Judaism revealed in New Testament - Huffington Post Article

[Elizabeth]

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8905154

I found this interesting, and am interested in the thoughts of people who are more informed in biblical history than me. I had never considered this perspective, but am not informed enough to adequately evaluate it.

[alon]

I almost deleted this, but from the Huffington Post this has a lot of surprisingly good information. But there is a lot of bad as well. Read this with a LOT of discernment if you are so inclined. Here’s what I see that is wrong:

“While there may be controversy about Jesus' Judaism vs. the traditional Judaism of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Judaism in the first century, there's no doubt that Jesus, his family, and followers were practicing Jews, as recorded in the New Testament.”

This is part of the de-Judaizing of Yeshua- an extremely dangerous idea! Yeshua was Jewish, period! No Jewish vs. this or that, just Jewish. If the enemy can de-Judaize Yeshua, then the seeds are sewn to destroy the gospel.      theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3173/away-jewishness-yeshua

“Peter, leader of the apostles after the crucifixion of Jesus.” This is incorrect. James the Just (Yaacov) would have succeeded Yeshua. Catholic history actually tells us this was so, although they don’t get why. The thing we have to understand was that Yeshua was of royal blood; a direct descendant of Melech Dovid. He truly was “King of the Jews!” That made Yaacov crown prince. Peter, who was made the senior shaliach tzibur when Yeshua said “Upon this Rock I will build My church” could not assume the mantle of leadership while Yeshua’s brother lived (or unless the unlikely event he became apostate- which did not happen!).

“Acts cites many Jews with Greek names, illustrating that this was not only commonplace but also that a degree of assimilation was commonplace for Jews living in the Greek Diaspora.” Yes, some Jews did assimilate. However most did not. They hated the oppressors, as the Romans were cruel taskmasters. Even when Alexander the Great was conquering and assimilating nations, the Jews resisted assimilation. Rav Sha’ul had a Greek name (Paul) because of an accident of birth, wherein he held citizenship both as a Jew and as a Roman. But he identified as a Jew.

“The Jewish community was basically a three language community. Clearly many Jews, especially in the Greek cities, spoke Greek and Hebrew, especially those, like Paul, as revealed in Acts 21:40. In Judaea and surrounding provinces such as Galilee, Aramaic was the primary language of the lower class--surely true for Jesus and his disciples, who were mostly working-class tradesmen. But as is common in international communities, even the working class are often fluent in several languages that they acquire through commerce with different cultures. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic but from citations in the Gospels and Acts we know that he could read Hebrew. He read from the at Sabbath synagogue services (Luke 4:16) .”

While the above is true, it downplays the importance of Hebrew to the Jews. Where there was a synagogue, they taught Hebrew. was read and explained in Hebrew every Shabbat. And Yeshua would have spoken Hebrew as His primary language. It is, after all, the language with which He spoke the world into existence!

Re synagogue life: “There's some question of how observant of the Jewish way of life these Jews were who were living in various locations, since there was a lot of assimilation. Many Jews were Greek-speaking so it's important to know that the synagogue was central in worship and that Jews commonly attended synagogue services on the Sabbath.”

Just because they spoke Greek (or any other language- Roman, Spanish, Arabic, or wherever they were dispersed to) does not mean they did not speak Hebrew. If they went to synagogue, they’d have at least a familiarity with the language of the TNK. There are always those who fall away, however the Jews in the Diaspora had a remarkable tenacity in their faith and religion to this day.

“In 49 CE the Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome. And that included Jews, Jewish/Christians, and Christians--the Romans didn't know the difference. They were all Jews to the Romans.” Actually, they were all Jews, period. There were no Christians at that time. The term was a derogatory reference to Gentiles who converted to the Nots’rim sect of Judaism. It wasn’t until in the early 2nd cen CE that what was to become the Christian church even began to form. Marcion, the first church father, was not even born until about 85 CE.

Anyone else see anything wrong?

Dan C

[alon]

Here are some of the good things:

Q. In the the age of prophesy ends with the Prophet Malachi in about 420 BCE. Yet you point to a citation in the New Testament that calls David, who came after the age of prophesy, a prophet.
A. Rabbinic Judaism says that David was an author not a prophet. But Peter's words in Acts 2:29-30 inform us that in Second Temple Judaism some Jews considered David a prophet ("Fellow Israelites, I may say to you confidently of our ancestor David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Since he was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne."). Prophesy is also cited in a minor way in Acts 21:8-10 ("We went into the house of Philip the evangelist. He had four unmarried daughters who had the gift of prophecy. While we were staying there for several days, a prophet named Agabus came down from Judea.")

We not only consider Dovid to be a prophet, but Dani’el also. And we are told in the end times “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:” (Act 2:17). So no, the age of prophesy is not dead. However not all who claim to prophesy are truly prophets.

“This trial (of Stephen) is very important because the accounts of Josephus and the New Testament differ completely from descriptions of how the Sanhedrin or high court operated according to rabbinic sources. This is another confirmation that the real Sanhedrin in Second Temple times was not functioning according to Pharisaic law--- that the Sanhedrin was a group of Pharisees and Sadducees and not a rabbinic court as described in rabbinic sources. And the elite Sadducees seemed to be running the show. But the Sadducees didn't hold to the oral law concept or customary law. What significance does this have for the trial and eventual stoning to death of Stephen? Apparently they set up false witnesses who all were willing to condemn Stephen (Acts 6:9-13).”

This confirms what I’ve been taught, that the Sanhedrin was operating outside its own rules both here and at the trial of Yeshua. Also it was the Sadducees who were the ones in power; they were quislings of Rome.

“In Paul's travels throughout Greece and Asia Minor his first stop was a synagogue--in some instances he stayed and preached for months. The descriptions tell us that the synagogue services included readings from the --especially Prophets (Acts 13:27), a sermon, plus discussion and debate (Acts 13:14-18;17:1-2;18:1919:8).” Paul always went to the Jew first, then to the Gentile (Rom 1:16, 2:10).

“We know that throughout history there were many Messiah claimants--and probably at least six during the New Testament period. Acts 5:36-37 names two: Theudas, who rose up against Rome with his followers around 46 CE and was killed. Judas the Galilean similarly perished in his insurrection earlier in 6 CE, around the time of Jesus' childhood. The New Testament citations are the earliest sources about these two rebel "Messiahs." Their armed insurrections also reveal the ferocious Jewish resistance to Roman occupation.”

This again mirrors what I have been taught. Yeshua was born into a tumultuous time with many sects, some so strict they made the Pharisees and even the Sadducees look like Boy Scouts! And many before and since claimed to be hamoshiach; however only Yeshua met all the requirements perfectly (though I am sure both the author and the Prof. would disagree with that last statement).

Actually, looking at it now there is probably more wrong than right in this article. But I'll leave it for a bit and see what kind of discussion it generates.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

I know we disagree with the whole advent of Christianity assumption and the clams made based on that. I was intrigued by the idea of how the "New Testsment" informs Jewish History. It seems obvious as a follower of Yeshua, but I had always considered the reverse idea.

Can you expand a bit more on Peter and Yaacov's roles? I don't understand enough about the logistics of Judaism at that time to follow you well. I am uninformed and the understanding I have is too idealistic and theoretical I think.

Perhaps you can recommend some further reading in general. I think I am looking for how world history intersects and effects Jewish history, and a more concrete understanding of how the "New Testament" is a continuation of Jewish history.

As a Christian, I grew accustomed to accepting a lot of seemingly random biblical events and decisions without questioning. In general, there was a lot more going on then I understand, and all G-d does is very intentional and full of purpose. I would like to better understand the basis and context of the decisions made and hopefully see more of G-d's wisdom and way.

[garrett]

The Huffington Post...oh boy.

I am half way through a book written by Douglas Hamp. It's a very small book called, "The Language of Jesus." The writer studied at Hebrew University in Israel. So far it is pretty darn good and solidifies, without question, that Yeshua spoke Hebrew all the time - as did everyone in Israel in 1st century CE. The Greek and Aramaic were also just around because of a multitude of circumstances.

Just wanted to insert that with regard to the spoken language.

An additional note: The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also causes the whole "language debate" to dissolve even further.

[alon]

Jan 9, 2016 7:21:52 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

I know we disagree with the whole advent of Christianity assumption and the clams made based on that. I was intrigued by the idea of how the "New Testsment" informs Jewish History. It seems obvious as a follower of Yeshua, but I had always considered the reverse idea.

Can you expand a bit more on Peter and Yaacov's roles? I don't understand enough about the logistics of Judaism at that time to follow you well. I am uninformed and the understanding I have is too idealistic and theoretical I think.

Perhaps you can recommend some further reading in general. I think I am looking for how world history intersects and effects Jewish history, and a more concrete understanding of how the "New Testament" is a continuation of Jewish history.

As a Christian, I grew accustomed to accepting a lot of seemingly random biblical events and decisions without questioning. In general, there was a lot more going on then I understand, and all G-d does is very intentional and full of purpose. I would like to better understand the basis and context of the decisions made and hopefully see more of G-d's wisdom and way.

Christian understanding of history seems random because any cohesive understanding of history would destroy too many of their cherished beliefs. That Ya’akov actually headed the “church,” for example, is stated absolutely only in extra-biblical writings. According to Clement of Rome, James was called the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere". Hegesippus, in his fifth book of his Commentaries, said "After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem." This would, in their thinking, make James the equivalent of being named “Pope.”

In fact, there was no “church” or any pope at that time. There was only the Nots’rim (Acts 24:5), made up of Jewish believers and proselytes (former Gentiles) to their sect. Christians impose themselves on scripture by misinterpreting the word ekklēsía, which according to the NAS Exhaustive Concordance is from the Greek ek and kaleó, meaning an assembly, a (religious) congregation. NASB Translation: assembly (3), church (74), churches (35), congregation (2).

However Thayer's Greek Lexicon says it means … 2. in the Septuagint often equivalent to קָהָל, the assembly of the Israelites, Judges 21:8; 1 Chronicles 29:1, etc., especially when gathered for sacred purposes, Deuteronomy 31:30 (Deuteronomy 32:1); Joshua 8:35 (Joshua 9:8), etc.; in the N. T. thus in Acts 7:38; Hebrews 2:12. … 4. in the Christian sense, a. an assembly of Christians gathered for worship … .

So why do we need a “Christian sense?” Doesn’t the word mean what it means? The only reason for the discrepancy can be to obfuscate the truth: that the early believers were Jews meeting in Synagogues on Shabbat. So here we see an example of history already being broken up and rewritten. It is no wonder that Christian “historians” and pastors do not want a congruent sense of history among the masses.

As to the roles of Ya’akov and Peter, let’s start with the original 12 disciples:

Matthew 10:2-4 (ESV) The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Note that neither “James” here is Ya’akov, brother of Yeshua. In fact, none of His brothers believed in Him as HaMoshiach in the beginning:

John 7:5 (ESV) For not even his brothers believed in him.

So when Yeshua said to Peter “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mat 16:18), He was making Peter the shaliach tzibur, spokesman of the group after Himself. This was a transfer of authority, giving Peter the right to speak in His stead. We know from his later actions this did not make Peter infallible (a "Pope"), rather just senior among the twelve. This would have placed him in line to succeed Yeshua as leader of the sect.

However Ya’acov, the oldest brother of Yeshua would have been ahead of Peter in line of succession. Yeshua was royalty, in the line of Melech Dovid. This is why we are given the genealogies of both Yoseph and Miriam (Matthew 1 and Luke 3). Many expected Yeshua to reclaim the kingdom by force, which is why even at the ascension He was asked “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6b ESV). So if Yeshua was royalty, in line for the throne, that would make His brothers the same. Only Only Ya’acov (James) and Yehuda (Jude) of His brothers are mentioned in scripture. That Ya’acov actually headed the early believers comes from the extra-biblical writings, as previously mentioned.

Unfortunately I cannot point you to one concise Messianic history of the Bible. Many have written essays about these events. However since we live in a culture that has been dominated by Christianity for two millennia all anyone can do is glean the shreds of truth from first the Bible, then from what is recorded in church history. This is not an easy task. My understanding comes from talking to others online, reading several essays, and mostly from the teachings of men like R Reuel and Rav S.

Some rAeferences:

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3488/church-history-natsarim-christianity
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3404/church-history

The parent synagogue here also has a list of articles and studies where you may find help:

www.synagoguechm.com/articles.html

I have to warn you though, I have found some problems there (and notified R Reuel), so as always use discernment when reading. Even our best and brightest are still learning, and anyone can get it wrong. It ain’t easy, this Messianic thing … just we strive for truth, not obfuscation.

Dan C

[alon]

As a footnote, church tradition holds two interesting ideas: one that Peter (not James) was the first pope, and also that Peter and Jude died at about the same time (Jude in Persia in 64 Ad, and Peter in 65 AD). This would explain why Jude was never head of the "church." However that James wasn't declared "Pope" before Peter seems to be only an arbitrary semantical assignment. The title "Pope" was reserved for the Bishop of Rome. However despite the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, there is no evidence, either biblical or historical, outside a few writings of the catholic church itself which places Peter in Rome; let alone there permanently to establish a church. So their claims of apostolic succession going directly through Rome are apparently false. In fairness, the Bible does say he was in Babylon, which was sometimes used as a euphemism for Rome. Even so, there is no record of him establishing a church there.

Somewhere buried deep in my notes is a quote from a church father saying there was no bishop in Rome in the 1st century. I'll keep looking, but so far no luck finding it. I think I wrote about it here, so if anyone has seen it, please help the senile (me) and tell us where ...

Dan  C

[alon]

Found it! (Yay ... )

theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/3597/when-christians-separated-church-synagogue

"... what must ultimately be realized is that Christianity is NOT Jewish, and never has been! All the early church fathers wrote virulently against Judaism, especially the Natsarim. The Natsarim, who were the only 1st cen. believers were almost all Jews themselves, and their sect survived alongside Christianity until the Christians effectively wiped them out. The Christian Church did not even come on the scene until very late in the 1st cen, or possibly in the 2nd, depending on how you wish to define their start. But historically and scripturally they were not an entity until at least Marcion, who was the 1st true church father (though he was later excommunicated in the mid 2nd cen.). From a Catholic website (http://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html#ixzz3Sw9Hk76z), "Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived," So there is a clear disconnect here in their quest to say their apostolic line went from Linus to Clement. Most telling, Clement himself wrote that there was no bishopric set up in Rome in his lifetime! (http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/ac0_fathers.htm)"

According to "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," Pope Clement of Rome held that office from 88-99 CE. Interesting he was said to be Pope of Rome, when he himself said there was no Bishop of Rome; said office being by definition the Papacy. This certainly also brings into contention the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome (a.k.a the Pope).

So historical truth is still there as well as biblical truth, even in the B'rith Chadasha. But we still have to dig it out, as the church has done a number on both over the years.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

What would be a good example of a shiliach tzibur from . ( Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha....) Let me start with that one and go from there. The whole Catholic hierarchy depends on Peter being the head of the church and a succession of power.

Thanks for all you have posted. I will read it and thank over it. There is a lot for me to think through, but maybe the Jewish context for these roles is a good place to start for a previous Catholic.

[alon]

And here's another thought: the Romans wanted Yeshua dead or it wouldn't have happened. He was sent back and forth because neither Pilot nor Herod wanted to be the one to condemn Him. Because of His royal standing, the execution of Yeshua could have started a revolt. It is interesting to speculate that had there not been so many false Messiah's already there well could have been rebellion. However one thing Rome did not stand for was anyone they saw as a legitimate contender for kingship within their territories, unless said king bowed the knee to Rome. Yeshua could never do this. This is why Pilot asked in Mat 27:11b “Are you the King of the Jews?” The original charges of the (partial) Sanhedrin where Yeshua was said to have violated their "laws" (actually rulings, not violations of ) were changed. The Romans cared less that Yeshua offended the Sadducees. But this charge that He was King of the Jews, both factual and widely acknowledged, this was a real threat to them. Still, no one wanted to be blamed for a revolt, so in the end when Yeshua didn't state it before Pilate and the "crowd" demanded it, Pilate "washed his hands" of it and acquiesced to their demands.

Couple more things here: Pilate didn't wash his hands because he wanted to not be guilty of having the Messiah's blood on them, as we were taught in church. He just didn't want to be seen as guilty by the Jewish people who might take umbrage and revolt!

Also, regarding the "crowd" that was demanding His death- they were in a courtyard into which maybe 100 people could be crammed. Giving Pilate, Yeshua and His accusers ample room it is likely only 40 or so would have been present. Sounds more like those dependent on the Sanhedrin or their policies; a.k.a. the "Friends and Family Plan" of ticket holders for the event.

We aren't told these things, but given the archaeological evidence and what we know of the political and religious temper of the times (and those two were actually one and the same), we can surmise this was the case.

Dan C

Much, but not all of this is from teachings of Rav S; some from others, and some from my own musings.

[alon]

Jan 9, 2016 13:47:31 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

What would be a good example of a shiliach tzibur from . ( Moses and Aaron, Elijah and Elisha....) Let me start with that one and go from there. The whole Catholic hierarchy depends on Peter being the head of the church and a succession of power.

Thanks for all you have posted. I will read it and thank over it. There is a lot for me to think through, but maybe the Jewish context for these roles is a good place to start for a previous Catholic.

Shaliach Tzibbur (שליח ציבור) , literally "messenger of a congregation" is an actual office in synagogues to this day. The Chazzan, or Cantor fulfils this post in modern synagogues.

The disciples were sent out as shaliachim after "Pentacost." This was what Yeshua meant in the "Great Commission" given before His ascension. He wasn't telling every new believer to go on the mission field. Ridiculous! He was sending out those learned men who studied under Him as spokesmen. This is the Hebrew word translated into Greek ἀπόστολος apóstolos, one who is sent away"; a messenger, an ambassador. In English this is an apostle.

In rabbinic Judaism, a shaliach legally had the authority to speak for his sender. “A man's agent (shaliach) is like to himself” (Mishnah Berakoth Leviticus 5:5; Rosh ha-Shanah Leviticus 4:9).

Genesis 24:2-4 (ESV) And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, “Put your hand under my thigh, that I may make you swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell, but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac.”

1 Samuel 25:40-41 (ESV) When the servants of David came to Abigail at Carmel, they said to her, “David has sent us to you to take you to him as his wife.” And she rose and bowed with her face to the ground and said, “Behold, your handmaid is a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”

2 Samuel 10:1-19 tells how seriously it was taken when the sheliachim of the king were mistreated.

Anywhere someone was sent as an emissary or representative, or as a spokesman for someone in authority or for a community (a synagogue or a sect), they were functioning as a shaliach.

Edit: some Christian sources warn against equating a shaliach with an apostle. This is because they teach the Great Commission was given to everyone. It is also part of the anti-Semitical teachings where they do not want to be closely compared to anything Jewish.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

You know a lot more about Catholic history than me and I was taught within the Catholic Church.

In my learning, they pretty much stopped with Peter being the first Pope based on the verse about him being the rock and an assumption of apostolic succession, which they never really concretely expanded on.

There was also zero concern for a biblical basis for Catholic practices, in my experience, with the exception of the Eucharist where they point to Yeshua's words at the Last Supper for justification. We knew the biblical event was historically related to the Passover, but I think in a similar way to everything else, the underlying assumption was that the Eucharist surpassed the Passover and therefore did away with it.

More often than not the logic behind why we did what we did was that it was how it had always done. Problem is that's simply not so, as applying that same logic beyond their own tradition by default leads to a foundation of Judaism which isn't consistent with their practices.

I am interested in learning more about these inconsistencies and the Jewish basis for what was actually going on. The idea that the "New Testsment" is Jewish history is something I know but can't really embrace because I don't understand so much of what was going on.

Anyway, your take on the trial of Yeshua certainly makes much more logical sense let alone historical. In church it always seemed like Pilate was somehow powerless and answering to the Jewish people; almost pitiful. Again, nobody asked the painfully obvious elephant in the room question,..... huuuu???

[alon]

Jan 16, 2016 12:05:30 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

You know a lot more about Catholic history than me and I was taught within the Catholic Church.

I've read some Catholic writings, especially in websites. Since they are by default guardians of church history it is often in their writings, including those of the early church fathers, where we find the history. However the problem with most Christian historians and theologians is that like Josephus, they consider many of these men to be historians when they were not. They were witnesses and in many cases the men who were making church history. Unfortunately they were also making up church history. Also, like they do with the new Testament they are fond of pulling out quotes and snippets to bolster their views. But reading all the writing with a critical eye usually exposes where they sliped up and revealed the truth (and therefore the lie too) in their fairytale.

I'm not saying they are all wrong. Some Catholic writers are very good, and in fact get some things much better than their mainC counterparts. The Catholics are much closer on Peter being put in charge than we were ever taught as Baptists. We were just taught this meant he had great faith, and on faith Jesus would build His church.

There was also zero concern for a biblical basis for Catholic practices, in my experience, with the exception of the Eucharist where they point to Yeshua's words at the Last Supper for justification. We knew the biblical event was historically related to the Passover, but I think in a similar way to everything else, the underlying assumption was that the Eucharist surpassed the Passover and therefore did away with it.

More often than not the logic behind why we did what we did was that it was how it had always done. Problem is that's simply not so, as applying that same logic beyond their own tradition by default leads to a foundation of Judaism which isn't consistent with their practices.

Yes, the Catholics are big on traditions of the Church. And many of those traditions are still kept by mainC as well.

I am interested in learning more about these inconsistencies and the Jewish basis for what was actually going on. The idea that the "New Testsment" is Jewish history is something I know but can't really embrace because I don't understand so much of what was going on.

It isn't that uncommon for a Jewish Rabbi to have a working knowledge of the New Testament and even greater understanding of the Apocryphal books. However their views are clouded by Christian misinterpretations and misuse, as well as 2000 yrs of bloody history with the Church. Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has probably a better knowledge and understanding of the NT than many of todays Christian pastors. However like the Rabbi here in your article, even those looking somewhat favorably on it still get a lot wrong. Hard to be too hard on them though, given how much we know Christians get wrong.

Anyway, your take on the trial of Yeshua certainly makes much more logical sense let alone historical. In church it always seemed like Pilate was somehow powerless and answering to the Jewish people; almost pitiful. Again, nobody asked the painfully obvious elephant in the room question,..... huuuu???

Most of that information concerning the trial came from a teaching by Rav S. He's been to the site many times and has pictures and drawings with rough dimensions. Some of the history is just, well, history. You read, you listen, you learn, you pass it on. Some is just common sense, which you often can find (before or after figuring it out yourself) someone has beaten you to it and wrote about it. I am lucky too as very often Rav S will confirm it in a teaching ... well, sometimes he blows my theories out of the water. But less than you'd think.

And Mainstream Christianity has a whole herd of elephants coexisting with the Catholic herd. No wonder we were so trampled down with false doctrine it took a while for us to leave their habitat and find our own patch of jungle to explore.

Dan C