blackbird

So have you loved your neighbour enough or repented of your sins enough for salvation? Can you honestly say you have done enough to be saved?

I didn't say we should adopt the system in the UK or France or Germany. I said the various systems in Europe should be studied. We should find out what makes the best systems. Also there are conflicting articles on the systems in different countries. You read about some problems in Germany. I read that Germany has some very good things about its health care. You need to read more than one article on a country. There are many different opinions. Some groups have their own agenda. The U.S. does have some government assistance to their system. I also never said we should follow the U.S. system. I specifically said to study the systems in various other countries such as Europe. Your idea that only government can provide medical care has proven to be a failure. Our system is worse than the U.S. in some ways. Millions of Canadians can't even get a doctor. ERs close in some places. People are put on long waiting lists for special care often and thousands have died on waiting lists. Many people in the U.S. actually get better health care than in Canada. In spite of that, I never said we should adopt the U.S. system. However, I don't believe people who can afford to pay something should be denied the privilege of obtaining health care. Everyone rich or poor in Canada suffers in a failing health care system. People who can afford it should be able to contribute to the health care system through insurance or a reasonable small fee when they see a doctor. Socialized medical care does not provide enough money to provide good service for everyone.

So you believe all that is necessary for salvation. How do you know when you have done enough to be saved?

Not really. They put their trust in Mary, the church, the Pope, the sacraments and they are taught that Jesus is in a piece of bread through their doctrine of the Mass and transubstantiation. They also worship the host. How can they believe that Jesus made a complete atonement for their sins if they are taught they must atone for their own sins through the sacraments, good works, the Mass, and purgatory? They are taught they must believe all these things. It is an unbiblical, false system.

I made a few phone calls to the medical clinics in several small towns and found that in most if one wants to find a doctor, they must go on a waiting list and it could take 1-1/2 or 2 years to find a doctor. The only alternative is in some places a walk-in clinic is open for a few hours a couple times a week or one could travel to the nearest hospital ER and wait hours there to see a doctor. The hours a walk-in clinic is open varies from one place to another. However, walk-in clinics and ERs do not provide the same level of care as one's own doctor. They generally do not know the patient as well as one's own personal doctor does. I do not feel the level of care is the same in a walk-in clinic or ER. It is more like an assembly line service or fast food service compared with a good quality restaurant service. Millions of Canadians do not have their own doctor and very little if anything seems to be changing. This results in many people in Canada who have medical problems or needs are being left behind. This results is a kind of two level system for the care of Canadians. Some get reasonable medical care while millions are not getting the care they should. This also becomes worse as people get older. Many people will live shorter live spans as a result. All of this is unnecessary if government took the proper steps to fix the system. One thing governments and political leaders should be doing is studying the health care systems in European countries. Some of them reportedly have fairly good systems. We should not be locked into a failing system because of left wing ideology that only government can take care of us. They can't; they are under too many other demands and are governed by politics as well. The only solution I see is having private care alongside the public system. If we found enough doctors in the world to come to Canada this could alleviate the doctor shortage. The private care part would allow people who could afford private insurance to pay for the insurance which would fund the private doctors. In conjunction with this perhaps clinics with nurse practitioners working with doctors could provide improved services. Remove all the administrative and paperwork from doctors for one thing. I know many people think any kind of private care is bad because they believe the ideology that Socialism or a government run health care system is better. Sadly it is not better. It has proven a failure for many years. It does not and can not fund the public system well enough to provide an acceptable level of care and provide everyone with their doctor. Perhaps some kind of clinics with nurse practioners and doctors together could improve the system. Doctors are also required because of the bureaucracy of the public system to complete all kinds of paperwork and administrative duties take up too much of their time. That needs to end. But the government seems unable to change that. The system seems to be set up to benefit bureaucrats and unions. That is one of the major problems of public systems. It is rigged to benefit certain groups at the expense of the general public.

"5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. " 1 Timothy 2:5 KJV "6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 KJV Those who put their trust in Mary are putting their trust in a false hope. Only God through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, can save a person. None other.

Sure. You pasted a Catholic article. LOL. Means nothing. There are countless Catholic websites that defend Mariolatry. Simple fact is Romanism does not follow the Bible. I posted a long list of Catholic practices and beliefs they invented in the last 1,700 years that are not supported by the Bible.

quote Do Catholics worship idols / practice idolatry? Answer Sadly, our Catholic friends and family members have been indoctrinated to believe that the use of statues, relics, and other articles is acceptable and even necessary for worship. They have been taught by the Roman Catholic Church that the images and icons used in the church are not actually “worshiped” but are simply “visual aids” to worship. The Catholic Church long ago began making allowances for the idolatrous use of images by the way they reference the Ten Commandments. In the Catholic catechism and in most official Catholic documents, the first and second commandments are combined and then summarized with “I am the Lord your God. You shall not have other gods beside Me.” Suspiciously absent is what comprises the second commandment in the Protestant numbering of the Ten Commandments: “You shall not make any graven images.” While it is understandable for “you shall not make any graven images” to be considered an aspect of “you shall not have other gods beside me,” based on the history of idolatry involving graven images throughout biblical and extra-biblical history, it seems unwise to not include “you shall not make any graven images” in every listing of the Ten Commandments. The omission seems especially suspicious in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has long been accused of the idolatrous use of graven images. There are good reasons for not using images in worship. First of all, the use of physical images to “aid” worship violates the command to worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). Also, no one knows what God looks like, and John 1:18 is clear concerning this truth: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” And, because God is Spirit (John 4:24a), it is irreverent to delineate Him as an iconic representation. No one alive knows what Jesus Christ looked like in the flesh, and, since there were no cameras when He walked the earth, the only description of His appearance is found in Isaiah 53:2-3, which says that He had “no stately form or majesty.” The lack of a physical description of Christ has not stopped the Catholic Church from depicting Him. Throughout Catholic churches, institutions, convents, monasteries, and every other Catholic-affiliated building and shrine, there are paintings of God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and a myriad of canonized saints. There are statues in abundance; there are relics, such as bone fragments, said to have belonged to certain saints. Some shrines even contain pieces of wood purported to be part of Jesus’ cross. All of these things are held to be sacred objects worthy of high regard. The idolatry is rampant and fairly obvious to non-Catholics, yet Catholics do not believe they are committing idolatry. They have been cleverly taught to believe that they do not worship these idols; they simply “venerate” them. The problem is that “veneration” still gives honor and reverence to something and/or someone other than God; therefore, veneration is idolatry. Yes, Catholics do practice a form of idolatry, in violation of God’s command. The best way to reach our Catholic friends with the gospel of grace is to pray that the Holy Spirit will draw them and that they will respond to the Spirit’s leading. Their eyes and hearts are blinded by the false teaching they are continually hearing, and, until they begin to seek the truth, we must leave it in God’s capable hands. As we pray, we must keep loving them and trust that God will prepare the soil of their hearts (Luke 8:11-15). Never give up hope; the Holy Spirit does miracles every day. unquote Do Catholics worship idols / practice idolatry? | GotQuestions.org

No, not true. When they kneel in front of Mary, they are likely saying the Hail Mary. Do a search and read the prayer. They are worshiping Mary. The prayer is addressed to Mary. "They start each stanza holding a bead and saying "Hail Mary full of grace". That is worship.

You denied you were a Catholic, but why would anyone believe you? How much time do you spend kneeling before a statue of Mary?

"3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; " Exodus 20:4, 5 KJV People kneeling and praying in front of a statue of Mary are doing exactly what these verses in the Old Testament, ten commandments forbid.

Yes it is, because it is not deserving of praise or honour. People are free in this country to practice whatever religion they wish, but that does not mean we have to agree with it. We are free to criticize and expose it if we believe it is false. We do have a Charter of Rights and a Bill of rights that guarantees freedom of speech and religion. That means we are free to criticize and reject any religion or follow any religion. Apparently you haven't learned that yet. Respect basic freedoms. ____________________________________________________________________ Adoration is what they give Mary who they call the Mother of God. This website proves once and for all they do worship Mary. " Roman Catholics And Popes Worship Mary This Roman Catholic Beliefs study features images that show how Popes, priests and Catholics, revere and pray to Mary. I have people proclaim that Catholics don’t worship Mary, so this page will prove that is false. The Roman Catholic Church Catechism removed God’s second commandment which forbids idol worship, and split the tenth commandment in two, to fill the gap. “You shall not make idols for yourselves; neither a carved image nor a sacred pillar shall you rear up for yourselves; nor shall you set up an engraved stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 26:1 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God.” Exodus 20:4,5 The Catholic Church has many graven images, idols; of baby Jesus, of Jesus on the cross, Mary, Peter, etc. And the Pope and Catholics bow to the statues and pray to them. A statue of the Holy Virgin Mary of Fatima is carried during a candlelight vigil at the holy shrine. Thousands of Catholics are clearly seen venerating this idol of Mary. A shrine is a holy or sacred place, which is dedicated to a specific deity, ancestor, hero, martyr, saint, daemon or similar figure of awe and respect, at which they are venerated or worshiped. (wiki) You might not do that, but your Pope and other Catholics most certainly do. Roman Catholics And Popes Worship Mary – Roman Catholic Beliefs These Catholics are clearly kneeling and praying before a statue of Mary.

"Roman Catholicism a Poor Defense against Communism We have no hesitation in saying that most of the Roman Catholic nations, had they been left to themselves, long ago would have fallen victims of Communism. In all probability both Italy and France would have turned Communist at the close of the Second World War had it not been for American aid and all of the political influence that our government could lawfully exert toward those nations, and even then the result was in doubt for some considerable time. The Vatican had supported Mussolini’s Fascist and military policies, including the conquest of Ethiopia (which conquest had been condemned by the League of Nations and by practically all of the civilized world), his open and extensive support of Franco in Spain with troops and arms, and his invasion of Albania and Greece. After Italy entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany the Roman Church supported the Italian war effort, which meant, of course, that our work of carrying the war to a successful conclusion was made just that much harder. During the war Pope Pius XII gave his blessing to large numbers of Italian and German troops who appeared before him in uniform. With the defeat of Germany and Italy those policies caused strong popular resentment. It is probable that, in the turmoil that followed the ignominious fall of Mussolini, the Roman Catholic Church would have been overthrown in much the same way that the Orthodox Catholic Church in Russia was overthrown when the Czarist regime fell at the end of the First World War, had not American military forces then in Italy preserved order. In Russia a dead, formalistic church had lost the respect of the people and had become identified with the despotic rule of the Czar since he was the head of both the state and the church. When the people rose up in anger and threw out the political government, they threw out the church with it and turned to the other extreme, atheism. That has often been the case where the people have known only one church. When that became corrupt they had no alternative but to turn against religion altogether." -from the book Roman Catholicism Be thankful we still have freedom of religion in Canada. That is probably the only thing that has prevented Canada becoming a totalitarian country and possibly Communist.

No, not really. The term is short for Roman Catholic. Everyone should be concerned with a devout Romanist as the PM. The last one was a Romanist as well as most PMs in Canada are. Take a look at the western countries with the most problems in the past, the most poverty and dictatorships. Examples are central and south America. Lots of poverty and crime. The most prosperous countries have been Protestant, like the UK and America. The UK and America have had a lot of freedom as well. Communist revolutions in Cuba, Venezuela, and other places that are Romanist. Reportedly one third of the people in Italy support Communism. Isn't it strange Italy was on the side of the Axis or Nazi powers in WW2. Why is it Canada gives billions of dollars of taxpayer money around the world supposedly for foreign aid? Much of it is not properly accounted for either. Much of it may have been wasted. But spreading taxpayer money around the world fits in well with the Vatican ideology of Socialism or wealth redistribution. Carney has a history of globalism including a position in the Vatican. So we can expect the same kind of spending of taxpayer money around the world.

It is a term for something that should not be praised or recognized as a good thing. You can't accept truth. You can't even accept the fact they worship Mary. That is obvious to anyone.

Lying again. I posted nothing dishonest.

"SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESIES AND INVENTIONS and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1,650 years 1. Prayers for the dead: began about A.D. 300. 2. Making the sign of the cross: A.D. 300. 3. Wax candles: about A.D. 320. 4. Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images: A.D. 375. 5. The Mass, as a daily celebration: A.D. 394. 6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary, the term “Mother of God” first applied to her by the Council of Ephesus: A.D. 431. 7. Priests began to dress differently from laymen: A.D. 500. 8. Extreme Unction: A.D. 526. 9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I: A.D. 593. 10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I: A.D. 600. 11. Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels: about A.D. 600. 12. Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas: A.D. 607. 13. Kissing the pope’s foot, began with Pope Constantine: A.D. 709. 14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks: A.D. 750. 15. Worship of the cross, images, and relics: authorized in A.D. 786. 16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest: A.D. 850. 17. Worship of St. Joseph: A.D. 890. 18. College of Cardinals established: A.D. 927. 19. Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII: A.D. 965. 20. Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV: A.D. 995. 21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent: A.D. 998. 22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. 23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand): A.D. 1079. 24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit: A.D. 1090. 25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona: A.D. 1184. 26. Sale of Indulgences: A.D. 1190. 27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III: A.D. 1215. 28. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted by Pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council: A.D. 1215. 29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by Pope Honorius III: A.D. 1220. 30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse: A.D. 1229. 31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk: A.D. 1251. 32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance: A.D. 1414. 33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence: A.D. 1439. 34. The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed: A.D. 1439. 35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by Pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century): A.D. 1508. 36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola: A.D. 1534. 37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D. 1545. 38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent: A.D. 1546. 39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed: A.D. 1560. 40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX: A.D. 1854. 41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers: A.D. 1864. 42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council: A.D. 1870. 43. Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI: A.D. 1930. 44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by Pope Pius XII: A.D. 1950. 45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church by Pope Paul VI: A.D. 1965. Add to these many others: monks, nuns, monasteries, convents, forty days Lent, holy week, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, All Saints day, Candlemas day, fish day, meat days, incense, holy oil, holy palms, Christopher medals, charms, novenas, and still others. There you have it—the melancholy evidence of Rome’s steadily increasing departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, a departure so radical and far-reaching at the present time that it has produced a drastically anti-evangelical church. It is clear beyond possibility of doubt that the Roman Catholic religion as now practiced is the outgrowth of centuries of error. Human inventions have been substituted for Bible truth and practice. Intolerance and arrogance have replaced the love and kindness and tolerance that were the distinguishing qualities of the first century Christians, so that now in Roman Catholic countries Protestants and others who are sincere believers in Christ but who do not acknowledge the authority of the pope are subject to all kinds of restrictions and in some cases even forbidden to practice their religion. The distinctive attitude of the present day Roman Church was fixed largely by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), with its more than 100 anathemas or curses pronounced against all who then or in the future would dare to differ with its decisions. Think what all of this means! Each of the above doctrines or practices can be pin-pointed to the exact or approximate date at which it became a part of the system. And no single one of them became a part of the system until centuries after the time of Christ! Most of these doctrines and practices are binding on all Roman Catholics, for they have been proclaimed by a supposedly infallible pope or church council. To deny any doctrine or practice so proclaimed involves one in mortal sin. What will be next? Indications are that it will be another proclamation concerning Mary. Two new doctrines are under discussion: Mary as Mediatrix, and Mary as Co-redemptrix. Important Roman Catholic authorities have already indicated that these will be the next doctrines officially proclaimed. Mary is being presented in current Roman teaching as a Mediator along with Christ. She is said to be the “Mediatrix of all graces,” and the people are being told that the way to approach Christ is through His mother. “To Christ through Mary,” is the slogan. Her images outnumber those of Christ, and more prayer is offered to her than to Christ. It is also being said that Mary’s sufferings, particularly those at the cross, were redemptive in the same sense that Christ’s sufferings were redemptive. It would seem that these two doctrines, if adopted, would in effect place Mary as a fourth member of the Godhead, along with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And presumably these doctrines, if adopted, will be officially announced by the pope, for he was proclaimed infallible in this regard in 1870 and therefore no longer needs the authority of an ecumenical council. And still the Roman Church boasts that she never changes or teaches new doctrines! Semper idem—“Always the same”—is her motto! The fact that not one of the doctrines in the above list has any support in the Bible disproves conclusively the claim of the priests that their religion is the same as that taught by Christ and that the popes have been the faithful custodians of that truth. The fact is that many of the above listed rites and ceremonies were taken directly from paganism or from Old Testament Judaism. Some scholars say that as much as 75 percent of the Roman ritual is of pagan origin. John Henry Newman, later cardinal, in his book, The Development of the Christian Religion, admits that “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holy days and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests, monks, and nuns), images, etc., are all of pagan origin” (p. 359). While the Roman Church has been so free to hurl the name “heretic” at all who differ with her, the above list shows that the real heretics are the Roman Catholics themselves, and that the true orthodox are the evangelical Christians. Says the Scripture: “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. ... Making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do” (Mark 7:7,13).' --from book Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

False again. I gave you the information and sources that prove the modern Bible versions are corrupt or counterfeit. The fact you won't accept it or read the sources is your problem. I have done what I could to help you but you reject it.

Not true. I simply speak the truth as I see it. By your comments, you seem to reject Biblical truth and accept the false religion of Rome. You said yourself it is a kind of Christian denomination and rebuked me for opposing Romanism. You definitely could not be a Protestant and what exactly you believe, it is hard to understand. You think I am a zealot for merely believing the Bible and what the reformers believed since the Reformation. That is pretty bizarre. I don't know what to make of you or what you believe. Wow! You just said a bizarre thing again. That is bizarre to say if you claim to believe the Bible. Again you obviously don't know anything about Romanism. You are defending false religion. Unbelievable.

Go ahead and cast your false accusations if it makes you feel good. I am not going to play that game. Have fun.

So you have something to hide. That seems to indicate you are a Romanist (many are Romanist, practicing or not) and would explain why you claim I am a zealot. Actually, I'm not a zealot. Just an ordinary Bible-believer. People that don't believe the Bible and who are held captive to Rome are in serious trouble with God. Pointing out someone is intoxicated with a false belief system or atheism is not being a zealot. It is throwing them a life ring if they accept it. Most don't.

No, the Bible is addressed to you and everyone, not just me. How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God? "The question of which (if any) religious text is the true word of God is of utmost importance. To avoid circular reasoning, the first question we must ask is: how would we know if God communicated in the first place? Well, God would have to communicate in a manner that people could understand, but that also means that people could make up their own messages and simply claim that they came from God. So, it seems reasonable to think that if God wanted to authenticate His communication He would have to verify it in a manner that could not be duplicated by mere humans - in other words, by miracles. This narrows the field considerably. Beyond the evidence for the Bible’s correctness (manuscript evidence) and its historicity (archeological evidence), the most important evidence is that of its inspiration. The real determination of the Bible’s claim to absolute inspired truth is in its supernatural evidence, including prophecy. God used prophets to speak and write down His Word and God uses miracles like fulfilled prophecy to authenticate His messengers. For example, in Genesis 12:7, God promises that the land of Israel was to be for Abraham and his descendants. In 1948 Israel was returned back to the Jewish people for the second time in history. This may not seem so astonishing until you realize that no nation in the history of the world has been scattered from its homeland and returned! Israel has done it twice. The book of Daniel predicts with accuracy the coming of the four great kingdoms from Babylon, to Medo-Persia, to Greece, to Rome centuries before some of those kingdoms came on the scene with details concerning how they would rule and be broken. This includes the reigns of Alexander the Great and Antiochus Epiphanies. In Ezekiel 26 we can see in astonishing detail how the city of Tyre was to be destroyed, how it would be torn down, and how its debris would be thrown into the sea. When Alexander the Great marched on that area, he encountered a group of people holed up in a tower on an island off the coast near there. He could not cross the sea, so he could not fight those in the tower. Rather than wait them out, the proud conqueror had his army throw stones into the sea to build a land bridge to the tower. It worked. His army crossed the sea and overthrew the occupants of the stronghold. But where did he get so much stone? The rocks that were used for the land bridge were the leftover rubble from the city of Tyre . . . its stones cast into the sea! There are so many prophecies concerning Christ (over 270!) that it would take more than a few screens worth of space to list them all. Further, Jesus would have had no control over many of them such as His birthplace or time of birth. Second, the odds of one man accidentally fulfilling even 16 of these are 1 in 10^45. How many is that? For comparison, there are less than 10^82 atoms in the entire universe! And Jesus, who affirmed the Bible as the Word of God, proved His reliability and deity by His resurrection (an historical fact not easily ignored). Now consider the Quran - its author, Muhammad, performed no miracles to back up his message (even when he was asked to by his followers - Sura 17:91-95; 29:47-51). Only in much later tradition (the Hadith) do any alleged miracles even show up and these are all quite fanciful (like Muhammad cutting the moon in half) and have zero reliable testimony to back them up. Further, the Quran makes clear historical errors. Muslims believe the Bible is inspired but with some errors from editing (Sura 2:136 as well as Suras 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25). The question they cannot adequately answer is: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If they say before 600 A.D. then how can the Quran admonish believers to read it? If they claim it was after 600 A.D., then they have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire, for we have absolutely no doubt as to the accuracy of biblical manuscripts from at least the 3rd century forward. Even if Christianity were false, the Quran still has an insurmountable problem because it makes judgments against Christians for believing things that they do not (nor have they ever) believed. For example, the Quran teaches that Christians believe the Trinity is the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Sura 5:73-75, 116), and the Quran also teaches that Christians believe that God had sex with Mary to have a son (Suras 2:116; 6:100-101; 10:68; 16:57; 19:35; 23:91; 37:149-151; 43:16-19). If the Quran is really from God, then it should at least be able to accurately report what Christians believe. Joseph Smith, the author of the Book of Mormon, tried to do some miracles such as prophecy (a test for a true prophet in Deuteronomy 18:21-22) but failed several times. He foretold of Christ’s second coming in History of the Church (HC) 5:336: “There are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ comes.“ Smith consistently taught that the coming of Christ was near. In 1835, he spoke of “the coming of the Lord, which was nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene“ (HC 2:182). He also claimed that, while praying, “a voice said unto me, ’My son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years of age, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man’“ (ibid., see also also D&C 130:14–17). From these pronouncements, Smith’s followers began looking for the Lord to come about 1890. Jesus did not return in 1890, and the Mormon church does not claim that He did. Nor has it occurred since. He also prophesied that several cities would be destroyed in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 84:114-115. New York, Albany and Boston were to be destroyed if they rejected the gospel according to Smith. Joseph Smith himself went to New York, Albany, and Boston and preached there. These cities did not accept his gospel, yet they have not been destroyed. Another famous false prophecy of Joseph Smith was his "END OF ALL NATIONS" in D&C 87 concerning the rebellion of South Carolina in the war between the states. The South was supposed to call on Great Britain for aid, and as a result war would be poured out upon all nations; slaves would revolt; the inhabitants of the earth would mourn; famine, plague, earthquake, thunder, lightning, and a full end of all nations would result. The South finally did revolt in 1861, but the slaves did not rise up, war was not poured out upon all nations, there was no worldwide famine, plague, earthquake, etc., and there was no resulting "end of all nations." The collection of writings that Protestants call the Apocrypha (hidden writings), Roman Catholics call the deuterocanonical (later or second canon) books. These books were written between 300 B.C. and 100 A.D., the Intertestamental Period between the inspired writings of God’s Prophets in the Old Testament and those of the Apostles and their contemporaries in the New Testament. These were "infallibly" accepted into the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Now the Apocrypha would be covered under the evidence for the Bible if these writings were truly inspired - but evidence seems to indicate that they are not. In the Bible we find prophets of God whose messages are ratified by miracles or prophecy that comes true, and whose message is immediately accepted by the people (Deut 31:26; Josh. 24:26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Daniel 9:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16). What we find in the apocrypha is just the opposite - no apocryphal book was written by a prophet. None of these books were included in the Hebrew Scriptures. There is no ratification of the authors of any apocryphal book. No apocryphal book is cited as authoritative by later Biblical writers. There is no fulfilled prophecy in any apocryphal book. Finally, Jesus, who quoted from every section of Old Testament Scripture, never once quoted from the apocrypha. Neither did any of His disciples. The Bible so far outshines every competing source for being God’s revelation that if it is not God’s Word, it would seem impossible to choose among the leftovers. If the Bible is not God’s Word, then we have been left with no clear criteria by which to know what might be." How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God, and not the Apocrypha, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon, etc.? | GotQuestions.org The prophecies in the Bible, which were later fulfilled, prove the truth of the Bible, in English, the King James Version, beyond any doubt. This is supernatural or miraculous proof. This proves the skeptics do not have a leg to stand on.

The question is what truth do you hold? You never said, but just take a pot shot at me. What is your religious background, Roman Catholic?

You need to do a lot of studying. The land belongs to Israel. But they have been willing to share a portion, but the Palestinians rejected that proposal. They only want to destroy Israel completely. Did you read the above article I posted from JNS?