"The Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth it is this, and Protestantism has ever felt it so; to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." (-John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).

"Where the bishop is, there let the people gather; just as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". -St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca 110 AD)a martyr later thrown to the lions, wrote to a church in Asia Minor. Antioch was also where the term "Christian" was first used.

“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." -CCC 811

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Top 10 Most Powerful Religions In The World

Catholicism is leading all CHRISTIANS to the real Jesus, the real Church and the real Sacrament!


Sunday, June 18, 2017

SOLEMNITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI!


Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Most Persecuted Religion in the World are Christians


Sunday, June 11, 2017

What Is Trinity Sunday? By Scott P. Richert

Honoring the Most Fundament Christian Belief
Source: ThoughtCo

The Hospitality of Abraham (Old Testament Trinity), c. 1380. Found in the collection of the Benaki Museum, Athens. Photo by Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

by Scott P. Richert
Updated May 11, 2017

Trinity Sunday is a moveable feast celebrated a week after Pentecost Sunday. Also known as Holy Trinity Sunday, Trinity Sunday honors the most fundamental of Christian beliefs—belief in the Holy Trinity. The human mind can never fully understand the mystery of the Trinity, but we can sum it up in the following formula: God is three Persons in one Nature. There is only one God, and the three Persons of God—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—are all equally God, and They cannot be divided.

Quick Facts About Trinity Sunday

  • Date: The Sunday after Pentecost Sunday. See When Is Trinity Sunday? for the date in this and future years.
  • Type of Feast: Solemnity.
  • Readings (Year A): Exodus 34:4B-6, 8-9; Daniel 3:52, 53, 54, 55, 56; 2 Corinthians 13:11-13; John 3:16-18 (full text here)
  • Readings (Year B): Deuteronomy 4:32-34, 39-40; Psalm 33:4-5, 6-9, 18-19, 20-22; Romans 8:14-17; Matthew 28:16-20
  • Readings (Year C): Proverbs 8:22-31; Psalm 8:4-5, 6-7, 8-9; Romans 5:1-5; John 16:12-15
  • Prayers: The Sign of the Cross; The Glory Be; The Athanasian Creed
  • Other Names for the Feast: The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity, Holy Trinity Sunday

The History of Trinity Sunday

As Fr. John Hardon points out in his Modern Catholic Dictionary, the origins of the celebration of Trinity Sunday go all they way back to the Arian heresy of the fourth century. Arius, a Catholic priest, believed that Jesus Christ was a created being rather than God.

In denying the divinity of Christ, Arius denied that there are three Persons in God. Arius' chief opponent, Athanasius, upheld the orthodox doctrine that there are three Persons in one God, and the orthodox view prevailed at the Council of Nicaea, from which we get the Nicene Creed, recited in most Christian churches every Sunday.

(The Council of Nicaea also gives us a wonderful example of how a real bishop deals with a heretic: Confronted with Arius' blasphemous views, Saint Nicholas of Myra—the man best known today as Santa Claus—marched across the council floor and slapped Arius across the face. See the biography of Saint Nicholas of Myra for the whole story.)

To stress the doctrine of the Trinity, other Fathers of the Church, such as St. Ephrem the Syrian, composed prayers and hymns that were recited in the Church's liturgies and on Sundays as part of the Divine Office, the official prayer of the Church. Eventually, a special version of this office began to be celebrated on the Sunday after Pentecost, and the Church in England, at the request of St. Thomas à Becket (1118-70), was granted permission to celebrate Trinity Sunday. The celebration of Trinity Sunday was extended to the entire Church by Pope John XXII (1316-34).

For many centuries, the Athanasian Creed, traditionally ascribed to Saint Athanasius, was recited at Mass on Trinity Sunday. While seldom read today, this beautiful and theologically rich exposition of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity can be read privately or recited with your family on Trinity Sunday to revive this ancient tradition.

[Please read the OFFICIAL CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH]

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Another Massacre of Christians in Egypt


Dr. Daniel B. Wallace Finally Confronts the Iglesia Ni Cristo®-1914 Deceptive Literature


"The Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) is a Filipino-based group that rejects the major tenets of the historical Christian faith.  InC, in particular attempts to deny that the deity of Christ is a biblical doctrine.  And although they view themselves as the only true church, they freely use several bona fide academic works to support their views -- in spite of the fact that the authors of such works would be appalled to learn of the abuse of their own writings. I was shocked to learn that InC members had used my Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics in support of their heterodox beliefs.  Duane Cartujano, a Roman Catholic apologist, has investigated their views.  He supplies plenty of documentation -- both quotations of the secondary literature and an exposition of the biblical text -- to refute the InC. I, for one, am glad that he has exposed this group for what it really is.  His book will serve as a welcome corrective to the deceptions of the Iglesia ni Cristo. -Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Senior Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

Thursday, April 27, 2017

A Quick Refutation of an Internet Lie (perpetuated by members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo about Joe Ventilacion vs Dr. J. White debate).

A Quick Refutation of an Internet Lie

I was sent the attached graphic earlier today as I was going to preach on Philippians 2:5-11 at a local Southern Baptist Church here in Rapid City before returning home tomorrow to Phoenix. Here is the English translation that was provided to me:

"The proof that INC won the debate:

After the heated debate between Dr. James White and Joe Ventilacion of INC, Dr James White has made up his mind to study more on teachings and faith of the Iglesia ni Cristo. This is due to the fact that he has by himself witnessed that all the teachings of INC is plainly stated in the Bible.

No wonder that even if the debate was already over, James White, out of his curiosity, continues to ask questions to Joe Ventilacion, because it was his first time to hear these teachings from INC. Most importantly, Dr. White has concluded that there is no Trinity in the Bible and that there is only one God, the Father, which has to be known and worshipped by men."

The picture was taken by an INC member we had chatted with while waiting for Mr. Ventilacion to arrive for the 5pm Q&A session (which was very lightly attended). As I had other things to get to I went straight to JV and asked my question. If we need to, I can provide a full transcript and recording of the conversation. Here is what we discussed:

When I do debates, I attempt to accurately represent the other side by studying their primary source documents. Hence, when I debate Mormons, I have a very large LDS library from which to quote. Same with Jehovah's Witnesses. When I debate Islam, I quote from their primary source documents as well. And when someone wants to represent me fairly, they surely can do so, as my books are available for anyone to read, and the confessions of faith used by my church are public and readily available.

During our debate, JV said I was misrepresenting INC. But he also invited me to do a second debate (we discussed doing this in San Diego next year during this conversation). So I raised one main issue to him. There is a book I would like to obtain. It is titled _Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia Ni Christo_ by Eranio G. Manalo. It is their primary ministerial text. And it is secret. They do not allow public distribution of it. And so I was asking for a copy, as that would be the only way to accurately represent INC's positions in a debate. I was told it was only for ministers, and that I would be provided with articles from magazines, but not with the official publication that defines their beliefs. I pointed out that this secretive stance is not only problematic for people who claim to be Christians, but it makes it next to impossible to fairly debate INC. But I was not given the book.

JV and I exchanged numbers and email addresses so we can have contact regarding the possibility of a debate in San Diego (where he is moving). I wrote to JV earlier today to ask him to comment on this falsehood being spread through the Internet, but I have not received a response from him.

Now, the fact is, whoever posted this lie is engaging in CLASSIC cultic behavior. Such a person shows not the slightest concern for truth and is willing to fabricate falsehoods for the service of a false religious system. This is the very essence of the cultic mind.

Once again, everything in the article is an utter fabrication, a lie, *and we possess full documentation of every word spoken in the exchange by which we can prove this.* Only a person who feels a very strong need to do damage control would produce such a dishonest post. And that says a great deal.

By the way, anyone with any information on how we might obtain a copy of the above mentioned book, please contact Alpha and Omega Ministries with that information. We are surely willing to pay for any copy of this work. Thank you!


St. Paul Was a Catholic Priest

By Dr. James Taylor, Convert

Many protestants make the mistake of claiming St. Paul as the first protestant, instead of Martin Luther? Why? Well Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles, and seemed to go around the country planting churches. Some claim that each of these churches was autonomous, with no central authority like Peter, and that is certainly the model of many modern protestant churches. But that is not the correct assumption to make about St. Paul, who is VERY Catholic in his writing. Let's take a look at some his writings to see.

First, St. Paul did get his commission directly from Jesus Christ, on the way to Damascus. St. Paul didn't just stand up on his own one day and decide to become a preacher. Like Peter and the other 11 apostles, Paul was sent forth by Jesus Christ Himself. St. Paul even says in Romans 10:15 that no one can preach unless he is SENT. Sent by whom? Well, either by Jesus Himself, or one with the authority of Jesus Himself, which would be Peter. We know this from John 20:21, where Jesus says to Peter and the other apostles (the Church on earth), "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." Jesus also gave Peter the Keys to His Kingdom, in a sign of authority, in Matthew 16:19, where Jesus says that whatever Peter and His Church bind on earth, or loose on earth, will be bound and loosed in heaven. In recognition of this, after Paul had spent 3 years in Arabia following his conversion, he went and submitted himself to the chair of Peter, in Galatians 1:18.

Powered by Translate
But being sent by Christ to preach to the Gentiles and being submissive to Peter were not the only Catholic things that Paul did. Paul was very keen on oral tradition, something that Catholics today say is just as important as sacred scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul says to "hold fast to the traditions we taught you, either written or by WORD OF MOUTH. Most protestants today disagree with Paul, saying that all tradition in the Catholic Church is somehow evil.

Paul was also very outspoken on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, St. Paul says that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ (not "symbolic"), and the breaking of the bread is a participation in the body of Christ (not "symbolic"). He then goes on to compare the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ with the Jewish sacrifice on the altar, as well as with the pagan sacrifices on the altar. Now either Paul doesn't know how to write properly and is using false comparisons with other altar sacrifices, OR the Eucharist is indeed a true sacrifice on an altar. Why else would Paul compare the Eucharist to other altar sacrifices? Most protestants don't even have an altar in their church (but they do have altar calls!). As if to emphasize his belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Paul continues talking about it in the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, where he says that whoever eats and drinks the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS (if it's just a symbol, then this would be impossible.) This is why Catholics who practice artificial contraception or who commit other mortal sins such as looking at porn HAVE TO GO TO CONFESSION FIRST before receiving the Eucharist. Otherwise, they are guilty of yet another mortal sin. Paul goes on to say that anyone who does not discern the Body of Christ in the Eucharist (therefore, NOT A SYMBOL) eats and drinks judgment on himself, and you could get sick and die. This is why non-Catholics are not invited to the Catholic Eucharist, because they do not believe it to be Jesus Himself. Just like in marriage, where the husband and wife become one flesh, in the Eucharist, Jesus becomes one flesh with us. And just like in marriage, there is a preparation before. In marriage, there is the Pre-Cana preparation; with the Eucharist, there is the RCIA preparation.

So what about the sacrament of confession? Did Paul ever say anything about this? Well, yes he did, in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. Paul says that the ministry of reconciliation (forgiveness of our sins) was given to him by Christ. On behalf of Christ, Paul urges us all to be reconciled with God. Many protestants believe that they can confess their sins directly to God, and not go through a minister, but this philosophy is only to be found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. For instance, we have St. John the Baptist hearing the people's sins prior to baptism in Mark 1:5, and in John 20:21-23, Jesus gives his priests the power to forgive sins. In James 5:16, he says to confess your sins to one another. And in Acts 19:18, many people came forward confessing their sins and evil practices. Confessing one's sins to a minister of reconciliation is very New Testament. Confessing your sins to God directly is the Old Testament way, and is no longer in force.

Paul also believed in personal mortification, like Catholics do during Lent. In Colossians 1:24, Paul says that he rejoices in his personal sufferings, and completes WHAT IS LACKING IN THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, for the sake of the Church. Now this doesn't mean that Paul thinks that Jesus should have hung on the cross for 4 hours instead of 3 hours. What it means is that we, the Church Militant, in the true imitation of Christ, have to suffer with him, albeit not near as much. Why, because it helps build up the church. It is only through suffering that many people meet Christ. After all, when we are well off and well fed and healthy and living the good life, most people put their confidence in the things of this world, not Christ. By suffering, we come to know Christ as He came to know us - in bodily suffering. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 9:27 that he mortifies his flesh, so that after preaching to us, he himself will not be disqualified. This not only reinforces the self-mortification aspect of Paul's teaching, it also refutes the heretical "once saved, always saved' teaching of protestants.

And speaking of the false "once saved, always saved" theory, Paul directly refutes it in Hebrews 10: 26-29, when he says that if you deliberately sin after being sanctified by grace, then you can expect nothing less than an ordeal of fire, because you have profaned the blood of the covenant (the Holy Eucharist) by which you were sanctified, and outraged the Holy Spirit. That certainly doesn't sound like once saved, always saved, and in fact, backs up St. Peter in 2 Peter 2:20-22.

St. Paul also believes in praying for the dead. He prayed for the dead Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, asking not only blessings for his household, but for Onesiphorus to receive mercy at the final judgment.

Purgatory? St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12 -15, that a man's work will be tested with fire on his judgment day. If the man has good works, then he will receive an immediate reward. if it is burned up, then he will eventually be saved, but only through fire. Since people who go to hell are never saved, then this can only be referring to the cleansing fire of purgatory.

St. Paul also didn't preach that the bible alone is his philosophy. Rather, in 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, rather than sacred scripture, which many protestants hold up to be the pillar and bulwark of truth. Catholics agree completely with St. Paul here.

And St. Paul was not only celibate, he recommended celibacy. Many protestants mistakenly believe that celibacy leads to child abuse, which is crazy, because Jesus, St. John the Baptist, and St. Paul were all celibate. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-22, that marriage is ok, but IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN UNMARRIED, because then you are trying to please the Lord, not your wife.

St. Paul didn't believe that good works were useless, filthy rags either, like some protestants preach. Rather, he believed that they were the fruit of our faith, like he says in Colossians 1:10 - "We should live a life pleasing to God, bearing fruit in every good work." Paul does condemn the useless works of the law like circumcision, in Romans 3:28. Luther mistranslated this "works of the law" into "good works," which does not agree with other scriptures like James 2:24, where God says that we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. It's sad how so many people today still believe Luther and not James. As if to emphasize his belief that salvation is not a one time decision, but a continuous journey until death, Paul says in Phillipians 2:12 to "WORK (there is that word again) out your salvation with FEAR AND TREMBLING." (This is not the cocky self assuredness that most protestants preach today!).

And finally, what about the Rapture? The rapture is a mistaken protestant belief that Jesus will come in secret, and snatch believers up to heaven, leaving everything else behind, including their clothes. Then there will be a 7 year tribulation, where the rest of us will get a second chance to be saved. This is NOWHERE to be found in scripture. St. Paul mentions the second coming of Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17. But Paul says that the dead will rise first, and that there will be a huge trumpet blast. So this event doesn't appear to be some secret snatching away of believers. Seeing the dead rise first with a huge trumpet blast is nowhere to be found in any of the "Left Behind" series of novels. And since the dead will rise first, we know that this will be the last day of human history. This is confirmed by St. John in John 6:40.

So don't let anyone try to hold St. Paul us as some kind of Protestant. St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 that many of his writings are hard to understand, and many do so to their own destruction. This was true in the first century, in the 16th century when Luther and Calvin got it wrong, and it is still true today with all of the TV preachers preaching health and wealth as the Christian message..


Friday, April 14, 2017

Anong Iglesia ang gumagawa nitong ginagawa ng mga unang mga kristiyano na nagkakatipon araw-araw sa Templo at nagpipira-piraso ng tinapay?

Anong Iglesia ang gumagawa nitong ginagawa ng mga unang mga kristiyano na nagkakatipon araw-araw sa Templo at nagpipira-piraso ng tinapay?

"Araw-araw, sila'y nagkakatipon sa Templo at nagpipira-piraso ng tinapay sa kanilang mga tahanan, na masaya at may malinis na kalooban."(Acts 2:46, Magandang Balita Biblia)

Araw araw ha? Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday ay may ginagawang pagsamba at nagpipiraso-piraso ng tinapay.

Sabi ni Jose Ventilacion ng Iglesia ni Cristo sila daw ito, PAANO NANGYARI YAN? 4 times a week lang ang INC ni Manalo sumamba at ang kanilang santa cena ay ginagawa lamang once a year. Malinaw ang sinasabi sa talata na ARAW-ARAW, Nagkakatipon sa Templo (Walang Absent) at Araw-Araw rin sila nagpipira-piraso ng tinapay, ang araw-araw ay hindi once a year. (Mula sa Questions & Answer - Christian Apologetics)


Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Not All Images are Idols. Let’s explore Solomon’s Temple, The Tabernacle, Herod’s Temple and the Synagogue in Our Own Time -By Bro Duane

Shared from BRO. DUANE'S BLOG - THE JOURNEY OF A CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST


It is a big sin for Christians to judge their fellowmen. Reading the Bible does not allow us to judge others especially if we have not studied entirely what is written in the Bible.

I decided to review the original text in Hebrew and Greek to fully understand the Word of God since many English versions were not translated correctly from the original text.

In my 16 years of defending Christianity, I often see people who introduce themselves as Christians judging fellow Christians particularly our Catholic friends.

The reason is they have images in their chapels and homes.

Many Christians use Deuteronomy 5:7 to conclude that all images are idols.

Personally, I am not in favor of treating images as god since this is idolatry. Yet, we will find out that not all images can be called idols if we study the Bible well.

Here is one of the oldest manuscripts of Deuteronomy and if we study closely verse 7.


The Hebrew word “Elohim Acherim” refers to other gods.

Normal word order in Hebrew is for adjective to follow verb, like often in Greek, the opposite of English. Thus, “other gods” is the proper English way to translate Elohim Acherim.

The Hebrew word “Pesel” is in Verse 8 and refers to idols.


These are the verses used by our brothers about “IDOLS” so we can read the Hebrew Word Pesel.


In Deuteronomy 5: 9, there is the Hebrew word, tishtachave and here is the meaning of the related word in Hebrew word which is tishtachave.

He will bow down to worship – yishtachave
I will bow down to worship – ‘eshtachave
You will bow down to worship – tishtachavoo
They will bow down to worship – yishtachavoo
Bow Down to Worship (command, singular) – hishtachavi
Bow Down to Worship (command, plural) – hishtachavoo

She (3f sing.) will bow down to worship ” tishtachave” is the same form as You (2m sing.) will bow down to worship tishtachave Also, the context is the ten commandments: you/thou shall not.

We will discover not all images are idols.

Let us find out what can be seen inside Solomon’s temple.

King Solomon built the temple in the Bible in 960 BC. To understand its purpose, we must know that God made the world and created the rules. It was destroyed by Babylonians in 586 BC.

The temple was located on the eastern hill. It is north of the City of David where we can find the Dome of the Rock today. The temple mount was significantly smaller. Solomon made it bigger. Herod also added to the present size of the platform. It is known as Haram esh-Sharif. This is “the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite”. (2 Samuel 24:18), “Mouth Moriah” (2 Chronicles 3:1), and possibly the “Zion of the Psalms. The term belonged to the city of David.

The Temple was envisioned as the tabernacle rectangular, with a porch or vestibule facing east, a nave an inner sanctuary or Holy of Holies.

Here is the image of Solomon’s temple. We can see the images clearly.


The holiest place housed the Ark of the Covenant and two winged figures (cherubim). These were made from olive wood coated with gold stretching from wall to wall. Similar doors separated the nave from the covered entrance. Only priests were allowed to enter the Holy Place every day.

The Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies) was God’s throne room which is the meeting place. This was between the two cherubim on the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant. The high priest sprinkled blood on the mercy seat on the day of atonement for the sins of the people.

We can also see the illustration in the Bible clearly.

“for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord.All this, in writing at the Lord’s direction, he made clear to me—the plan of all the works.”(1 Chronicles 28:18-19, NRSV)

We can read The Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 25:18-20.

“You shall make two cherubim of gold; you shall make them of hammered work, at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at the one end, and one cherub at the other; of one piece with the mercy seat you shall make the cherubim at its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings. They shall face one to another; the faces of the cherubim shall be turned toward the mercy seat.”(Exodus 25:18-20, NRSV)

The Ark of the Covenant was the place where God talked to Moses Exodus 25:22. It was made from acacia wood and covered with gold.


The tabernacle (the “tent of meeting”) housed the Ark. The ark was the first furniture built after God ordered Moses to build the tabernacle Exodus 25:10-22.

The ark was to be the main focus of the Most Holy Place in the tabernacle as well as the temple Exodus 40:1-21.

The Ark was placed in the most holy place and separated by a thick veil Exodus 26:31-33.

According to scholars, when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem (586 BC) and plundered the temple, the ark could have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar and destroyed, or hidden by Levites.

Here is the Tabernacle

The tabernacle was a transferable “tent of meeting” that God commanded Moses to build Exodus 25:1-2, 25:8-9. God wanted to live with the Israelites. He had fellowship with them and communicated with them.

“There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat,from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant, I will deliver to you all my commands for the Israelites.”(Exodus 25:22, NRSV)


The tabernacle was the place that God dwelt with his people for 4000 years. This was from the exodus until the time of King Solomon when the temple was constructed.

The tabernacle was at the heart of the Israelite camp. The 12 tribes of Israel encamped around it. The figures in the boxes refer to the number of males (20 years and above) in each tribe numbers 1-3.

Here is Herod’s Temple

Scholars pointed at the illustration of Herod’s temple.
 

Here is the illustration of Herod’s temple and other details when Jesus was still on Earth.


It is different from Solomon’s Temple.

It started in 20 BC. Herod’s new structure was 15 stories high and followed floor dimensions of the former temples in the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.

According to the Book written by Bruce Metzger, The Oxford Guide to People and Places of the Bible in page 308.

Within this holy place, there were increasingly sacred areas; the court of the women at the east, the court of the priest, then the temple (naos). This area was separated from the women’s court, being 15 steps higher, and could be entered through the nicanor gate. Only the priests could enter the temple, and only the high priest could enter the holy of holies, and that only on the day of atonement.

The whole structure was destroyed by the Romans in Ad 70.

Are there images in Herod’s temple like what we see in Solomon’s Temple?

According to the Babylonian Talmud.

“There were no cherubim in the temple of Herod, but the walls were painted with figures of them (Babylonian Talmud Yoma 54a).”

For our information, the Talmud is the anthology of the historic rabbis “discussing” or “debating” what the Torah means. The Talmud’s two elements are Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), which is a written account of Rabbinic Judaism’s Oral Torah (Talmud means “instruction” in Hebrew)

Are There Images in the Synagogue?

Synagogue comes from the Greek term that means “house of assembly.” In Hebrew, the word used is “beit k’nesset.” It means house of assembly. English-speaking people do not translate it or use the Hebrew. They use an anglicized Greek word, synagogue.

According to a respected and famous Jewish scholar, Professor Lawrence Schiffman (leading scholar of ancient Judaism):

“Some synagogues have two lions above the ark and one of the interpretations of this imagery is that it represents the cherubim. There are certainly no sculpted images in synagogues.”

We can see inside the synagogue two images of lions in the upper part.


Professor Schiffman also said:

This is similar and look at the section above the ark curtain, where two lions face each other with a crown symbolizing the Torah beteen them.

Jews are more intelligent than us when it comes to the Old Testament because they know very well Hebrew.

If Deuteronomy 5:8 and Exodus 20:4 really forbid keeping images, even the Jews failed to obey this since they put images of lions inside their synagogue. Yet, they know the meaning of the Hebrew words: Elohim Acherim, Pesel and Tishtachave which we can read in Deuteronomy 5:7-9 and Exodus 20:3-5.

As a Christian, is my analysis correct that not all images are idols?

In our studies, it is very clear that some non-catholic pastors and their followers who were not able to study the Scriptures very well say all images are idols.

If we study closely, 2 noted scholars proved that not all images are idols.

1. Gleason Archer

Who is Gleason Archer?

Gleason Leonard Archer Jr. (May 22, 1916 – April 27, 2004) was a biblical scholar, theologian, educator and author. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleason_Archer_Jr.)

He is not a Catholic.

Gleason Archer wrote this in his book.


The explanation of Archer is like that of Catholics who say not all images are idols since God ordered the creation of images.


2. Norman Geisler

Who is Norman Geisler?

Norman L. Geisler is an evangelical scholar, Christian apologist, and the author/coauthor of over fifty Christian books defending the Christian faith by means of logic, evidence, and philosophy. He has also authored many scholarly articles on a wide range of theological and philosophical topics. (https://www.theopedia.com/norman-geisler)

Norman Geisler is not a Catholic.


This is what Norman Geisler said in his book.

My Blog List

My Calendar

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...