I had some very good Kurdish friends who really liked me when I more secular. The atmosphere became terrible between us when I became serious about my faith. I mean a nasty total disintegration. There real problem I suppose is Islamic fundamentalism but they probably hate religion’s way of dictating a man’s politics.

I actually think your suggeestion about the 100 anathemas is very good. I might move away though from the Catholic~evangelical clash though. But its a topic that one imagines would really lead to a deep understanding. My father did a PhD in science and said he didn’t really understand his subject until he’d done a PhD.

Durkan

I agree that many that many have been very presumptions about their claims about Bible prophecy. It is still happening today. I get many emails telling me who the Antichrist is and there is a big thing today about 2012 being the end of the world. It is all nonsense. I think the Church can know the general season but anything more before the birth pains actually start is nothing more than speculation.

Turkey is mentioned in Bible Prophecy as coming down with Gog in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. It seems that this is Russia with an alliance of Islamic nations. Togarmar is believed to be the people of Turkey.

I guess the U.S. was between a rock and a hard place with the Kurds.

Well I need to shut down the computer. There is a violent thunderstorm moving in. I also will probably be away from the computer all day tomorrow.

Thanks again for your insights.

I’m no political analyst. I’m not making claims that I understand Turkey or the EU’s role in the end-time prophecy. It must be said that Turkey & ?srail have enjoyed a special relationship for centuries. Turks are not antisemites like Arabs.

Yeah, I know plenty about the pre-Turkish Byzantine Empire and classical Christianity. Beyond this please don’t say I would know these things better than you. Secular Turkey is simply a sick nation, hopeless, sexmad, heavy drinking: the same godless materialist existence as so many without Jesus Christ.

Modern Turkey’s constitution is based on the secular positivistic sociological reforms of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. He was no friend of the Islamists and certainly no friend of the Greeks/Christians. As regards prophecy I know little but many have made fools of themselves with false prophecies (Gorbachev’s birthmark etc), so I am quite cynical of naming details.

I’m sure Turkey will be mentioned in biblical prophecy because she has been part of the many shifting empires of foreign powers that threatened and persecuted the Jews for millenia. I wouldn’t presume to be able to make sense of the prophetic denunciations or to divide what was for then, and what is reserved for the end of time.

Regarding George Bush, there is an unusual amount of anti-American feeling regarding the handling of the disputes of the ‘land corridor’ and the perception that the PKK is attacking Turkey with America turning a blind eye. I was in Marmaris a couple of days before the bombings in 2007.

I guess I would argue that the far Left is fascism and yes they will continue to take immoral stands on social issues. This is also happening in the U.S.

Much of my website http://www.thepropheticyears.com/ is how everything will shake out prophetically. I do not think we will have to wait long to see.

I have a book called Catholic Prophecy by Yves, Dupont written in 1970. It is quite interesting. If I recall correctly at least one of the Catholic mystics indicate that Turkey first sides with anti Catholic forces against Europe and then after some great battle or intervention switches sides.

Turkey was once in the Roman Empire and I think she continues to be confused in which world she belongs. But you would know these things better than me.

Blessings,

Don

Remember I, ethnic Genoese but a Turkish citizen belong to a minority group and it is to our advantage for Turkey to be accepted into the EU if only so that international standards of humans rights in religion are recognised and there is international transparency. Turkey is still a police state with the current constitution favours only the nationalist Turks. Turkey is moving rapidly away from acceptance into the EU and efforts made to qualify for entry have now dramatically lapsed.

Catholics hope St Paul Year opens church in Turkey
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/catholics.hope.st.paul.year.opens.church.in.turkey/19732.htm

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=108285
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=108271

IMHO if would be best in Turkey are accepted anyway and the human rights issues can then improve. Do I see a great endtime conspiracy in the EU led by Rome/Brussels. probably not, the EUs main function seems to be an attempt to ensure the spectre of fascism can never threaten Europe again. Unfortunately, its left-wing agenda is disbalanced; politically I am right of centre.

Yeah the Northwest Coast of the U.S have many new age pagans. I once was thinking about living up there but they are becoming hostile and intolerant for anyone who say Jesus is the only way and does not embrace their green religion.

I try to keyword my titles and articles so they will rank well in Google. One major mistake I made on most of my main website posts was to put spaces in the file names (search engines do not handle that well). It is very difficult to change file names once they are indexed without losing page rank. I guess I could fix them if I had a week to do nothing but change names and write 301′ redirects but fat chance.

So being in Turkey do you think you are ever going to be allowed to join the EU? Of course with the Ireland referendum the future of the EU is also in question.

Do you know that when I was searching for a link for my father-in-law for “George Bush conversion Catholic” your site came up right near the top. It is an impressive and intelligent website, I will read your other articles.

I visited the U.S.A. I went to Seattle it was very beautiful but seemed a New Age stronghold. You must return to Turkey one day.

http://moogie.info/travel/pcEc2000/pc25Turkiye.jpg

About Peter being the Rock the church would be built on how did I know that you would just have to bring that up? All Catholics do because your whole foundation stands or falls on your view of that statement. Classical commentators are not always right. Certainly you can look at the passage and say it says the Church will be built on Peter but as you know there are two different Greek words used for Rock in that passage and people do differ on what is meant.

My position it that Jesus was saying the Church would be built on all that came to the same truth that Peter proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah. Certainly that would include Peter so yes the Church is built on Peter he is part of the foundation but it is not exclusively built on Peter. All who followed after Peter and confessed the same truth would be part of the building project called the Church of God.

That in no way implies that there is apostolic secession through Peter to other Bishops of Rome and that is the real bottom line issue here. Why the Bishop of Rome anyway? Why not Babylon, where Peter was actually at part of the time? There is no record of Peter being in Rome as far as I know. He certainly was not the Bishop of Rome. Why not Jerusalem where James was the Bishop?

The real point is that you continue to see the Roman Catholic world institution as the Church that Jesus was talking about and I see believers as being the Church they Jesus was talking about. One is worldly temporal and subject to corruption and only as good as its leaders and the other is spiritual without flaw or blemish being covered by the blood of Christ.

Oh I could give you many scriptures that prove my point that all who believe are saved. I did in the article link I sent in my last discussion. So it really comes down to do we believe in once saved always saved as many protestants do. Or do we believe a person can loss their salvation? I say I do not necessary believe in once saved always saved (only God knows) but I will also say that God promises salvation to the believer. So as long as the believer is a believer he is saved. I see no scriptures against such a view.

For example I have been in many sins but through them all I still believed in Jesus Christ and I would still have been saved had I died If salvation depends on daily performance we can be saved one day and lost the next we just better hope they we die on a good day, Huh?. The Bible does not teach any such concept.

My relationship with Jesus Christ drove me to hate the sins I was in and that changed me but if I had not been one of His there would be no correction and no reason for me to repent. Had I chosen to just reject Jesus then I would no longer be a believer so then obviously unless I believed in once saved always saved I could be lost but that never happened I never sopped believing in Him.

Here is what I think is our security. If you confess Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that He is Lord you will be saved. In all my wretched past as a Christian I never once stopped believing in Jesus’ Salvation. Those that do confuse me because I simply do not know how one who is born of the Spirit and has the Spirit’s dwelling in them can doubt their salvation?

This is one reason I feel sorry for Catholics their assurance of salvation is not based on what Jesus did at the Cross it is based on their own performance. If you are having a bad day you can feel lost. If you are having a good day you can feel saved. This is not what John talked about. He said he was telling us these things so that we could have the assurance of our salvation and know that we are saved. I am trying to keep this short so obviously I am not addressing everything here.

You quote Luther but Luther was a Catholic all he knew came from Catholic theology and the later from reading scripture. There was only one major theology in the days of Luther so it is not surprising that they would quote church dogma. It was only later that people gradually started comparing the church doctrines against what the scriptures actually said. It is still an ongoing process today and as we learn more, we learn more.

I really do not want to get into your Eucharistic views. It would get to long. I do not even agree with most Protestant communion views. I obviously think it was symbolic and not telling us that wine and bread would become the Body and Blood of Christ but I think if your read the whole context of the passage where is talking about taking the communion service in an unworthy manor and not discerning the Body of Christ, you have to go back to the previous versus to understand it. In those verses we see that gluttons and drunks were doing that by eating and drinking the love feasts before most of the church even got there and thus they were not discerning the other members of the Body of Christ. In other words, they were looking out for number one and it pertained to more than just the love feasts many claiming to be Christians were not taking care of their brothers and sisters in the Body of Christ at all. Paul then confirms it when he wraps the instruction up by saying:

33″Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come”

I get a little put off in protestant churches who put on a long face at every communion service. We should be calibrating what Jesus did for us. it should be joyous occasion not a funereal dirge

My date of the mass came for Tim Lahaye’s “Revelation” that was probably when the mass became an official part of the Church liturgy. I Do not doubt that there were communion services before that but I have no way of knowing the percentages of those who thought of is as symbolic versus literal.

I am aware that some were called Popes before 600 AD and there were occasions when there were more than one claiming the throne of Christ at the same time but again I do not think it was dogma and accepted by all before 600 AD. By the way, I am not a historian so I could be wrong.

God be with you on your quest of a PhD. What topic would I suggest? That is a tough one. Your background is in history so I would expect you would want to stay on that tract. How about a doctrinal account of all the politics behind the Inquisition or the indulgence system. Perhaps the original good intentions, the bad outcomes and the ugly truth of it all. A better understand of what drove men to do this could go a long way to healing the breach between Christians regions. Another thing you might look into is the 100 Anathemas or curses that still stand against the Protestant church today and how can that be possibly remedied after infallible decrees.

Well I have to go off to the store. Hopefully it is readable.