Roman Catholic church only true churc...

Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican

There are 701485 comments on the CBC News story from Jul 10, 2007, titled Roman Catholic church only true church, says Vatican. In it, CBC News reports that:

The VaticanA issued a document Tuesday restatingA its belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church of Jesus Christ.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBC News.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#525359 Mar 29, 2014
StarC wrote:
"Observe that in the Bible there are two kinds of religious tradition, human
and divine. Observe that when Christ accused the Pharisees He was referring to "precepts of men"(Mark 7:7), to their human traditions. Christ
wanted divine tradition preserved and honoured because He made it part and parcel of the Christian deposit of faith, as the Apostle Paul affirmed: "Stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistles." (2 Thess. 2:14. Also see 2 Thes. 3:6). This divine tradition to which Paul refers, this revealed truth which was handed down by word rather than by letter, is the tradition upon which, along with Sacred Scripture, the Catholic Church bases her tenets of faith, as the primitive Christian Fathers affirmed. Wrote St. Augustine: "These traditions of the Christian name, therefore, so numerous, so powerful, and most dear, justly keep a believing man in the Catholic Church." The New Testament itself is a product of Christian tradition. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of a New Testament."
Mr 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

No where is "tradition" mentioned in that verse....saying that Scripture says one thing when it is actually giving a opposite message clearly shows what you are:

Quote: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.s you are what is herein taught:

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#525360 Mar 29, 2014
StarC wrote:
Jesus said "build my church"
Not Build my churchES.
"Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.
His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2)."
You didn't make it to high school then! Jesus did not found any church! Where in the bible does it say this? YOU are obviously a devil worshipper, a follower of the roman coven, an anti Christ!

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#525361 Mar 29, 2014
The Sons of William1690, ARE the people!!!
Sterilise these brides of satan at birth and thereafter hang every last one of the murdering paedophile child raping roman clergy.
Jumper The Wise

Morgantown, KY

#525362 Mar 29, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
From the book,“History of Christianity,” by Clyde L. Manschreck … comes the following.
A major agent of change in Western monasticism was Jerome (ca. 347—420), who successfully united the movement with scholarship and service. Although not a great theologian, his passion for asceticism, relics and pilgrimages, his credulity and superstition, and his concern for religious books projected the spirit of medievalism. An angelic vision turned Jerome away from youthful wildness and classical studies to life as a desert hermit near Antioch, where he spent several years studying “God’s books.” When he returned to Antioch, at the urging of many friends he accepted ordination as a presbyter and studied briefly in Constantinople under Gregory of Nazianzus. After the Council of Constantinople in 381 he journeyed to Rome where he served as secretary to Pope Damascus. Damascus commissioned him to make a Latin translation of the Bible, which he did, completing the New Testament between 386 and 391, and the Old in 405. This Vulgate translation encountered opposition but was gradually accepted, and in 1546 the Council of Trent made it the official Roman Catholic Bible.
Bull s#it! June VanDerMark! That was ignorant.All that was was some educated idiot with time on his hands like you.

'Council of Trent' my black azz!
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525363 Mar 29, 2014
Religion always was a treacherous business.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>

Legacy

Jan Hus was a key contributor to Protestantism, whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia—almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus#Famous_f...
Gods R Delusions x Mine

Orlando, FL

#525364 Mar 29, 2014
Jumper The Wise wrote:
<quoted text>Bull s#it! June VanDerMark! That was ignorant.All that was was some educated idiot with time on his hands like you.
'Council of Trent' my black azz!
lol, the educated idiot was busier than you or me it seems

Clyde L. Manschreck Biographical Information

Chavanne Professor of Religious Studies, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Emeritus Professor of the History of Christianity, Chicago Theological Seminary.

Editor of Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine and others.

And here you and I are on Topix.

Come to the lite
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525365 Mar 29, 2014
Famous followers of Jan Hus[edit]
Jerome of Prague, Hus's friend and devoted follower shared his fate and on 30 May 1416 was also burned at Konstanz
Jan Kardinál z Rejnštejna (1375–1428)(German: Johannes Cardinalis von Bergreichenstein)[12]
Jan Žižka z Trocnova a Kalicha (c. 1360–1424), Czech general and Hussite leader
Mat&#283;j z Knína (died 26 March 1410)(in German: Matthäus von Knin)
MikulᚠBiskupec z Pelh&#345;imova (1385 Pod&#283;brady – 1460 Pod&#283;brady)(in Latin: Nicolaus Pilgramensis, in German: Nikolaus von Pelgrims)
John Amos Comenius(1592-1670)(Czech: Jan Amos Komenský) Pastor, Teacher, philosopher, educator and writer. The last bishop of Unitas Fratrum prior to its renewal, Pastor in the Moravian church. Early champion of universal education, and education in ones mother tongue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus#Famous_f...

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#525366 Mar 29, 2014
StarC wrote:
"The very first Christian Bible was produced by the Catholic Church, compiled by Catholic scholars of the 2nd and 3rd century and approved for general Christian use by the Catholic Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397). The very first printed Bible was produced under the auspices of the Catholic Church, printed by the Catholic inventor of the printing press, Johannes Gutenberg. And the very first Bible with chapters and numbered verses was produced by the Catholic Church, the work of Stephen Langton, Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury. It was this perennial Catholic devotion to the bible."
The ugly truth.....

Catlic Bible History Truth

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.

Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. God has not added to His revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, also accept them as scripture. No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible.

These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church.

These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired!!!!!!!!!

Repeat: since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired!!!!!!!!! Thats hundreds of years after Christ declared He would build His church!!!!!!!
Gods R Delusions x Mine

Orlando, FL

#525367 Mar 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
The ugly truth.....
Catlic Bible History Truth
The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the Inter-testamental Period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the Old Testament which was Malachi. The Inter-testamental period ended with the coming of Christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.
The word "apocrypha" means "of questionable authenticity." These are called non canonical books because when the canon of Scriptures (the sixty six books of the Old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early Christians they recognized that these books contained spurious material and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are "hidden" or "deuterocanonical" books. These books are also called "pseudepigraphal", meaning "false writings" to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B. C. and early centuries A. D. These books contain religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical Christians from the earliest times of churches.
Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the Bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the Old and Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the Book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. God has not added to His revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man...not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman Catholic church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. Further, some of the cults including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Mormons, also accept them as scripture. No biblical Christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there are no lost books of the Bible.
These books or writings from the Apocrypha that the Roman Catholic Church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Letter of Jeremiah, additions to Esther, Prayer of Azariah, Susanna (Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14). Three other Apocryphal books in the Septuagint, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 & 2 Esdras, are not considered to be inspired or canonical by the Roman Catholic Church.
These books were not accepted by the Roman Catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300 years, since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired!!!!!!!!!
Repeat: since the inception of the Roman Church in the fourth Century, even they did not considered them inspired!!!!!!!!! Thats hundreds of years after Christ declared He would build His church!!!!!!!
Your faith wouldn't exist if it were not for the Whore of Babylon.

What makes you think you aren't being led astray by the devil's own "holy" book?

After all, who compiled MOST of the books for you in the first place?

Reject the ENTIRE delusion, not just a few parts of the WHOLE. Come to the lite of truth.

Ramen
Anthony MN

United States

#525368 Mar 29, 2014
OldJG wrote:
OldJG wrote:
<quoted text>
Your interpretation of ANY Bible translation is flawed if you believe the grace and truth found in the only begotten Son of God was also found in His mother.
If you believe what you wrote about YOUR Mary you must believe she has the same attributes of God in that she is omniscient, all knowing. That she is omnipresent, all present and all seeing. That she is omnipotent, all powerful.
This IS the Roman Catholic Mary. Not the mother of Jesus.
<quoted text>
AnthonyMN said, quote, "First of all, you have no authority to infallibly interpret scripture." End quote.
Yes, I do have the authority to interpret Scripture because Holy Spirit resides in me, a born again believer. End of story.
The Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture is corrupt in that it is skewed with the beliefs of pagan religions of the Roman Empire. So skewed it does not resemble the teachings of Jesus Christ. End of story.
AnthonyMN said, quote, "And of course you're crazy if you think that being full of grace means you're a "deity". Mary was given grace by God. Jesus was filled with grace because He is God." End quote.
Jesus was described as 'FULL OF GRACE AND TRUTH'. Is Jesus Christ deity?
Your translation of Luke 1:28 describes Mary as being 'FULL OF GRACE'. When in fact the correct translation is "And coming in, he said to her,“Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
The only person 'FULL OF GRACE' is the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Mary is nothing more than sinner saved by grace. She is not a deity and is not full of grace as was Jesus Christ.
Your Roman Catholic Mary, according to Rome and not the Bible, is described as follows:
1. Perpetual virgin
2. Immaculate conception
3. Mother of God
4. Queen of heaven
5. Sinless
6. Mother of the church
7. Co-redeemer
8. Assumed into heaven
9. Co-mediator
You have elevated her to deity and as a result will be judged for it. Not judged by me but by Jesus Christ.
"Yes, I do have the authority to interpret Scripture because Holy Spirit resides in me, a born again believer. End of story."

Yawn. That's what all you protestants say.....no wonder there's 40,000+ denominations...

You have a bad translation.
Gods R Delusions x Mine

Orlando, FL

#525369 Mar 29, 2014
June VanDerMark wrote:
Religion always was a treacherous business.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>
Legacy
Jan Hus was a key contributor to Protestantism, whose teachings had a strong influence on the states of Europe and on Martin Luther himself. The Hussite Wars resulted in the Basel Compacts which allowed for a reformed church in the Kingdom of Bohemia—almost a century before such developments would take place in the Lutheran Reformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus#Famous_f...
The delusion of Christianity and hand cannons (cool history):

"The Hussite Wars ... were fought between the Hussites (followers of Bohemian religious dissenter Jan Hus) and various monarchs who sought to enforce the authority of the Roman Catholic Church against the Hussites... These wars lasted from 1419 to circa 1434."

"The Hussite community ... defeated several "crusades" proclaimed against them by the Pope...."

" The Hussite Wars were notable for the extensive use of early hand-held firearms such as hand cannons."
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525370 Mar 29, 2014
Gods R Delusions x Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your faith wouldn't exist if it were not for the Whore of Babylon.
What makes you think you aren't being led astray by the devil's own "holy" book?
After all, who compiled MOST of the books for you in the first place?
Reject the ENTIRE delusion, not just a few parts of the WHOLE. Come to the lite of truth.
Ramen
It's amazing that Protestants brag about owning truth straight from god and Jesus ... and totally ignore the idea that the KJV branched off of the Bishop's Catholic bible.

Without that Catholic bible, Protestants would have NO religion whatsoever.

In their desire to keep on preaching nonsense, they ignore all evidence of common sense.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525371 Mar 29, 2014
They were given permission to change words "if" they saw a discrepancy.

Who was kidding who???
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

Investigating anti-Semitism

The KJV team was told in the first rule of their translation charter to follow the Bishops’ Bible where truth would permit, and they were free to seek out more accurate renderings when they saw a discrepancy

http://unfailingword.com/2012/12/14/investiga...
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525372 Mar 29, 2014
Gods R Delusions x Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
The delusion of Christianity and hand cannons (cool history):
"The Hussite Wars ... were fought between the Hussites (followers of Bohemian religious dissenter Jan Hus) and various monarchs who sought to enforce the authority of the Roman Catholic Church against the Hussites... These wars lasted from 1419 to circa 1434."
"The Hussite community ... defeated several "crusades" proclaimed against them by the Pope...."
" The Hussite Wars were notable for the extensive use of early hand-held firearms such as hand cannons."
I wasn't aware of the Hussites using hand-held firearms such as hand cannons. Thanks for that information.

Yes in deed. God's warriors always needed ammunition,

And I believe if the Hussites had won the war they would have been just as blood-thirsty and dictatorial as were the Catholics.

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#525373 Mar 29, 2014
Visit the Website below

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questi...

This Website is FURTHER Proof that the Roman Catholic Cult is a LIE.

The Roman Catholic Church did not Even Produce a Latin / Italian Translation of the Scriptures Untill 500 Years after jESUS Christ.

And Then the Roman Catholic Church, Refused to Translate the Bible in ANY OTHER Languge for another One Thousand and Two Hundred Years.

Twelve Hundred Years.

So 500 Years Went By, From the Time of jESUS Christ and the Catholic Church Failed to Translate a Latin / Italian Version the Scriptures.

Then a TOTAL of 1600 years. 1600 Years / One Thousand 600 Years - from the Time of jESUS Christ, to the First Catholic Bible, Translated into another Languag other than Latin / Italian

In 1582 The Roman Catholic Church Translated The Douay–Rheims Bible. Why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for One Thousand and Six Hundred Years after jESUS Christ to Make a NON Latin / Italian - Translation of the Bible ?

You Know _ eXactly Why. The Roman Catholic Hates the Bible, Catholics Hate the Mary of the BIble, They are Dis-satisfied / Un-Satisfied With The Mary Portrayed in the Bible. Catholics are not In LOVE with the Mary, Portrayed in the Bible.

The Mary, Mother Of jESUS - Who is described in the Scriptures is not the Mary that Catholics Love.

Catholics have Re- Created another Mary, they have Twisted and Horribly Perverted the Image and Character of Mary. Catholics have Re- Animated and , Re- Constructed Mother Mary. they Hate Her, this is why they have to Re- Mold Her in another image that they can Love.

Roman Catholics are not in Love with the jESUS of the Bible. They REjECT and Deny his eXistance as Described in Scriptures. They have RE- Constructed another Person that they Call jESUS. BUT their god is not the god of the Bible.

This is Why that Catholics Can Demand that Allah, the god of Islam is the God of the Bible... Catholics have NO Bible. For their Faith.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Fort Saint John, Canada

#525374 Mar 29, 2014
Anthony MN wrote:
<quoted text>
Holy Spirit resides in me.
The story of every preacher in every religion.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#525375 Mar 29, 2014
Gods R Delusions x Mine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your faith wouldn't exist if it were not for the Whore of Babylon.
What makes you think you aren't being led astray by the devil's own "holy" book?
After all, who compiled MOST of the books for you in the first place?
Reject the ENTIRE delusion, not just a few parts of the WHOLE. Come to the lite of truth.
Ramen
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan:
Anthony MN

Minneapolis, MN

#525376 Mar 29, 2014
reXpectrum wrote:
Visit the Website below
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questi...
This Website is FURTHER Proof that the Roman Catholic Cult is a LIE.
The Roman Catholic Church did not Even Produce a Latin / Italian Translation of the Scriptures Untill 500 Years after jESUS Christ.
And Then the Roman Catholic Church, Refused to Translate the Bible in ANY OTHER Languge for another One Thousand and Two Hundred Years.
Twelve Hundred Years.
So 500 Years Went By, From the Time of jESUS Christ and the Catholic Church Failed to Translate a Latin / Italian Version the Scriptures.
Then a TOTAL of 1600 years. 1600 Years / One Thousand 600 Years - from the Time of jESUS Christ, to the First Catholic Bible, Translated into another Languag other than Latin / Italian
In 1582 The Roman Catholic Church Translated The Douay–Rheims Bible. Why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for One Thousand and Six Hundred Years after jESUS Christ to Make a NON Latin / Italian - Translation of the Bible ?
You Know _ eXactly Why. The Roman Catholic Hates the Bible, Catholics Hate the Mary of the BIble, They are Dis-satisfied / Un-Satisfied With The Mary Portrayed in the Bible. Catholics are not In LOVE with the Mary, Portrayed in the Bible.
The Mary, Mother Of jESUS - Who is described in the Scriptures is not the Mary that Catholics Love.
Catholics have Re- Created another Mary, they have Twisted and Horribly Perverted the Image and Character of Mary. Catholics have Re- Animated and , Re- Constructed Mother Mary. they Hate Her, this is why they have to Re- Mold Her in another image that they can Love.
Roman Catholics are not in Love with the jESUS of the Bible. They REjECT and Deny his eXistance as Described in Scriptures. They have RE- Constructed another Person that they Call jESUS. BUT their god is not the god of the Bible.
This is Why that Catholics Can Demand that Allah, the god of Islam is the God of the Bible... Catholics have NO Bible. For their Faith.
"What do worms do in the rain?"

My eyes have been opened!!!!!
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#525377 Mar 29, 2014
Oxbow wrote:
<quoted text>
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan:
You're not Jesus, and there is no Satan, goofy.

But you keep on pretending, hear?
Chess Jurist

Columbus, OH

#525378 Mar 29, 2014
reXpectrum wrote:
Visit the Website below
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questi...
This Website is FURTHER Proof that the Roman Catholic Cult is a LIE.
The Roman Catholic Church did not Even Produce a Latin / Italian Translation of the Scriptures Untill 500 Years after jESUS Christ.
And Then the Roman Catholic Church, Refused to Translate the Bible in ANY OTHER Languge for another One Thousand and Two Hundred Years.
Twelve Hundred Years.
So 500 Years Went By, From the Time of jESUS Christ and the Catholic Church Failed to Translate a Latin / Italian Version the Scriptures.
Then a TOTAL of 1600 years. 1600 Years / One Thousand 600 Years - from the Time of jESUS Christ, to the First Catholic Bible, Translated into another Languag other than Latin / Italian
In 1582 The Roman Catholic Church Translated The Douay–Rheims Bible. Why did the Roman Catholic Church wait for One Thousand and Six Hundred Years after jESUS Christ to Make a NON Latin / Italian - Translation of the Bible ?
You Know _ eXactly Why. The Roman Catholic Hates the Bible, Catholics Hate the Mary of the BIble, They are Dis-satisfied / Un-Satisfied With The Mary Portrayed in the Bible. Catholics are not In LOVE with the Mary, Portrayed in the Bible.
The Mary, Mother Of jESUS - Who is described in the Scriptures is not the Mary that Catholics Love.
Catholics have Re- Created another Mary, they have Twisted and Horribly Perverted the Image and Character of Mary. Catholics have Re- Animated and , Re- Constructed Mother Mary. they Hate Her, this is why they have to Re- Mold Her in another image that they can Love.
Roman Catholics are not in Love with the jESUS of the Bible. They REjECT and Deny his eXistance as Described in Scriptures. They have RE- Constructed another Person that they Call jESUS. BUT their god is not the god of the Bible.
This is Why that Catholics Can Demand that Allah, the god of Islam is the God of the Bible... Catholics have NO Bible. For their Faith.
Really?

A website is further proof?

Really?

Dummy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min Richard The Lion... 79,737
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 29 min Hatti_Hollerand 2,536
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 1 hr Dang Jersey Piney 448,389
News Sarah Palin going on 'Oprah' (Oct '09) 3 hr Johnny 718
Will Meghan Markle Bring Down the Royals? 3 hr Johnny 4
Bill Cosby guilty on all 3 charges. 3 hr Johnny 43
Judas Iscariot and Mark Fuhrman 3 hr BILLION HEIR 39
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 hr Dang Jersey Piney 995,752