (Luke 22:19) The symbolic meaning of the bread and wine Christ served at His Last Supper is for a “sign” of remembrance of the new covenant that He made for many for the remission of sins. When we celebrate the Last Supper and say grace, we remember the atonement sacrifice Christ made for us. This New Covenant was for the remission of sins, so that Christ would be our Passover lamb. Christ’s actual blood is a sign for God the Father that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, so that God’s judgment will pass over us and we may be granted eternal life.

The Passover was actually a foreshadowing of the New Covenant of the Last Supper. The Passover was to save the physical lives of the Hebrews in physical bondage in Egypt. The New Covenant was to save the eternal lives of all mankind in spiritual bondage to sin. The Passover is to be celebrated as an annual event (Exodus 12), not a weekly mass. Catholicism has replaced God’s Passover holyday with the holiday Easter (in homage to the fertility goddess Ishtar), and substituted the Passover meal of lamb for the unclean swine traditionally served at Easter.  

We cannot consume Christ’s literal flesh and Christ’s literal blood, no matter what some mystical Babylonian-inspired Roman Catholic priest says.

We know Jesus often spoke figuratively, because Jesus said that He spoke in figurative language and the Apostles understood this to be so. Jesus spoke in figurative speech when He said, “This is My body; this is My blood.”

JOHN 16:25:
These things I have spoken to you in FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE, but I will tell you plainly about the Father.
The Apostle Paul commanded that when Christians come together in a church, IT IS NOT TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER.
Therefore when you come together in one place, IT IS NOT TO EAT THE LORD’S SUPPER.
If the purpose of gathering together in a church is not to partake in the Lord’s Supper, how can Catholics maintain that it is? They have repackaged the Last Supper and call it weekly mass and the Eucharist. It is false doctrine and denies Christ’s sacrifice as being sufficient. It is false doctrine, taking their flock away from the truth of the One who died for our sins, once and for all time (Hebrews 10:10), while leading them into servitude of a church that offers a communion wafer idol and a shot wine for the continual sacrifice and cleansing of sins.

REBUTTAL to Opponents likely arguments:

Jesus said “This IS My Body; This IS my flesh! He didn’t say, “This is a symbol of My body; this is a symbol of My flesh.”

When Jesus spoke symbolically, or in figurative language, He DO NOT preface His statements by saying, “I am now speaking to you symbolically.” This would defeat the purpose of speaking symbolically.

An example of this is…

JOHN 11:11-14:
“Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.” Then His disciples said, “Lord, if he sleeps he will get well.” However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead.

When Jesus spoke symbolically of Lazarus’ death, He said, “Lazarus sleeps.” When He clarified by speaking literally, He plainly said, “Lazarus is dead.” Jesus never prefaced His statements by saying, “I am speaking symbolically here,” or “I am speaking literally now.”

Jesus said that He is the door (John 10:7,9); the Good Shepherd (John 10:11,14), the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). Yet we know that Jesus was symbolically the door to eternal life, the Good Shepherd or caretaker of His sheep – His followers, the way, the truth and the life – His words and teachings are true and give eternal life. Christ said that He is the bread of life. Most non-Catholics do not take His words to mean that He is literal bread, but rather the substance of life.

Why did many of His apostles walk away after Jesus taught to eat His flesh and drink His blood (John 6:66)?

1. Some took Christ literally, and wanted nothing to do with the mysticism that many pagan religions had in eating human flesh and blood. They did not understand that Christ was speaking figuratively (John 6:63). They did not understand that Christ was not speaking of actually eating His body, but instead spoke of obeying His words, which are spiritual and give eternal life.

JOHN 6:63:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

2. Those that did understand Christ to be speaking figuratively walked away because they could not understand Him; the meaning of what He was saying was too difficult (John 6:60).

JOHN 6:60:
Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

If Christ did not want us to literally eat His flesh and drink His blood, then how does one eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11:27,29)?

When someone knows the words and commandments of Christ, yet does not abide by them, does not repent of sin and continues living life as He was before knowing Christ, that person has heard Christ’s words in an unworthy manner. This is the case of many Christians, for example, that are pro-choice.

Scripture says that if you know God’s word you judge and correct yourself through chastening and repentance, so that God will not condemn us with the world (1 Corinthians 11:31-32).


The Eucharist wafer, supposedly bread, is not like bread at all, but is shaped like a circular flat white potato chip. The Eucharist wafer has been inspired and patterned in reverence to the Babylonian sun god. The Eucharist chip is a man-made manufactured product that has been set up within the Catholic Church system as a graven image idol, as God, to be revered and consumed to receive Christ. The Eucharist is offered up as a continual sacrifice, denying the once and for all eternal sacrifice of our Lord, Yeshua the Messiah – Jesus the Christ (Hebrews 10:10).

Apparently, most Catholics must have lost faith in the literal application of Christ’s words at His Last Supper regarding the Eucharist. An estimated 75% of the reported 1-billion Catholics do not attend weekly mass.


MATTHEW 10:39, 16:25; MARK 8:35; LUKE 9:24, 17:33:

For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.

Jesus was telling His followers that to be worthy of Him, you must be willing to shed your body and suffer persecution, rather than deny Christ and His teachings. Many Christians in the first century and throughout the ages have been martyred and persecuted rather than deny Christ. In the case of the Catholic Church, many Christians have been persecuted and martyred for upholding and proclaiming the truth of the Scripture, rather than to submit to Catholic Church authority or the Catholic pope.

The Apostle Paul knew of His martyrdom and that He was being poured out as a drink offering, of persecution and death for his testimony in proclaiming Christ – 2 Timothy 4:6.

MATTHEW 10:24:
A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
Christians are not above our Master. We must be willing to shed our body and shed our blood, which means must be willing to suffer ridicule, persecution and giving up our lives in martyrdom for the sake of the gospel and Christ.
MATTHEW 26:39:
He went a little farther and fell on His face, prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
Jesus was speaking figuratively here, as He was not asking the Father to remove His Eucharist cup of wine, but the cup of the blood of sacrifice that He was being asked to spill for the remission of man’s sins.

MATHEW 20:22; MARK 10:38:
Jesus asked His disciples: “Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink…”

I assure you this WAS NOT the Eucharist cup of wine. 

Christ made a covenant with us; to shed His body and blood as a once and for all sacrifice for the remission of sins. We – His servants, are not above Christ – our Master. We must be willing to do the same for the Lord.

Any fool can go to Sunday mass and eat a communion wafer and drink a shot glass of wine. This is not a test of faith and is not what Jesus meant when He said to eat His body and drink His blood. To eat His body and drink His blood is to obey His words and His commandments and to be willing to suffer as Christ suffered; ridicule, persecution and death.

I have presented the true meaning of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood.

To those who wish to continue to participate in the meaningless and fruitless Eucharist ritual, reminds me of a scene from the movie, “The Matrix.” In it, the star character, Neo, was offered a choice between receiving the red pill of truth and the blue pill of continual illusion and deception.



The blue pill (the Eucharist) is offered by Babylonian-inspired Roman Catholicism; the perverted false counterfeit-Christian religion that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. Taking the blue pill (the Eucharist) keeps you a slave; in prison, in bondage to a religious system that most Catholics were born into. The Eucharist, when taken and believed as literal, is cannibalistic, mystical spiritualism, pagan in origin and Satanic. The Eucharist is easy to swallow and many are deceived by it.

The red pill, (the unchangeable truth of Scripture), is sometimes more difficult to swallow, but it is the truth, nothing more. An honest objective study of God’s word will set you free from religious bondage and show you just how deep the rabbit hole (of Catholicism) goes.

The choice is yours. You can keep taking the Eucharist, or you can free yourself from spiritual bondage by accepting the logical truth of Scripture.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #187* Addiction: The Destroyer’s merciless predatory game

Posted by John Benko - May 16th, 2012

Revelation 9:11
A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans,

In other words, translated, his name is ‘the destroyer’. That is his name, that is his game, that is his sole mission and motivation 24/7/365.

Through your dreams, through your goals, through your ambitions, through your strengths, through your weaknesses. Constantly probing, ever on the attack, ever the predator, merciless and cruel, vile, disgusting, grotesque and inhumane. Always stalking, always menacing, setting traps, going about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour.

If the Lord God allows you to suffer it is only that He seeks your ultimate good. A little pain now, through which He may bring you to eternal bliss.

Ah, but the destroyer uses the lure of bliss for bait. A little sugar laced with poison? Some forbidden fruit perhaps? Some alcohol or drugs to dull your pain? Maybe a little frolic for the flesh? How about I pour the fill of your ego or satiate your need for greed?

All the while, he is only crouching down as you circle the bait, entranced by it’s shimmer, it’s fragrance, it’s taste. Crouching, stalking, moving in that he may get close enough to strike and grab you in his talons and drag you into his house of fire to torture you and laugh as you shriek and scream in pain.

Addiction is his cunning and merciless game, his web meant to ensnare you that he may store you away as his captured prey that he may move on to another unwary victim. Recently, my wife told me that she does not believe in sex addiction, responding to something she read in the paper.

My vantage point is just a bit different. You see, I do believe in sex addiction, but only within the framework of addiction itself. What I am saying is that I don’t believe in food addiction or gambling addiction or alcohol addiction or drug addiction or sex addiction being about food or gambling or alcohol or drugs or sex, at least foundationally. Though some of these addictions can have dire physical consequences, their cause and the far greater consequence, is spiritual.

Here in this article, I wish to deal with ten principles that are at the core of addiction. Some of them, you may not have ever considered before. I draw all of the principles from various places and I will try to give credit where it is do.

  1. Addiction, itself, is the issue,  not the subject of the addiction. There is no drug addiction or alcohol addiction or sex addiction. These are only various manifestations of a learned behavior of buying short-term satisfaction or relief at the expense of deferred but greater suffering. Addiction is suicide on the payment plan.
  2. Addiction controls, and is controlled by, all 4 facets of the human person- Physicality, Emotion, Intellect and Spirituality. Any cure to addiction that doesn’t incorporate all 4 is doomed to failure.
  3. All behavior, regardless of how self destructive, results in a payoff. If you cannot identify and remove the payoff, you cannot hope to change the behavior.
  4. You cannot have it all. God has already given you more than you can possibly repay.
  5. Happiness is a choice. It takes work. Happiness is not about things.
  6. Love is a choice. It takes even more work. Love must be given unselfishly and received graciously and humbly. Most people have no clue what love is.
  7. Sometimes pleasure must be denied. Sometimes, pain must be endured.
  8. Pride is deadly. All sin, all addiction comes from an unhealthy pride. Even despair is pride turned inside out.
  9. Denial is deadly. It isn’t just annoying and debilitating. Refusing to see the truth has dire consequences.
  10. The truth will set you free. The Truth has a name and He has a Church.

Tune in tonight as we discuss the Destroyer’s game.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #186* The Catholic Defender: Judgment

Posted by John Benko - May 16th, 2012

At the end of time when the Lord Jesus Christ returns, he will judge the living and the dead. We will all have to face this judgment.

Psalms 1:1-6 states, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by the streams of water, that yield its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor the sinners in the congregation of the righteous; for the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish”.

I have heard many times people quoting Matthew 7:2, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get”.
Instead of this being a verse of warning to those who “judge”, it becomes for many a scapegoat or license to sin.

When you present something clearly shown in the scripture as sin, the response is “Do not Judge”. There is a fine line between judging a person to hell, from judging what is right and wrong in a person’s life.

If the people of Nineveh would have told Jonah not to “judge” them, they would have been destroyed.

In fact, in the Old Testament the prophets were killed by the people because they spoke the Word of God and the people rebelled.

The real purpose of this writing is more for self inventory, we need to look at ourselves and see how we measure up to the teaching of Christ.

We know there is a “Personal Judgment” when a person dies and then there will be the “General Judgment” at the Parousia when Jesus returns at the end of time.

Jesus states, “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoesoever kills shall be liable to judgment’. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift”.

From this scripture, it is a judgment of the heart. We must work towards forgiveness and that is not always easy. We must condition ourselves as this requires work. It requires surrender to God’s will, it requires our readiness to serve God with a clean heart. An upright heart. It is a condition of the heart.

What are going to be some issues that will bring down judgment?

Matthew 10:12-15 states, “As you enter the house, salute it. And if the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town”.

What is the meaning here? It is obvious that judgment will be more severe for those who have more opportunity to hear and see the truth.

The more that a person is given the more accountability there will be. Jesus teaches this point very clearly Matthew 12:38-42, “Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you’. But he answered them,’An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Johah. For as Jonah was three days and three night in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three night in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here”.

We have the revelation of Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church which is the voice of the Lord until Jesus returns.

The Catholic Church is graced with many signs and wonders of the Lord Jesus Christ for the sake of his people, the Church.

Even so, many will refuse to obey the Church? People will not obey the Word of the Lord. Many will reject the works of the Lord,

Matthew 11:20-21 states, “Then he began to upbraid the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes”.

I have more than once, been told that someone would not beleive unless Mother Mary would appear to them. They have abandoned Chrisitianity for secular science.

In the last times a great deception would challenge many people to fall from their Faith. No question about it, secular humanism has had a terrible impact on our society and judgment is coming.

St. Peter warns about this scurge saying, “First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming” (2 Peter 3:3-4)?

The signs of the Lord are many, Marian Apparitions, Eucharistic Miracles, the Incorruptibles, Healings, and many many more.

We live in a perverse generation where children learn to imitate the foul language of their parents, the media in movies and music.

Rebellion is everywhere. Jesus warns of this Matthew 12:36-37, “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned”.

Foul language is condemned in the scripture.

St. Paul states, “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for edifying, as fits the occasion, that it impart grace to those who hear” (Ephesians 4:29).

Out of the heart, the mouth speaks! It is still a condition of the heart.

There are some serious signs that need to be understood as terrible reasons for judgment.

Apostasy is a very serious sin. St. John states, “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the anti-christ is coming, so now many anti-christs have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:18-20).

Today, there are many millions of fallen away Catholics representing the second largest religious body second to only the Catholic Church.

Hosea 4:6 states, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children”.

I had given a talk in Nothern Texas when I asked the people present if they knew of family members or friends who had abandoned the Catholic Faith. Practically everyone without exception raised their hands.

If I was to look at this as a disease, it would be an epidemic.

James 5:19-20 states, “My brethren, if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins”.

The Prodigal Son who returns to the fold can be totally restored to the Church. The Lord would leave the 99 to find the one who had gone astray.

Sin has it’s consequences, especially if they are not confessed. There are Mortal sins and Venial Sins which all lead to death. Mortal sins being serious or damnable. There are the 7 deadly sins (wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony).

Galatians 5:19-21 states, “Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, pary spirit, envy, drunkenness, corousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God”.

There is so much regarding warning to include those who are faithless, disobedience, traitors, apathetic, faithless and filled with heresy.

St. John states, “By this we know that we love the children of God. when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome” 1 John 5:2-3).

Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We will all be held accountable for the works we did. Our faithfulness to our Lord.

St. John is given a glimpse of of what heaven will be like for those whose judgment brings them home:

“And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light shall the nations walk; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it, and its gates shall never be shut by day and there shall be no night there; they shall bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Revelation 21:22-27).

Blogtalkradio Show
You Tube Channel
Twitter Page

*BEST OF DTB #185* The Catholic Defender: Spiritual Communion With The Whore

Posted by John Benko - May 13th, 2012

In the recent debates with Non-Catholics, some of them make the claim that the Catholic Church is the “Whore of Babylon” first described in Revelation 17:1-6. John quickly identifies who this Whore is in verse 18 saying, “The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth. To St. John, this could only be one city! In Revelation 11:9, St. John identifies where and who this great city is saying, “There corpses (the two witnesses) will lie in the main street of the great city, which has the symbolic names ‘Sodom’ and ‘Egypt’ where indeed their Lord was crucified. This is Jerusalem. The Whore of Babylon is Jerusalem and it is no great surprize that St. John recognized the Soverignty of God in Jerusalem.

As I considered this truth, another issue took center stage. Those who believe the Catholic church to be the Whore of Babylon are still awaiting for the Kingdom to be established by Jesus Christ. They are waiting for the establishment of His kingdom. This is an important difference. Jesus already established His Kingdom! He did this 2,000 years ago when he established His Church giving it His authority. This is why they see the Catholic Church as a worldly institution and they believe it comes from the anti-Christ.

Of this kingdom, the Prophet Daniel writes, In the lifetime of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them” (Daniel 2:44). Did Jesus establish this kingdom when he first appeared in human history, or is this kingdom yet to come? This seems to be the question between Catholics and Protestants.

Daniel further writes, “One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14).

Daniel speaks of a kingdom and a king. This kingdom is founded by this king who has an everlasting reign with an everlasting kingdom. All the nations will serve him. The question remains, when is the establishment of this kingdom and the coronation of this king?

Daniel gives an important clue writing “One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him, He received dominion, glory, and kingship”, this is a prophetic utterance of the Ascension of Jesus.

Jesus said, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). It is interesting that Jesus identifies himself with a question, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is? Jesus is clearly identifying himself with Daniels prophecy. This is an important answer to the question of when Jesus established the kingdom!

It was Simon Peter who said in reply, “Your are the Messiah (the Christ), the Son of the living God.” Jesus as the Christ is truly the “Son of David”, who sits on the throne of his Father David. Jesus is the king that Daniel writes about. Jesus replies to Peter, You are Peter (Kapa) and upon this rock (Kapa) I will build my church (kingdom), and the gates of the netherworld (the jaws of death) shall not prevail against it. Jesus is establishing his Church, his kingdom right here and now! At this point, Jesus continues, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what ever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:13-19).

The question is often asked, “If the Catholic Faith is the Kingdom of God on earth, why is there sin and why have some Catholics done evil in the sight of the Lord”? This question disturbs me greatly, but there is an important answer to it. Matthew 13 Jesus gave the parable of the weeds among the wheat, after dismissing the crowds, Jesus explains, “He who sows good seed is the Son of Man (remember Daniel’s “son of man”), the field is the world, the good seed the children OF THE KINGDOM. The weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age and the harvesters are angels. Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect OUT OF HIS KINGDOM all who caused others to sin and all evildoers. It is clear that the Kingdom of God has been established and there will come a judgment.

Of this Kingdom, Isaiah said, “No weapon fashioned against you shall prevail; every tongue you shall prove false that launches an accusation against you. This is the lot of the servants of the Lord, their vindication from me, says the Lord” (Isaiah 54:17).

The Non-Catholic is trying to save Catholics calling the Church this “Whore of Babylon”. As you can see, this is not the case, the Catholic Faith is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and set up as his kingdom that will never fall to anyone. The Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D., yet the Church remains. Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead and this kingdom will have no end.

This coming Friday, I will be standing up for the Catholic Church and her teaching on the Eucharist. Jeremiah 31:34 says, “The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt (passover); for they broke my covenant and I had to show myself their master, says the Lord. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord”.

Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords fulfilled this prophecy of Jeremiah. On the night Jesus was betrayed, at the Last Supper, Jesus said, “While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, ‘Take and eat; this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26-28).

For those of you who have a problem with the Catholic Church changing the Sabbath Day to the “Lord’s Day”, this is a discision of the Kingdom of God on earth. For those of you who want to restore the Old Testament law of Moses, the Catholic Church ruled on this at the Council of Jerusalem in 49 A.D. Jesus said, “You see all these things, do you not (refering to the Temple in Jerusalem)? Amen, I say to you, there will not be left here a stone upon another stone that will not be thrown down.” (Matthew 24:2). The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. fulfilled the Old Testament law, the priesthood of Levi was no more. Now it is the priesthood of Christ, a new and everlasting covenant, a new and everlasting kingdom.

Those of you who continue to cast your sword like Don Quixote at an invisible straw man, you can certainly share in the spiritual communion with the “Whore of Babylon”, you can continue to join her in rebellion against the Kingdom of God by refusing to submit to God’s authority, His Catholic Church. You can join those who support abortion, gay marriage, secularism, socialism, and what ever else you can join.

Those of you who are Catholic, I encourage you to deepertruth, to discover the depths of grace, the faith of the Apostles and Prophets, the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus is coming to judge the living and the dead, may your oil lanterns be full and ready, Amen.

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #184* The Catholic Defender: Honor To A Father

Posted by John Benko - May 12th, 2012

There are people who do not understand the honor and respect Catholics give the Bishops as Fathers. To understand the honor given there must be a good understanding of our Old Testament foundation. To understand the respect of Catholics for heaven is centered on our Faith in Christ and the honor do to God.

In the Old Testament, a son was to show respect to their Father as a sign of humble recognition of authority. Genesis 48:11-12 says, “Then Israel said to Joseph, ‘I never expected to see your face again, and now God has allowed me to see your descendants as well!’ Joseph removed them from his father’s knees and bowed before him with his face to the ground.”

Notice that the scripture provides that Joseph displayed honor to his Father Jacob. There is a clear distinction between the honor given by Joseph from that which the church gives to God alone. Joseph is not breaking God’s command in bowing down to graven images. He is showing respect to his Father who has given him life, who is in the image of God the Father. This is a strong Jewish foundation of showing respect and honor.

1 Kings 2:19 says, “Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.” Notice that Solomon paid homage meaning respect and honor, to his Mother. This did not break God’s command against bowing down to graven images and worshiping them.

Genesis 9:20 says that Ham, the father of Canaan dishonored his Father Noah in seeing him in his nakedness, because of this he was cursed to be “the lowest of slaves” to his brothers. Because Shen and Japheth honored their father Noah, they were blessed.

Abraham’s nephew, Lot, according to Genesis 19:1, reacted to the two angels by greeting them bowing down with his face to the ground. This was a greeting and honor towards the angels. Lot was not breaking the commandment of God in bowing down and worshiping graven images.

Genesis 33:3 states that Jacob bowed down seven times, until he reached his brother Esau. In this situation, Jacob was showing respect and honor to his brother.

Genesis 42:6 states, “It was Joseph, as governor of the country, who dispensed the rations to all the people. When Joseph’s brothers came and knelt down before him with their faces to the ground, he recognized them as soon as he saw them. But he concealed his own identity from them and spoke sternly to them.” This is a great example where the brothers of Joseph was honoring who they thought were the authority of Egypt not knowing this was Joseph their brother. The Son’s of Jacob did not break God’s command of worshiping graven images.

Jesus gives a story of the Lost Son who takes his inheritance and squanders it in a foriegn land. At his return to his Father’s house, the Father said, “Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him: put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet” (Luke 15:22). Here the father is restoring the Son’s inheritance.

God can choose whom he wants to fill his office. Consider the Lord speaking of his servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; “I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority” (Isaiah 22:20-21).

Haggai 2:23 states, “On that day, says the Lord of hosts, I will take you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, my servant, says the Lord, And I will set you as a signet ring; for I have chosen you, says the Lord of hosts.”

Jeremiah 22:24 states, “As I live, says the Lord, if you, Coniah, son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, are a signet ring on my right hand, I will snatch you from it.” It is important to note that should a servant of the Lord displease him and abuse their authority, the Lord can replace the individual. This does not erase the office, but the person filling the office. He will place another in this office.

Over and over you can see the importance of the father and the respect and honor given them. This is the foundation to why Catholics recognize the ring of the Bishop. It is a ring that represents his authority as a “Father over his flock”. St. Paul writes, “I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me” (1 Corinthians 4:14-16).

The Old Testament foundation of the authority of the Father was both spiritual and physical inheritance. It comes from the blueprint of God. Ephesians 3:14-20 states, “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that he may grant you in accord with the riches of his glory to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner self, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the holy ones what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to accomplish far more than all we ask or imagine, by the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen”.

This is important, God the Father chooses to share himself with his creation, as a loving Father!

The honor given to the Bishop represents the authority the Bishop has through his ordination.

This ordination is given through the authority of Jesus Christ through the Catholic Faith. Apostolic Succession is exactly the handing down of this authority down to our time through the Shephards of the Church.

The Ring, the Keys, the sandals the Sash represents the clothing in which the Lord himself gives to his priests. When you understand the tradition of the Old Testament in honoring Fathers, family members, Civil authority, this in no way brakes God’s command in worshiping graven images. Nor is the veneration of religious holy objects used in the same way. In the following film, notice Pope Pius XII and the Priest. This is a great example:

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #183* Infallibility debate show notes

Posted by John Benko - May 11th, 2012

These show notes coincide with this blog talk radio debate.

Show notes update: First, in deference to the moderator’s request, I had to dramatically alter both my opening and closing statements on the air. However, I leave them here in their entirety, still asserting their full appropriateness.

Second, the quotes George cites, alleging various Popes being gods are fraudulent quotes. Always insist on a direct-sourced click-able link as virtually every document of the Catholic church can be searched, going all the way back to the 4th century. This was clearly a move of desperation by George who was getting beaten like a bass drum.

Third, my statements on the Whore of Revelation need to actually be examined and not dismissed as George did. George knows actually dealing with these facts is impossible so he covers his eyes. These comments prove- beyond question- that the Whore of Babylon is the city of Jerusalem and he will not even attempt to counter this fact.

The Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is revealed quite clearly as Jerusalem.

In Revelation 17:18 and 11:8, she is called the Great City where Our Lord was crucified. That is Jerusalem. In 17:9, she is called the city on 7 mountains, the Greek word Oros. Of all the cities of antiquity, only Jerusalem fits this description. Rome is on 7 hills and Rome cannot be the whore anyway because Rome is the beast who attacks the whore.

Looking at Revelation 18:24, Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:33, we see the one and only city who killed the Prophets- Jerusalem.

Finally, looking at Exodus 25-28, we see quite clearly that it is Jerusalem that is the city adorned with golden cups and precious stones and purple and scarlet yarn, the city that ruled over the religious world at the time of John’s writing. There is zero evidence connecting the whore of Babylon with any entity other than the city of Jerusalem.

Fourth, that George squeals like a demon doused with holy water whenever confronted with the original Greek of the New Testament, is certainly understandable since it always exposes his positions for the heretical nonsense they are.

Here is the original Greek of Acts 9:31;

31: ai <3588> {THE} men <3303> {INDEED} oun <3767> {THEN} ekklhsiai <1577> {ASSEMBLIES} kaq <2596> {THROUGHOUT} olhV <3650> {WHOLE} thV <3588> {THE} ioudaiaV <2449> {OF JUDEA} kai <2532> {AND} galilaiaV <1056> {GALILEE} kai <2532> {AND} samareiaV <4540> {SAMARIA} eicon <2192> (5707) {HAD} eirhnhn <1515> {PEACE,} oikodomoumenai <3618> (5746) {BEING BUILT UP} kai <2532> {AND} poreuomenai <4198> (5740) {GOING ON} tw <3588> {IN THE} fobw <5401> {FEAR} tou <3588> {OF THE} kuriou <2962> {LORD,} kai <2532> {AND} th <3588> {IN THE} paraklhsei <3874> {COMFORT} tou <3588> {OF THE} agiou <40> {HOLY} pneumatoV <4151> {SPIRIT} eplhqunonto <4129> (5712) {WERE INCREASED.}

That Kath Olos is the origin of the English Catholic is undeniable. In fact, the sense of The whole and complete Church, throughout the earth is the very sense conferred by the term The Catholic Church.

It is actually a literal translation of this passage. Using virtually the same exact phrase, Ignatius of Antioch is quoted about 30 years later saying;

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

When asked to give evidence of the Apostolic origin of his polytheistic, anti-christian cult, George studdered and stammered like the town drunk.

Fifth, the condemnation of Galileo had nothing to do with infallibility, nor did it have anything to do with his scientific claims (which most, though not all, were actually sympathetic to. Nor, as is commonly alleged, was Galileo tortured and killed for his claims.

In fact, in 1741, Pope Benedict XVI (the numerical predecessor of our current Pope) actually granted an Imprimatur to Galileo’s claims. Here are some excerpts from The Galileo Affair by George Sim Johnston. His articles and essays have appeared in Harpers, The American Spectator, Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, Harvard Business Review, Crisis, and Catholic World Report. He is a recipient of the Journalism Award from the Catholic Press Association. His book, Did Darwin Get it Right?: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution is published by Our Sunday Visitor

What John Paul II wanted was a better understanding of the whole affair by both scientists and theologians. It has been said that while politicians think in terms of weeks and statesmen in years, the Pope thinks in centuries. The Holy Father was trying to heal the tragic split between faith and science which occurred in the 17th century and from which Western culture has not recovered. Following the guidelines of the Second Vatican Council, he wished to make clear that science has a legitimate freedom in its own sphere and that this freedom was unduly violated by Church authorities in the case of Galileo.
But at the same time — and here the secular media tuned out — the Holy Father pointed out that “the Galileo case has been a sort of ‘myth,’ in which the image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from the reality. In this perspective, the Galileo case was the symbol of the Church’s supposed rejection of scientific progress.” Galileo’s run-in with the Church, according to the Pope, involved a “tragic mutual incomprehension” in which both sides were at fault. It was a conflict that ought never to have occurred, because faith and science, properly understood, can never be at odds.
Since the Galileo case is one of the historical bludgeons that are used to beat on the Church — the other two being the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition — it is important that Catholics understand exactly what happened between the Church and that very great scientist. A close look at the facts puts to rout almost every aspect of the reigning Galileo legend.
The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for Catholicism, once examined the case and concluded that “the Church had the best of it.” The most striking point about the whole affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the mere question of celestial mechanics.

But Galileo was intent on ramming Copernicus down the throat of Christendom. The irony is that when he started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to the Ptolemaic system, until further proof could be adduced.
Such proof, however, was not forthcoming. Galileo’s belligerence probably had much to do with the fact that he knew there was no direct proof of heliocentrism. He could not even answer the strongest argument against it, which was advanced by Aristotle. If the earth did orbit the sun, the philosopher wrote, then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection, and it was not answered until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61 Cygni.
Galileo’s other problem was that he insisted, despite the discoveries of Kepler, that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles. The Jesuit astronomers could plainly see that this was untenable. Galileo nonetheless launched his campaign with a series of pamphlets and letters which were circulated all over Europe. Along the way, he picked fights with a number of Churchmen on peripheral issues which helped to stack the deck against him. And, despite the warnings of his friends in Rome, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
There is no question that if the debate over heliocentrism had remained purely scientific, it would have been shrugged off by the Church authorities. But in 1614, Galileo felt that he had to answer the objection that the new science contradicted certain passages of Scripture. There was, for example, Joshua’s command that the sun stand still. Why would Joshua do that if, as Galileo asserted, the sun didn’t move at all? Then there were Psalms 92 (“He has made the world firm, not to be moved.”) and 103 (“You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever.”), not to mention the famous verse in Ecclesiastes. These are not obscure passages, and their literal sense would obviously have to be abandoned if the Copernican system were true.

The show notes for this debate are at http://tinyurl.com/8yymqpj. Email us at email@deepertruthblog.com with any comments or questions.

Last week while I was building an impenetrable case for the Catholic interpretation of Matthew Chapter 16, my opponent was yammering on about demon worship and totalitarian regimes and reinterpreting the curse on Jerusalem shown in the Book of Revelation. All of these wild-eyed claims were entertaining, to be sure, except for two things- No evidence of any kind, and nothing having to do with the subject being debated.

George admitted very early in that debate that he was not competent to debate the subject matter linguistically, so I guess he thought, why not go on a hysterical rant instead?

Expect a similar result tonight. I will be debating Infallibility. What George will be debating is anyone’s guess.

Infallibility is a Biblical fact. Without it, the Judeo-Christian faith could not have hoped to survive for 6,000 years. All who defend Christianity will defend infallibility in one form or another. I will defend it in the manner that God prescribed, the manner that is recorded in Holy Scripture. If you find yourself still in disagreement, take it up with God, for it is He, not me, who you are arguing with.

George opens every debate by stating that what he expresses are his own opinions. I agree with him, they are only his opinions. I don’t have time for opinions, not with my eternal soul at stake and those of others. Everyone listening tonight should take heed. If you cannot interpret your Bible infallibly, it is of no use to you  God’s word is His word, your opinions do not impress God. Everything I state tonight will be fact, no opinions. God told us who to listen to, we have only to do it.

Briefly, the doctrine of Papal Infallibility states the following;

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, “unfailingly adheres to this faith.”417

For some reason, there are those who believe God is incapable of conferring some of His divine attributes on people.

Here are a few of the divine attributes that scripture tells us God shares with men.

  1. Immortality.
  2. Seeing into the future.
  3. Healing.
  4. Creation of Life.
  5. Miracles.

For God to protect His Holy instruction, by adding Infallibility to this, is certainly not difficult for God and almost all Christians will acknowledge it up to a point. All Christians acknowledge the Holy Scriptures to be Infallible. That is, that they are authoritively free from all doctrinal and moral error. It is this narrow definition of infallibility that I am defending tonight. If George tries to assert that I am ascribing divinity to the church, or sinlessness or omnipotence or omniscience, he is simply wasting his time and I will not be baited into participating in such foolishness. It is just as futile for him to claim I reject the inerrantcy of scripture. What I reject are the wild and outlandish interpretations of scripture from someone who is clueless about it’s meaning. What good are fallible interpretations of infallible scriptures?

All Christians concede the Scriptures to be infallible but many insist that the Church- the men who gave us those Scriptures- cannot be. If history has proven anything, it is that that view is unworkable.

First, that the Catholic Church is the reason you even have a Bible today is a historical fact. The Catholic church gaves us the first complete Bible in the period 393 AD-419 AD through the councils of Hippo and Carthage. The first Bible was the Catholic Vulgate, the first english Bible was the Catholic Douai. These are facts and they are not disputed. In a recent debate, my opponent was forced to concede that he cannot provide any scriptural support for a canon of Scripture. For George to know that the Gospel of John is Scripture and that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t, is something he owes to my church even if he is too stubborn to admit it. If you follow George’s logic, you must believe that a church that worships goddesses and demons gave us an infallible canon of New Testament books. By George’s own logic, He trusts his own salvation to goddess and demon worshippers. Talk about being hoisted by your own petard.

In the fourth chapter of Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians, He instructs them not to go beyond what is written and some like to take this verse out of context as support for Sola Scriptura.

They should think twice.

In verse 15, Paul calls himself our spiritual father which, according to George’s flawed interpretation, puts him at odds with Jesus in Matthew 23:9. In verse 16-17, Paul instructs them to follow himself, as he teaches by the authority of Jesus, everywhere, in every church, and to follow Timothy, who teaches by Paul’s authority. Paul even goes so far as to threaten to come to them with a rod if they dare to puff themselves up in disobedience in verses 18-21.

What is Paul saying here? He is saying, yes, you have had many leaders, but unlike them, I am your spiritual father, speaking by the authority of Christ and so is Timothy who I have sent to you. If you don’t want to obey us, maybe I will come to you with a rod and we will settle it that way.

Anyone doubting me can open up your own Bible to 1 Corinthians Chapter 4 and read for yourself. This chapter proves Paul’s universal authority as Christ’s minister and it proves apostolic succession. I dare George to make a substantive argument to counter this rather than just blasting hot air.

Now let’s look at a history of Infallibility in Scripture.

  1. In Jeremiah 28:9, we are told that when a prophet predicts a thing will come to pass, it always does. Not 50% of the time, not 90% of the time, 100% of the time. This means that a prophet was infallible. He could not teach error, even once.
  2. Numbers 25:13 says the covenant of the Priesthood stands forever.
  3. Deuteronomy 17:12 prescribes death for anyone refusing to obey the authority of the Priest.
  4. Revelation 5:10 says the Priest reigns on earth.
  5. In Numbers 16, we see Dathan and his ilk who dared to presume they didn’t have to listen to Moses, swallowed up by the earth.
  6. In Matthew 23, we see Jesus Himself tell the Apostles and the crowd that they had to obey every word of the scribes and pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses, so that authority was passed down by succession.
  7. In Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, Jesus specifically gives the apostles the authority to bind and loose on earth what He will bind and loose in heaven. We are told that that church is built on the rock- Kephas, that the powers of hell will not prevail against it and that it is the final authority in any dispute.
  8. In Luke 10:16, Jesus says He who hears you, hears me, he who rejects you, rejects Me and he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me. Luke wrote these words more than 60 years after Jesus spoke them, so people were hearing Christ’s words through the church a long time before they were reading them.
  9. In Acts 1, we see this church replace the the disciple hand selected by Jesus. In Acts 15, we see this church loose the requirement of circumcision set forth by God.
  10. In Acts 9:31, we see this church called Ecclesia Kath Olos, literally, the Catholic Church.
  11. In 1 Timothy 3:15, we see this church called the Pillar and Foundation of the truth.
  12. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul tells us that we must obey every teaching of the Church, be it oral or written.
  13. In 1 Peter, the first Pope tells us that not one scripture is a matter of personal interpretation.

To believe George, you must believe that Jesus either lied or somehow was not able to keep His promises. Further, you must believe that a church long lanquishing in apostasy, goddess and demon worship, a church that gave us the Bible then burned us alive for having it, a babylonian whore, was replaced at this high and glorious time by George, who, by his own words is a pontificator of his own opinions. Opinions that run counter to just about every historical and Biblical precept of what it means to be a Christian.

So, George, who denies such basic Christian precepts such as the Trinity has the temerity to accuse my church of wrongly interpreting Scripture?George’s entire case against the Biblical case of infallibilty is circular and dependent on the premise that his interpretation of scripture, and his alone, is the correct one.

The problem with this is that nowhere does Scripture suggest such a thing. That Jesus created an infallible church is unarguable. That He promised it would forever endure and be the bulwark of all truth is just as secure. If that church does not exist today, there is no reason to believe any other took it’s place. For George to credibly counter Catholicism’s divine foundation requires something else to be placed in it’s vacuum. Where did the Bible come from? Did it fall from the sky? Why did hell prevail against the first church? Did Jesus lie?

George doesn’t even accept that protestantism reformed this church. George maintains, even if he won’t say it, that he alone, with his King James Bible and his myopic stew of dispensationalism, adventism and messianic Judaism is the one true faith while every one else worships demons and goddesses and hobgoblins.

I am not claiming to know his heart, mind you, but I am simply taking his on the record statements to their logical conclusion.

It is not unreasonable for us to demand from George evidence that he holds this authority. Don’t hold your breath.

In John 16, Jesus tells the disciples that He has more to speak to them. He tells them that He will send the Holy Spirit who will also speak to them. The Holy Spirit, Jesus promises will teach them all truth. That is all truth, not some truth or most truth. Jesus makes this promise to who He was speaking to. This book was written about 90 years after this conversation, so the Church had been following the Holy Spirit’s guidance for decades before this gospel was penned. Nowhere in it do we see any hint that Jesus was talking to George or other inventors of doctrines like him.

I dare George to try and counter my evidence that Jesus conferred infallibility on a church and promised to sustain it, or, if He doesn’t deny that, prove that his church and not mine is that historical church. This is where George will fold. Just watch him.

Argument: Only God is infallible! You are claiming the Pope is a god! 
Response: No, that would be Divinity, not infallibility! Are you calling your Bible a god, since you already call it ‘infallible’? 

Quite interesting that an attribute you find perfectly reasonable to assign to a book, you find impossible to assign to a man. Paul wrote at least 13 Epistles that are in our canon of scripture. If Paul did not teach infallibly, how could He write infallibly? Are we to believe that the same god who guarded Paul’s pen from error couldn’t guard his mouth as well? I would like to see you support that one.

Argument: There have been a few wicked Popes, are you claiming the Pope can’t sin?

Response: No, that would be Impeccability. No one claims the Pope is impeccable. In fact, if the Pope were impeccable, there would be no need for God to protect His Word with Infallibility. There were some wicked kings in Israel’s history too, was God’s will preserved then, as well?

Argument: The Pope is all-knowing? all-powerful?

Response: No, that is Omniscience and Omnipotence. Only God has those attributes. The Angel Gabriel speaks infallibly for God and no open is saying He is claiming Omniscience. Moses parted the Red Sea by God’s power, no one is saying he is Omnipotent.

Argument: What about the case of Pope Honorius I? He was condemned by the sixth general council of the Catholic Church in 680 AD for teaching Monothelism. This proves he was not infallible because he taught a heresy later condemned by the church.
Response: Your argument would hold water if it were true that Pope Honorius I actually did teach Monothelism but the sixth council’s condemnation was proved to be incorrect and was never ratified. A council pronouncement is not deemed infallible unless it is ratified by the Pope. When the Lateran council later ruled on the controversy, Pope Honorius I was exonerated because a deeper examination of his response showed that he actually didn’t define anything but merely cautioned against using language in in the condemnation of one heresy (Monophysitism) that could be incorrectly interpreted as supporting another (Nestorianism).  Pope Honorius I can be rightfully blamed for not speaking out more forcefully against both heresies but that is hardly an argument against Infallibility.

Argument: Pope Liberius?

Response: (from the catholic encyclopedia)

Pope Liberius

Liberius, it is alleged, subscribed an Arian or Semi-Arian creed drawn up by the Council of Sirmium and anathematized St. Athanasius, the great champion of Nicaea, as a heretic. But even if this were an accurate statement of historical fact, it is a very inadequate statement. The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra, and that he himself, as soon as he had recovered his liberty, made amends for the moral weakness he had been guilty of. This is a quite satisfactory answer to the objection, but it ought to be added that there is no evidence whatever that Liberius ever anathematized St. Athanasius expressly as a heretic, and that it remains a moot point which of three or four Sirmian creeds he subscribed, two of which contained no positive assertion of heretical doctrine and were defective merely for the negative reason that they failed to insist on the full definition of Nicaea.

Argument: Pope Vigilius? Galileo?
Responses: (also from catholic Encyclopedia) There is still less reason for trying to found an objection to papal infallibility on the wavering conduct of Pope Vigilius in connection with the controversy of the Three Chapters; and it is all the more needless to delay upon this instance as most modern opponents of the papal claims no longer appeal to it.

As to the Galileo affair, it is quite enough to point out the fact that the condemnation of the heliocentric theory was the work of a fallible tribunal. The pope cannot delegate the exercise of his infallible authority to the Roman Congregations, and whatever issues formally in the name of any of these, even when approved and confirmed in the ordinary official way by the pope, does not pretend to be ex cathedra and infallible. The pope, of course, can convert doctrinal decisions of the Holy Office, which are not in themselves infallible, into ex cathedra papal pronouncements, but in doing so he must comply with the conditions already explained — which neither Paul V nor Urban VIII did in the Galileo case.

Argument: What about wicked Popes?

Response: There were about 5 or 6 pretty wicked Popes. Obviously, George will claim more and make all kinds of ludicrous claims about millions dead but we don’t have time to argue about all that. I will concede about 5 or 6 wicked Popes and that is enough to make your case.

6 wicked Popes equals about 2 1/4% of the total, a pretty good batting average in anyone’s book.

This compares to 34 wicked Kings of Israel and Judah out of 42 and that is counting adulterer and murderer David among the good guys. That means 81% of the Kings did evil in the sight of the Lord or about 40 times the percentage of Catholic Popes.

Nevertheless, Jesus says in Matthew 23 that the Apostles and people must do everything that the Scribes and Pharisees required because of their authority by virtue of the seat of Moses. The conduct of the person has no effect on the authority of the office.

  1. Please explain how Paul is infallible when he writes but not when he speaks. Make this argument Scripturally.
  2. When Jesus says, in Luke 10:16, “He who hears you, hears me”, who was he speaking to? Is it limited to the Apostles only or does it include their successors? Make this argument scripturally.
  3. Since you claim to rely on only Scripture, make a Scriptural argument that Ezra and Nehemiah belong in the canon but 1 & 2 Esdras, written by the same author, do not. 
  4. If we are to follow only the authority of Scripture, how can Paul say, in Romans 13   1 Let every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God.  2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  
  5. In Matthew 23, the Apostles and people are told that they must obey every word of the Scribes and Pharisees because they sit in the chair of Moses. However, in Matthew 21:43, Jesus prophesied that that authority would be taken from them and given to another nation that would bear it’s fruit. If that nation is not the catholic Church, who is it?

The show notes for this debate are at http://tinyurl.com/8yymqpj. Email us at email@deepertruthblog.com with any comments or questions.

Since George knew he was in trouble in these debates, he tried to score some cheap points with a couple of gratuitous, off topic parting shots last week. As is usually the case, he only wound up making himself look silly.

As if he didn’t look bad enough claiming the Catholic Mary was a goddess, he decided to one-up his hysteria and say that she is a demon. Obviously, I won’t even dignify this insanity with a response, lest I look as unstable as my opponent, but I will address two other accusations.

First, the Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is revealed quite clearly as Jerusalem.

In Revelation 17:18 and 11:8, she is called the Great City where Our Lord was crucified. That is Jerusalem. In 17:9, she is called the city on 7 mountains, the Greek word Oros. Of all the cities of antiquity, only Jerusalem fits this description. Rome is on 7 hills and Rome cannot be the whore anyway because Rome is the beast who attacks the whore.

Looking at Revelation 18:24, Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:33, we see the one and only city who killed the Prophets- Jerusalem.

Finally, looking at Exodus 25-28, we see quite clearly that it is Jerusalem that is the city adorned with golden cups and precious stones and purple and scarlet yarn, the city that ruled over the religious world at the time of John’s writing. There is zero evidence connecting the whore of Babylon with any entity other than the city of Jerusalem.

Secondly, George’s contention that the Catholic church fulfills the end times entity that gives heed to doctrines of demons, forbidding marriage and demanding abstaintion from meat. George added the words clerical and temporary to make it fit his forced interpretation. That’s a pretty wicked thing to add to God’s word in order to make it fix your forced polemic.

The fact is that the Catholic Church raises marriage to the level of a Sacrament. No church on earth places a higher view on the sanctity of marriage. However, someone said that some will give up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom. Who was it? Who was it? Oh, that’s right, it was Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:12. As for his contention that we demand an abstaintion from meat, denying that it is good and to be received with thanksgiving. Hogwash! I love meat and, believe me, I eat a lot of it. Occasionally, we as Christians are called to give up good things to eat for the purpose of spiritual exercise. It’s called a fast, maybe you have heard of it. It is something that Jesus, Himself commands us to do on occasion.

As for those who actually did forbid marriage and the consumption of meat, the Albigensians and Manicheans were examples. George, once again, hoisted by his own petard.

George admits that every single argument he has made rests on his own opinions. Whether he deems those opinions Bible based or not is wholly irrelevant. In the end, George’s own theology has exposed the dangers of the private interpretation of scripture more than I could ever have dreamed of.

These debates boil down to one simple matter. Jesus Christ came to earth and built a church. What form does Christ’s church take? Is it a Church built on Rock, strong, stable, immovable or is it a church built on sand which Satan can sift through his fingers. Did He leave us a teaching church that speaks on His authority or did He drop a Bible on us and say “Here, you are on your own” ?

Non-Catholics talk about an invisible church with no form or earthly authority, united only by a profession of faith in Christ and the Bible. Yet they are a house divided on how to defend this invisible church and who does one defend it against? In the end, the only thing that unifies them is their rejection of authority.

Ephesians 4:5 tells us there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. How would one even hope to find it with so many choices? George quotes the scriptures as saying the gate is narrow and implies that that means a denomination with few members. That hardly seems likely since, when Jesus said those words, large denominations were hardly a problem. Further, Jesus, Himself said the Christian faith would grow from a tiny mustard seed to a tree so huge birds would nest in it’s branches (Matthew 13:31-32). No, when Jesus talked about the narrow gate and the rocky road, He was referring to the difficult walk that it is being a Christian.

So, if I were lost and had to set about the task of finding the true church, how would I do it? Where would I look? First, I would look for a church that can trace it’s history back to the apostles, according to the model given in Matthew 16. I would look for what that first church believed and how it interpreted Scripture and find the church today that most closely matches it. If there were documents available from the writings of that early church, I would scour them.

Next, according to Christ’s own words, I would find a church that the whole world hates. That’s right, the Church that is universally reviled by not only other Christian denominations, but by Jews, by Muslims, by Atheists, Secularists, Homosexuals, feminists, communists, socialists and every other ists you can imagine.

Finally, I would heed the words of our savior in Matthew 10:25

It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, for the slave that he become like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, 12 how much more those of his household!

REBUTTAL To John Benko’s Opening Statement… In the beginning of our debates, on the topic of the Trinity, I stated what Scripture and Christ Himself declared, that the Father is greater than Jesus is – as recorded in John 14:28. John Benko responded by declaring that God is a co-equal Trinity, and that the Son is equal to the Father, because God is infinite. John rhetorically asked, “How do you limit infinity?” John dismissed Christ’s own words, declaring Jesus was speaking in His human nature, not His divine nature. Then, I further illustrated that Jesus declared that when He was in His heavenly divine nature, that He was still lesser than the Father, because Jesus said that He was sent (to earth) and He who sends (the Father) is greater than He who was sent (the Son) -John 13:16. John of course, could not respond to this as Jesus was obviously in heaven with the Father, in His divine nature, when He was sent to earth – indicating that the Father always was and always will be greater than His Son. Today the same John Benko is arguing that in the case of Catholic popes, they are infallible, but their infallibility is limited to when they make pronouncements or teach on faith and morals. Well John, as you once made this analogy, I now throw it right back at you. On the topic of papal infallibility, it’s like being pregnant John. You cannot be a little pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not pregnant. You are either infallible or you are not infallible. You cannot be a little infallible. 

OPENING STATEMENT: Papal Infallibility May 11, 2012 by George Lujack What is papal infallibility? Infallibility is defined as: 1. The quality of being infallible; the inability to be wrong. 2. (in the Roman Catholic Church) The doctrine that the pope is incapable of error in pronouncing dogma. Papal infallibility is a doctrine of the Catholic Church that declares that, by action of the Holy Spirit the Catholic pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when in his official capacity and he solemnly declares a doctrinal teaching on faith or morals. This doctrine was declared in the first Vatican council of 1869-1870, although the tradition of infallibility goes back much further than that. According to Catholic theology, there are several tenants involved with their divine revelations: Scripture, tradition and their Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church). Papal infallibility does not signify that the Pope is perfect or without sin. Specifically, statements made by a Catholic pope that are to be considered infallible are when the Catholic pope makes pronouncements as teacher of all Christendom by virtue of his supposed apostolic authority, and he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by all who are Christian. A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals. The Catholic so-called “Holy See,” or the official Episcopal judicial administration in Rome, has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. Therefore, infallibility is whatever and whenever they say something is infallible and it gives the Catholic Church a good out. If and when the Catholic Church is proved wrong about something, they simply say that the position on a particular topic that they held was never an infallible position in the first place. John Paul II once remarked, “I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible.” Pope Gregory VII, around 1087 wrote, “no one can judge the pope and that “the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness” Scripture declares the test of a true prophet as such… ISAIAH 8:20. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word (the Torah), it is because there is no light in them. In 1455, Pope Nicholas V published a decree where he said about himself: “I have the authority of the King of Kings. I am all in all and above all. Wherefore if the things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what can you make me but God? … Wherefore, no marvel if it be in my power to change time and times: to alter and abrogate laws, to dispense with all things, yea, with the precepts of Christ… The Pope has power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ. He can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the rights of nations, to the law of God and man… He can free himself from the commands of the apostles, he being their superior, and from the rules of the Old Testament.” (Decretal de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap., Ferraris’ Ecclesiastical Dictionary). Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) declared that “The Pope cannot make a mistake.” Infallibility is an attribute of God and, as so often the Catholic Church does, they usurp a characteristic of God and bestow it upon themselves to empower themselves. God is infallible and His word in Scripture is also infallible. The word infallible appears only once in scripture, and it is used to describe Christ, not man. ACTS 1:3: He (Christ) also presented Himself ALIVE after His suffering by many INFALLIBLE proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. ISAIAH 42:8: I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another… Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus the Christ will not share His glory with another, nor did He establish a papal office. Catholic popes are by no means infallible, nor are their official declarations on matters of faith and morals. Christians do have the right to question Catholic popes that declare infallibility on matters of faith and morals. We are commanded through Scripture to “test all things” in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. Catholic popes throughout the ages have failed this test of infallibility. John has brought up in previous debates that he believes that the Catholic Church has assumed the seat of Moses, as if this seat of Moses was a previous incarnation of papal authority of Judaism, that the high priests and Pharasees ruled from. The problem with this argument is that while their were king rulers of Israel, such as king David, it was those who instructed on the law that sat on the seat of Moses, not a one-person ruling entity. Jesus declared in Matthew 23:1-3, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works.” Now how can this be? Why should the scribes and Pharisees be obeyed while in Moses’ seat, but not obeyed in their actions and deeds. When sitting in the seat of Moses, the scribes and Pharisees were only authorized to read the Torah, the Law of Moses. This is what Christ commanded to be obeyed. They did not have authority to issue decrees or come out with new pronouncements, rules and laws. When sitting in the seat of Moses, the scribes and Pharisees read the laws of Moses as recorded in the Torah, the first 5-books of Scripture. When the scribes and Pharisees were not sitting in the seat of Moses, their sense of power corrupted them and they began making rules and laws that were not commanded by Moses. This is what Catholic popes do; make rules and regulations apart from God’s word, in violation of what God commands – to not add to His words. Worse yet, they do not proclaim the Torah, the laws of Moses, but reject, alter and change these laws as they see fit.

CLOSING STATEMENT: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON We can know for sure that the whore it IS NOT Jerusalem. REVELATION 18:3: For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her FORNICATION, the kings of the earth have committed FORNICATION with her, and the merchants of the earth have become rich through the abundance of her luxury.” REVELATION 18:9-10: The kings of the earth who committed FORNICATION and lived luxuriously with her will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke of her burning, standing at a distance for fear of her torment, saying, ‘Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour your judgment has come.’ Spiritual Babylon is the Roman Catholic Church. This spiritual power commits FORNICATION with the kings of the earth. Jerusalem, a city of the nation of Israel, CANNOT commit FORNICATION with the kings of the earth, as they are ALREADY MARRIED to the Lord. They are under a covenant with the Lord since the days of Moses. When the Jews turn their back on God, as they have done so, they can ONLY commit ADULTERY with the kings of the earth. This is the same of a single woman, who has sex outside-of-marriage, which is fornication. When a married woman engages in sex outside-of-marriage, this is ADULTERY. In the OT, there are numerous examples of Israel committing spiritual ADULTERY. The marriage of Christ and the church HAS NOT yet occurred. It will occur when Christ returns for His bride, the church. Therefore, it is the Roman Catholic Church through the Vatican, not Jerusalem, that commits fornication with the kings of the earth, as Jerusalem CANNOT commit fornication, but only adultery, with the kings of the earth. Catholic “defenders” have recognized this fact and have begun altering Bibles to say that the whore committed “sexual immorality” with the kings of the earth. Altering God’s word will not alter Bible prophecy. The whore is spiritual Babylon, the Roman Catholic Church, and their city is the Vatican. # We have an infallible God whose word is always true and unchangeable. Catholic popes have proven themselves to be false prophets as they have fulfilled Scripture in Daniel 7:25, in that through their unauthorized earthly established office, they have intended to change God’s times and laws. Jesus declared that He would not give His glory to another (Isaiah 42:8). Yeshua the Messiah, Jesus the Christ is alive. Peter was not and never could be a successor to Christ. We have a High Priest that reigns forever (Hebrews 6:20) and certainly did not turn His position or authority over to any earthly office. Catholics would rather leave Christ hanging on the cross, as their graven image crucifixes illustrate, than declare He is risen, ALIVE and is our High Priest forever. They are obsessed with earthly power and an earthly office holder. There can be no doubt that the office holder known as the Catholic pope is the false prophet spoken of in the book of Revelation, who, working with the end time anti-Christ world political leader, will impose his authority upon the earth and cause all to receive a mark, so that no one can buy or sell without this mark (Revelation 13:16-18). 1 CORINTHIANS 15:50-53: Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. From a proper reading and comprehension of 1 Corinthians, we can know that all flesh and blood persons, which would include all Catholic popes, are not infallible, but are corruptible. They have certainly displayed corruption throughout the age of the Catholic Church. It is not a man that we should look to as being incorruptible, but rather God. We can know God through His revealed word in the Scriptures. God promises that His saints, whether raptured or raised from the dead, will be made incorruptible in the twinkling of an eye. No pope or any man that has ever lived, besides Christ, should ever be considered “infallible.”

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #182* Rachel’s Story Part 4

Posted by John Benko - May 10th, 2012

Part IV:  ”The Lord hears the cry of the poor; blessed be the Lord!”  The little chapel floor was dotted with the prostrate figures of white-robed nuns giving glory to God in song.  Visitors had wooden pews; the nuns leveled themselves with the floor.  Crisp white saris with blue stripes traveling the length of their garments wrapped around these angelic creatures.  Only their bare, brown feet with white-skinned soles were visible.  Their faces were low to the ground at the opening of Holy Mass. The altar was prepared, Jesus was on the cross at the front of the chapel.  Nothing would have been unusual about this Mass, except that…everything was.  

I was at Mother Teresa’s home for the dying in Washington, D.C.  ”Gift of Peace Hospice” was the name of the home, and I came here not only to hear Mass, but in hopes of meeting Mother Teresa herself.  The June sun brightly shone through stained glass windows.  To the left and a few rows of nuns ahead of me was Mother Teresa herself, as barefoot and prostrate as all of her daughters.  With utmost willpower, I struggled NOT to think of Mother, and tried to keep my mind on Christ.  At the end of Mass, the faithful and the sisters made their way out into the foyer.  I had no real reason to think that I would get more than a glimpse of this holy woman known throughout the world, and I would’ve considered myself lucky to get even that.  

Merciful, Loving God had more in store for me than I dared to dream. Mother Superior came up to me in the crowd and spoke words about my baby that I cannot recall.  Leaving me, she wove her way through the crowd and approached Mother Teresa, who was speaking with someone else at the far end of the room, about 25 feet away.  This is where my memory is crystal clear: Mother Superior leaned in, speaking only a few words to Mother Teresa – who turned in my direction and took a step.  Instantly, like the parting of the Red Sea, all peoples in the room made a path that paved its way directly from Mother….to me!  I saw only this shadowy path, lined with people on either side, and a glorious, white-clothed vision of sanctity coming my way.  It might as well have been St.Peter at the pearly gates coming for an accounting of my life- I was that nervous.  She was short; I was hot. She was determined; I was dizzy. She was intense; I couldn’t breathe. 

Focusing on her bare, crippled feet, I marveled – they defied understanding, for they were so deformed by arthritis that I don’t know how she stood up straight.  In slow motion she approached me, looked briefly at my face, and said nothing.  I felt unworthy of her presence – not by anything she did, but by some inner conviction.  Turning to my baby, she played with her for several minutes.  Mother Superior took my baby from my arms and placed her in Mother Teresa’s.  Mother asked me first, “Only one?” then caught my eyes awaiting my answer.  Her eyes were piercing.  How could I explain all that had happened, the rape, the crisis marriage, the tragic details of my situation?  So I stammered, “We..we just got started.”  Mother replied matter-of-factly, “I have over 500 babies in India.  Children are a blessing.”  She played with my baby for a little while more, and then handing her back to me, instructed, “You go, and be a missionary of charity in your home…”  Once more she spoke, holding my baby’s hand and addressing her, “And you, you will be a Missionary of Charity someday.”   Mother Teresa left me a parting gift of several miraculous medals, with the words, “God Bless You.” God already had; through Mother, He gave me something new to remember on this date in June for the rest of my life: It had been one year to the day since I had been raped by a stranger and conceived the baby she had just held and prophesied over. 

Because He that is mighty hath done great things to me; and holy is His name.”  LK 1:49

My name is Rachel and I want to share the miraculous deeds God has granted in my life.  I’ll share more in my next post!  God Bless!


*BEST OF DTB #181* Forgiveness

Posted by John Benko - May 9th, 2012

Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Forgiveness is many things, but there is one thing it is not. Forgiveness is not an emotion. It is not a feeling. It is not something you intuit or experience. It is not something that happens to you, unless you happen to be on the receiving end of it.

Forgiveness is a struggle. It is a choice. It is a decision. It is a moment by moment redirection of the will away from the directions your emotions want to drag you. It is a gift that seems to be given to the recipient, but forgiveness is ultimately a gift you give yourself.

Forgiveness is freedom.

I won’t tell you how or where and I certainly can’t say why, but I have lived under the tyranny of a sociopath. For many years I was simply a bug on a pin. Just so you know my credentials to speak to you of forgiveness, know that I have stared down the barrel of a gun so many times that I finally stopped reacting. I have had my bedroom door chopped down with an axe, which satisfied him enough to second guess his intentions. I have been spat upon, used as a Kleenex, degraded in more ways than I care to share.

I spent several years on antidepressants as I came to grips with post traumatic stress. I have graced varieties of therapy couches, spewing this poison from my soul. Finally I trained as a rape and domestic violence counselor in order to look others in the eye and hold out the hope that healing is possible.

I know a few things about forgiveness.

Those of us who have to create a normal life out of chaos make tons of mistakes and do our own damage as we flail around. Healing hurts, too, and I have done my share of hurt. I have been forgiven much. We all have. Being forgiven is sometimes difficult, but mostly it’s a gift we are expecting and accept easily. All the trouble comes in on the other end, when we have to lay aside the power and the glory of our anger and be the forgiver.

I have forgiven in all the ways it is possible to forgive:

I have forgiven the contrite
                        the oblivious
                        the indifferent

I have forgiven the dangerous.
That’s the hardest one. Forgiving the one who, if given the spark of a chance, would consume you once again in brutish human Hellfire. 
I have managed it, finally, that distant and wary forgiveness. It’s secretive, this forgiveness, smallish and weak. It is the most heroic thing I’ll ever manage, other than surviving sane. This is why I’m fine now, why I am not still beset by nightmares, random terrors, ashen pockets of guilt and shame that I would walk into like a foul fog. Forgiveness is why I can breathe a deep breath when this particular shelf of my memory is knocked accidentally and down tumbles a few horrors of the past.
All the snakes in this box are dead. I stopped feeding them the day I started starving my anger, the day I decided I would start to stop suffering the self-inflicted wounds.
The choice not to forgive meant reliving each horrible moment every moment. That’s the key. I no longer had any gun pointed at my head, but in trying to make him sorry by continually reliving it, I was the one holding that gun. It was me who kept it eternally pointed at me. In not forgiving, I kept myself locked, eternally, in that little Hell we had, locked up with him forever. He was the greatest force in my life.
I had to let it go, do you see? Can you fathom what I mean? Out of the depths I call to you, reader. Can you hear me, because I can hear you. “How?” you say, “How in the world?”
I don’t know how. I just decided to. 
Without his explanations and apologies, with no promise that it would never happen again, indeed knowing it would in an instant if I did not keep my distance, and long after any statutes of limitations ran out, I decided to forgive.
I did it like this: I said, “I have no idea what forgiveness is, but I want it, Lord. Let me forgive.”
I still don’t know much more than that. I just know that now, when that old visitor comes knocking, I can say, “This is done. I forgive.” 
The verb is active, present, infinite.
It is beyond human scope, really. It is a gift. It is something else. Yielding it, my dragons are slain, the fire is quenched. Dante surfaces. Beatrice breathes.
Forgiveness is a key to a door. With it, you can unlock your mind from its terrors and step into your freedom. Only outside of your Hell can you search out the key to your heart.
But that’s another story, and that is why God requires it. It is how we tick…

Home page
DTB facebook Page
You Tube
Blog Talk Radio Show

*BEST OF DTB #179* Peter as the Rock show notes

Posted by John Benko - May 4th, 2012

                                               These show notes coincide with this debate

 The show notes for tonight’s debate are at tinyurl.com/cp594xf. The email address is email@deepertruthblog.com
The premise of tonight’s debate boils down to 7 verses of Scripture- Matthew 16:13-19, with special emphasis on the last 3.

A few debates ago, I proclaimed that all non-Catholic Christianity stands or falls on Sola Scriptura. Now, I am saying that the entire Catholic religion stands or falls on these 7 verses of Scripture. If Catholic exegesis of these 7 verses is wrong, the claim to the authority of Catholicism cannot stand. If we are right, however, that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16, then it cannot be denied.

These are the 7 verses as read from the RSV Bible.

The location of this discourse is Caesaria Phillipi, a place known for the huge Rock that is it’s backdrop. A little dramatic effect, if you will. A picture is in the show notes.

The discussion points directly to Peter. As if to manifest this to excess, Jesus says “YOU”  in addressing Peter, a total of 7 times in the last 3 verses. 7 times in 3 verses, folks. Count them.

Opponents try a little linguistic slight of hand. They will tell you that YOU really means ME or IT and that Petros and Petra are two different words when they are, in fact masculine and feminine versions of the very same word.

After arriving at this carefully chosen location, Jesus poses a question to all 12 disciples. Who do men say that I am?

Who is translated from the Greek tina ( τίνα Strong 5101) which can actually be translated who?, which? or what? Men is translated from anthrōpoi (ἄνθρωποι 444 ) which means mankind. and Son of Man uses the word Uion for Son and a variant of anthrōpoi that specifies a particular man. So, paraphrasing, Jesus is actually saying Who do all men say that this particular son of men is?

They answer. Some say Elijah, Some say Jeremiah, Some say John the Baptist, others say one of the prophets. Notice that there are only 4 options;

    All of these people had two things in common. First, they were all prophets. Second, they were all long gone. It is very interesting that no one saw Jesus as the Messiah at this point but no one saw Him as a fraud, either. A Prophet is one who speaks for God, who speaks by Divine authority. They all recognized Jesus as speaking by that authority but didn’t recognize Him AS that authority. All of them thought He was a resurrected Prophet which proves, contrary to what my opponent says, all the Jews believed in the Resurrection.

    The reason they thought Jesus was a Prophet is because it was well understood in Scripture and tradition that the Messiah’s coming would be preceded by a return of one of the Prophets. Most people assumed it would be Elijah.

    Malachi 4: 5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

    So the Jews were still awaiting the return of Elijah but Elijah’s return was symbolic and had already been fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. Proof texts for this in the show notes.

    Matthew 17:9-13

    10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come? 
    11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things: 
    12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would.
     Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.
    13 Then understood the disciples that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

    Matthew 11:13-15

    American Standard Version (ASV)
     13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
     14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.
     15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    To this day, Jews leave a chair out for Elijah when they celebrate the Passover, anticipating that he will precede the Messiah.

     Jesus then challenges the 12,  Who do YOU say that I am?  Peter, alone said “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Peter was the only one who stepped forward and Jesus tells us why.

    “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah” Blessed is translated from the Greek word Makarios (μακάριος 3107 Strong’s ) and conveys being very fortunate, very favored, placed in an enviable position. Simon bar-Jonah is the Aramaic rendering of Simon, Son of John. Demonstrating that Jesus spoke Aramaic comes into play later.

    For flesh and blood did not reveal this to you. 
    but My Father who is in Heaven
    Flesh and Blood from the Greek words Sarx and Aima are meant to convey human nature. This is not revealed through human faculties, in other words. Reveal is from apekalupsen which conveys revealing something that is hidden or covered. The passage is clearly conveying that Peter alone has come to this knowledge by direct revelation from the Father according to a singular privilege denied to, not only all the other Jews but to even all the other Disciples.

    and I tell you, you are Peter

    and I tell you is translated from Kai Dei Soi Lego hoti (καὶ λέγω 2532 and 3004) signifying and, moreover, I tell you that or and, more than that, I tell you. You are Peter. Petros, a huge foundational stone, suitable for building. (Πέτρος 4074). George will try to tell you that it means a smaller stone but that is complete nonsense. The word for this kind of smaller stone is Lithos.

    For example, in Matthew 24:2,  Matthew uses the word Lithos where Jesus says, referring to the Jewish Temple, not one stone will be left upon another. The address to Peter in Matthew 16:18 chooses the Masculine Petros over the Feminine Petra because Jesus here is giving Simon a new name. Actually Petros is not that name, the name is actually Kephas. John 1:42 tells us that Jesus calls Peter by the Aramaic Kephas, which is translated to the Greek Petros. The Aramaic Kephas ( Κηφᾶς 2786) cannot be translated as small stone. That would be Enva. Nor is there a feminine form of Kephas.

    Calling Peter Petros is necessitated by the translation of Kephas to Koine Greek and the fact that Peter is be named and is a man.

    and upon this rock, I will build my church and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

    And upon this rock is translated from kai epi taute te petra (καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ ) Literally translated it means and on this very rock. The notion of a contrast is untenable.

    Matt Slick tries to infer a contrast on his CARM website, arguing the difference between the masculine Petros and the Feminine Petra but it simply cannot be supported.

    Let’s go word by word. Kai (2532) means and or moreover. It affirms a thought and then emphasizes it. Yes, the car is blue and it’s the very same blue I chose. It is absurd to suggest the word Kai as a contrast conjunction and the translator to English always affirms the translation to and, not but, or however, or rather or nevertheless- conjunctions of contrast. It is suggesting, to paraphrase, that someone might say-Yes, the car is blue and it’s the very same red I chose. It is absurd.

    If a contrast were the author’s intent, the word used would be alla (ἀλλὰ 235 ) meaning but.

    Alla can be shown for example in Luke 5:32

    I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    As if this were not enough, Matthew follows Kai with epi taute te meaning on this very. Taute te is used in Matthew 26:34-

     Jesus said to him, “Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.”

    Finally, the word Petra.  (πέτρᾳ 4073 ). From the exact same root as Petros, it’s only difference is gender. It is not being used in the second part of the sentence as a proper name and, in this case, the use is feminine.

    Kai epi tautee te (and on this very same) shows clearly that the rock used in the second part of the sentence refers to exactly the same rock in the first.

    Jesus first says YOU are Rock and then THIS is the Rock. Thus, the change in Gender. You are the rock and this is the rock upon which I will build my church. It is the same rock.

    Those who suggest that Jesus is calling Peter Petros and Himself Petra fail on another ground. If Jesus is Petra, He is calling Himself a woman.

    Clearly, the Petros / Petra argument collapses under it’s own weight.

     It is Peter who is blessed with direct revelation, it is Peter who is called Rock and it is Peter who is that very same Rock upon which Jesus built a church that the power of death, literally pylai hadou, the gates of hell cannot overcome.

    In verse 19, Jesus gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose on earth that which will be bound and loosed in heaven.

    The keys to the kingdom of heaven from the Greek Kleis (2807: κλείς ) hearkens back to Isaiah 22 and the Chief Steward. It is to hand over control, literally to give the keys. Jesus is saying nothing less than telling Peter that He will give him the keys to the the authority of God’s Heavenly Kingdom on earth.

    Finally, Jesus makes a last, extraordinary claim. What you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

    Literally deses (δήσῃς 1210) meaning to tie or bind and luses (λύσῃς 3089) meaning to loose or dissolve, it refers explicitly to the exercise of authority. These are legal terms under Jewish law that were used, for example in binding someone to a debt or dissolving a contract. The claim should be a revelation to any non-catholic.

    For Jesus actually says that for whatever Peter were to bind and loose, it has already been bound or loosed in heaven!

    The words used are dedemenon  (δεδεμένον ) and lelumenon (λελυμένον), past tense variants of the previous words.

    Here, Jesus is not only giving Peter authority, but absolute, plenary authority. We call that authority infallibility but that is next week’s debate.

    That Peter is the Rock is undeniable.

    1. If Peter is not first among the disciples, why is he mentioned 155 times in the New Testament when all the other disciples are mentioned 130 times combined?
    2. If Peter is not the Rock, why was his name changed to Rock? In every other occurrence in the Bible, of God changing a person’s name, it was for a significant reason. Abram to Abraham- the Father of many nations. Jacob to Israel. Now, God changes Simon to Rock for apparently no reason?
    3. If Peter is not the head of the Disciples, by what authority does He rule in the Council of Jerusalem? The Judaizers actually made the Biblical case for Circumcision but Peter answered                                                                                                                   10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? Here, Peter is clearly exercising His power to loose.

    4. In Mark 16:7, the Angel says to Mary Magdalene and to Mary, the mother of James and Salome  But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee; there you shall see him, as he told you. If even the Angel recognizes Peter as distinct from the others, why don’t you?
    5. Why, in John 21:15-17 does Jesus ask Peter if He loves Him more than the other disciples do? Why does He charge on Peter “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”? 

    Argument: There are many verses saying that only God is the Rock. For example     1  Samuel 2:2

    There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

    Answer: Strong’s concordance lists 60 different Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words that are translated to the english word Rock. Obviously, they do not all hold the same exact meaning. For example, the passage in 1 Samuel is translated from the Hebrew word Tsur which indicates a cliff. This word is actually considered a proper name for God in it’s use in verses like Deuteronomy 32:31.Kephas, on the other hand, suggests a foundation on which to be built and, though it is of Hebrew/Aramaic origin, it is never used as a name for God, only for Peter.

    In the same way, Jesus says “call no man father” in Matthew 23:9, yet He, Himself, calls Abraham our father in John 8:56. Jesus says “I am the Good Shepherd” yet we have the shepherds in the field watching their flock by night. We have Jesus saying He is the true bread. Does this mean the manna was fake? Of course not. It is context that is key.

    Argument: How could Jesus have called Peter the Rock in Matthew 16:18 then called him Satan?
    23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

    Answer: This is actually a perverse and twisted translation of this passage. Are we to believe that Satan received direct revelation from the Father as well as the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose? No. Jesus was talking to Satan who He recognized behind Peter’s temptation. 

    Argument: 1 Timothy 2:5 says there is only one mediator between God and man and the Book of Acts says there is only one name by which men must be saved. 

    Answer: Peter is not a mediator between God a man because He is not God. Neither, is He the one by which we must be saved, and for the same reason. Peter is a minister, called by the Divine office (Colossians 1:24), entrusted with the dispensation of Grace (Ephesians 3:2) and a Priest to reign on earth (Revelation 5:10)

    This material gleaned from Scripture Catholic. Proper credit given to John Salza. 

    Matt. to Rev. – Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

    Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 – these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

    Matt. 14:28-29 – only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

    Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 – Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

    Matt. 16:17 – Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

    Matt. 16:18 – Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

    Matt. 16:19 – only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

    Matt. 17:24-25 – the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

    Matt. 17:26-27 – Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ’s representative on earth.

    Matt. 18:21 – in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus’ teachings.

    Matt. 19:27 – Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

    Mark 10:28 – here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

    Mark 11:21 – Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree.

    Mark 14:37 – at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

    Mark 16:7 – Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

    Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

    Luke 5:4,10 – Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

    Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

    Luke 8:45 – when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

    Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 – Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

    Luke 9:28;33 – Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

    Luke 12:41 – Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

    Luke 22:31-32 – Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

    Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 – John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

    Luke 24:34 – the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

    John 6:68 – after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

    John 13:6-9 – Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

    John 13:36; 21:18 – Jesus predicts Peter’s death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

    John 21:2-3,11 – Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.

    John 21:7 – only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

    John 21:15 – in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

    John 21:15-17 – Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

    Acts 1:13 – Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord’s ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

    Acts 1:15 – Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn’t it need one to Peter? Of course.

    Acts 2:14 – Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

    Acts 2:38 – Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
    Acts 3:1,3,4 – Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

    Acts 3:6-7 – Peter works the first healing of the apostles. 

    Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 – Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

    Acts 5:3 – Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority. 

    Acts 5:15 – Peter’s shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power. 

    Acts 8:14 – Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

    Acts 8:20-23 – Peter casts judgment on Simon’s quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

    Acts 9:32-34 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

    Acts 9:38-40 – Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead. 

    Acts 10:5 – Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision. 

    Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 – Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

    Acts 12:5 – this verse implies that the “whole Church” offered “earnest prayers” for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

    Acts 12:6-11 – Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church. 

    Acts 15:7-12 – Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church’s first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent. 

    Acts 15:12 – only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

    Acts 15:13-14 – then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter’s definitive teaching. “Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited…” 

    Rom. 15:20 – Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

    1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

    1 Cor. 15:4-8 – Paul distinguishes Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.” 

    Gal.1:18 – Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ’s Revelation to Paul.

    1 Peter 5:1 – Peter acts as the chief bishop by “exhorting” all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

    1 Peter 5:13 – Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

    2 Peter 1:14 – Peter writes about Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

    2 Peter 3:16 – Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul’s letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

    Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 – yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

    In dealing with the issue of whether Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built, in Matthew 16,
    one has to actually deal with the words Jesus speaks in the passage. Even the Greek verbiage that is Matthew’s translation of the actual conversation, clearly shows that Peter is the Rock. The so-called Petros/Petra controversy is no controversy at all since he addresses Peter as the Rock. In English, it would sound substantially as it is translated-YOU are the Rock and upon THIS very same Rock will I build my Church. You receives the masculine form of the noun while This receives the feminine version. This, even though they both refer, as the text clearly shows, to the very same rock.

    In dealing with this passage, anti-Catholics refuse to….well…..deal with this passage and bring up various and other sundry passages in an attempt to rebut.

    2 Samuel is but one example-

    2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour. 

    Another is Luke 20:17: But he looked at them and said, “What then is this that is written: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner’?

    Detractors point to these passages to insist that, in the mind of Catholics, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is a replacement for Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Consider these earthly models, A Father and a Son, a husband and his bride, a servant and his master, a shepherd and his sheep, an employer and his laborer. All of these, and more, are real world examples that are also types of God’s relationship to us and to His church, as expressed in Scripture.

    Yes, Jesus is the Messiah and the Rock of our salvation and Peter says so. However, it is Jesus who says to Peter, You are the rock upon which the church will be built. These are two different rocks, one being the source of salvation and one being the means. One being an eternal rock, one being a temporal rock. One being God, one being human.

    Yes, Jesus calls Himself the cornerstone, but Paul says that that cornerstone is laid in the foundation of a church built on Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 4:20).

    This week’s debate sets the foundation for next week’s- the debate on Papal Infallibility. That one should be fun. Infallibility is not Divinity.Just be ready. George will surely be telling you that we are making Peter into a god or a replacement Jesus. That is so much mush.

    In Acts 5:15 we are told that they laid the sick in the street that even Peter’s shadow might fall on them, In Acts Chapter 9, Peter raises a girl from the dead. In Acts 1,Peter resolves the replacement of Judas, in Acts 15, He resolves the Issue of Circumcision. In Acts 5:3, Peter issues the first Anathema, striking Ananias and Sapphira dead by the power of God.

    Peter not Christ’s representative on earth? Peter not prime among the Apostles?

    Give me a break.

     Opening Statement: Was Peter the Rock?
    May 04, 2012
    by George Lujack

    Catholicism claims, based on Matthew 16:18-19 that the apostle Peter was the rock on which Jesus Christ built His church, and Peter was given authority to bind and loose God’s commandments. After Matthew 16:18 records the statement of Jesus telling Peter that the church would be built upon a rock, Jesus or the Scriptures never mentions anything about an exalted role for Peter. Notice, Jesus said that He would build His church. It was not to be the church of Peter.

    Peter was a bold and courageous man, but he never exalted himself. He never sought to have men bow down before him. When Cornelius saw Peter he fell down before him to worship him, but Peter lifted him up and said that he too was a man in Acts 10:25-26. How different is this from Catholic popes, who have compelled men to kneel before them throughout the centuries?

    Scripture nowhere states that Peter was the chief apostle. The apostle Paul said that Peter was to be blamed and called Peter a hypocrite for not eating with the Gentiles in Galatians 2:11-13. This clearly shows that Peter was not infallible and was subject to correction. Paul also considered himself to not be inferior to the most eminent apostle(s) (not apostle) in 2 Corinthians 11:5, once again illustrating that there was no single eminent chief apostle. If Peter was the chief apostle pope, then Paul was speaking against Peter’s authority in declaring himself Peter’s equal in spiritual matters.

    Peter did not profess to have the power to forgive sin, as no man does, other than sins committed against ourselves, but Catholic popes and Catholic priests pretend they have power to forgive sins. Peter told Simon to repent and pray to God for forgiveness in Acts 8:22:

    Matthew 28:18 states all authority has been given in heaven and earth to Christ, declaring the primacy of Christ, not Peter. Peter was given no special authority. Christ ordered around Peter after His resurrection. Jesus informed Peter of the manner of how his death would occur. When Peter inquired about the fate Christ had for the apostle John, Jesus simply told Peter that it was none of his business. Then Jesus said to Peter “You follow Me.”

    Peter never served as a pope in Rome and there is no Scriptural evidence that Peter was ever in Rome at all. Peter was an apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles according to Galatians 2:7-8. When the Roman Catholics concocted their plan to enslave Christendom under a totalitarian authoritative papal system, they would have been more cunning in declaring Paul to have been the first Catholic pope instead of Peter. Paul would have been a more plausible choice and they wouldn’t look as foolish as they do today with their choice of Peter. Paul spent time in Rome, was the apostle to the Gentiles and wrote most of the books of the New Testament.

    Nowhere does Scripture indicate that Peter was the leader of the disciples. They apostles asked among themselves who would the greatest (Mark 9:34) and here would have been a perfect time for Christ to declare the supremacy of Peter. Jesus replied that he who would be first would be last and servant of all in Mark 9:35. Jesus also declared that rulers and those who are great exercise authority over men, yet it shall not be so among you in Matthew 20:25-26.

    If there was one apostle that stood out as greater than the others, it was the apostle John. John was the only apostle spared of martyrdom death via execution, due to his faithfulness in standing before Jesus at the cross while the other apostles hid. Jesus spared John of martyrdom, for John was the only disciple that did not fear for his own life and stood before Jesus at the cross while the other disciples, including Peter, hid. If there was one apostle that Jesus loved above the rest, it is the apostle that Jesus said that He loved, and that would by John as recorded in John 21:20.

    Since Peter was never a pope, the whole papal system is founded upon a lie and revisionist biblical history. Since Peter was never a pope, no pope was or ever could be his successor. Therefore, apostolic succession is another lie built on the false rock of Peter.

    Jesus Christ Himself, not Peter, is the Rock on which Jesus Christ is building His church. Jesus is the foundation as recorded in 1 Corinthians 3:11 and the chief cornerstone as confirmed in Ephesians 2:20.

    1 Peter 2:5 proclaims that the apostles, including Peter, and all believers in Christ are LIVING STONES that are building up the church that Christ founded.

    MATTHEW 16:18:
    And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.

    Listeners may wish to hit their snooze button, as my opponent John Benko gives us a revisionist language lesson in Greek, in which he will no doubt declare that Jesus called Peter “petros,” not “petra” in Matthew 16:18. This is tantamount to an Indian chief calling Peter “Big Rock” instead of “Little Stone.” I will not bore anyone with such linguistic deceptions in this debate.

    The meaning of what Jesus said is what is missing when Matthew 16:18 is taken out-of-context and read alone. In Matthew 16:15-17, Jesus asked Peter who He was. Peter replied that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. So, when Jesus said that “upon this rock” He would build His church, He meant that He would build His church upon Himself, the Christ, the Son of the living God.

    Peter was not a rock by any spiritual definition of what a rock is.

    Rock: a person or thing suggesting a rock, especially in being dependable, unchanging, or providing firm foundation.

    After Jesus spoke His words to Peter in Matthew 16:18, Peter went on to deny Christ 3-times after Jesus was arrested (Mark 14:72) and went back to fishing – for fish – after Christ’s resurrection (John 21:1-3). Some rock! If Christ relied on Peter as the rock that would build His church, Christ’s name would have been forgotten as a footnote in history.

    Calling Peter the rock is yet another glaring example of the Catholic Church’s system of usurping a title that rightly belongs to Christ and bestowing it upon another. Yeshua the Messiah – Jesus the Christ is the Rock. The Catholic Church, of course, could care less about Peter. They merely shamelessly use Peter to establish and empower themselves under the authority of their Catholic papal system.

    From this one verse and the verse that follows Catholics conclude:

    A. That Christ established the Catholic Church through Peter.
    B. That Jesus called Peter a rock, the foundation and cornerstone of Christ’s Church – the Catholic Church.
    C. Peter was given the keys as leader of the Catholic Church and authority to bind and loose God’s laws.

    This is a perfect example of how the Catholic Church system, a system that preaches against ‘Sola Scriptura’ or by using Scripture alone, uses Scripture alone to establish, justify and empower their own organization.

    Biblical truth-seeking Christians know that when reading and understanding Scripture, one does not take one verse from Scripture and juxtapose their already formulated faith or belief onto said verse. We are instructed to read and understand Scripture with a precept upon precept, line upon line, comparison to get a total complete picture and understanding of it (Isaiah 28:10,13). We are not to go by human precept imposed upon Scripture (Hosea 5:11).

    Scripture records the Lord God as being named as the Rock a total of 28-times excluding Matthew 16:18, Those of you with a Bible concordance that would like to verify this should look under the word ‘rock’. (Deuteronomy 32:4,15,18,31; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2,32,47, 23:3; Psalm 18:2, 28:1, 31:2-3, 42:9, 61:2, 62:2,6-7, 71:3, 78:35, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, 95:1, Isaiah 17:10, 1 Corinthians 10:4).

    Due to time constraints, I will not read all the verses that reference the Lord God as the rock in Scripture, save two:

    1 CORINTHIANS 10:4:
    For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

    2 SAMUEL 22:32:
    For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?

    ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Peter, according to the Roman Catholic Church!

    Hopefully this hasn’t been too much of a ‘parade of horribles’ for my opponent to handle, as this will conclude my opening statement.


    DEUTERONOMY 32:31:
    For their rock is not as our Rock.

    I will apply this verse to contrast Catholicism and biblical Christianity…
    For their rock (the Catholic Church’s rock – Peter) is not as our Rock (the Christian’s Rock – the Lord and Savior Yeshua the Messiah – Jesus the Christ)…

    The Catholic Church can never deny that Peter was their first pope, no matter how much biblical and historic evidence proves this to be the case. They must maintain this lie, for if they ever did admit to their deception, their whole foundation for their papal system would crumble.

    Other tenants of Catholicism brought forth from Catholicism’s pronouncement of what Matthew 16:18 declares, is Catholic’s claim that the Catholic Church is the one true apostolic church. Being that the foundation of the Roman Catholic Church is false, their claim of being the one true church is also false.

    Since Peter never was a pope, therefore there is no apostolic succession and the Catholic Church claim of being true and infallible is also built upon the lie of Peter being the rock.

    Jesus said, “I am the way, the TRUTH and the life” (John 14:6). Christ NEVER declared the Catholic Church or any other church to be the true church or the way. Only His word is true.

    There is a difference between the Catholic Church and being the church. The Catholic Church is an institution with a corrupt foundation. Christians that obey Christ through His word are the church and will be His bride upon His return.

    As for the Catholic Church system, it will come to an end when Christ returns.

    God, throughout Scripture, always punishes His own disobedient people, people that have been entrusted with His word. The Catholic Church – the Church of Peter, is unmistakably sporadically mentioned throughout Scripture. Paul warns of the advent of those who espouse the same, but different gospel in Galatians 1:6-9. Daniel 7:25 prophecies about Catholic popes throughout the ages who have intended to change God’s times and law. In Timothy 4:1-5 we read of a church institution that departs from the faith, heeds deceiving spirits, forbids it’s clergy from marrying and commands it’s members to periodically abstain from foods sanctified by God.

    I’d like to clarify that I personally have many friends that are Catholics and when I speak against Catholic theology, one should understand that I am speaking against the spiritual aspects and teachings of Catholicism. I do not consider Catholics ‘evil’ persons on an individual basis. Catholics for the most part are good hard-working, law-abiding citizens, they pay their taxes and statistically they divorce at lower rates, and have less broken families as a result, than their non-Catholic Christian counterparts. However, if I have recently DEEPLY OFFENDED anyone – Margie if you’re listening – in proclaiming that Catholics worship Mary – you might not want to hear what I’m about to say. Catholics, according to Scripture, are not even worshiping Mary; they are worshiping demons that have posed as Mary. I would rather offend you with this truth of Scripture than appease the lies of Catholicism.

    REVELATION 9:20:
    But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and idols of gold, silver, brass, stone, and wood, which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk.

    There is NO OTHER major religion that could fulfill the prophecy of Revelation 9:20 except for Babylonian-inspired Roman Catholicism. There is NO OTHER major religion on earth that has had a relationship with the true God and that promotes the making and use of graven images. Scripture does not address or correct pagan religions, so Scripture is not speaking of Hindus or Buddhism here. Catholicism is the ONLY major religion that has been given the sacred Scriptures of God, yet promotes the possession and use of graven images against the word of God. Judaism and biblical Christianity do not keep idols as possessions. Also there is NO RELIGION that knowingly worships demons, nor is there any major religion poised to worship demons anytime soon. Scripture proclaims in Revelation 9:20 that this major end-time religion is worshiping demons – and this can only be demons that have appeared as an angels of light, that Catholics praise as Mary. Scripture has warned that Satan does appear as an angel of light in 2 Corinthians 11:14, but Catholics have disregarded Scripture and have gladly received and accepted these demonic apparitions. Catholics have heeded to these Marian apparitions and make prayers to this demonic Mary, worshiping this ‘Mary’ in the way that these demon imposters have instructed Catholics to do.

    Revelation describes Catholicism in Revelation 17 and her judgment in Revelation 18. God gives a warning to come out of this idol-based church system in Revelation 18:4. Individual Catholics should heed that warning now, lest they stand with the Babylonian-inspired Roman Catholic Church of Peter and receive Christ’s wrath upon His return.

     Home page
    DTB facebook Page
    You Tube
    Blog Talk Radio Show

    « Previous Entries