PDA

View Full Version : Jesus Did State He Was God; Here's the Proof!


ephesians6
12-31-2004, 09:16 PM
Someone in a previous posting had wondered about whether Jesus ever said He was God.

Well, here's proof for you.

There are many verses that prove that Jesus was exactly who He said He was, and Jesus DID admit to being God, twice that I'm aware of:
--------------------------------------------

"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (John 8:57-58)

(That phrase, "I am," was used by God in the OT.)
---------------------------------------------

and consider this verse from Genesis that is PLURAL (more than one person)--

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image.."

(Why did God say "Us?")
----------------------------------------------

And here's the direct PROOF that Jesus said He was God:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them from my hand.

My Father who has given them to me is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Fathers hand.

I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE."

John 10:27-3
----------------------------------------------

Daniel
01-01-2005, 07:40 AM
Christian mind.

You are wrapped up tight in your little box aren't you. The Father *AND* I are one. Wake up, you are still asleep and spiritually dead.

marypopinz
01-01-2005, 08:02 AM
I believe Jesus meant that he was acting in unison with God, his father - as a unified force.

Yet another example of the life of Jesus being an example for humanity because he was a human. God gave us a great role model. Jesus - a divinely inspired lifetime of many achievements, who has conquered over evil, time and time again.

I'm on their team. I'm part of that force in my, own small way.

my two cents.
XXX

billiard
01-01-2005, 08:43 AM
ephesians is correct . jesus was/is indeed divine but also fully human , the bible saying that he laid aside his divine power and lived as a man . he was the son of man ...he was the son of god .he was a man , but he was god . emmanuel ,a name used for messiah in the old testament,means "god with us". i don't pretend to fully understand this,but who am i to understand god ? he is beyond my ability to understand . i simply accept what the scriptures say , whose message is clearly that jesus was "god in the flesh" .

nomad
01-01-2005, 08:45 AM
marypopinz wrote:
I believe Jesus meant that he was acting in unison with God, his father - as a unified force.

Yet another example of the life of Jesus being an example for humanity because he was a human. God gave us a great role model. Jesus - a divinely inspired lifetime of many achievements, who has conquered over evil, time and time again.

I'm on their team. I'm part of that force in my, own small way.

my two cents.
XXX


Why then, did the only person born of a

VIRGIN call himself Son of God ?

zanyzan311
01-01-2005, 08:53 AM
I'm back baby!!
:-P
I've said it before, Jesus was either the Son of God or a complete madman. THeres not much middle ground. Remember He also said He had the power to forgive sins. I'm sorry i dont have a bible hanndy to qoute the verse. Would someone who was not God have the power to forgive sins?

Marsali
01-01-2005, 11:20 AM
I think it's in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 2, in which Jesus states: ...."But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"....

Jesus frequently referred to himself as the 'Son of Man.' Perhaps he was trying to instill in people's minds that, although he was the Son of God, he was also a human, just like them.

nohope187
01-01-2005, 03:42 PM
How can Christ be God when it was the father who resurrected the son? How can Christ be God when he(Christ) sits at the right hand of God? Does'nt it also say in Collosians somewhere that Christ is the "first born of all creation" That does'nt sound like God to me.

nohope187
01-01-2005, 03:52 PM
Also, Saying Christ is God totally destroys the whole point of God sending his son as a sacrifice.
But hey, if you wanna believe Christ is God, by all means, do it. I bet ya'll think you're gonna be raptured too. Do'nt complain when you receive the mark of the damned, okay? :-P

nohope187
01-01-2005, 04:16 PM
What's also really annoying is, what's the deal with all these preachy threads? Can't this shit be condensed into the Christianity thread? :-P

madkhao
01-01-2005, 05:11 PM
nohope wrote

How can Christ be God when it was the father who resurrected the son? How can Christ be God when he(Christ) sits at the right hand of God? Does'nt it also say in Collosians somewhere that Christ is the "first born of all creation" That does'nt sound like God to me.



John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

Matthew 10:32-33 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10:40-41 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.

Psalms 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

John 5:22-23 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Personally I think God had to come in man form because the sight of Him would kill us all if He came in God form.

nohope187
01-01-2005, 05:21 PM
Was anyone paying attention when I said, saying Christ is God totally destroys the whole point of "God sending his Son as a sacrifice" and that saying Christ is God, lines up with bullshit Roman Catholic doctrine which says, "Mary is the mother of God". You know what, Nevermind. Ya'll believe whatever way you want seeing how everything I'm saying falls on deaf ears. :-x

Marsali
01-01-2005, 07:55 PM
Actually, nohope, you do raise some good questions about the "Is Jesus God" is issue. But there may be no easy or clear answer for you. And it's a question that some Christians have also asked over the years.
I personally don't think it matters as to whether or not Jesus was God. From what I've read of the bible, the ministry of Jesus boils down to two essential elements:
When Jesus was once asked about what commandemnt was most important, he answered that "You are to love your Lord your God with all your heart,with all your mind, and all your strength. the second is that you should love your neighbor as yourself. There are no commandments greater than these."
If we Christians could consistently live up to these two things, then we'd be doing pretty well, and everything else would fall into place.
Keep the questions going nohope; it keeps us Christians on our toes, and helps us to focus more on our religion than we might otherwise do.

DarkChilde3D
01-01-2005, 09:34 PM
As far as all of the questioning and pondering . . . and for all the 'trying to figure it out through science' . . . IT WILL NEVER BE EXPLAINED, NOR CAN IT EVER BE UNDERSTOOD.

God is omnipitent . . . he is not restricted to the timeline. He is the beginning and the end. Of course it does not make sense . . . its not supposed to make sense. . . that's not meant for us to understand, nor is it meant to be questioned. when we believe in something that we cannot prove . . . this is called faith. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Tauism, Buddhism . . . they are all FAITHS that nobody can fully explain the miracles that are contained with each.

DC

sablefish
01-01-2005, 09:55 PM
As It seems there is no one here to defend the Catholics.. I say they are a good bunch of people, who love their children just as much as any other splinter of the Christian religion.. So what if some of their clergy are perverts.. The same can be claimed for the admirers of the likes of Falwell and Roberts, only the "born agains" are asking for killing on a genocidal scale, instead of just screwing our children.. They ask that we kill Muslims.. man, woman, and child. Is it worse to be screwed or killed?

Are we supposed to pick on Catholics now?.. and for that matter, Atheists are people who love their children too... Are we to reject people because of their preferred choice of faith, or are we open to discussion with all parties that are affected and infected by the NWO?

In fact, I bet that the problem with Catholic clerics extends to Protestants too, and Rabbis, and Muslim clerics.. as well as Buddhists and Hindus.. perverts are everywhere, always have been.

I Think Catholics have been singled out by the NWO to be the fall guys.. Perhaps to swipe the wealth of the Vatican.. Who's wealth has been controlled since the 12th century by Jewish accountants.

I think Catholics are good guys.. and I think atheists are too... along with Buddhists, and Hindus.. All of us people of faith are being screwed over by the NWO.. who's religion is Mammon... materialism.. worldliness..

Go ahead and yell, I don't care.

freeman
01-01-2005, 10:29 PM
I'm not yelling, Sable. I'm cheering everything you said.

Are we to reject people because of their preferred choice of faith, or are we open to discussion with all parties that are affected and infected by the NWO?

That is my reason for joining this forum. I consider myself a Christian, but many Christians have assailed me for not adhering to their respective dogma (which seems to include attacking third world countries and killing innocent civilians without provocation). Funny, I can't remember the last time I heard a real Christian clergyman preach on the evils of Freemasonry and the occult right from a Sunday morning pulpit, so I suspect the greater apostasy, heresy and flatout hypocrisy resides more with the mainstream denominations who sold out to NWO ecumenicism a long time ago.
I believe that only by indetifying and unifying against the common enemy (the evil spiritual entity known as Satan and his plan for this New World Order), will we ever be able to resolve our own differences and live together as brethren in the way that God originally intended.
And for the record, I believe the Catholic church has been subjected to the same corrupting and apostasizing forces as the Protestants, albeit from different sources -- the Black Pope and his Jesuits. You're right, Sable, if they ever take a close look at other denominations like the Methodists or Southern Baptists (who are infested with libertine Freemasonic clergy), the Catholic church's sex scandal may look like a parking ticket by comparison.
For further edification, check out Cardinal Law's 1996 Letter to the Bishops concerning Freemasonry, which just coincidentally happend to precede the deluge of civil lawsuits directed against his diocese.
Cardinal Law's 1996 Letter to the Bishops (http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/cardinallaw.html)

nomad
01-01-2005, 10:39 PM
The Catholic Church is an enigma.

Yes they have had their share of sick priests

preying on children.

But they are also the ones that preach that

to be a priest or nun you must leave EVERYTHING

and serve God alone.

I don't see many others doing this.

Marsali
01-02-2005, 10:32 AM
I would like to say that I appreciate all of the Catholics, here in the U.S. and around the world, who protested against the invasion and subsequent war in Iraq, including the two Catholic peace groups, Pax Christi and the Catholic Peace Fellowship (which ministers to Catholic conscientious objectors).
I appreciate all of the Catholic writers whose writings have inspired me, such as Malachi Martin, Dorothy Day, Fr. John Dear, Compton Mackensie.
Most of all,I appreciate the Catholic families whom I know, who strive to maintain what some might call "old-fashioned" values, and who try to put their families and their faith above all else.

marypopinz
01-02-2005, 10:46 AM
There are many good people following the different faiths of the world, in my books.

I consider myself blessed with the opportunity to relate to the life of Jesus Christ. I think we are lucky, as Christians, to have such a terrific role model.

The more I question, the more I believe he was divinely inspired. Perhaps to the conception of his birth. I didn't used to believe that was the the truth. I questioned it.

The more I question, the more I keep coming back to the only conclusion I can reach... God on earth in the flesh. God's chosen son, a piece of God like my kids are a piece of me.

A unified force to let humanity realise its full potential... family is for life. Love is eternal. We are part of God's family. He claims us, when we know not him, nor his love. Also, a loving parent will teach his child, even if that requires punishent.

There is a mile of difference between doing something out of love and out of hate.

Maybe the holy spirit is the love that flows from God and into humanity, if they open up their hearts?

Mary XXX

nomad
01-02-2005, 10:53 AM
Let's not forget that the ONLY Catholic US

President John F. Kennedy actually tried to save

us from the clutches of the Rockefeller and

Rothchilds private money presses. Kennedy

actually printed billions of "debt free" US

Notes a few months before they shot him down.

----------------------------------------------

President Kennedy, the Federal Reserve and Executive Order 11110

by Cedric X

From The Final Call, Vol15, No.6, on January 17, 1996 (USA)


On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment. As America's debt reaches unbearable levels and a conflict emerges in Bosnia that will further increase America's debt, one is force to ask, will President Clinton have the courage to consider utilizing Executive Order 11110 and, ifso, is he willing to pay the ultimate price for doing so?

Executive Order 11110 AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289

AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

Section 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended-

By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):


(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12,1933, as amended (31 U.S.C.821(b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denomination of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption

and --

Byrevoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

Sec. 2. The amendments made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

John F. Kennedy The White House, June 4, 1963.

Of course, the fact that both JFK and Lincoln met the the same end is a mere coincidence.

Abraham Lincoln's Monetary Policy, 1865 (Page 91 of Senate document 23.)

Money is the creature of law and the creation of the original issue of money should be maintained as the exclusive monopoly of national Government.

Money possesses no value to the State other than that given to it by circulation.

Capital has its proper place and is entitled to every protection. The wages of men should be recognised in the structure of and in the social order as more important than the wages of money.

No duty is more imperative for the Government than the duty it owes the People to furnish them with a sound and uniform currency, and of regulating the circulation of the medium of exchange so that labour will be protected from a vicious currency, and commerce will be facilitated by cheap and safe exchanges.

The available supply of Gold and Silver being wholly inadequate to permit the issuance of coins of intrinsic value or paper currency convertible into coin in the volume required to serve the needs of the People, some other basis for the issue of currency must be developed, and some means other than that of convertibility into coin must be developed to prevent undue fluctuation in the value of paper currency or any other substitute for money of intrinsic value that may come into use.

The monetary needs of increasing numbers of People advancing towards higher standards of living can and should be met by the Government. Such needs can be served by the issue of National Currency and Credit through the operation of a National Banking system .The circulation of a medium of exchange issued and backed by the Government can be properly regulated and redundancy of issue avoided by withdrawing from circulation such amounts as may be necessary by Taxation, Redeposit, and otherwise. Government has the power to regulate the currency and creditof the Nation.

Government should stand behind its currency and credit and the Bank deposits of the Nation. No individual should suffer a loss of money through depreciation or inflated currency or Bank bankruptcy.

Government possessing the power to create and issue currency and creditas money and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by Taxation and otherwise need not and should not borrow capital at interest as a means of financing Governmental work and public enterprise. The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers. The privilege of creating and issueing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Governments greatest creative opportunity.

By the adoption of these principles the long felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts, and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprise, the maintenance of stable Government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own Government. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power.

Some information on the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve, a Private Corporation One of the most common concerns among people who engage in any effort to reduce their taxes is, "Will keeping my money hurt the government's ability to pay it's bills?" As explained in the first article in this series, the modern withholding tax does not, and wasn't designed to, pay for government services. What it does do, is pay for the privately-owned Federal Reserve System.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as, "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves."

Privately-owned banks own the stock of the Fed. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said:

Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors.

Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Taking another look at Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.).

The FED banks, which are privately owned, actually issue, that is, create, the money we use. In 1964 the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is:

The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine.It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them.

As we all know, anyone who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is what the Fed is.

No man did more to expose the power of the Fed than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. Constantly pointing out that monetary issues shouldn't be partisan, he criticized both the Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt administrations. In describing the Fed, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932, that:

Mr. Chairman,we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enoughmoney to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the UnitedStates; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it.

Some people think the Federal reserve banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man's throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into States to buy votes to control our legislation; and there are those who maintain an international propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us and of wheedling us into the granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully and disloyally foisted upon this country by bankers who camehere from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The Fed basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the Fed banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the Fed over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, both in the past and in the present, that speak out against it. One of these men was President John F. Kennedy. His efforts were detailed in Jim Marrs' 1990 book, Crossfire:

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11,110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks.

A number of "Kennedy bills" were indeed issued - the author has a five dollar bill in his possession with the heading "United States Note" - but were quickly withdrawn after Kennedy's death. According to information from the Library of the Comptroller of the Currency, Executive Order 11,110 remains in effect today, although successive administrations beginning with that of President Lyndon Johnson apparently have simply ignored it and instead returned to the practice of paying interest on Federal Reserve notes. Today we continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and the deficit is at an all-time high.

The point being made is that the IRS taxes you pay aren't used for government services. It won't hurt you, or the nation, to legally reduce or eliminate your tax liability.


http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

freeman
01-02-2005, 04:31 PM
Along with Lincoln and Kennedy, I think Andrew Jackson is largely forgotten for his role in boldly opposing the establishment of the National Bank in the early nineteenth century, as far as I know, the first attempt by the elites to establish a Federal Reserve-type of central banking in this country. Jackson stood down a character named Nicholas Biddle, probably the Henry Kissinger of his day, picked by the bluebloods to run their new national bank and unscrupulously loyal to them.
Jackson's political career probably ended prematurely as a result of his reluctance to turn the country over to the financial vultures who have picked our financial bones clean since 1913, and after surviving an 1835 assassination attempt, he retired to The Hermitage, his plantation estate in Nashville and died in relative obscurity in 1845.

Andrew Jackson's Opposition to the National Bank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Jackson.27s_opposition_to_the_Natio nal_Bank)

lynns_shadow
01-02-2005, 05:45 PM
uhm, ya

and what did that have to do with Jesus being God?:)

must've missed that link..:)

I never make a connection between "The Catholic Church" and Jesus..And I was a catholic for 23 years..a Christian now for almost as long..:)

That's my insight from a Christian since '87

Marsali
01-03-2005, 08:53 AM
Lynns shadow,
If you never make a connection between the Catholic church and Jesus, then why did you so strongly defend them in your recent post on this thread?
"As it seems there is no one here to defend the Catholics...."