The Four Gospels, it is claimed, were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Two of them were apostles, and two were companions of the apostles of the Christian je-Zeus Christ. If this claim were be true the other writings of the apostles, like those of the remaining books of the New Testament written by the three apostles, Peter, John, and Paul, along with the writings of the Christian Fathers, ought to contain some evidences of those original Gospels. Unfortunately; There is no evidence whatever of the existence of these original Gospels.

There are extant writings accredited to the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp; written, for the most part, early in the second century. These writings contain no mention of the Four Gospels. This also is admitted by the Christian scholar. Dr. Dodwell who says: "We have at this day certain most authentic ecclesiastical writers of the times, as Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, who wrote in the order wherein I have named them, and after all the writers of the New Testament. But in Hermas you will not find one passage or any mention of any of the books contained in the New Testament, nor in any one of the Evangelists named" (Dissertations upon Irenaeus).

The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels had they existed in his time. He makes more than three hundred quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the Four Gospels. The Rev. Dr. Giles says: "The very names of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are never mentioned by Justin. Nor do they occur once in all of his writings" (Christian Records, p. 71).

Papias, another noted Christian church Father, was a contemporary of Justin. He refers to writings of Matthew and Mark, but his allusions to them clearly indicate that they were not the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. Dr. Davidson, the highest English authority on the canon, says: "He [Papias] neither felt the want nor knew the existence of inspired Gospels" (Canon of the Bible, p. 123).

Theophilus, who wrote after the middle of the latter half of the second century, mentions the Gospel of John, and Irenaeus, who wrote a little later, mentions all of the Gospels, and makes numerous quotations from them. In the latter half of the second century, then, between the time of Justin and Papias, and the time of Theophilus and Irenaeus, the Four Gospels were undoubtedly re-written, altered and compiled.

These books are anonymous. They do not purport to have been written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Their titles do not affirm it. They simply imply that they are "according" to the supposed teachings of these Evangelists. As Renan says, "They merely signify that these were the traditions proceeding from each of these Apostles, and claiming their authority." Concerning their authorship the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas says: "They appeared anonymously. The titles placed above them in our Bibles owe their origin to a later ecclesiastical tradition which deserves no confidence whatever" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 24).

It is claimed that the Gospel of Matthew originally appeared in Hebrew. Our version is a translation of a Greek work. Regarding this St. Jerome says: "Who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain." The consequences of this admission are thus expressed by Michaelis: "If the original text of Matthew is lost, and we have nothing but a Greek translation then, frankly, we cannot ascribe any divine inspiration to the words."

The contents of these books refute the claim that they were written by the Evangelists named. They narrate events and contain doctrinal teachings which belong to a later age. Matthew ascribes to Christ the following language: "Thou art Peter, and Upon this rock I will build my Church" (xvi, 18). This Gospel is a Roman Catholic Gospel, and was written after the beginning of the establishment of this hierarchy to uphold thc supremacy of the Petrine Church of Rome. Of this Gospel Dr. Davidson says : "The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown'. (Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).

The Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who is believed to be the person addressed, flourished in the latter half of the second century.

Dr. Schleiermacher, one of Germany's greatest theologians, after a critical analysis of Luke, concludes that it is merely a compilation, made up of thirty-three preexisting manuscripts. Bishop Thirlwall's Schleiermacher says: "He [Luke] is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence" (p. 313).

The basis of this Gospel is generally believed to be the Gospel of Marcion, a Pauline compilation, made about the middle of the second century. Concerning this Gospel, the Rev. S. Baring-Gould in his Lost and Hostile Gospels, says: "The arrangement is so similar that we are forced to the conclusion that it was either used by St. Luke or that it was his original composition. If he used it then his right to the title of author of the Third Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small amount."

Mark, according to Renan, is the oldest of the Gospels; but Mark, according to Strauss, was written after the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written. He says: "It is evidently a compilation, whether made from memory or otherwise, from the first and third Gospels" (Leben Jesu, p. 5I). Judge Waite, in his History of Christianity, says that all but twenty-four verses of this Gospel have their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Davidson declares it to be an anonymous work "The author," he says, "is unknown."

Omitting the last twelve verses of Mark, which all Christian critics pronounce spurious, the book contains no mention of the two great miracles which mark the limits of Christ's earthly career, his miraculous birth and his ascension.

Concerning the first three Gospels, the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "It is certain that the Synoptic Gospels took their present form only by degrees." Of these books Dr. Westcott says: "Their substance is evidently much older than their form." Professor Robertson Smith pronounces them "unapostolic digests of the second century."

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: "The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible" (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

That the authenticity of the Four Gospels cannot be maintained is conceded by every impartial critic. The author of Supernatural Religion, in one of the most profound and exhaustive works on this subject ever written, expresses the result of his labors in the following, words: "After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus" (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 248).

Fifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian theologian, referring to this so called Gospel history, wrote: "It is allowed not to have been written by the son himself nor by his apostles, but long after by some unknown man who, lest they should be suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles."

The following is the verdict of the world's greatest Bible critic, Baur: "These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century."

Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation.
The Acts of the Apostles is supposed to have been written by the author of the Third Gospel. Like this book it is anonymous and of late origin. It contains historical inaccuracies, contradicts the Gospel of Matthew, and conflicts with the writings of Paul. Concerning the last, the Bible for Learners (Vol. III, p. 25) says: "In the first two chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, he [Paul] gives us several details of his own past life; and no sooner do we place his story side by side with that of the Acts than we clearly perceive that this book contains an incorrect account, and that its inaccuracy is not the result of accident or ignorance, but of a deliberate design."

This book purports to be the product chiefly of three minds: that of the author who gives a historical sketch of the early church, and those of Peter and Paul whose discourses are reported. And yet the three compositions are clearly the products of one mind -- that of the author. The evident purpose of the work is to heal the bitter dissensions which existed between the Petrine and Pauline churches, and this points unmistakably to the latter part of the second century as the date of its appearance, when the work of uniting the various Christian sects into the Catholic church began. Renan considers this the most faulty book of the New Testament.

The seven Catholic Epistles, James, First and Second Peter, First, Second and Third John, and Jude, have never been held in very high esteem by the church. Many of the Christian Fathers, rejected them, while modern Christian scholars have generally considered them of doubtful authenticity. Martin Luther was totally wrong when he had inserted in Luther's New Testament, I524 that scripture alone be read. That is the "Word" of their fictitious god and not the original traditional teachings of the Apostles of Yeshua the Anointed. Of course Martin Luther only had the already corrupted text for his translation of the New Testament which had come from the already heritical Roman Catholic church to refer to. Reading from a corrupted text and translating it into another language, you will still end up with a corrupted text and a corrupted theology.

The First Epistle of Peter and the First Epistle of John have generally been accorded a higher degree of authority than the others; but even these were not written by apostles, nor in the first century. Dr. Soury says that First Peter "dates, in all probability, from the year 130 A.D., at the earliest" (Jesus and the Gospels, p. 32). Irenaeus, the founder of the New Testament canon, rejected it. The Dutch critics, who deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and assign its composition to the second century, say: "The First Epistle of John soon issued from the same school in imitation of the Gospel" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 692).

Second Peter is a forgery. Westcott says there is no proof of its existence prior to 170 A.D. Smith's Bible Dictionary says "Many reject the epistle as altogether spurious." The brief epistles of Second and Third John are anonymous and of very late origin. They do not purport to be the writings of John. The superscriptions declare them to be from an elder, and this precludes the claim that they are from an apostle. The early Fathers ignored them.

Revelation is the only book in the Bible which claims to be the word of God. At the same time it is the book of which Christians have always been the most suspicious. It is addressed to the seven churches of Asia, but the seven churches of Asia rejected it. Concerning the attitude of ancient churchmen toward it, Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, says: "Divers of our predecessors have wholly refused and rejected this book, and by discussing the several parts thereof have found it obscure and void of reason and the title forged."

"The most learned and intelligent of Protestant divines," says the Edinburgh Review, "almost all doubted or denied the canonicity of the book of Revelation." It is a book which, Dr. South said, "either found a man mad or left him so." Calvin and Beza both forbade their clergy to attempt an explanation of its contents. Luther says: "In the Revelation of John much is wanting to let me deem it either prophetic or apostolical" (Preface to N.T., 1524).

Considered as evidences of Christ's historical existence and divinity these nine books are of no value. They are all anonymous writings or forgeries, and, with the possible exception of Revelation, of very late origin. While they affirm Christ's existence they are almost entirely silent regarding his life and miracles.

The Epistles of Paul.
Paul records not one thing from the earthly life of his saviour. In all of the 13 epistles ascribed to Paul he quotes not a single saying of his Je-Zeus Christ. Throughout his letters he refers to a spiritual Christ whose redeeming sacrifice had conquered death. For Paul and the other early Christians, Christ was not a human being, but an "apparition". Even during Paul's early preachings, he spoke it was of the "End Time" and imminent Judgement Day. It was only near the later part of his life did he finally realize that the imminent Judgement Day was not coming.
Of the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul, seven of them, Ephesians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews are conceded by nearly all critics to be spurious while three others, that of Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon are generally classed as doubtful.

The general verdict concerning the first seven is thus expressed by the Rev. Dr. Hooykaas: "Fourteen epistles are said to be Paul's; but we must at once strike off one, namely, that to the Hebrews, which does not bear his name at all. The two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus were certainly composed long after the death of Paul. It is more than possible that the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians are also unauthentic, and the same suspicion rests, perhaps, on the first, but certainly on the second of the Epistles to the Thessalonians" (Bible for Learners, Vol. III, p. 23).

The author of Second Thessalonians, whose epistle is a self-evident forgery, declares First Thessalonians to be a forgery. Baur and the Tubingen school reject both Epistles. Baur also rejects Philippians. "The Epistles to the Colossians and to the Philippians, are spurious, and were written by the Catholic school near the end of the second century, to heal the strife between the Jew and the Gentile (Paulus) factions. Dr. Kuenen and the other Dutch critics admit that Philippians and Philemon, as well as First Thessalonians, are doubtful.

That the Pastoral Epistles are forgeries is now conceded by all critics. According to the German critics they belong to the second century. Hebrews does not purport to be a Pauline document. Luther says: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is not by St. Paul, or, indeed, by any apostle" (Standing Preface to Luther's N.T.).

Four Epistles, that of Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians were rejected by a few critics, are generally admitted to be the genuine writings of Paul. These books were written, it is claimed, about a quarter of a century after the death of Christ. They are the only books of the New Testament whose authenticity can be maintained.

Admitting the authenticity of these books, however, is not admitting the historical existence of Christ and the divine origin of Christianity. Paul was not a witness of the alleged events upon which Christianity rests. He did not become a convert to Christianity until many years after the death of Christ. He did not see Christ (save in a vision); he did not listen to his teachings; he did not learn from his disciples. "The Gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it" (Gal. i, II, 12). Paul accepted only to a very small extent the religion of Christ's disciples. He professed to derive his knowledge from supernatural sources -- from trances and visions. Regarding the value of such testimony the author of Supernatural Religion (p. 970) says: "No one can deny, and medical and psychological annals prove, that many men have been subject to visions and hallucinations which have never been seriously attributed to supernatural causes. There is not one single valid reason removing the ecstatic visions and trances of the Apostle Paul from this class."

The corporeal existence of the Christ of the Evangelists receives slight confirmation in the writings of Paul. His Christ was not the incarnate Word of John, nor the demi-god of Matthew and Luke. Of the immaculate conception of Jesus he knew nothing. To Him Christ was the son of God in a spiritual rather than in a physical sense. "His son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. i, 3, 4). "God sent forth his son, made of a woman [but not of a virgin], made under the law" (Gal. iv, 4).

With the Evangelists the proofs of Christ's divinity are his miracles. Their books teem with accounts of these. But Paul evidently knows nothing of these miracles. With him the evidences of Christ's divine mission are his resurrection and the spiritual gifts conferred on those who accept him.

The Evangelists teach a material resurrection. When the woman visited his tomb "they entered in and found not the body of Jesus" (Luke xxiv, 3). The divine messengers said to them, "He is not here, but is risen" (6). "He sat at meat" with his disciples; "he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them" (30). "Then he said to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side" (John xx, 27). This is entirely at variance with the teachings of Paul. "But not is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead" (I Cor. xv, 20, 21). "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be" (35-37). "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (44). "Now this I say brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (50).

The Christ that Paul saw in a vision was a spiritual being -- an apparition; and this appearance he considers of exactly the same character as the post mortem appearances of Christ to his disciples. "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; ... after that, he was seen of James; then all of the Apostles. And last of all, he was seen of me also" (I Cor. xv, 5-8).

Mystical Religion
Throughout the first, second, and third centuries, Christianity competed with a host of similar mystical religions all throughout the Greek world. The most important was Mithraism, which shared many similar characteristics with Christianity. Unlike Christianity, though, Mithraism barred women from worship; a large number of the earliest converts to Christianity were women, even though Paul argued that women should be silent on religious matters.

Another religion popular throughout the Greek world was Gnosticism, which comes from the Greek word for "knowledge." We don't know much about the origins of Gnosticism; the first recorded Gnostic teacher is Simon Magus, who lived at the time of the ministry of the Twelve. The Gnostic religion centered around the figure of Sophia, or Wisdom, which was believed to have come down from Heaven to earth, where she became besmirched, but was raised up again by God to heaven. This religion derived from the Canaanite religion, which also worshipped a Wisdom that had descended and risen to Heaven; so the roots of Gnosticism go back to at least the seventh century BCE. The Hebrews incorporated some aspects of Gnosticism, including a proto-Gnostic Canaanite religious text embedded in Proverbs 8-9.

What is significant about Gnosticism is that it made itself at home with practically every religion circulating around the Mediterranean. The worship of Sophia was easily folded into Zoroastrianism, with its battle between good and evil, Judaism, with its concept of a supreme God, Stoicism, with its myth of the descent of light to the earth, Mithraism, with its story of the descent and resurrection of the sun-god, and, finally, Christianity, with its story of the descent and resurrection of Christ. There were Zoroastrian Gnostics, Jewish Gnostics, Stoic Gnostics, and, of course, Christian Gnostics.

Christian Gnosticism was a major competing religion for early Christianity. One of its most popular manifestations was the assertion that the Divine spirit of Christ dwelled in the body of the man Jesus. In this respect, then, it was believed that the spirit of Christ did not die on the cross with Jesus.

As you can plainly see, the many claims by Christian priests and preachers that their Christian bible is the infallible "Word of GOD" is proven to be false. That the Christian bible is inerrant has also proved to be a false claim. Christian priests and preachers have been lying to people for almost two thousand years. People are learning the truth concerning this fraudulent religion called Christianity, their fraudulent Christian bible, with it's phony god.

While I was thinking about Luigi Cascioli who is accusing the Roman Catholic Church of having profited from its deception for nearly 2,000 years, and is now perusing a lawsuit of fraud against that corrupt church, by its assertions that Christianity is based upon historical facts and truth when those claims prove to be fraudulent. I could not help wonder about the many religions which exist in our world, all claiming to represent their various god or gods and some claiming that they alone hold the truth. How are people to know which religion is telling the truth? Personally; I think in this day and age of knowlage, it is high time that people found out once and for all who is telling the truth and stop those religious scammers who collect large sums of money by deceiving people by perpetuating false claims. It is time, for people to find out the truth about who is GOD, our Creator, and get rid of all those fraudulent religions that infest our country and the world today. The local law courts, or even the Surpreme Court, can very easily be used to establish a system which will reveal the truth, the validity of any religion and its claims. We need to do this for the sake of honesty, for truth and for protecting people from fraudulent religious scammers. Lawsuits against religions, like those of Christianity, is not intended to establish whether these religions are phony religions, but to address the question of what they claim as being true, by asserting their false claims as being "true facts", when it can be clearly shown to be of their own inventions. Such fraudulent statements is considered to be a fraud. What would happen if people would bring lawsuits against every single religion that derive its wealth by deceiving and perpetuating false statements about their gods and is proven to be false? I already know that Christianity is a phony religion that can not substantiate their religious claims. If every single Catholic church, every single protestant ministry, every single Christian broadcast were to be found to perpetuate a fraud, people and their lawyers who are representing them, who had been deceived by their religion will be compensated monetarily for the fraud these ministries had committed. The same thing can be said for any other religions who had profited by obtaining great sums of money, or had obtained lands and buildings from their fraudulent historical claims and representing truth when truth reveals they lied when they claim that they are not worshiping false gods like those of Christianity. Leaving those religions alone who can substantiate their religious claims. That would get rid of a good proportion of fraudulent religions that is deceiving people. Freedom of religion do not mean that those who represent their religion can deliberately lie and deceive people by making false claims which cannot be substantiated. I have observed that those who represent the religion of Christianity have repeatedly lied to and have deceived people. For the past centuries, these religious perpetuators have been allowed to gather their wealth from people they have managed to deceive. I wonder how long will people tolerate this kind of blatant deception?

The Pope of Rome rejects the new Catholic catechism teachings about Hell: According to the new Catholic catechism, which holds that hell is a "state of eternal separation from God," to be understood "symbolically rather than physically." The new Catholic catechism got that right. It is a "state of eternal separation from GOD," when the soul/spirit encounters the second death in which the soul/spirit of a person no longer exist. But according to the Catholic Pope of Rome, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was head of Catholic doctrine, now claims that Hell is a real physical place where people burn forever and ever. That kind of Hell has its pedigree that goes back to the teachings of Zoroastrian and Ancient Egypt and of the Greek idea of Hades, which is described in the Christian New Testament as a place of "everlasting fire". "Hell is a place where sinners really do burn in an everlasting fire, and is not just a religious symbol designed to galvanize the faithful", the Pope said. According to that statement, the Vatican had better re-write the new Catholic catechism on its teachings of Hell, least it starts to confuse Catholics even more about what they are suppose to believe as Catholics. They should focus more on finding out who is the real GOD of Heaven rather than worry about that fictitious place Christians call Hell. It is plain to see that Christianity is a wishy-washy religion that even the Vatican and the Pope of Rome can not get it together on what is their dogma. Protestants are just as bad as Catholics when it comes to being wishy-washy in what they believe. With their thousands of various protestant denominations, they can't get their act together when it comes to their theology. As I have always stated, Christianity is a man-made religion.

Beautification and canonization signifies that a person was heroically virtuous in life, is now in heaven and worthy of true veneration. The pope's candidacy for beatification has enjoyed fast-track treatment since his successor Pope Benedict XVI waived the usual five-year waiting period, allowing the process to begin in May 2005, a month after Pope John Paul II death. Pope John Paul II supporters have been trying to find a way to get him declared "Great" and are scrambling to put Pope John Paul II on the fast track to beautification in making him a saint. In order to do that they are recognizing a "miraculous" healing of an French nun. A dossier has been provided that contains the needed proof of Pope John Paul II miraculous intercession to cure a French nun of Parkinson's disease will be submitted to the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. Rev. Giuseppe D'Alonzo, is acting as the so-called "devil's advocate" in Pope John Paul II's beatification process, who must investigate any possible doubts about the late pontiff's saintliness, pledged to remain objective. He was neither for nor against beatification for the late pope, who was considered a saint by many even before he died on April 1st. (April Fools Day). The Rev. Giuseppe D'Alonzo, hinted that he supported the cause. Another miracle would be needed after the beatification of Pope John Paul II before this Pope can be canonized. As for John Paul II, the Vatican give the false impression that the jury's still out. I'm not Catholic or a Christian, but I know the nominee's background is investigated, and proof of miracles is needed. One for beautification, and another for sainthood status. I'm curious, in the case of John Paul II, where on the application for beautification might one denote "refused to help save millions from genocide?". How would one describe that all important second miracle, "in which he gave succor and protection to pedophile priests"? I have no doubt that Pope John Paul II was a very popular pope to most Catholics. I would think so given that this Catholic pope, John Paul II had traveled the world more than any preceding popes, and had lasted much longer than most other popes, and consequently became better known to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. But do this pope really deserve to be beautified as a Saint? Let us see what he did or did not do while he was a pope. Pope John Paul II followed the advice of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was then Prefect for the "Sacred" Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and squashed the attempts of Catholic priests and bishops in their fight of Liberation Theology to bring Freedom, Justice, Equality and Dignity to the people of Central and South America. People who have been suppressed throughout the centuries and even killed by the Elites who owned or controlled eighty percent of the total land mass during their struggle against oppression. The pampered Cardinals who feasted upon the lush banquets and received special "gifts" from the Elites had first complained to Pope, Benedict XVI, and later to Pope John Paul II that these priests and bishops of liberation theology were upsetting and frustrating the control over the pheasants. These pampered Vatican Cardinals told the pheasants that they need to just accept their fate in life and when they die, they will be rewarded in the Heavenly Realm for all their suffering. In other words, don't rock the boat, don't upset the apple-cart. Don't upset the status quoi! Liberation theology is a school of theology that focuses on the liberation of the oppressed. It emphasizes to bring justice to the poor and oppressed, particularly through political activism. It has been rejected by the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church. But what did Pope John Paul II do considering the pope's well-known aversion to "unfettered capitalism." He branded these priests and bishops of liberation theology as Communists as an excuse to squash the liberation movement. At its inception, liberation theology was predominantly found in the Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council although some suggest that it was first articulated in the 1930s on issues like social justice, poverty and human rights. It is often cited as a form of Christian socialism, and it has enjoyed widespread influence in Latin America and among the Jesuits, although its influence diminished within Catholicism after the Vatican issued official rejections of the theology in the 1980s and liberation theologians were harshly admonished by Pope John Paul II leading to the curtailing of its growth. Pope John Paul II opposed the use of contraception to African people who really needed it as a means to stem the spread of Aids. During his reign, the Catholic Church was rocked by reports of pedophilia among priests, mostly with alter boys serving in churches, and he did little if anything to curb it. Only when there was much pressure from the news media did he make comments on this grave matter. The practice of the Vatican was to re-establish an offending priest or bishop to another part of the diocese who's parishioners were totally unaware of what was going on. Given these known facts, should Pope John Paul II be considered to be "Great" or be a candidate for beautification to Sainthood? I think not. Pope John Paul II left this world fearing death, and for good reason. He was totally unprepared for his passage into the next realm, in which he will be judged in the "Hall of Balance" and be condemned to the second death which makes the whole concept of sainthood for him even more ridiculous.

_______________________________________________________________________________