Mr. Manalo's Favorite Lamsa Bible translation

Mr. Felix Manalo’s Favorite Lamsa Bible translation

The george Lamsa translation of the Aramaic. Lamsa believed the original texts were written in Aramaic and were latter changed to Greek. That the Aramaic were more authoritative, but he is wrong. This is upheld despite all the manuscript evidence that contradicts his theories. Although the language principally spoken by Jesus was Aramaic almost all Jews were bi or tri lingual. This is even upheld by the fact that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into the Greek language ( Septuagint) 200 years before Christ.The Aramaic text (the Pershitta) is a later 4th century Syriac translation, a Semitic language used in Syria. All the earliest manuscripts are of the Greek and the majority of manuscript scholars agree. Lamsa intentionally ignores this stating that Greek was never the language of Palestine saying" Josephus states that even though a number of Jews had tried to learn the language of the Greeks, hardly any of them were succeeded."(Lamsa p.9) This is not what Josephus said in his antiquities of the Jews. "What Josephus wrote was that he had failed to attain precision in the pronunciation of Greek. "Lamsa also claims" Indeed the teaching of Greek was forbidden by Jewish rabbis. It was said that it was better for a man to give his child meat of swine than to teach him the language of the Greeks."(Lamsa p.10) (Cited in Greek , Hebrew Aramaic, or Syriac? A critique of the claims of G.M Lamsa by Edwin M.Yamauchi)
Then how does he explain the Septuagint? All this is contradicted by the facts of Greek manuscript evidence found in the quamrun caves and quotes from the Septuagint in the New testament which are more in number than quotes from the Masoretic text (the Hebrew)
Rabbi Hillel’s school is where Paul learned under rabbi Gamaliel who was the grandson of rabbi Hillel It is a fact the Paul who was versed in the Greek language and philosophy as well as Judaism learning this from his schooling. He certainly did not speak to those on mars hill in the Hebrew language which was reserved for and exclusive to the Jews. Neither did he converse to the roman rulers in Aramaic. Proof that the Jews were bilingual, In AD 132-135 we find those who were nationals rebelling in Bar Kochba’s side wrote in Greek as well as Hebrew and Aramaic.
The N T. is written in koine Greek (Common Greek), there were 4 languages used in the NT. times Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, of which Greek was the dominant language. We find the inscription over Christ as being the King of the Jews was written in Greek, Hebrew, Latin. The Greek language was spread by Alexander the Great after he defeated the Persian empire 323 B.C. He saw it as his divine mission to spread the Greek culture throughout the world ( even though he was Macedonian and not Greek) His Hellenistic empire spread to Asia minor, Persia, India, Syria, Egypt, and Israel. He established 70 Greek cities of which half were in Israel. By 300 AD. all the worlds languages were Greek.
Jn. 12:20,23 Seems to strongly imply that Philip, Andrew and Jesus understood and spoke Greek as Greeks came up to worship. When the Gospel writers quoted from the O.T. it was mostly from the Greek Septuagint. EX: Isa.61:1 The Jews used Hebrew word patterns in the Greek. Acts and Hebrews used a blend of classical and koine Greek. There are Aramaic and Hebrew words in the Greek, words that were transposed.
There is no New Testament letter written in Hebrew originally, all are in (koine) the common Greek language.
In Mk.7:24 when Jesus spoke to the syrophoenician woman The Greek word for dogs had no correlation in Hebrew or Aramaic.
In Jn. 21 Jesus uses two Greek words for love and tending the flock that cannot be reproduced in the Hebrew nor Aramaic language. So it was likely a conversation carried on in the Greek. When Jesus spoke to Pilate I Don't think it was in Hebrew since he was a pagan unwilling to learn the language of the Jews.

Who is Goerge Lamsa?

Who is George Lamsa?

a man who was into psychic phenomenon, he denied the Trinity which is clearly expressed in his translation. This is why it is the most popular translation among the cults. He believed sin was error and he was a universalist. He also believed the Holy Spirit was a influence or power. Like the Saducees he denies a belief in personal angels or demons. He also had a view of Christ as 2 persons in one body (Nestorian heresy which some trace to his upbringing) not 2 natures in Christ the one person. Lamsa claimed to be the sole competent interpreter of the scriptures. "Moreover, the author was educated under the care of learned priests of the church of the east who knew no other language but Aramaic,..The author, through Gods grace, is the only one with the knowledge of Aramaic, the bible customs and idioms, and the knowledge of the English language who has ever translated the Holy bible from the original Aramaic texts into English and written commentaries on it, and his translation is now in pleasingly wide use."(G. Lamsa More light on the Gospel (Ny 1968)
Lamsa was anti supernatural and found natural explanations for his understanding Scripture. For example the floating axe head with Elisha Lamsa thought the axehead came to the top of the water because Elisha put the stick in its hole. He translates this verse, And he cut off a stick and thrust it in there; and it stuck in the hole of the axehead (George Lamsa, translator, The Holy Bible Translated from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, 1961, p. 417).
The miracle was then one of divine guidance of Elisha putting the stick into the water and finding the axehead.
In his bible translations he had a allegorical interpretation ignoring the plain literal translation.Here are just a few examples
Bible= Gen.1:3 "Let there be light" Lamsa bible ="Let there be enlightenmen
Bible= Ex.3:5 Take off your shoes for you are on Holy ground. vs Lamsa bible=Disregard pagan teachings, cleanse your heart
NT Bible=Jn.10:36 I and my father are one Lamsa bible = the father and I agree.

CBCPNews

Please visit to our CBCPNews Website (click here)

Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God?

Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, "Let us make man to our image and likeness."

And in New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the Baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard:"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."(Mat.3:16-17). In Mat. 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Father is God - (Is. 45:5)

Son is God - (Heb. 1:8)

Holy Spirit is God - (Acts 5:3-4)

"for these three are one"- (1 Jn. 5:7)

Three divine Persons in one Godhead may be incomprehensible to the human mind, but that is to be expected. We can testify ourselves as to the feasibility of God's triune make up by considering various realities. The triangle, for example, is one distinct form with three distinct and equal sides. There are many physical trinities on earth, therefore a Spiritual Trinity, who is God in Heaven, is not against human reason - it simply above human reason. :o

The Pirated Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) in the Philippines

The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog, "Church of Christ") claims to be the true Church established by Christ. Felix Manalo, its founder, proclaimed himself God’s prophet. Many tiny sects today claim to be the true Church, and many individuals claim to be God’s prophet. What makes Iglesia ni Cristo different is that it is not as tiny as others.

Since it was founded in the Philippines in 1914, it has grown to more than two hundred congregations in sixty-seven countries outside the Philippines, including an expanding United States contingent. The Iglesia keeps the exact number of members secret, but it is estimated to be between three million and ten million worldwide. It is larger than the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a better known sect (which also claims to be Christ’s true Church). Iglesia is not better known, despite its numbers, because the majority of Iglesia’s members are Filipino. Virtually the only exceptions are a few non-Filipinos who have married into Iglesia families.

The organization publishes two magazines, Pasugo and God’s Message, which devote most of their energies toward condemning other Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church. The majority of the Iglesia’s members are ex-Catholics. The Philippines is the only dominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, with eighty-four percent of its population belonging to the Church. Since this is its largest potential source of converts, Iglesia relies on anti-Catholic scare tactics as support for its own doctrines, which cannot withstand biblical scrutiny. The Iglesia tries to convince people of its doctrines not by proving they are right, but by attempting to prove the Catholic Church’s teachings are wrong.

Is Christ God?

The Catholic teaching that most draws Iglesia’s fire is Christ’s divinity. Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Iglesia claims that Jesus Christ is not God but a created being.

Yet the Bible is clear: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). We know Jesus is the Word because John 1:14 tells us, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God the Father was not made flesh; it was Jesus, as even Iglesia admits. Jesus is the Word, the Word is God, therefore Jesus is God. Simple, yet Iglesia won’t accept it.

In Deuteronomy 10:17 and 1 Timothy 6:15, God the Father is called the "Lord of lords," yet in other New Testament passages this divine title is applied directly to Jesus. In Revelation 17:14 we read, "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings." And in Revelation 19:13–16, John sees Jesus "clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords."

The fact that Jesus is God is indicated in numerous places in the New Testament. John 5:18 states that Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus "because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul also states that Jesus was equal with God (Phil. 2:6). But if Jesus is equal with the Father, and the Father is a God, then Jesus is a God. Since there is only one God, Jesus and the Father must both be one God—one God in at least two persons (the Holy Spirit, of course, is the third person of the Trinity).

The same is shown in John 8:56–59, where Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh ("I AM"). "‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.’ So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." Jesus’ audience understood exactly what he was claiming; that is why they picked up rocks to stone him. They considered him to be blaspheming God by claiming to be Yahweh.

The same truth is emphasized elsewhere. Paul stated that we are to live "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And Peter addressed his second epistle to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1).

Jesus is shown to be God most dramatically when Thomas, finally convinced that Jesus has risen, falls down and exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)—an event many in Iglesia have difficulty dealing with. When confronted with this passage in a debate with Catholic Answers founder Karl Keating, Iglesia apologist Jose Ventilacion replied with a straight face, "Thomas was wrong."

God’s Messenger?

A litmus test for any religious group is the credibility of its founder in making his claims. Felix Manalo’s credibility and, consequently, his claims, are impossible to take seriously. He claimed to be "God’s messenger," divinely chosen to re-establish the true Church which, according to Manalo, disappeared in the first century due to apostasy. It was his role to restore numerous doctrines that the Church had abandoned. A quick look at Manalo’s background shows where these doctrines came from: Manalo stole them from other quasi-Christian religious sects.

Manalo was baptized a Catholic, but he left the Church as a teen. He became a Protestant, going through five different denominations, including the Seventh-Day Adventists. Finally, Manalo started his own church in 1914. In 1919, he left the Philippines because he wanted to learn more about religion. He came to America, to study with Protestants, whom Iglesia would later declare to be apostates, just like Catholics. Why, five years after being called by God to be his "last messenger," did Manalo go to the U.S. to learn from apostates? What could God’s messenger learn from a group that, according to Iglesia, had departed from the true faith?

The explanation is that, contrary to his later claims, Manalo did not believe himself to be God’s final messenger in 1914. He didn’t use the last messenger doctrine until 1922. He appears to have adopted the messenger doctrine in response to a schism in the Iglesia movement. The schism was led by Teogilo Ora, one of its early ministers. Manalo appears to have developed the messenger doctrine to accumulate power and re-assert his leadership in the church.

This poses a problem for Iglesia, because if Manalo had been the new messenger called by God in 1914, why didn’t he tell anybody prior to 1922? Because he didn’t think of it until 1922. His situation in this respect parallels that of Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith, who claimed that when he was a boy, God appeared to him in a vision and told him all existing churches were corrupt and he was not to join them, that he would lead a movement to restore God’s true Church. But historical records show that Smith did join an inquirer’s class at an established Protestant church after his supposed vision from God. It was only in later years that Smith came up with his version of the "true messenger" doctrine, proving as much of an embarrassment for the Mormon church as Manalo’s similar doctrine does for Iglesia.

Iglesia Prophesied?

A pillar of Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5–6, which states, "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, ‘Give up,’ and the south, ‘Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.’"

Iglesia argues that in this verse, Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God’s children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, 6).

But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Filipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious technique, Iglesia claims that the far east refers to the Philippines.

Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact" that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by Protestant Bible scholar James Moffatt that reads, "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states, "Is it not clear that you can read the words ‘far east’? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English—the Catholics and Protestants" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when it is Iglesia that is taking liberties with the original language.

The Name Game

Iglesia points to its name as proof it is the true Church. They argue, "What is the name of Christ’s Church, as given in the Bible? It is the ‘Church of Christ.’ Our church is called the ‘Church of Christ.’ Therefore, ours is the Church Christ founded."

Whether or not the exact words "Church of Christ" appear in the Bible is irrelevant, but since Iglesia makes it an issue, it is important to note that the phrase "Church of Christ" never once appears in the Bible.

The verse Iglesia most often quotes on this issue is Romans 16:16: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you " (Pasugo, November 1973, 6). But the phrase in this verse is "churches of Christ." And it’s not a technical name. Paul is referring to a collection of local churches, not giving an organizational name.

To get further "proof" of its name, Iglesia cites Acts 20:28: "Take heed therefore . . . to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood" (Lamsa translation; cited in Pasugo, April 1978). But the Lamsa translation is not based on the original Greek, the language in which the book of Acts was written. In Greek, the phrase is "the church of God" (tan ekklasian tou Theou) not "the church of Christ" (tan ekklasian tou Christou). Iglesia knows this, yet it continues to mislead its members.

Even if the phrase "church of Christ" did appear in the Bible, it would not help Iglesia’s case. Before Manalo started his church, there were already groups calling themselves "the Church of Christ." There are several Protestant denominations that call themselves Church of Christ and use exactly the same argument. Of course, they aren’t the true Church for the same reason Iglesia isn’t—because they were not founded by Christ.

Did Christ’s Church Apostatize?

The doctrines upon which all Iglesia’s other doctrines depend is its teaching that Christ’s Church apostatized in the early centuries. Like Mormonism, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other fringe groups, Iglesia asserts that the early Christian Church suffered a total apostasy. It believes in "the complete disappearance of the first-century Church of Christ and the emergence of the Catholic Church" (Pasugo, July-Aug. 1979, 8).

But Jesus promised that his Church would never apostatize. He told Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). If his Church had apostatized, then the gates of hell would have prevailed against it, making Christ a liar.

In other passages, Christ teaches the same truth. In Matthew 28:20 he said, "I am with you always even until the end of the world." And in John 14:16, 18 he said, "And I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever ... I will not leave you desolate."

If Iglesia members accept the apostasy doctrine, they make Christ a liar. Since they believe Jesus Christ is not a liar, they are ignoring what Christ promised, and their doctrine contradicts Scripture.

They are, however, fulfilling Scripture. While Jesus taught that his Church would never apostatize, the Bible does teach that there will be a great apostasy, or falling away from the Church. Paul prophesies: "[Do not] be quickly shaken in mind or excited . . . to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion [Greek: apostasia] comes first" (2 Thess. 2:2–3); "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1 Tim. 4:1); and, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own liking, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4). By falling away from the Church, members of Iglesia are committing precisely the kind of apostasy of which they accuse the Catholic Church.

The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:1: "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world." Was Felix Manalo a true prophet? Is his church the "true Church?" If we test the claims of Iglesia ni Cristo, the answer is apparent. His total apostasy doctrine is in flat contradiction to Christ’s teaching. There is no way that Iglesia ni Cristo can be the true Church of Christ.

PETER AS THE FIRST POPE

PETER AS THE FIRST POPE

St. Peter is clearly deficted as the first among the apostles, both by Jesus and by the evangelist. St. Peter is mentioned 191 times in the New Testament. All the other apostles combined are mention by name just 130 times. And the most commonly referenced apostle apart from St. Peter is St. John, whose name appears 48 times.
St. Peter's authority is unquestioned, even by St. Paul. And Peter's name appears first in virtually every listing of the apostles, just as Judas' name always appears last. If theres is a reason for a latter - which there obviously is - on what basis can we deny there is a reason for the former?
Mat. 16:15-19 - "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah...you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of thenetherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Some Protestant apologistsd make much of the fact the two words for "rock" in the original Greek text, Petros and Petra , have different gender endings. They claim that the gender ending results in different meanings - usually, in the size of the "rock" in question. But the different geneder endings are simply due to the fact that a man's name cannot have a feminine ending, while the Greek word for "rock" does. The error in the Protestant position becomes abundantly clear when one realizes that in the Aramaic language, which Jesus spoke, there were no gender endings for nouns. So when Jesus spoke this sentence, he would have been saying, "...you are rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church..." There would have been difference whatsoever in the endings of the words; it would have been the exact same word used twice. This is just one example of Protestatnt believers reading the scripture through the lens of their traditions, and missing the clear and obvious sense of certain key passages. The fact is, these are profoundly important verses, for they contain Jesus' unequivocal promise to protect and guide the Church he is to found, throug St. Peter, to whom he entrusts the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whenever God renames someone, he is calling our attention to a truly momentous event - as in Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israerl, Saul to Paul and Simon to Rock.
Is. 22:15-25 -"Eliakim is given the keys of the kingdom, thus becoming the most powerful man in the realm apart from the king himself. The keys are the sign of the royal authority. Because the keys are passed on to each successive officeholder, they indicate that the office lives on even after the individual who hold it dies. The king does not stop appointing stewards when one dies - the keys are passed along to another. Thus Jesus' royal authority did not die with St. Peter but was passed on to the next generation, as it will be until the end of time.
Accorsing to St. Paul, St. Peter was singled out by Jesus after the resurrection.
1 Cor. 15:3-5 - "For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also recieved: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was burried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared to Cephas (St. Peter), then to the Twelve."
Note too that St. Paul refers to St. Peter by the name Jesus gave him: Cephas, which is, "Rock." This reference by St. Paul is alone enough to refute the alternative intertive interpretations given for Mt. 16:15-19.
For example, if the word "Rock" referred not to Peter, but to Peter's faith, then St. Paul would making a terrible blumder in referring to Simon himself as "Rock." No, in the passage from Matthew, Jesus himself was clearly giving Simon a new name, "Rock," indicating a change in his status that was to have a momentous impact on salvation history.
The keys belong to Jesus, in the scripture, they are the sign of his authority. When he gives the keys to St. Peter in Mattew 16, he is simply delegating the authority, which is his for all eternity, thus, as Eliakim before him (see Is. 22:15-25), St. Peter is chief steward of the kingdom who wields the king’s authority.
After St. Paul receives his revelations from the Holy Spirit, he travels to Jerusalem specifically to confer with St. Peter.
Gal. 1:18 – “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas…” This is an awesome indication of the position of the authority, which St. Peter occupied. Also note that once again Paul refers to Peter by the name Jesus gave him – Cephas, or “Rock.”
Abraham was the patriarch of the old covenant, and his name was changed by God to underscore his status. Abraham was also,, in the passage quoted here, the only man reffered to as “rock” until Jesus reffered to St. Peter that way. Elsewhere, that metaphor was reserved for God (Deut. 32:4; 1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 18:3, etc.). So not only reffering to Simon as “Rock” but also by changing his name in the process, Jesus is establishing an undeniable parallel between Simon Peter and Abraham. Peter is the patriarch of the new covenant, just as Abraham was the patriarch of the old.
Acts 2:14:36 – “Then Peter stood up with the eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed…” This is the first Christian sermon detailed in scripture. Already St. Peter’s status as leader is clear, as shown by the title, “the Eleven,” which never included Peter.
Jesus prays for St. Peter alone among the apostle.
Lk. 22:31-32 – “ Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” Peter receives special attention from Jesus. Jesus observes that Satan is seeking to break the apostles’ faith. Jesus response is to pray for Peter and direct him to hold the rest of the apostles firm. Jesus’ statement devotails perfectly with Peter’s role as the “Rock” upon which the Church rests, and the pope’s role in Church history.
Three times Jess asks St. Peter:
Jn. 21:15-17 –“ Do you love me?...” and three times he commands Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Note that Jesus makes no such request of any other apostle. St. Peter is supplied with supernatural means to accomplish the task Jesus gives him.
Mat. 17:24-27 –“…go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open his mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.” Peter, in paying the tax for Jesus, acts as the Lord’s proxy in this earthly matter.
St. Peter initiates and then supervises the choice of Judas’ successor.
Acts 1:15-26 – “During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers…”
Jesus acknowledges the authority of the Pharisees when they speak from the Chair of Moses.
Mat. 23:1-3 – “…Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, ‘The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example.’” Incidentally, the phrase, “the chair of Moses,” is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. The fact that the Lord refers to it here confirms the fact that Jesus acknowledged the authority of tradition.
Out of 265 Pope, 79 were saints, only 10 were immoral or corrupt, and not one ever taught error in areas of faith and morals. That’s a failure rate of less than 4 percent. By way of comparison, of the apostles picked by Jesus, one out of the original twelve was evil – representing a failure rate of 8 percent. So the supposed evil and corruption of the popes of history is hardly a reason to despair of the institution of the papacy. Indeed, we would suggest that the extremely low number of evil popes suggest Holy Spirit is guiding their selection and providing them support.

CALL NO MAN "FATHER"

This command of Jesus, found in Mt. 23:9-10, is not about vocabulary. If it were, the New Testament writers wouldn't have repeatedly used the word "Father" to refers to human beings. Instead, Jesus warning us against putting our complete faith and trust in a human being rather than God.

We must never submit our innermost being to anyone other than God himself. No prophet, no guru, no teacher garner our total trust, only God.

If simply using the word, "Father," to refer to a human being were wrong, we would not find the word used that way throughout the scripture. But of course we do - again and again.Lk. 16:24 - Jesus himself refers to "Father Abraham" in the parable of Lazarus the beggar. Would he failed to follow his own command?

1Cor.4:14-15 - St. Paul refers himself as a spiritual father: "...I became your father in Christ through the gospel..."In doing so, he defines the way in which Catholics use the term "father" in referring to a priest - as a "father in Christ through the gospel."

Acts 7::1-2 - St. Stephen, the first martyr, says to the high priest and the elders and scribes: "My brothers and my fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham..."Rom. 4:17-18 - St. Paul refers to Abraham as "...the father of us all..." and "the father of many nations."1 Thess. 2:11 -"...We treated eac one of you as a father treat his children..."

Again, St. Paul describes himself as a spiritual father to the faithful.1Jn. 2:13-14 - "I write to you, fathers..."

St. John also appears to disobey Jesus directive - an impossibility, of course. So we see that the vocabulary-based interpretation of Jesus' admonition cannot be correct.

Mat. 23:8 -Actually, "father" is not the only word which the passage in question appeares to forbid us from using: "As for you, do not be called 'Rabbi' means "teacher."

Yet the same people who object to priests being called "father" don't blink an eye when they refer to their Sunday school "teachers."