Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

 Your warped religious affiliation on the otherhand is the product of man centuries after the fact.

Calling the kettle black?….again? .        - the one who asks for references – erasmian  ; x

– Job 19:25  But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth: 26  And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God; 27  Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side, And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger. My heart is consumed within me.

Response:

I hold the scriptures in high esteem and therefore will refrain from casting any more pearls before swine who call themselves Christians.  By your logic, if it looks like a pig and oinks like a pig, it must be a pig.

Response:

All the churches under control of the Roman Empire were united Dave.  That covers almost all except a few like the Copts that can trace there roots directly to Christ.  Your warped religious affiliation on the otherhand is the product of man centuries after the fact. The Byzantine churches were also incorporated into one Church and later split after Constantines death when his two sons split the Empire as was there inheritance. The split became final after this point on theological ideology. Sources Dave by respected scholars and not pseudo scholars out to discredit the church.  All your sources are so obviously biased, and ones no one has heard of.   There views are in direct contrast to what the manistream of Historical research has documented that they are rendered useless as sources. The book you quote is widely known as one written by a person with an agenda to discredit the church, Martin, is not a main stream historian, nor will he ever be with his personal agenda.  The ridiculous and patently faulse history he portrays is one meant to bolster the credibility of the Fundies and Evangelicals, by diminishing the roll of the Roman Church, and disputing it;s rightful and documented claim to the throne of Peter. Believe it if you would like, but no scholar worth his reputation agree’s with anything Malachi Martin has written, much like The Passover Plot, another unscholarly work meant for the sale of books and nothing more. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – + / Re: More Lies From the Lying Whore / 18March2000 / / Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / / alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / .   "We must go out to him, then, outside the camp, bearing the abuse  he experienced. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the  city that is to come." — Hebrews 13:13-14 / NETbible . Constantine united the early Churches to form the Catholic Church. .  erasmian sayeth: Dear Pax, actually it would be more correct to say that Constantine united *most* of the early Churches to form the Imperial Church of the Empire. Out of this situation emerged three new trends that would shape the Faith forevermore: (1) The Byzantine churches of the East. (2) The Latin churches of the West. (3) The monastic movement in Egypt (and elsewhere); which, significantly, was a deliberate rejection of the World *AND* its new Empire- sanctioned church. . Try reading something other than fundie lies and expand to other sources. — Pax .  Like, say for example, ‘The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church’ by Malachi Martin, 1981: .  For the first 250 years of the church’s existence, there was no doubt in churchmen’s minds about the answer to the question that the Ayatollah asked. The power of the church, they knew, was solely and purely spiritual. They remembered the word that had been most frequently on the lips of Jesus in order to describe the new state of affairs he was inaugurating: the "Kingdom of God," the "Kingdom of Heaven." And they drew their understanding of what Jesus had meant from a recorded exchange between him and the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who had condemned him to die.  "Are you then a king?" Pilate had asked.  "I am. But my kingdom is not of this world. If it were like any other kingdom in this world, my servants would certainly have sought to free me…."  Between the death of Simon Peter the Apostle in A.D. 67, and the year 312, there were thirty-one popes, successors to Peter as bishops of Rome. Not one of the first eighteen popes died in his bed. All perished violently. While he lived, each of the first thirty-one popes wielded the authority of that spiritual kingdom, and taught what his predecessor had taught before him: Abide in the kingdom of God’s spirit. Wait for the return of Jesus, the final end of this visible world, and the ultimate triumph of God’s rule.  In the year 312, the Roman emperor, Constantine, became a Christian and, ten years later, established Christianity as the religion of the empire. For most of the following 1,650 years, Christianity was the most important political and social factor in Europe. During most of that time, the Roman pope was the most important personage in Europe and the Western world.  By the early Renaissance, the church that Jesus had started was incarnated in a highly specified institution: a hierarchic church, centralized in its government, absolute in its authority and its claims on all authority, with few elective and mostly appointive offices, and reflecting the traits of a kingdom as men had always known a kingdom to be: "a political and social order anchored in preset ideals and ideas, a hierarchical pattern of structures by which it is sustained, the sublimation of social and other group interests, organic growth, a reliance on tradition in order to safeguard and hallow its symbols, vigorous defense against threats from outside, and protection of peace within, both materially and in terms of ideas." So Eric M. de Saventhem recently defined "kingdom." That is how the Christian church evolved in Rome. [Pages 3-4] .  Although this is a rather too Romishly biased and erroneous account of real historical events, it is nevertheless essentially correct in describing the basic worldly nature of the RCC. … Hey Pax, have you got any sources that contradict these alleged "fundie lies"? . .        - the one who asks for references – erasmian  ; x

Response:

Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think.

What have ducks to do with the issue?  I answered the question truthfully and you neither like nor accept the answer. 3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

I think you missed something important here.  If you truly believe that this scripture applies to Catholic prelates, you personally are being bidden to observe or you do not believe the very scriptures you are so fond of quoting. "They neither enter in themselves but prevent others from entering in." Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ."

I’m going to give you one concession this one time, something you will never give me. I was wrong.  I made a mistake about this scripture, OR it is worded this way somewhere else which I cannot locate at the moment.  Still that does not negate the fact that celibacy was then and is still considered a virtue.  The way you spin it, it’s almost as if celibacy is a SIN!  We could use a little more of the virtue of celibacy – and the discipline and self control that goes along with it in the populace at large. The bottom line is that you know and I know that St. Paul was a strong advocate of celibacy.  St. Paul was an approved apostle of the early church.  There are other places in the bible that you know perfectly well that celibacy is the desired and honorable way to conduct a virtuous life, both in the old and in the new testaments. Celibacy is also a requirement to be a bishop in the Orthodox Church. No one is forcing you to be celibate, so why is it such a problem with you?  Is there a deeper, underlying cause to your objection to celibacy? Aside from your neverending scriptural swordsmanship, you don’t really care about Catholics at all.  You are blinded by your pride and your true religion.  You don’t care at all about the bible.  If you did, you would put into practice some of the other things it teaches like patience, longsuffering, etc.  Nowhere in all of scripture are we told to attack those we disagree with.  Your religion is a religion of hate, very selective hate aimed at Roman Catholics.  You don’t rail against the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, or any other religions, just Catholics.  That speaks volumes. You are like the man in scriptures who thanks God that you are not like us Catholics who do this and thus and so.  Catholics are more like the man who left justified, "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" even if they are not without spot and blemish. One final word.  All are invited to Christ’s table if they profess the truth about what the purpose of that table is and what it truly means.  You know Scripture enjoins upon all of us to examine ourselves lest we receive unworthily. . You mean like an "added doctrine"? I’ll go by the early church but your adding to doctrine is noted.

Refraining from meat during Lent and at other times is NOT an added DOCTRINE.  It is a practice or a discipline. Now go practice your added doctrines in peace, if you are able.  How can you have any peace ever when you are so obsessed with Catholics? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Oh, give me a break.  My grandfather insisted that he wasn’t a "Nazi" although he was German and wore a swastika circa WWII.  He called himself a "National Socialist."

That doesn’t have anything to do with Mary. Catholics have all their Mary-this and Mary-that joojoo that if it ain’t worship, I don’t know what is.  Don’t play some silly semantics game.

I’m not going to bother to look up joojoo in Webster’s online.  Give me a break . . . please.  The teaching of the church is that Mary is not worshipped.  If some individual Catholics get carried away in their zeal and devotion or pay tribute to a false Mary, that does not change the fact that doctrinally Catholics worship God through Christ in the Holy Eucharist and also privately. It may surprise you to know that personally I feel that some Catholics overdo the Mary thing, but really, when you come right down to it, why does that get you people so hot under the collar to the point of being irrational about it? Underlying the issue is really intolerance and hatred for those who are different or give different expression to their religious beliefs, and especially Catholics.  Interesting. So maybe it does have a similarity to Nazis.  Hatred of those who are different. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

CB if truth bit you on the ass you still would have no clue what it was. Alice did such a fine job answering your very tired and over used fundie by-lines that I will not bother. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. It is NOT the same church. The early church did not worship Mary. The early church did not supposedly drink blood. The early church did not have a pope. The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries". The early church did not practice necromancy. The early church did not have nuns. The early church did not forbid the eating of meat. The early church did not have "holy water". The early church did not have "rosary beads". The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate. The early church did not sell indulgences. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception". The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary". The early church did not put traditions above Scripture. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church. BTW……I always have a nice day. — John 16:25  These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.

Response:

The early church did not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think.

Oh, give me a break.  My grandfather insisted that he wasn’t a "Nazi" although he was German and wore a swastika circa WWII.  He called himself a "National Socialist." Catholics have all their Mary-this and Mary-that joojoo that if it ain’t worship, I don’t know what is.  Don’t play some silly semantics game. * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think. What have ducks to do with the issue?

If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck……it’s a duck. I answered the question truthfully and you neither like nor accept the answer.

You did not answer truthfully. You are in denial. 3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. I think you missed something important here.  If you truly believe that this scripture applies to Catholic prelates, you personally are being bidden to observe or you do not believe the very scriptures you are so fond of quoting.

That was what Christ said befor He established His Kingdom. Acts 5:29  Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. "They neither enter in themselves but prevent others from entering in." Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ."   Still that does not negate the fact that celibacy was then and is still considered a virtue.

By whom? Hebrews 13:4  Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. The way you spin it, it’s almost as if celibacy is a SIN!

It’s not my spin. I only quote the bible. Being as you hate Scripture, I can see why you’re catholic. We could use a little more of the virtue of celibacy – and the discipline and self control that goes along with it in the populace at large.

Oh PUHLEEEEEEZE!!!!! We have enough pedophiles preying on our children as it is…. The bottom line is that you know and I know that St. Paul was a strong advocate of celibacy.

1 Corinthians 7:36  But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. St. Paul was an approved apostle of the early church.  There are other places in the bible that you know perfectly well that celibacy is the desired and honorable way to conduct a virtuous life, both in the old and in the new testaments.

Please show me where. Celibacy is also a requirement to be a bishop in the Orthodox Church.

Irrelevant. False doctrine is false doctrine regardless of who teaches it. No one is forcing you to be celibate, so why is it such a problem with you?  Is there a deeper, underlying cause to your objection to celibacy?

Many priests in the rcc claim to be celibate only to molest YOUR children. In essence, they are liars and know their doctrine is false. Aside from your neverending scriptural swordsmanship, you don’t really care about Catholics at all.

rhetoric. You are blinded by your pride and your true religion.

My religion is true. You don’t care at all about the bible.

That’s a lie. If you did, you would put into practice some of the other things it teaches like patience, longsuffering, etc.

How do you know I don’t? Who are you to judge me? Nowhere in all of scripture are we told to attack those we disagree with.

You see it as an attack. It just happens to be Truth. If you hate Truth, please don’t read my posts. Ephesians 5:11  And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Your religion is a religion of hate, very selective hate aimed at Roman Catholics.

Rhetorical nonsense and lies. You don’t rail against the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, or any other religions, just Catholics.  That speaks volumes.

When did this become a hindu NG? You are like the man in scriptures who thanks God that you are not like us Catholics who do this and thus and so.  Catholics are more like the man who left justified, "Lord have mercy on me a sinner" even if they are not without spot and blemish.

Gee, aren’t you the humble one? And you have the audacity to accuse me of pride????? One final word.  All are invited to Christ’s table if they profess the truth about what the purpose of that table is and what it truly means.  You know Scripture enjoins upon all of us to examine ourselves lest we receive unworthily.

Your point? . You mean like an "added doctrine"? I’ll go by the early church but your adding to doctrine is noted. Refraining from meat during Lent and at other times is NOT an added DOCTRINE.  It is a practice or a discipline.

For what purpose? Instituted by whom? Instituted when? It’s really just superstitious nonsense…like your rosary beads. Now go practice your added doctrines in peace, if you are able.

I don’t have any. How can you have any peace ever when you are so obsessed with Catholics?

How can you ever have peace knowing you are catholic? I do not believe you have any peace but live your life in fear. So sad. — Job 19:25  But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth: 26  And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God; 27  Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side, And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger. My heart is consumed within me.

Response:

Nice answers to the Fundie, lets see if they stick Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. It is NOT the same church. How do you know that? The early church did not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think. The early church did not supposedly drink blood. The early church members received the blood of Christ in Holy Communion just as is practiced today. The early church did not have a pope. The early church had a pope who was probably not called a pope at that time. They had one chief bishop.  Today that chief bishop is called a pope. The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries". I don’t know how priests were adorned in the early church.  Do you?  Today they do not wear phylacteries.  The only religious group I know who wear phylacteries are Orthodox Jews.  No priest anywhere wears a phylactery, broad or otherwise. See Websters online for definition of phylacteries and also an illustration: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 : either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by Jewish men during morning weekday prayers 2 : AMULET [phylactery illustration] The early church did not practice necromancy. The church has never practiced necromancy.  The church has never condoned necromancy.  Necromancy is the calling up of a spirit with the intention of conversing with it.  Catholics are not supposed to call up spirits – as if to converse with them which is necromancy.  Asking for intercessory prayer and having a dialog with a discarnate spirit are not the same thing. The early church did not have nuns. Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ." The early church did not forbid the eating of meat. The early church only forbade the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.  The discipline of refraining from meat on Fridays and during Lent came much later. It does not carry the same weight as the Commandments, for example, although breaking church discipline is considered sinful, sometimes seriously sinful. The early church did not have "holy water". They probably didn’t.  Gee, I don’t know about this.  Score one for the infidels. The early church did not have "rosary beads". Score two for you.  True.  But they did have Mary in person don’t forget and they could ask her to pray for them if they were lucky enough to be in her vicinity.  They didn’t have parishes either probably.  Or steeples.  Or stained glass windows.  Or central heating . . . or polyester . . . or organs . . . or musical notation . . . or glasses, the kind we need to improve our vision, the list is endless.  I don’t suppose you go to church in a horse and buggy. The early church didn’t have buggies, either, by that name anyway.  I suppose they went to church in a chariot drawn by a horse if they were lucky or they walked.  Do you go to church in a car? The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate. Celibacy has always been a virtue.  It is also more desirable for clergy. Read Revelation.  Celibacy is a discipline in the western church. The early church did not sell indulgences. The early church probably didn’t have indulgences.  The middle and late church were never supposed to sell indulgences.  That this occurred in some places speaks of human greed, not church teaching. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception". They probably did in a roundabout way; only a very special few probably were told in delicate language about just how special Mary was.  Not like today where people crudely challenge everything about her. The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary". It became a tradition early on.  If it had been otherwise, there would be rumors and legends about Mary’s grave. The early church did not put traditions above Scripture. The early church began its own traditions which go hand-in-hand with Scripture rightly understood. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church. They are doing the best they can but some people wouldn’t know Truth if it hit them upside the head. BTW……I always have a nice day. I don’t.  But I wish you one anyway.  I AM hoping for a nice eternity. — John 16:25  These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.

Response:

Well if you used your third grade education no wonder you are confused.  The New Testament ends before the time of Constantine, and the Churches from the New Testament were incorporated into the Church of Rome during his reign. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. It is NOT the same church. How do you know that? Easy. I studied the history of the early church……aka the NT. You DO believe the bible, right? The early church did not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to. Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think. The early church did not supposedly drink blood. The early church members received the blood of Christ in Holy Communion just as is practiced today. No they didn’t. You have Scripture, right? Show me where the "host" is elevated. Show me where only certain ones are allowed to partake. Show me ANYTHING in Scripture that supports the false doctrine of the rcc. The early church did not have a pope. The early church had a pope who was probably not called a pope at that time. They had one chief bishop.  Today that chief bishop is called a pope. Wrong again. http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm#peterpope The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries". I don’t know how priests were adorned in the early church.  Do you? Today they do not wear phylacteries.  The only religious group I know who wear phylacteries are Orthodox Jews.  No priest anywhere wears a phylactery, broad or otherwise. I know what Christ said: Matthew 23:2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 13  But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. The early church did not practice necromancy. The church has never practiced necromancy.  The church has never condoned necromancy.  Necromancy is the calling up of a spirit with the intention of conversing with it.  Catholics are not supposed to call up spirits – as if to converse with them which is necromancy.  Asking for intercessory prayer and having a dialog with a discarnate spirit are not the same thing. Yes it is. The early church did not have nuns. Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ." He was talking about the ressurection. Try again. Mark 12:25  For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. The early church did not forbid the eating of meat. The early church only forbade the eating of meat sacrificed to idols. The discipline of refraining from meat on Fridays and during Lent came much later. You mean like an "added doctrine"? I’ll go by the early church but your adding to doctrine is noted. It does not carry the same weight as the Commandments, for example, although breaking church discipline is considered sinful, sometimes seriously sinful. The early church did not have "holy water". They probably didn’t.  Gee, I don’t know about this.  Score one for the infidels. The early church did not have "rosary beads". Score two for you.  True.  But they did have Mary in person don’t forget and they could ask her to pray for them if they were lucky enough to be in her vicinity.  They didn’t have parishes either probably.  Or steeples.  Or stained glass windows.  Or central heating . . . or polyester . . . or organs . . . or musical notation . . . or glasses, the kind we need to improve our vision, the list is endless.  I don’t suppose you go to church in a horse and buggy. The early church didn’t have buggies, either, by that name anyway.  I suppose they went to church in a chariot drawn by a horse if they were lucky or they walked.  Do you go to church in a car? Steeples, stained glass windows (which we do not have) central heating, polyester, glasses etc, are not used for worship. You’re really stretching to make your false doctrine look good. The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate. Celibacy has always been a virtue.  It is also more desirable for clergy.  Read Revelation.  Celibacy is a discipline in the western church. Unbiblical. The early church did not sell indulgences. The early church probably didn’t have indulgences.  The middle and late church were never supposed to sell indulgences.  That this occurred in some places speaks of human greed, not church teaching. Nevertheless, the rcc sold them. More added stuff by the rcc. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception". They probably did in a roundabout way; only a very special few probably were told in delicate language about just how special Mary was.  Not like today where people crudely challenge everything about her. No challenge. The rcc sets her up as a goddess. We just show the fallacy of the rcc. The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary". It became a tradition early on.  If it had been otherwise, there would be rumors and legends about Mary’s grave. Wrong. What about all the apostles graves? Can you tell me where each and every one is? I didn’t think so. The early church did not put traditions above Scripture. The early church began its own traditions which go hand-in-hand with Scripture rightly understood. Wrong again.  your traditions are unbiblical and were even condemned by Jesus. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church. They are doing the best they can but some people wouldn’t know Truth if it hit them upside the head. I know what you mean…..there are still some people today who believe the lies of the rcc. BTW……I always have a nice day. I don’t.  But I wish you one anyway.  I AM hoping for a nice eternity. You mean like crossing your fingers? — Job 19:25  But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth: 26  And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God; 27  Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side, And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger. My heart is consumed within me.

Response:

It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. It is NOT the same church. How do you know that?

Easy. I studied the history of the early church……aka the NT. You DO believe the bible, right? The early church did not worship Mary. Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think.

The early church did not supposedly drink blood. The early church members received the blood of Christ in Holy Communion just as is practiced today.

No they didn’t. You have Scripture, right? Show me where the "host" is elevated. Show me where only certain ones are allowed to partake. Show me ANYTHING in Scripture that supports the false doctrine of the rcc. The early church did not have a pope. The early church had a pope who was probably not called a pope at that time. They had one chief bishop.  Today that chief bishop is called a pope.

Wrong again. http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm#peterpope The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries". I don’t know how priests were adorned in the early church.  Do you?  Today they do not wear phylacteries.  The only religious group I know who wear phylacteries are Orthodox Jews.  No priest anywhere wears a phylactery, broad or otherwise.

I know what Christ said: Matthew 23:2  Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: 3  All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11  But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12  And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. 13  But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. The early church did not practice necromancy. The church has never practiced necromancy.  The church has never condoned necromancy.  Necromancy is the calling up of a spirit with the intention of conversing with it.  Catholics are not supposed to call up spirits – as if to converse with them which is necromancy.  Asking for intercessory prayer and having a dialog with a discarnate spirit are not the same thing.

Yes it is. The early church did not have nuns. Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ."

He was talking about the ressurection. Try again. Mark 12:25  For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. The early church did not forbid the eating of meat. The early church only forbade the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.  The discipline of refraining from meat on Fridays and during Lent came much later.

You mean like an "added doctrine"? I’ll go by the early church but your adding to doctrine is noted. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It does not carry the same weight as the Commandments, for example, although breaking church discipline is considered sinful, sometimes seriously sinful. The early church did not have "holy water". They probably didn’t.  Gee, I don’t know about this.  Score one for the infidels. The early church did not have "rosary beads". Score two for you.  True.  But they did have Mary in person don’t forget and they could ask her to pray for them if they were lucky enough to be in her vicinity.  They didn’t have parishes either probably.  Or steeples.  Or stained glass windows.  Or central heating . . . or polyester . . . or organs . . . or musical notation . . . or glasses, the kind we need to improve our vision, the list is endless.  I don’t suppose you go to church in a horse and buggy.  The early church didn’t have buggies, either, by that name anyway.  I suppose they went to church in a chariot drawn by a horse if they were lucky or they walked.  Do you go to church in a car?

Steeples, stained glass windows (which we do not have) central heating,  polyester, glasses etc, are not used for worship. You’re really stretching to make your false doctrine look good. The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate. Celibacy has always been a virtue.  It is also more desirable for clergy.  Read Revelation.  Celibacy is a discipline in the western church.

Unbiblical. The early church did not sell indulgences. The early church probably didn’t have indulgences.  The middle and late church were never supposed to sell indulgences.  That this occurred in some places speaks of human greed, not church teaching.

Nevertheless, the rcc sold them. More added stuff by the rcc. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception". They probably did in a roundabout way; only a very special few probably were told in delicate language about just how special Mary was.  Not like today where people crudely challenge everything about her.

No challenge. The rcc sets her up as a goddess. We just show the fallacy of the rcc. The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary". It became a tradition early on.  If it had been otherwise, there would be rumors and legends about Mary’s grave.

Wrong. What about all the apostles graves? Can you tell me where each and every one is? I didn’t think so. The early church did not put traditions above Scripture. The early church began its own traditions which go hand-in-hand with Scripture rightly understood.

Wrong again.  your traditions are unbiblical and were even condemned by Jesus. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church. They are doing the best they can but some people wouldn’t know Truth if it hit them upside the head.

I know what you mean…..there are still some people today who believe the lies of the rcc. BTW……I always have a nice day. I don’t.  But I wish you one anyway.  I AM hoping for a nice eternity.

You mean like crossing your fingers? — Job 19:25  But as for me I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he will stand up upon the earth: 26  And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God; 27  Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side, And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a stranger. My heart is consumed within me.

Response:

It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. It is NOT the same church.

How do you know that? The early church did not worship Mary.

Catholics do not worship Mary.  At least they are not supposed to.  Their is a word for the HONOR given Mary.  Hyperdulia I think. The early church did not supposedly drink blood.

The early church members received the blood of Christ in Holy Communion just as is practiced today. The early church did not have a pope.

The early church had a pope who was probably not called a pope at that time. They had one chief bishop.  Today that chief bishop is called a pope. The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries".

I don’t know how priests were adorned in the early church.  Do you?  Today they do not wear phylacteries.  The only religious group I know who wear phylacteries are Orthodox Jews.  No priest anywhere wears a phylactery, broad or otherwise. See Websters online for definition of phylacteries and also an illustration: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 : either of two small square leather boxes containing slips inscribed with scriptural passages and traditionally worn on the left arm and on the head by Jewish men during morning weekday prayers 2 : AMULET [phylactery illustration] The early church did not practice necromancy.

The church has never practiced necromancy.  The church has never condoned necromancy.  Necromancy is the calling up of a spirit with the intention of conversing with it.  Catholics are not supposed to call up spirits – as if to converse with them which is necromancy.  Asking for intercessory prayer and having a dialog with a discarnate spirit are not the same thing. The early church did not have nuns.

Jesus said to his earliest church, "Those who are counted worthy of that life neither marry nor are given in marriage . . ." The early church did not forbid the eating of meat.

The early church only forbade the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.  The discipline of refraining from meat on Fridays and during Lent came much later. It does not carry the same weight as the Commandments, for example, although breaking church discipline is considered sinful, sometimes seriously sinful. The early church did not have "holy water".

They probably didn’t.  Gee, I don’t know about this.  Score one for the infidels. The early church did not have "rosary beads".

Score two for you.  True.  But they did have Mary in person don’t forget and they could ask her to pray for them if they were lucky enough to be in her vicinity.  They didn’t have parishes either probably.  Or steeples.  Or stained glass windows.  Or central heating . . . or polyester . . . or organs . . . or musical notation . . . or glasses, the kind we need to improve our vision, the list is endless.  I don’t suppose you go to church in a horse and buggy.  The early church didn’t have buggies, either, by that name anyway.  I suppose they went to church in a chariot drawn by a horse if they were lucky or they walked.  Do you go to church in a car? The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate.

Celibacy has always been a virtue.  It is also more desirable for clergy.  Read Revelation.  Celibacy is a discipline in the western church. The early church did not sell indulgences.

The early church probably didn’t have indulgences.  The middle and late church were never supposed to sell indulgences.  That this occurred in some places speaks of human greed, not church teaching. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception".

They probably did in a roundabout way; only a very special few probably were told in delicate language about just how special Mary was.  Not like today where people crudely challenge everything about her. The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary".

It became a tradition early on.  If it had been otherwise, there would be rumors and legends about Mary’s grave. The early church did not put traditions above Scripture.

The early church began its own traditions which go hand-in-hand with Scripture rightly understood. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church.

They are doing the best they can but some people wouldn’t know Truth if it hit them upside the head. BTW……I always have a nice day.

I don’t.  But I wish you one anyway.  I AM hoping for a nice eternity. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — John 16:25  These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.

Response:

+ / Re: More Lies From the Lying Whore / / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / / alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 14March2000 / . We have a documented path directly to Peter and to Christ.

.  erasmian answers: Dear Pied Piper, this point has already been addressed much better than I could manage: . If the above were ever proven to be the case, we would be forced to conclude that the Almighty is the sadistic tormentor of the human race who chose to unleash upon us a horrendous evil. That evil is the Roman Church and all it’s monstrous hypocrisy and ungodly manifestations. — Judas. . Your ridiculous out of context quotes

.  The quotes in question were given by a staunch Romanist (TimothyC.); so if you think them ridiculous, you can give all the credit for it to him. . and personal opinion aside, do you really think attacking the Church Christ himself founded is the way to justify your beliefs?

.  Wherever did you get that idea? You’re wrong twice over. The RCC was NOT founded by Christ, and neither am I justifying my beliefs by attacking "the Church". What I *am* doing is showing the lies and falsehoods of the RCC for what they are. If you choose not to accept the truth of things, then that is entirely your decision. . Is it how Jesus tells us how to act towards others?

.  It’s how the Word of God tells us to fight for the integrity of the faith against *all* those who would pollute and corrupt it. So, yes, it *is* how Jesus tells us to act towards the enemies of the Faith. . Does it truly lift your heart in Christ to deliberately hurt others?

.  A little pain is certainly acceptable if it causes even just a few Cats to re-examine the foolish and deceptive claims upon which the RCC bases all Her stolen authority. . Just a few questions for someone professing to be such a superior Christian. — Pax

.  When have I ever professed to be a "superior" Christian, Pax? I think that maybe you have me confused with your own Romish priests; for they are the ones who claim to be superior to *all* human creatures (whether believer or pagan makes no difference to them). . .      - the one who’s status is that of a worm – erasmian  ; . P.S. But I am a worm and not a man; A reproach of men and despised       by the people. — Psalms 22:6 / NASB x

Response:

Constantine united the early Churches to form the Catholic Church.  Try reading something other than fundie lies and expand to other sources. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – We have a documented path directly to Peter and to Christ. I’d like to know about this "documented" direct path.  First you say ‘we have the authority" then you scold that you are being "hurt" by people being so unfair as to resent and question your claims.  Prove your claims.  The whole world knows Constantine gave early christians freedom for political reasons, he was a pagan to the day he died.  He claimed a hallucination as basis for freeing religious worship but is was intended to win him supporters.  Your "documented" claims are counterfeit, the rcc used words that were meant for the whole world as basis for their "authority".  Your ridiculous out of context quotes and personal opinion aside, do you really think attacking the Church Christ himself founded is the way to justify your beliefs?   Is it how Jesus tells us how to act towards others?  Does it truly lift your heart in Christ to deliberately hurt others?  Just a few questions for someone professing to be such a superior Christian. Pax +                 MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE! . / Re: Non-catholics,BEWARE (was:ARE You Catholic or Christian) / / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8March2000 / / alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / . I know its long … so if you’re not Catholic, better beware! For if you read it, you may become a convert .  Oooo, please stop; you’re scaring me! . to the church founded by Christ … The Roman Catholic Church. .  erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon. . <snip list of misunderstood and misinterpreted bible-bytes which in no way, shape, or form refer to the Roman Catholic Anti-Church Matt 16:18 <snipped John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). .  Is Peter here supposed to be the personification of the RCC? . Luke 22:31 <snipped John 21:15-17 <snipped .  These passages speak about Peter. There is no hint, suggestion, *OR* implication anywhere in the texts that Jesus was *really* talking about the lying-whore anti-church of Rome. Only the feeble-minded Romish could fancy that the Word is speaking of them when it *obviously* isn’t! . Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church. .  You’re a lying whore, just like the church you worship. In fact, there is nothing at all historical about any of this. These verses are a Matthean addition to the original gospel of Mark & Peter; written well after Peter was dead and gone. It is typical of Romanists to confuse legendary encrustations with historical facts. . Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings to the Majordomo who governed the King’s household. .  Who cares? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kingdom of God; (which is NOT to be equated with *any* "church"). . Look at Isaiah 22:22-24 <snipped due to utter irrelevancy . The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19. .  There is no mention of any "supreme pontiff" either in the scriptures *or* in the early church fathers. . St. Clement, who was ordained by St. Peter .  Who says that Clement was ordained by Peter?  . . . Some lying priest, no doubt! . (and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3) .  What makes you think that these are the same one person? Given the fact that there is a gap of about 50 years between Philippians and 1Clement, I’d say that the odds of them being the same person are *exactly* nil! . was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome. .  Peter was never in Rome. Peter was never a bishop. Your line of succession is nothing more than an episcopal-muffinhead fantasy! . He is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS 1:1 THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome <snipsome .  Here we see the full magnitude of the self-serving lies spread by the lying whore who deliberately corrupts the original text (by replacing ‘Egypt’ with ‘Rome’), and then claiming that some "pope" (who they conjured up out of thin air) is the author. The truth is that 1Clement was written by a prophet, NOT by some episcopal muffinhead whose ego is as big as the Empire! . 63:2 For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. .  This is prophetic language, folks. Straight from the prophets of Egypt. They were the ones who had the authority of the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who fought against those who would toss the Tanakh into the trash bin. And what was Rome doing at this time? Half the Romish church followed after the gnostic-heretic Marcion who deliberately rejected the Jewish roots of the Faith! And then, later on, this very same church *steals* the fruits of the prophets, and calls them her own! Well, what do you expect from a heartless whore like that? . St. Irenaeus bears witness to the primacy and authority of the church at Rome and its apostolic succession from Ss. Peter and Paul: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, c. 189 A.D. AGAINST HERESIES — BOOK III CHAP. III.–A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP. .  Yes. It is in Irenaeus that the absurd fantasy of apostolic succession first finds literary expression in a pack of lies whose sole intent is to hand all authority over to the priests. Is it significant that Irenaeus was a bishop? … DUH! . 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church <snip … the Churches themselves <snip … all the Churches … <snip .  You see that? Even the idiot-bishop Irenaeus has sense enough to recognize that there is *not* one church, but many! . [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; .  Since neither of these men EVER set foot in Rome, it is *extremely* unlikely that they are responsible for founding and organizing the Romish Whore. Indeed, Irenaeus’ pathetic lie is refuted straight out of the NT where we see plain as day that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome, making it plain that he had never been there. Did Peter & Paul "found" the Romish Whore without the bother of actually being there? No, of course not. The Whore would much rather have us believe that Peter & Paul *were* there, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! So much so, in fact, that they deliberately *manufactured* "evidence" to that end (such as the endings of Hebrews and Acts, the corruption of 1Clement, and so on and on and on). . as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. .  Yeah gee, a bishop glorifying the bishops. No bias there, eh? . <snip the rest of Irenaeus’ BULLSHIT! http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/ .  And that’s the best that the scum-sucking Cats can do: Spin a web of lies and historical distortions and fabricated "evidence", and then whine about their idiotic "apostolic succession". Boy, you gotta be some kind of retard to fall for all that crap! Anyone who is "converted" by all this smelly stuff is certainly more than worthy to be a member of the Mother of Whores. Indeed, they truly deserve each other! Maybe that’s why the RCC is the most popular Satan-inspired anti-church of them all … ??? . .     – the one who sets the records straight – erasmian  ; . P.S. Yes, it’s high time

… read more »

Response:

We have a documented path directly to Peter and to Christ.

I’d like to know about this "documented" direct path.  First you say ‘we have the authority" then you scold that you are being "hurt" by people being so unfair as to resent and question your claims.  Prove your claims.  The whole world knows Constantine gave early christians freedom for political reasons, he was a pagan to the day he died.  He claimed a hallucination as basis for freeing religious worship but is was intended to win him supporters.  Your "documented" claims are counterfeit, the rcc used words that were meant for the whole world as basis for their "authority". – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –  Your ridiculous out of context quotes and personal opinion aside, do you really think attacking the Church Christ himself founded is the way to justify your beliefs?   Is it how Jesus tells us how to act towards others?  Does it truly lift your heart in Christ to deliberately hurt others?  Just a few questions for someone professing to be such a superior Christian. Pax +                 MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE! . / Re: Non-catholics,BEWARE (was:ARE You Catholic or Christian) / / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8March2000 / / alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / . I know its long … so if you’re not Catholic, better beware! For if you read it, you may become a convert .  Oooo, please stop; you’re scaring me! . to the church founded by Christ … The Roman Catholic Church. .  erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon. . <snip list of misunderstood and misinterpreted bible-bytes which in no way, shape, or form refer to the Roman Catholic Anti-Church Matt 16:18 <snipped John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). .  Is Peter here supposed to be the personification of the RCC? . Luke 22:31 <snipped John 21:15-17 <snipped .  These passages speak about Peter. There is no hint, suggestion, *OR* implication anywhere in the texts that Jesus was *really* talking about the lying-whore anti-church of Rome. Only the feeble-minded Romish could fancy that the Word is speaking of them when it *obviously* isn’t! . Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church. .  You’re a lying whore, just like the church you worship. In fact, there is nothing at all historical about any of this. These verses are a Matthean addition to the original gospel of Mark & Peter; written well after Peter was dead and gone. It is typical of Romanists to confuse legendary encrustations with historical facts. . Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings to the Majordomo who governed the King’s household. .  Who cares? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kingdom of God; (which is NOT to be equated with *any* "church"). . Look at Isaiah 22:22-24 <snipped due to utter irrelevancy . The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19. .  There is no mention of any "supreme pontiff" either in the scriptures *or* in the early church fathers. . St. Clement, who was ordained by St. Peter .  Who says that Clement was ordained by Peter?  . . . Some lying priest, no doubt! . (and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3) .  What makes you think that these are the same one person? Given the fact that there is a gap of about 50 years between Philippians and 1Clement, I’d say that the odds of them being the same person are *exactly* nil! . was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome. .  Peter was never in Rome. Peter was never a bishop. Your line of succession is nothing more than an episcopal-muffinhead fantasy! . He is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS 1:1 THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome <snipsome .  Here we see the full magnitude of the self-serving lies spread by the lying whore who deliberately corrupts the original text (by replacing ‘Egypt’ with ‘Rome’), and then claiming that some "pope" (who they conjured up out of thin air) is the author. The truth is that 1Clement was written by a prophet, NOT by some episcopal muffinhead whose ego is as big as the Empire! . 63:2 For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. .  This is prophetic language, folks. Straight from the prophets of Egypt. They were the ones who had the authority of the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who fought against those who would toss the Tanakh into the trash bin. And what was Rome doing at this time? Half the Romish church followed after the gnostic-heretic Marcion who deliberately rejected the Jewish roots of the Faith! And then, later on, this very same church *steals* the fruits of the prophets, and calls them her own! Well, what do you expect from a heartless whore like that? . St. Irenaeus bears witness to the primacy and authority of the church at Rome and its apostolic succession from Ss. Peter and Paul: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, c. 189 A.D. AGAINST HERESIES — BOOK III CHAP. III.–A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP. .  Yes. It is in Irenaeus that the absurd fantasy of apostolic succession first finds literary expression in a pack of lies whose sole intent is to hand all authority over to the priests. Is it significant that Irenaeus was a bishop? … DUH! . 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church <snip … the Churches themselves <snip … all the Churches … <snip .  You see that? Even the idiot-bishop Irenaeus has sense enough to recognize that there is *not* one church, but many! . [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; .  Since neither of these men EVER set foot in Rome, it is *extremely* unlikely that they are responsible for founding and organizing the Romish Whore. Indeed, Irenaeus’ pathetic lie is refuted straight out of the NT where we see plain as day that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome, making it plain that he had never been there. Did Peter & Paul "found" the Romish Whore without the bother of actually being there? No, of course not. The Whore would much rather have us believe that Peter & Paul *were* there, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! So much so, in fact, that they deliberately *manufactured* "evidence" to that end (such as the endings of Hebrews and Acts, the corruption of 1Clement, and so on and on and on). . as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. .  Yeah gee, a bishop glorifying the bishops. No bias there, eh? . <snip the rest of Irenaeus’ BULLSHIT! http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/ .  And that’s the best that the scum-sucking Cats can do: Spin a web of lies and historical distortions and fabricated "evidence", and then whine about their idiotic "apostolic succession". Boy, you gotta be some kind of retard to fall for all that crap! Anyone who is "converted" by all this smelly stuff is certainly more than worthy to be a member of the Mother of Whores. Indeed, they truly deserve each other! Maybe that’s why the RCC is the most popular Satan-inspired anti-church of them all … ??? . .     – the one who sets the records straight – erasmian  ; . P.S. Yes, it’s high time that people woke up to the sad fact that the RCC Whore is NOT founded upon Peter (or any other legitimate authority), but rather *solely* upon the lies, deceptions, and delusions of the priests who deliberately corrupted the Faith to the end of glorifying themselves above all human creatures! . P.P.S. "For Her sins have reached unto heaven, and  God hath remembered Her iniquities" (Revelation 18:5). x

Response:

It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day.

It is NOT the same church. The early church did not worship Mary. The early church did not supposedly drink blood. The early church did not have a pope. The early church did not adorn their priests with "broad phylacteries". The early church did not practice necromancy. The early church did not have nuns. The early church did not forbid the eating of meat. The early church did not have "holy water". The early church did not have "rosary beads". The early church did not teach that priests should be celibate. The early church did not sell indulgences. The early church did not teach the "immaculate conception". The early church did not teach the "assumption of Mary". The early church did not put traditions above Scripture. The early church taught the Truth, the rcc has no idea what Truth is. Sp puhleeeeze……quit trying to say it is the "same" church. BTW……I always have a nice day. — John 16:25  These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.

Response:

It is documented, the early Church was adopted by the Roman Empire in the time of Constantine and is the same Church that is lead by Pope John Paul today. Have a nice day. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Christ.< If the above were ever proven to be the case, we would be forced to conclude that the Almighty is the sadistic tormentor of the human race who chose to unleash upon us a horrendous evil. That evil is the Roman Church and all it’s monstrous hypocrisy and ungodly manifestations. Judas.

Response:

If the above were ever proven to be the case, we would be forced to conclude that the Almighty is the sadistic tormentor of the human race who chose to unleash upon us a horrendous evil. That evil is the Roman Church and all it’s monstrous hypocrisy and ungodly manifestations. Judas.

Response:

We have a documented path directly to Peter and to Christ.  Your ridiculous out of context quotes and personal opinion aside, do you really think attacking the Church Christ himself founded is the way to justify your beliefs?   Is it how Jesus tells us how to act towards others?  Does it truly lift your heart in Christ to deliberately hurt others?  Just a few questions for someone professing to be such a superior Christian. Pax

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – +                 MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE! . / Re: Non-catholics,BEWARE (was:ARE You Catholic or Christian) / / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8March2000 / / alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / . I know its long … so if you’re not Catholic, better beware! For if you read it, you may become a convert .  Oooo, please stop; you’re scaring me! . to the church founded by Christ … The Roman Catholic Church. .  erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon. . <snip list of misunderstood and misinterpreted bible-bytes which in no way, shape, or form refer to the Roman Catholic Anti-Church Matt 16:18 <snipped John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). .  Is Peter here supposed to be the personification of the RCC? . Luke 22:31 <snipped John 21:15-17 <snipped .  These passages speak about Peter. There is no hint, suggestion, *OR* implication anywhere in the texts that Jesus was *really* talking about the lying-whore anti-church of Rome. Only the feeble-minded Romish could fancy that the Word is speaking of them when it *obviously* isn’t! . Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church. .  You’re a lying whore, just like the church you worship. In fact, there is nothing at all historical about any of this. These verses are a Matthean addition to the original gospel of Mark & Peter; written well after Peter was dead and gone. It is typical of Romanists to confuse legendary encrustations with historical facts. . Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings to the Majordomo who governed the King’s household. .  Who cares? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kingdom of God; (which is NOT to be equated with *any* "church"). . Look at Isaiah 22:22-24 <snipped due to utter irrelevancy . The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19. .  There is no mention of any "supreme pontiff" either in the scriptures *or* in the early church fathers. . St. Clement, who was ordained by St. Peter .  Who says that Clement was ordained by Peter?  . . . Some lying priest, no doubt! . (and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3) .  What makes you think that these are the same one person? Given the fact that there is a gap of about 50 years between Philippians and 1Clement, I’d say that the odds of them being the same person are *exactly* nil! . was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome. .  Peter was never in Rome. Peter was never a bishop. Your line of succession is nothing more than an episcopal-muffinhead fantasy! . He is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS 1:1 THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome <snipsome .  Here we see the full magnitude of the self-serving lies spread by the lying whore who deliberately corrupts the original text (by replacing ‘Egypt’ with ‘Rome’), and then claiming that some "pope" (who they conjured up out of thin air) is the author. The truth is that 1Clement was written by a prophet, NOT by some episcopal muffinhead whose ego is as big as the Empire! . 63:2 For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. .  This is prophetic language, folks. Straight from the prophets of Egypt. They were the ones who had the authority of the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who fought against those who would toss the Tanakh into the trash bin. And what was Rome doing at this time? Half the Romish church followed after the gnostic-heretic Marcion who deliberately rejected the Jewish roots of the Faith! And then, later on, this very same church *steals* the fruits of the prophets, and calls them her own! Well, what do you expect from a heartless whore like that? . St. Irenaeus bears witness to the primacy and authority of the church at Rome and its apostolic succession from Ss. Peter and Paul: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, c. 189 A.D. AGAINST HERESIES — BOOK III CHAP. III.–A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP. .  Yes. It is in Irenaeus that the absurd fantasy of apostolic succession first finds literary expression in a pack of lies whose sole intent is to hand all authority over to the priests. Is it significant that Irenaeus was a bishop? … DUH! . 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church <snip … the Churches themselves <snip … all the Churches … <snip .  You see that? Even the idiot-bishop Irenaeus has sense enough to recognize that there is *not* one church, but many! . [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; .  Since neither of these men EVER set foot in Rome, it is *extremely* unlikely that they are responsible for founding and organizing the Romish Whore. Indeed, Irenaeus’ pathetic lie is refuted straight out of the NT where we see plain as day that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome, making it plain that he had never been there. Did Peter & Paul "found" the Romish Whore without the bother of actually being there? No, of course not. The Whore would much rather have us believe that Peter & Paul *were* there, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! So much so, in fact, that they deliberately *manufactured* "evidence" to that end (such as the endings of Hebrews and Acts, the corruption of 1Clement, and so on and on and on). . as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. .  Yeah gee, a bishop glorifying the bishops. No bias there, eh? . <snip the rest of Irenaeus’ BULLSHIT! http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/ .  And that’s the best that the scum-sucking Cats can do: Spin a web of lies and historical distortions and fabricated "evidence", and then whine about their idiotic "apostolic succession". Boy, you gotta be some kind of retard to fall for all that crap! Anyone who is "converted" by all this smelly stuff is certainly more than worthy to be a member of the Mother of Whores. Indeed, they truly deserve each other! Maybe that’s why the RCC is the most popular Satan-inspired anti-church of them all … ??? . .     – the one who sets the records straight – erasmian  ; . P.S. Yes, it’s high time that people woke up to the sad fact that the RCC Whore is NOT founded upon Peter (or any other legitimate authority), but rather *solely* upon the lies, deceptions, and delusions of the priests who deliberately corrupted the Faith to the end of glorifying themselves above all human creatures! . P.P.S. "For Her sins have reached unto heaven, and  God hath remembered Her iniquities" (Revelation 18:5). x

Response:

erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon.

Come now, lets get real. If Jeeesus founded a church; you would expect that he would have written a wee bit in his New Testament You know, "It is Jeeesus who writes, a servant to my Daddy and called to be de boss and set apart to preach my Daddy’s Good News".

Response:

Hi Stephen… I like what you said below. Too many people negate the fact that in the Gospel of Mary, an argument breaks out amongst the "apostles" because Jesus passed his ministry to Mary M, which riled Peter to an excessive degree. Ironically, Bartholemew’s comment to Peter is: Why are you always so quick to fight? If She was good enough for Jesus, then she is good enough for us too. What Jesus said, goes. The gospel continues by showing that Peter was so angry and threatening towards Mary M., that he caused dissension in the group as a whole and left with roughly half the members, choosing to follow Peter, and not Jesus. Additional proof of Jesus choice is seen in the grave scene, where Jesus openly addresses Mary M, but never Peter, though Peter arrives at the grave site shortly after Mary M. If Peter had been chosen by Jesus to represent him, then Jesus would have addressed Peter as well. Peter NEVER understood what Jesus was doing or about. Peter didn’t even believe Jesus, time and time again. Peter was the "anti-Christ". Peter, was JUDAS. Judas the Iscariot was a "patsy". This isn’t too hard to figure out when comparing the lists of chosen disciples. Matthew 10:2-4 lists twelve names. This list DIFFERS from the list given by Luke 6:14-16. If all the disciples were chosen by Jesus, then the list would have been identical in both accounts. It is not. Hav’ah – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If Jeeesus founded a church; you would expect that he would have written a wee bit in his New Testament You know, "It is Jeeesus who writes, a servant to my Daddy and called to be de boss and set apart to preach my Daddy’s Good News".

Response:

erasmian stepped up to the podium and proclaimed:                 MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE!

<snip <NGs de-Boursified | PLEASE DO NOT  | |                | | FEED THE TROLL |         ||         ||         || — Edward Curtis — curtis at labyrinth dot net "Fear leads to anger.  Anger leads to hate.  Hate leads to suffering." — Yoda, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace "God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and love and self-control." — St. Paul, 2nd Epistle to Timothy, The Holy Bible

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon. Come now, lets get real. If Jeeesus founded a church; you would expect that he would have written a wee bit in his New Testament You know, "It is Jeeesus who writes, a servant to my Daddy and called to be de boss and set apart to preach my Daddy’s Good News".

Unless He had reasons for knowing that His disciples would be equipped to do as He had commanded them. But you are right, He is the "chief cornerstone, rejected by men…." And because He is the head of the corner, His Church, which continually grows upon Him, cannot fall. Some things are written, some things are done. This is both written in Scripture and done by Christ. (Matthew 16 is as good a place to begin as any…). * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet’s Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet – Free!

Response:

+                 MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE! . / Re: Non-catholics,BEWARE (was:ARE You Catholic or Christian) / / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic / 8March2000 / / alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / . I know its long … so if you’re not Catholic, better beware! For if you read it, you may become a convert

.  Oooo, please stop; you’re scaring me! . to the church founded by Christ … The Roman Catholic Church.

.  erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I’ve searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon. . <snip list of misunderstood and misinterpreted bible-bytes which in no way, shape, or form refer to the Roman Catholic Anti-Church Matt 16:18 <snipped John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

.  Is Peter here supposed to be the personification of the RCC? . Luke 22:31 <snipped John 21:15-17 <snipped

.  These passages speak about Peter. There is no hint, suggestion, *OR* implication anywhere in the texts that Jesus was *really* talking about the lying-whore anti-church of Rome. Only the feeble-minded Romish could fancy that the Word is speaking of them when it *obviously* isn’t! . Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church.

.  You’re a lying whore, just like the church you worship. In fact, there is nothing at all historical about any of this. These verses are a Matthean addition to the original gospel of Mark & Peter; written well after Peter was dead and gone. It is typical of Romanists to confuse legendary encrustations with historical facts. . Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings to the Majordomo who governed the King’s household.

.  Who cares? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kingdom of God; (which is NOT to be equated with *any* "church"). . Look at Isaiah 22:22-24 <snipped due to utter irrelevancy . The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19.

.  There is no mention of any "supreme pontiff" either in the scriptures *or* in the early church fathers. . St. Clement, who was ordained by St. Peter

.  Who says that Clement was ordained by Peter?  . . . Some lying priest, no doubt! . (and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3)

.  What makes you think that these are the same one person? Given the fact that there is a gap of about 50 years between Philippians and 1Clement, I’d say that the odds of them being the same person are *exactly* nil! . was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome.

.  Peter was never in Rome. Peter was never a bishop. Your line of succession is nothing more than an episcopal-muffinhead fantasy! . He is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT TO THE CORINTHIANS 1:1 THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome <snipsome

.  Here we see the full magnitude of the self-serving lies spread by the lying whore who deliberately corrupts the original text (by replacing ‘Egypt’ with ‘Rome’), and then claiming that some "pope" (who they conjured up out of thin air) is the author. The truth is that 1Clement was written by a prophet, NOT by some episcopal muffinhead whose ego is as big as the Empire! . 63:2 For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.

.  This is prophetic language, folks. Straight from the prophets of Egypt. They were the ones who had the authority of the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who fought against those who would toss the Tanakh into the trash bin. And what was Rome doing at this time? Half the Romish church followed after the gnostic-heretic Marcion who deliberately rejected the Jewish roots of the Faith! And then, later on, this very same church *steals* the fruits of the prophets, and calls them her own! Well, what do you expect from a heartless whore like that? . St. Irenaeus bears witness to the primacy and authority of the church at Rome and its apostolic succession from Ss. Peter and Paul: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, c. 189 A.D. AGAINST HERESIES — BOOK III CHAP. III.–A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.

.  Yes. It is in Irenaeus that the absurd fantasy of apostolic succession first finds literary expression in a pack of lies whose sole intent is to hand all authority over to the priests. Is it significant that Irenaeus was a bishop? … DUH! . 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church <snip … the Churches themselves <snip … all the Churches … <snip

.  You see that? Even the idiot-bishop Irenaeus has sense enough to recognize that there is *not* one church, but many! . [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;

.  Since neither of these men EVER set foot in Rome, it is *extremely* unlikely that they are responsible for founding and organizing the Romish Whore. Indeed, Irenaeus’ pathetic lie is refuted straight out of the NT where we see plain as day that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome, making it plain that he had never been there. Did Peter & Paul "found" the Romish Whore without the bother of actually being there? No, of course not. The Whore would much rather have us believe that Peter & Paul *were* there, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! So much so, in fact, that they deliberately *manufactured* "evidence" to that end (such as the endings of Hebrews and Acts, the corruption of 1Clement, and so on and on and on). . as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

.  Yeah gee, a bishop glorifying the bishops. No bias there, eh? . <snip the rest of Irenaeus’ BULLSHIT! http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/

.  And that’s the best that the scum-sucking Cats can do: Spin a web of lies and historical distortions and fabricated "evidence", and then whine about their idiotic "apostolic succession". Boy, you gotta be some kind of retard to fall for all that crap! Anyone who is "converted" by all this smelly stuff is certainly more than worthy to be a member of the Mother of Whores. Indeed, they truly deserve each other! Maybe that’s why the RCC is the most popular Satan-inspired anti-church of them all … ??? . .     – the one who sets the records straight – erasmian  ; . P.S. Yes, it’s high time that people woke up to the sad fact that the RCC Whore is NOT founded upon Peter (or any other legitimate authority), but rather *solely* upon the lies, deceptions, and delusions of the priests who deliberately corrupted the Faith to the end of glorifying themselves above all human creatures! . P.P.S. "For Her sins have reached unto heaven, and  God hath remembered Her iniquities" (Revelation 18:5). x

Response:

I know its long…so if you’re not Catholic,better beware! For if you read it, you may become a convert to the church founded by Christ…The Roman Catholic Church. Matt 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). Luke 22:31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church. Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings to the Majordomo who governed the King’s household.