you wanna be able to research all the various bible topics like i do? does it seem intimidating?

the thing you should do, is always see if ppl on the web misinterpret the bible verses they are quoting.

that's i think key. amongst other things, but that's key.

for instance, are there other bible verses that refute/support this idea? does the idea they try to conclude match what's going on in the real world?

i'm kinda busy, as i'm supposed to be writing a paper that's due in about 1 hr or so, so i'll get back to you on this tonight, but off the top of my head, here's a classic one(i'll find the verses tonight if i can remember; i've read this before):

jesus calling simon as "peter," then saying upon this rock will i build my church...

roman catholics take this verse and assume that peter built the 1st church.

and from the wording of the bible(check it; it's the same for all versions), it would SEEM to suggest that the church is built upon peter(although, i might add, kjv has no footnotes stating that peter means rock, which helps ease off the confusion)

but wait... there's numerous other references to a so-called "rock" in the other parts of the bible... do they apparently seem to refer to peter as this rock, or jesus as the rock? the "rock being cut out not by human hands" in daniel, is this peter, or jesus? the foundation that the wise man builds in jesus' parable ON THE ROCK, think this is peter, or jesus? the capstone that the builders have rejected; is this peter, or jesus? the statement that "their rock is not our rock," think this refers to peterr, or to jesus? if peter is the head of our church, then why doesn't the epistles state that peter's the head of the body of christ, and we are the body(we know that the body of christ is the church)?

does peter even seem to like the idea of being revered as a saint? the italian man who invited him to his house bowed down to him, but peter made him stand right back up, telling him, he was only a man himself.

furthermore, there is no reason to suggest peter was even an apostle TO the gentiles; that role was fulfilled by paul, and the main powerhouse for the jews was peter. when paul goes to rome in acts, nowhere is it seen that he greets peter. NOWHERE.

that's the idea. the other thing is to throw away all fear; in that, what you find, if it's bibically sound, is what you find. if a scientist finds something extremely contradictory to what the rest of the scientific world believes, but it is sound, then he must believe his results, and not what the world tells him. now, obviously, you tread really shaky ground when you do this, that's why you should always pray for guidance when you do stuff like this.

finally, i'll conclude that when looking up prophesies, it's tempting to say something you found, which matches, is "coincidence." however, the more prophesies you find on something, the more it matches, compared also w/what the early church believed, etc, may show you otherwise. like, for instance, the accusation that the roman catholic church IS the antichrist.

i'll post later.