Exporter's comments about Doug Batchelor

  • Thread starter Thread starter James1234
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James1234

Guest
I posted a thread a few days ago on an infomercial I saw at BET. It was Doug Batchelor talking about his religion and his website amazingfacts.com. In his 30 minute infomercial it looks like he was asking his audience about Bible questions. It seemed to me more like Jeopardy but Bible questions. All of a sudden, Bible questions started to turn into attacks of the Catholic Church. Now of course I heard so many attacks towards the Catholic Church which is not new. But Doug Batchelor proved his point and was right on one attack he made on his infomercial.

If you get the book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” ISBN 0-679-76561-1, Doug Batchelor pointed out on page 3 that the Pope is 2nd to the trinity. Now I know for a fact that this is not TRUE. Anyone reading this, the Pope is not 2nd to the trinity. But wait, if you get this book Exporter and read on page 3 what it says, it says:

“The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotenent God of the Trinity.”

We all know as Catholics that the pope is not 2nd to the trinity, but Doug Batchelor proved his point. It says it in the front of the book by His Holiness John Paull II. I talked to RNRobert and he stated that the author of the book said this not the Pope. And I agree with that. But the point of the matter is, what is said in this book is wrong on page 3 about the pope being 2nd to the trinity. Exporter do you believe this? Get the book and you will see.
The Pope should never ever endorse a book without really looking at what the contents are in the book. What do you want me to do Exporter when you have Doug Batchelor or any protestant getting this book and criticizing my pope because of a strong statement as being 2nd to the trinity. This is not a mild comment but a strong comment which should be taken seriously. Would you exporter sign a piece of paper or contract without reading it?

Now I am not a seventh day adventist or a protestant. I am a full pledged catholic and have been since birth. I have been in Catholic School from 1st grade to high school and went to seminary school to become a priest but changed my mind. The catholic religion to me is the best religion out there. But there are problems. No church has no problems. When I was in seminary school we had to be interviewed and if one of us were going to be a priest, none of us should have female tone of voice or we can’t be a priest. I see the argument why the church does this and to me it is wrong but I can see why. When we were taught in the seminary school that when we preach in church one day that we are to make little mention about satan and the devil. This I disagree on a lot. We should mention a lot about satan and his evil works. How can you fight sin if you don’t know your enemy??? The Catholic Church is real good when it comes to exorcisms. Better than the Pentecostals who spit on a small towel to scare the devil or the Lutherans who wear monk garments or any religion. But there will always be problems in any Church.

To sum it up, the pope is not 2nd to the trinity. The book should be redone and have this error corrected.
 
40.png
James1234:
page 3 it says:

“The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotenent God of the Trinity.”
.
Click to expand...
i am not sure i see your point. this is a true statement. the pope is the “vicar of Christ” and he is the steward of the kingdom. the steward (or prime minister) is the one who takes the place of the king when the king is not present. that is the office of peter and those keys (carried by the steward) have been passed down all the way to today with john paul II. this statement does not mean he died on the cross instead of Jesus, it means he is the physical representation of Christ, the head of the church on earth.
 
I don’t see where the statement made in the book is incorrect. The book does not make the claim that Dougie Batchelor claims. It does not put the pope on the same level as the Holy Trinity. It says that Christ placed someone here on earth to take his place while he is not here.

Luke 10:16 - “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

It makes sense to me. 👍 👍 👍

As usual, Dougie makes some ridiculous claims and supports them with insufficient evidence. Unfortunately he has so many “dear in the headlights” people at his seminars that many believe it
 
40.png
James1234:
If you get the book “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” ISBN 0-679-76561-1, Doug Batchelor pointed out on page 3 that the Pope is 2nd to the trinity. Now I know for a fact that this is not TRUE. Anyone reading this, the Pope is not 2nd to the trinity. But wait, if you get this book Exporter and read on page 3 what it says, it says:

“The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotenent God of the Trinity.”

We all know as Catholics that the pope is not 2nd to the trinity, but Doug Batchelor proved his point.
Click to expand...
Here is some context from that page.

*"Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. *

*Each Pope regards his role with a sense of duty and humility, of course, but also with an equal sense of confidence. Catholics believe this and therefore they call him “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness.” *

*Nevertheless, according to many others, this is an absurd and unbelievable claim. The Pope, for them, is not God’s representative. He is, instead, the surviving witness of ancient myths and legends that today the “adult” does not accept. *Confronted with you-as with each of your predecessors and successors-one must wager, as Pascal said, that you are either the mysterious living proof of the Creator of the universe or the central protagonist of a millennial illusion."

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and all things came into existance, says to Peter, the one he renames Rock, I will build my Church on you, and give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth with these keys will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [Mt 16:18…] And we know this kingdom will last forever. Therefore Peter will have successors on earth when Jesus returns to heaven. When Jesus after His resurrection, says to Peter, feed and rule my sheep, [Jn 21:21…] it’s pretty clear that Jesus is appointing His representative on earth. One to stand in His place, (persona Christi) after He returns to heaven. Neither Popes nor the Church made this role up, it was given by Jesus Himself.
 
Again for Bengal_fan and Jaz1976, I am a strong catholic and I agree with the catholic church. The post I made shows that Doug Batchelor is right. It says in the book he is second to the trinity. If a protestant got their hands on this book, how can I defend it if the book shows by his Holiness the Pope? If you read this book literally you will see it was a bad line. Of course you and I know the Pope didn’t say this, I believe both your arguments BUT that line in the book is not good, end of story. Defend it all you want, it says it right there.
steve b:
Here is some context from that page.

*"Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. *

*Each Pope regards his role with a sense of duty and humility, of course, but also with an equal sense of confidence. Catholics believe this and therefore they call him “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness.” *

*Nevertheless, according to many others, this is an absurd and unbelievable claim. The Pope, for them, is not God’s representative. He is, instead, the surviving witness of ancient myths and legends that today the “adult” does not accept. *Confronted with you-as with each of your predecessors and successors-one must wager, as Pascal said, that you are either the mysterious living proof of the Creator of the universe or the central protagonist of a millennial illusion."

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and all things came into existance, says to Peter, the one he renames Rock, I will build my Church on you, and give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth with these keys will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [Mt 16:18…] And we know this kingdom will last forever. Therefore Peter will have successors on earth when Jesus returns to heaven. When Jesus after His resurrection, says to Peter, feed and rule my sheep, [Jn 21:21…] it’s pretty clear that Jesus is appointing His representative on earth. One to stand in His place, (persona Christi) after He returns to heaven. Neither Popes nor the Church made this role up, it was given by Jesus Himself.
Click to expand...
 
Again for Bengal_fan and Jaz1976, I am a strong catholic and I agree with the catholic church. The post I made shows that Doug Batchelor is right. It says in the book he is second to the trinity. If a protestant got their hands on this book, how can I defend it if the book shows by his Holiness the Pope? If you read this book literally you will see it was a bad line. Of course you and I know the Pope didn’t say this, I believe both your arguments BUT that line in the book is not good, end of story. Defend it all you want, it says it right there. Word for word in that book can be misinterpreted. I showed this to other Catholics and they can see how a protestant can get the wrong message.
steve b:
Here is some context from that page.

*"Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. *

*Each Pope regards his role with a sense of duty and humility, of course, but also with an equal sense of confidence. Catholics believe this and therefore they call him “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness.” *

*Nevertheless, according to many others, this is an absurd and unbelievable claim. The Pope, for them, is not God’s representative. He is, instead, the surviving witness of ancient myths and legends that today the “adult” does not accept. *Confronted with you-as with each of your predecessors and successors-one must wager, as Pascal said, that you are either the mysterious living proof of the Creator of the universe or the central protagonist of a millennial illusion."

When the second person of the Blessed Trinity, the one who spoke and all things came into existance, says to Peter, the one he renames Rock, I will build my Church on you, and give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever YOU bind on earth with these keys will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [Mt 16:18…] And we know this kingdom will last forever. Therefore Peter will have successors on earth when Jesus returns to heaven. When Jesus after His resurrection, says to Peter, feed and rule my sheep, [Jn 21:21…] it’s pretty clear that Jesus is appointing His representative on earth. One to stand in His place, (persona Christi) after He returns to heaven. Neither Popes nor the Church made this role up, it was given by Jesus Himself.
Click to expand...
 
James1234,

I think you need to look at that quote more carefully. It is not saying that the Pope is “second to the Trinity.” Let’s look at the quote again:
40.png
James1234:
The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
The reference “Second Person” refers to Jesus, who is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Father is the First Person of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity.

Notice that you quoted steve b in your post, and part of his message outlines this for you:
steve b:
When the second person of the Blessed Trinity
Click to expand...
, the one who spoke and all things came into existance, says to Peter, the one he renames Rock, I will build my Church on you, and give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Read this carefully. The Second Person of the Trinity here is Jesus, not Peter! He is conferring that authority to Peter. Let me make it clear that “Second Person of the Trinity” is another name for Jesus with which even Protestants will agree.

Now, back to that quote:
40.png
James1234:
The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.
Click to expand...
If Doug Batchelor alleges that, based on this quote, the Pope is somehow second to the Trinity, he is either deceived about Catholic teaching, intentionally being deceptive, or grossly misreading this passage. We Catholics understand this quote to mean simply that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and brings God’s message to us today. This is in much the same way that the apostles did so in the Early Church (through teaching and writing of Sacred Scripture), and also how the Old Testament prophets operated. They were bringing God’s message to the people.

I am guessing that Doug Batchelor’s more likely objection is to calling the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”. This is a common objection among Protestants and results in part from a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean when they use this term. The Pope represents Christ on Earth, but that in no way means that he is Christ or that he goes through the sacrifice of the cross or any such thing. He represents Christ through the priesthood, like the Old Testament high priests were a foreshadowing of Christ. I think that if you read this quote more carefully it will make sense. Let us know if you need further clarification or have any more questions.

:blessyou:
 
I’m in RCIA. Sometimes I watch Doug Batchelor for a moment or two. Not often. But don’t worry. He doesn’t influence me much. For religious TV, I usually watch EWTN shows or predominantly Black Gospel shows.

Last Sunday he advocated vegetarianism. And as part of his proof said he was in great health. Then did a back-spring. (Almost like a back flip). The prophet Daniel also was a vegetarian.

Just because somebody is wrong about major things doesn’t mean that they are wrong about everything.

I’m not a vegetarian (yet). But I don’t eat red meat very often at all – mostly chicken.
 
What do people mean when they say “second to the Trinity?”

That seems an odd choice of words, and it’s not what is written in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.
 
40.png
lily628:
James1234,

I think you need to look at that quote more carefully. It is not saying that the Pope is “second to the Trinity.” Let’s look at the quote again:

The reference “Second Person” refers to Jesus, who is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Father is the First Person of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity.

Notice that you quoted steve b in your post, and part of his message outlines this for you:

Read this carefully. The Second Person of the Trinity here is Jesus, not Peter! He is conferring that authority to Peter. Let me make it clear that “Second Person of the Trinity” is another name for Jesus with which even Protestants will agree.

Now, back to that quote:

If Doug Batchelor alleges that, based on this quote, the Pope is somehow second to the Trinity, he is either deceived about Catholic teaching, intentionally being deceptive, or grossly misreading this passage. We Catholics understand this quote to mean simply that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and brings God’s message to us today. This is in much the same way that the apostles did so in the Early Church (through teaching and writing of Sacred Scripture), and also how the Old Testament prophets operated. They were bringing God’s message to the people.

I am guessing that Doug Batchelor’s more likely objection is to calling the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”. This is a common objection among Protestants and results in part from a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean when they use this term. The Pope represents Christ on Earth, but that in no way means that he is Christ or that he goes through the sacrifice of the cross or any such thing. He represents Christ through the priesthood, like the Old Testament high priests were a foreshadowing of Christ. I think that if you read this quote more carefully it will make sense. Let us know if you need further clarification or have any more questions.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...

IMO, the problem stems from those words “…takes the place of…”​

It could perfectly well mean what Catholics think - and what (it seems) Doug Batchelor thinks.

That could mean “replaces”, in the sense that President Carter replaced Preseident Ford - the position occupied, of President, was the same, so Carter’s new status as President entailed Ford’s losing the election and ceasing to be President.

That seems to be the Batchelor understanding of that passage - move over Jesus, the Pope has your position.
(FWIW, I was very impressed by a video of him saying how he had become a Christian.)

Whereas the Pope’s meaning is closer to the sense in which an ambassador “replaces” a President or other head of state at various functions in which his country is involved and the President cannot be present - so that the pope exercises the Petrine office in the Church, as the Servant of the servants of God, and his holding this office in the Church, far from being at the expense of the authority of Christ, is possible only because Christ is the the True and Eternal Head of the Church. In heaven, there is no papal office - there is no need for it 🙂 Only on earth.

Both interpretations are justifiable, as the words stand. As the context is Catholic, the offending words need to be taken as Catholics take them - i.e., in that second sense.

The Holy Spirit is far more the Vicar of Christ than the Pope - I think it would be far better if the older title of "“Vicar of Peter” were used instead. It might well lead to less misunderstanding, and it would leave the Faith untouched. As well as being in better accord with the NT. ##
 
Both interpretations are justifiable, as the words stand. As the context is Catholic, the offending words need to be taken as Catholics take them - i.e., in that second sense.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The only problem is that when an interpreter has an anti-Catholic agenda the standard operating procedure is to interpret such statements in the most damning way possible.
 
Exactly. The only problem is that when an interpreter has an anti-Catholic agenda the standard operating procedure is to interpret such statements in the most damning way possible.
Click to expand...
You got that right. They do it to the extreme.

Pio
 
James1234, Why Did You Mention My Name 4 Times In Your Tirade About Some Man Named Batchelor On Black Entertainment T.V.?

I want you to tell me exactly where you link me with that man. Why are posting in such a demanding manner? Why are you angry? I didn’t write the book and I was not on BET.

I agree with Steve B . You misread. There is no such language in Catholocism that uses the term that Batchelor used. He misread also. If you didn’t misread, then you accepted Batchelor’s misunderstanding. The Pope is considered the man on earth who is representing the Son of God. (representing!) The Pope, through St Peter “takes the place” of the second person of the Trinity. In Matt 16:27-29 Jesus Christ told Peter(Cephas) " On this Rock I will build my Church", Also He said the gates of hell will not prevail agaist it, and He would always be with the Rock of the Church. To paraphrase. Yes, Jesus appointed Peter as His representative on earth until He returns again. JESUS SAID THIS, Not the Magisterium, Not a Pope. Jesus DID NOT say Peter was 2ed to the Trinity!
lily628 reads correctly too. Popes take the place of Jesus Christ on earth.
Jesus DID NOT say that the Pope was second in importance or in any other way to the Trinity. He said Peter and his successors would be Jesus Christ’s “REPRESENTATIVE” on earth until Jesus returns!
By the way James1234, I do NOT think Batchelor prooved “his point”. The Pope didn’t write that sentance.

James1234, you asked me what should you do when someone criticizes thew Faith or the Pope. The first thing I would NOT do is to use some garbage you picked up on Black Entertainment T.V. as factually reliable. Before I jump into the alpologetic mode, I would research the source. Then is it being widely disseminated? Then if possible use true Catholic Documents such as the Catechism, the Bible and Papal Encyclicals. James1234, you must have had a good motive when you used me as your point of attack. What was it, I do not know?

I have just last week written a 4 page lesson for my 8 year old grandson on St. Peter, how he became the Bishop of Rome and what it means to todays Church. Tell me why you used my name, please.
EXPORTER
 
40.png
bengal_fan:
i am not sure i see your point. this is a true statement. the pope is the “vicar of Christ” and he is the steward of the kingdom. the steward (or prime minister) is the one who takes the place of the king when the king is not present. that is the office of peter and those keys (carried by the steward) have been passed down all the way to today with john paul II. this statement does not mean he died on the cross instead of Jesus, it means he is the physical representation of Christ, the head of the church on earth.
Click to expand...
I think that the accusation is that the Pope is greater than all men and all angels and saints.

The pope is given authority on earth over the Church Christ created. He is guided by the holy spirit in all his decisions that affect the entire church. He is the teacher of the faithful here on earth. We are supposed to follow the pope, not because he is second to God, but because his teachings are those of Christs. Just like any teacher is given authority over the pupil, the pope is given authority over all the flock by Christ. The pope is still going to be judged like everyone else when we die, but while we are here he guides us in truth. Without someone to guide the flock they all skatter and go in different directions.
 
You have a good point. But if you have a Protestant who got hold of that message, it is really hard to point out to him or her what you mean. I see your point but if someone wasn’t catholic, that statement in the book will be misinterpreted. That is my problem. The pope should have not let that guy in the book write that because it is not too clear. Even you typed a long statement explaining it. Which proves my point that the statement in that book is VAGUE. Don’t sign anything without reading carefully. That goes with signing a contract or like in the Pope’s sitaution, saying you wrote a book.
40.png
lily628:
James1234,

I think you need to look at that quote more carefully. It is not saying that the Pope is “second to the Trinity.” Let’s look at the quote again:

The reference “Second Person” refers to Jesus, who is the Second Person of the Trinity. The Father is the First Person of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity.

Notice that you quoted steve b in your post, and part of his message outlines this for you:

Read this carefully. The Second Person of the Trinity here is Jesus, not Peter! He is conferring that authority to Peter. Let me make it clear that “Second Person of the Trinity” is another name for Jesus with which even Protestants will agree.

Now, back to that quote:

If Doug Batchelor alleges that, based on this quote, the Pope is somehow second to the Trinity, he is either deceived about Catholic teaching, intentionally being deceptive, or grossly misreading this passage. We Catholics understand this quote to mean simply that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and brings God’s message to us today. This is in much the same way that the apostles did so in the Early Church (through teaching and writing of Sacred Scripture), and also how the Old Testament prophets operated. They were bringing God’s message to the people.

I am guessing that Doug Batchelor’s more likely objection is to calling the Pope the “Vicar of Christ”. This is a common objection among Protestants and results in part from a misunderstanding of what Catholics mean when they use this term. The Pope represents Christ on Earth, but that in no way means that he is Christ or that he goes through the sacrifice of the cross or any such thing. He represents Christ through the priesthood, like the Old Testament high priests were a foreshadowing of Christ. I think that if you read this quote more carefully it will make sense. Let us know if you need further clarification or have any more questions.

:blessyou:
Click to expand...
 
Not angry, not mad at all at anyone. I am just a strong catholic believer in what is right. Sorry, if I offend you or make you mad. We are both in the same team here, to show to the world that the catholic religion is the only religion that traces us to Jesus Christ himself. I am tired of anti-catholic statements such as praying to saints and Mary, confessing your sins to the priest is bad, etc. These statements and attacks have been started thousands of years ago to this day. It has never stopped. Exporter, you have to understand words mean something. IF you had 10 non-catholics read that statement pointed out in the book, and then you ask them what is your interpretation. You pretty much get the same response that Doug Batchelor.

Looking at the responses on this post shows that by explaining that one sentence takes a paragraph or two. The sentence in that book is TOO VAUGE and not explicitly clear. That is all that I am saying and that BET is a good network to watch btw.

I use your name exporter b/c you addressed my post. What name do you want to call you by. Exporter, like I said on my other post, I attended the missionary to become a priest but quit b/c of the sacrifice that entails in becoming a priest. But I have learned a lot with the Catholic Church and that it has lots of weaknesses. I am here to point them out, correct them and strengthen my Church.

Exporter this is a forum about a challenge of ideas. Attack me on my ideas and not be childish about why you use my name? Your name isn’t God.
40.png
Exporter:
James1234, Why Did You Mention My Name 4 Times In Your Tirade About Some Man Named Batchelor On Black Entertainment T.V.?

I want you to tell me exactly where you link me with that man. Why are posting in such a demanding manner? Why are you angry? I didn’t write the book and I was not on BET.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
James1234:
You have a good point. But if you have a Protestant who got hold of that message, it is really hard to point out to him or her what you mean. I see your point but if someone wasn’t catholic, that statement in the book will be misinterpreted. That is my problem. The pope should have not let that guy in the book write that because it is not too clear. Even you typed a long statement explaining it. Which proves my point that the statement in that book is VAGUE. Don’t sign anything without reading carefully. That goes with signing a contract or like in the Pope’s sitaution, saying you wrote a book.
Click to expand...
You are right. Absolutely right. And this is not the only instance of vague language.

Think of that horrible, ridiculous statement:

This is my body.

If Jesus had done a better job, then he would have said “This has literally become my body.”, but, as it stands, Protestants misinterpret it to mean, “This represents my body”, and it is all Jesus’ fault.

Justin
 
JAMES1234,

**I said ,please, will you tell me on which thread you traced me to Mr. Batchelor. You did not answer! **

I ask you again. Please will you post what post, which post and how you linked “Exporter” to Mr. Batchelor. I vaguely remember the name Batchelor, I have searched other threads but cannot find a post of mine relating to Mr. Batchelor.

The way you wrote( when you used “Exporter” 4 times) made it sound like I was an ignorant man who agreed with the Protestant. I would classify myself as a traditional Catholic of 51 years. I was converted at age 24 while in the USAF. Certainly I take it as an afront to be linked to Fundamentalists!

**Here is what you James1234 wrote INSTEAD OF ANSWERING MY QUESTION: **I use your name exporter b/c you addressed my post. What name do you want to call you by. Exporter, like I said on my other post, I attended the missionary to become a priest but quit b/c of the sacrifice that entails in becoming a priest. But I have learned a lot with the Catholic Church and that it has lots of weaknesses. I am here to point them out, correct them and strengthen my Church. (You attended a missionary?) Did you take care of the needs of a missionary?

Exporter this is a forum about a challenge of ideas. Attack me on my ideas and not be childish about why you use my name? Your name isn’t God.{I would never write that!}
I , Exporter, had written this:
40.png
Exporter:
James1234, Why Did You Mention My Name 4 Times In Your Tirade About Some Man Named Batchelor On Black Entertainment T.V.?
Click to expand...
**I want you to tell me exactly where you link me with that *man. I didn’t write the book and I was not on BET.
Come on James1234, don’t you remember that thread? I can’t find it. (Black Entertainment TV is NOT the place to learn about Catholics)
Exporter.
 
Since James1234 brought up a Mr. Batchelor I "googled’ that name and found a fairly professional sight called Amazingfacts.com.

This address is a list of questions accessed by RealPlayer Audio. It is:
amazingfacts.org/media/radio/question_archive.asp?tName=All

I listened to 5 or 6 and I found he, Batchelor, was wrong on the question: “Did Jesus preach to the souls in prison just after his death on the cross”.

Batchelor said Jesus did not do that, contrary to 1stPeter 3:19.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top