What saddens me the most is that he lost a kidney over a miserly $1500.
I could have paid his debt.

"Possibly, Rome has a shrine somewhere with a bottle of Jesus real blood,"

If you watch Mel Gibsons "The Passion" you see Mary wiping up Jesus' blood from the ground after he was whipped.

Of course Rome would think like this, but this is what others have said about John Macarthur's comments, excusing him.

He should have made this point as it would have put it in context but he has avoided it either to not offend Roman Catholics or he truely holds this blasphemous view that he espouses.

So then is blood significant or not.

His blood was significant and since John Macarthur is a theologian he should be able to explain this in his statements but has not leaving his statements clear and obviously from another source of revelation other than the Bible.

The blood (the actual liquid) is significant because firstly you cannot shed non actual liquid blood.(This becomes a word game)
Secondly the blood has power because it is authoritative, this is a legal matter and produces a legal result (remission of sins).
If Jesus was a non blooded being and yet was without sin and died for us we would not be saved because "without the shedding of blood there is no remission.."
Why because life is in the blood.

THE CULTS, DR. MACARTHUR,AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr.

http://www.rlhymers.com/Online_Sermons/09-22-02AM_CultsMcArthurAndTheBlood.html

What Dr Hymers rings true to me because firstly Eddy(Christian Science), Russell(JW's) and Smith (Mormons) were best friends and were high level Freemasons.

We are told also by Alice Bailey of the Theosophical society that the new World Order would come about through the church. That they would put ther people in our churches and steer us in the way they wanted to go.

And so the church today is already walking in these ways and no one says boo, and no one challenges the leaders (don't touch the Lords annointed). We're all so scared of our "priests" I know were not Protestants any longer.

What has happened in western culture and equally in the church is what is termed an 'unpercieved ideological transshipment'.

I do understand this has gone way off topic. (Maybe not since that church would burn his books too)

I have come across audio of Dr Macarthur defending against the accusations regarding the blood of Christ.

He is merely shadow boxing. He is a politician in my books dancing around the issue.
He then ( and this supposed to be him defending himself) states

"Having said that, you must stop short of saying that we are saved by the blood of Jesus."

[search youtube John MacArthur Defends him self on the blood of Christ]

Cleverly he tries to confuse the issue (just like in his books) as usual talking about its molecules "the liquid" itself.
This is classic double talk and is no retraction or correction.

What I am referring to is that he said in his book Grace to You pg 10

"It was His death that was efficacious not His blood"

What is interesting about this is this is almost the same as a quote by Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science (which it is not) saying

"The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree' than when it was flowing in his veins"

This is a terrible statement and I wonder who Dr Macarthur has been gleening his theology from?
At least in the past.
Like I said I wish to checkout his retraction to see exactly what it entails.
Sometimes retractions are merely damage control and spin doctoring.

What you say is true. Just because somebody does something or says something does not make it true.

What it does do though is that is adds impetus to the weight of the arguement considering this man was involved in the translation.

It is funny that people ask for proof about something (like Jim) and yet it will probably taken out of contention as useful information from what you have said.

It becomes a circumlocatious arguement to say we are to judge everything by scripture and yet not know what scripture is!

Outside evidence and information then becomes required which makes Dr Logsdon's testimony important.

We have had our flu season here in Australia and I was watching US news hour yesterday.
I was first struck dumb by how many NWO sponsors PBS has and noticed that most of those who they interview are also in the same category.

Then a news item which had me most amused was on H1N1, and how "more children have died from H1N1 already this season than from the normal flu the whole of last season"

Well they have learnt from our arguements from our season, that was exactly the problem with causing a panic here.
There just wasn't enough deaths.

It would be good with someone with access to check the stats.
It is not difficult to reclassify other types of death and attribute it with H1N1, cause once it is in the media as fact even with an investigation, it will be almost impossible to get "the facts" out of peoples minds.

I can refer you to actual audio of Dr Frank Logsdon in a message by Dr Frank Logsdon on this site by the way.
See

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=121091938230

Willa wrote:
About 90% of 3146 scientists surveyed believe in global warming, and 82% of these 3146 believe it's man made.
Among climatologists, this percentage is 97.

Mike wrote:
"One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual "Jesus Loves the Little Children," though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: "He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama."

Tony cool it with the term "fool" since scripture says to call no man fool.
These guys aren't disagreeing with you on doctrine, but on an ENIGMA, the falsely named Obama.
Disagreeing with an opinion is one thing, slurs are quite another.

I would like to see some evidence rather than just flat out opinions.
Obama is still in the land of theory. The whole story is not at hand yet.

Obama's ex pastor for the UCC gave Larry Farrakan an award (you know of nation of islam).

Obama's wife has connections with Farrakan's wife.

Farrakan, Schuller and Billy Graham all attended the same masonic lodge.

All have had sanction by the Pope.

Schuller trained Rick Warren who had Obama at his church.

This is just in your neck of the woods, it's going on everywhere

Labels and titles are illusions. We are talking about the erection of the final peices of mystery of iniquity that has been working through the Roman Catholic Church for 1500 years and everything it touches.

These guys don't think in terms like we do. These guys are occultists (more than just the hidden defnition).

These are the ones spoken of by Alice Bailey, Blavatsky, and numerous warnings through the ages by godly men and women.

(Firstly I like you name. Spot on, no disagreement there)

Bouffard, I have video of him speaking with Nury Rivera. He also had the gold pen on him.
He shows the ring of a Bishop which was broken.

He also has other evidence he says but he has this in hiding.

This is for good reason I believe, because once all the info is available it will be destroyed along with Bouffard.
Equally, it might just be the one thing he has over them that keep him alive.

No Protestant Reformed RC believe's Rivera's credible and that is their perogative. Even Richard Bennett. Rivera's an extreme case and they may be finding it more conducive for evangelism to reach Catholics in a less confronting manner.
That is the way they minister.

As for him seeing priests levitating, it would not surprise me. I have seen some pretty demonic things myself, as have other people with me, all dealt with in the name of Jesus.

I have numerous examples I could give.

His story is to me, not far fetched.

The leaders of the world play the part they are required to play and say the things they have to say.

He either is the most incredible researcher or he was a Jesuit. I believe he was the latter.

I am wondering if you are reconsidering your position regarding the chair of St Peter being ONLY the office of Pope.

The chair is literal as well as metaphorical.

Hac cathedra, Petrus qua sederat ipse, locatum Maxima Roma Linum primum considere iussit.
- "Adversus Marcionem" (Patrologia Latina II, 1099)

The Latin translates:

"On this chair whereupon Peter himself sat The great Rome placed Linus and commanded him to sit."

Tertullian and others say that a true chair exsisted.
(On Baptism, 4). "... various churches in which the actual chairs of the Apostles are still standing in their places, in which their own authentic letters are read..." (Prescriptions Against Heretics, 32, 36, by Tertullian).

Early Roman martyrologies record January 18: "The chair of St. Peter on which he first sat at Rome."

St Peter's chair's establishment celebrated on February 22.
The second "Chair of Peter" was encased in bronze by Bernini.

There have also been other chairs.
See the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen 03551e.htm

One was marble, one was wood which was a movable cathedra.
Pope Gregory the Great had another one commissioned etc etc.