Question:
For th fundamentalists out there who are still to dumb to admit the truth have aread of the following…after all ‘whos afraid of the big bad wolf’?!!! Evidence from the Book of Revelation: In the Bible, Jesus rebukes six of the seven churches in Asia which he addresses in the Book of Revelation. He accuses them of hypocrisy, lukewarmness, fornication and idolatry. Much was "pitiable." (Rev., Chap. 2-3). Only the church in Smyrna escapes a stern, sweeping castigation by Jesus (Rev. 2:8-11). At the time that the Book of Revelation was written, in approximately 95 A.D., the bishop of Smyrna was a man named Polycarp, who had been instructed in the Christian faith by John and other apostles then living. Polycarp, in turn, taught many others. One of those who were instructed by Polycarp was a young man named Ireneaus, who later became the bishop of Lyons. Ireneaus wrote this about Polycarp: Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, by the apostles in Asia. I saw him early in my youth, for he lived on earth a very long time, and, when quite old he departed this life in a glorious and most noble martyrdom. He always taught the things which he had learned from the Apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true" [1]. Ireneaus venerated the memory of Polycarp with these words: "I remember the events of those days better than the ones of recent years — what we learn in childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a part of it — so that I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings and comings, the manner of his life, his physical appearance, his preaching to crowded congregations, and how he spoke of his conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he would recall their words to mind. All that he had heard from them concerning the Lord or about His miracles and His teaching, having received it directly from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture. To these things I listened eagerly at that time, by the mercy of God shown to me" [2]. Polycarp served as bishop of Smyrna for over fifty years, and died at the age of 86, in 155 A.D., during the era of ruthless persection of Christians by the Roman empire. He was arrested and taken before the Proconsul by a military guard — where he refused to compromise with paganism in any way: "When the proconsul urged him and said, ‘Swear, and I will release you; curse Christ’; Polycarp declared, "Eighty-six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?" [3]. For his refusal, Polycarp was put to death. Shortly after the martyrdom of Polycarp, the members of church at Smyrna wrote to other Christian communities, to tell them of his death. In this letter, they described Polycarp as a "bishop of the Catholic Church" [4]. The letter itself is addressed "to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place" [5]. In addition, it is noteworthy that in Polycarp’s own writings, he says "be subject to the bishops and deacons, as unto God and Christ" [6]. Similarly, Irenaeus writes of the "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, and the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously there" [7]. Paul says, in 1 Tim 3:15, that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth". In light of this, all non-Catholic "Bible Christians" should reflect what it says in Hebrews 13:17: "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you." Here are a couple of questions that all non-Catholic "Bible Christians" need to answer: What is the expiration date of this verse? When did it become okay not only to disobey the Church’s leaders, but to rebel against them and set up rival churches? "LISTEN TO THE CHURCH" Matt. 18:17 FOOTNOTES: [1] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book III, Chapter III. [2] Irenaeus, "Epistle to Florinus", Chapter II. [3] "The Martyrdom of Polycarp", Chapter 9. [4] "The Martyrdom of Polycarp", Chapter 16. [5] "The Martyrdom of Polycarp", Chapter 1. [6] Polycarp, "Epistle to the Philippians", Chapter 5. [7] Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book III, Chapter II. The full text of "Against Heresies" , written by Irenaeus in 180 A.D., is online at: http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers/ANF-01/ iren/iren/index.html The following web page has links to various web sites where these and many other writings of the first Christians can be found: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ206.HTM
Response:
For th fundamentalists out there who are still to dumb to admit the truth have aread of the following…after all ‘whos afraid of the big bad wolf’?!!!
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CHRISTIAN CHURCH? —- PROOF the Roman Catholic Church is not a Christian church. I believe it will become plain after reading this letter that the Roman Catholic church is actually a cult. I cannot share ALL the facts because as of right now, I now have over 1400 printed pages on my website on this subject, and that would make for one massive email eh? So rather than inundate you with mountains of overwhelming evidence, I will simply try my best to illustrate a few "key points" that make this issue undeniable. I pray you do as the Three Angels of Revelation have already done and use these facts to evangelize Catholics with the Truth about their church. Most Catholics I run across are unaware these documents, articles, excerpts, doctrines and facts exist. Some have been told about them, but ignore them wholeheartedly simply because a lying priest or some other agent of Rome has told them to ignore it as hearsay or propaganda of "Catholic-bashers." That is why I am compiling these facts for you. I pray it will help those of you out there that are trying to convince loved ones that yes, the Roman Catholic church can in no way be the Church that Jesus Christ started, and here is some easy to research proof. I would like to point out one simple and easy to remember FACT that all of us can use in evangelizing Catholics in the following days. Universally they are all taught to proclaim that "Peter was the first Pope" However, most are totally unaware of one simple historic fact that blows this theory so far out of the water it actually amazes me how I missed it in my 29 years as a devoted Catholic. The title "Pontifex Maximus" or "Pontiff" is not unique to the Pope’s of the Roman catholic church. Historic documented fact is, they were FIRST used as titles for the Caeser’s of the Pagan Empire of ROME! The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as the definition of the term, Pontifex Maximus: Pontifex 1. Roman Antiquity. A member of the principal college of priests in ancient Rome (Pre-Christian paganism Ed.), the head of which was the Pontifex Maximus or chief pagan priest." The Columbia Encyclopedia – Fifth Edition defines Pontifex Maximus as: "The highest priest of Roman religion and official head of the college of pontifices. As the chief administrator of religious affairs he regulated the conduct of religious ceremonies, consecrated temples and other holy places, and controlled the calendar. During the time of the empire, and until Christianity became firmly established, the emperor was designated pontifex maximus. After the SUPREMACY of Christianity, the popes assumed the title." Now notice the definition for "Pontiff" in The Catholic Encyclopedia, page 549, Volume 11: "This term, borrowed from the vocabulary of pagan religion in Rome, early made its way into Christian discourse. Lexicographers derive it, though with clear misgivings, from the Latin words pons (bridge) and facere (to make, build). If this derivation be accepted, it is easy to see how readily it applies to those who build a bridge, make a way for men to God. In any case it designated in Roman religion members of the council of priests (pagan..ed.) forming the "Pontifical College", which ranked as the highest priestly organization at Rome and was presided over by the "Pontifex Maximus". In present ecclesiastical usage the term "Pontiff" (with its derivatives, "Pontifical" and the verb (Pontificate") is applied to bishops and especially to the Pope. At this point, I do not want to get into discussing all the blasphemous names of the Popes as we can see is yet happening AGAIN in this name that calls the POPE a "a bridge, make a way for men to God." Fact remains, this my friends is the chief job description of Jesus Christ, NOT the Pope! For it is written! 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" My point is this. They call Peter the first Pope. Yet we see that the Caeser’s were called "Pontifex Maximus" or "Pontiff" as well! So, riddle me this. Was not Rome STILL in power at the time Jesus made this statement to Peter? I ask, HOW is it possible for Peter to be holding the title Pontifex Maximus, or Pontiff, while Caesar still lived? Did Jesus and Peter kill Caeser, overthrow Rome, and place Peter on a throne? Many Catholics are unaware of just how easy it is to expose the lies of their Church leaders. It’s really rather simple at times. Yet, some choose to blindly follow the blind. Sadly, with them there is no hope. So, with that in mind I would like to get back to the real reason I mentioned this fact. It has to do with the following verse they use to solidify their "reasoning" as to why they think Peter was the first Pope. Matthew 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Catholic church always quotes this verse to claim Peter as Pope. Regardless of the facts laid out in easy to research historic records. Regardless of the fact that it is also recorded that the Church of Rome did not officially start until… "Vigilius…ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius." History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 327 Which also proves Peter could not have been the first Pope simply because he would have to be well over 500 years of age in order to sit as Pope when the Church began "officially" in 538AD. So, with this verse in mind, specifically the latter part that has Jesus speaking of HIS church in such a way that declares it as one that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against." Let me remind everyone of a particular ADMISSION of guilt that was brought forth on March 12, 2000 by Pope John Paull II. Out of his own mouth he declares his church cannot possibly be of Jesus Christ. Note the following… POPE TO ASK FORGIVENESS FOR PAST FAULTS OF CHURCH’S CHILDREN
VATICAN CITY, MAR 7 (ZENIT.org).- On March 12, the first Sunday of Lent, John Paul II will publicly ask the Lord’s forgiveness for past and present faults of the children of the Church. …This morning, Bishop Piero Marini, Pontifical Master of Ceremonies, explained the meaning of this Day of Forgiveness in the Vatican Press Office. He explained that "in all generations the holiness of the Church has shined forth, witnessed by an incalculable number of her children; nonetheless, the Church suffers from the contradiction of the presence of sin, which has continued to weigh down in the road of the people of God. …For the first time in history, John Paul II will confess the sins committed by Christians through the centuries." …Specifically, he will admit the sins committed in the service of truth: intolerance and violence against dissidents; religious wars; violence and abuses of the Crusades; and violent methods of the Inquisition. …The Holy Father will also express the repentance of Christians for the sins committed in relation to the people of Israel: contempt, acts of hostility, and silences.-ZE00030709 I have commented in detail on this article once before along with many others like it in my March 27, 2000 Truth Provide Newsletter There is one more point I want to make clear that I feel many have overlooked. It is actually yet another ADMISSION by the Pope to the fact that the Roman Catholic church is indeed the very entity that Jesus said would come against the Children of God. Not only is the Pope openly admitting to being the leader of the very Church that Prophecy said Antichrist would use to kill over 150 MILLION Christians with. The pope has also said in the above article for all to see that he is confessing the sins of the past, specifically "… the sins committed in the service of truth" Well, Jesus did in fact say… John 16:2, "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." In this confession on March 12, I see an open admission of prophetic fulfillment by the very culprit of that fulfillment. The Pope is actually admitting that his church did EXACTLY as Jesus prophesied the church of ANTICHRIST would do to the Biblical church of Jesus Christ in the latter days. It was prophesied that this church would kill the Christians and think they were doing God’s work while doing so. The Pope said that he is confessing the sins committed in "THE SERVICE OF TRUTH" did he not? Is this not prophetically sound? All praise be to a God of such overwhelming accuracy! And to make it oh so much easier to illustrate this prophetic point, please understand that Jesus did say in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church. In other words, the church of Jesus Christ would never be one to step forward proclaiming itself as one filled with sin and decadence. The church of Jesus Christ would never proclaim to have a history of murder, rape, molestation, drunkenness, fornication, idolatry, and mayhem. The church of Jesus Christ would never step forward and proclaim that they are the ones that killed 150 Million of His followers. Fact is, the Biblical church of Jesus Christ would be those that WERE murdered, raped, and molested throughout history. It is the Church of Jesus Christ that is persecuted, NOT the one DOING the persecution! So, again I ask, would the church of Jesus have one of it’s leaders step forward to say this…? SIN IS PART OF CHURCH’S HISTORY
VATICAN CITY, MAR 7 (ZENIT.org).- …CARDINAL JOSPEH RATZINGER. The Bavarian Cardinal was presenting the document, "Memory and Reconciliation: … read more »
Response:
Your so called proof Nicky is crap you stole off Jack Chick and the plethora of other anti-Catholic morons. The title of Pope is and was first spoken and used in Latin, so the words Pontifex Maximus were already in use for the title of the head priest, or head of a church. Your claim proves what a cretin you are, as the title was part of the Latin vernacular and were the words used to describe a particular office. They would not of course merely make up a new title, as the term for the head of the church was already in there common tongue. You leap to the faulty conclusion that because a particular title or term for an office was previously used that by the miracle of your wild assumption the two are automatically connected. Latin was in use long before the date you steal from Boettner later on, it was the language of the Roman Empire and was used long before this date within the church. Your second claim also falls flat as you chose a date out of thin air, yet we have posted the words of several saints that predate 538AD using the term Catholic and speaking of the Papacy. Here are a few to refresh your memory. Ignatius of Antioch "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp "And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). Council of Constantinople I "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]). So as we see your revisionist view of history is laughable. When Christ spoke to Peter and made him the Rock, there was no Church yet as it did not come into being until Pentecost. He was the head of the church as were many who followed him before the title of Pope was first used. The point is that all the "leaders of the church" from Peter to JP II were the earthly leaders of Christ’s church, irregardless of an official title. Your next point again is laughable as JP II is asking for forgiveness for individuals or members of the body of Christ who strayed and not for the church as an institution. Note he says "sins committed by Christians through the centuries." He speaks of the individuals not the church as an institution. You then after a bout of poor biblical scholarship, wild accusations, and psychotic fantasy you go on to quote verabatim, Boettner and the fictious load she wrote about Catholic inventions. I have posted many examples in the past showing the ridicuolousness of her contentions, I will not repost them here. I would however say that repeating the poor scholarship of another does little to boulster you credibility Nicky, nor does the fact that you blatantly plagerize someone else. The stufff afterward is basically personal opinion and further plagerization of other sources. Here is a little truth for you Nicky. The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted my most Christians, the Christian Church is described as being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." These are known as the four marks of the Church. The notions of holiness and catholicity are not much in dispute. The mark of holiness may be defined as the possession, and dissemination of the sublime, holy, Christ-centered moral code of Christianity (as best exemplified by saints or otherwise great, godly figures). All parties – while disagreeing on many particulars – concur that this is a central function of the Church. Catholicity simply means universal. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompassing. This brings us to the oneness and apostolicity of the Church, where the disagreements are great indeed. Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness subsisting primarily or solely in the inner, invisible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or born again, or regenerated (with or without baptism, depending on denomination). For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will persevere and are saved, now and in eternity. The Catholic Church has always proclaimed this unifying characteristic also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestantism), yet it doesn’t pit the Mystical Church against the institutional, or visible Church, as most evangelicals do. For Catholics, then, the issue of oneness is substantially related to organizational and practical aspects of ecclesiology. Catholics believe that the Church is both organism and organization, not merely the former. The Mystical and visible "churches" are like two circles which largely intersect, but which are not synonymous. They exist together – somewhat paradoxically and with tension – until the "end of the age." But what kind of organization is this Church, which includes within itself these two aspects (as well as many others)? At this point in the discussion Catholics appeal to the hierarchical, or episcopal (that is, under the jurisdiction of bishops) nature of Church government. Furthermore, Catholics maintain that this form is divinely-instituted and biblical, therefore not optional or of secondary theological importance. Finally, Catholics believe that bishops are – by the intention of Jesus Christ – the successors of the Apostles (the concept of apostolic succession). This is the methodology whereby the Catholic Church traces itself back historically in an unbroken succession to the Apostles and the early Church. Catholicism thus greatly emphasizes both historical and doctrinal continuity, whereas evangelical Protestants are more concerned with maintaining the passion and intense commitment and zeal of the Apostles and early Christians, and are less interested in governmental forms or doctrines which are now regarded as Catholic "distinctives." They tend to see clearly in the Bible and early Church those doctrines with which they agree, but overlook those which are more in accordance with Catholicism, such as the episcopacy, purgatory, and apostolicity. We shall examine the marks of the Church with which Protestants (despite many exceptions) largely disagree: its visibility, the hierarchy of bishops, apostolic succession, and related issues such as ordination, the duties of priests, and sectarianism. Most of these questions are concerned ultimately with authority per se. Protestants emphasize biblical authority, and Catholics ecclesiastical and episcopal leadership, and Tradition. But if the Bible points to and encourages submission to the latter, then the two types of authority cannot (biblically) be opposed. One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1). This is clearly no trifling matter. Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13). This has always been one of the strengths of the Catholic position over against Protestantism, and Protestants are themselves increasingly alarmed over what they consider to be a scandalous concurrence between denominationalism and sectarianism, which all agree is condemned in Scripture. One of the sincere and seemingly reasonable grounds for forming a new sect is the desire to separate from sinners and sin, which may be infecting the group left. Yet the Bible clearly teaches that the Church (especially in its institutional sense) is comprised of both saints and sinners, good and bad. We see this most indisputably in several parables of Jesus about the kingdom of heaven (that is, the Church), such as the wheat and the weeds (or tares), where Jesus says that they will grow together until the final Judgment, or harvest time (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 3:12). He compares the Church to a fishnet which draws good and bad fish, ultimately separated (Matthew 13:47-50), and a marriage banquet, from which one guest was cast out into the outer darkness (Matthew 22:1-14). This parable ends with the famous phrase, Many are called, but few are chosen, which may be interpreted as the distinction between lukewarm, or dead, or nominal Christians and the actual elect who will be saved in the end. Both are present in the Church, according to Jesus. A similar state of affairs is seen in the parables of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-13) and the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). And Jesus’ description of Christians and the Church as a city set on a hill (Matthew 5:14; cf. 5:15-16), is an obvious reference to the visibility of the Church. In no way can this city be regarded as invisible. Jesus chose Judas as His … read more »
Response:
What a might tract, pity it is all so full of rubbish. IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A CHRISTIAN CHURCH?
<snip The material sniped was irrelivant gunk. written by a man who assumes that titles used by the popes previously used by pagans will some how ‘rub off’ and make him pagan. hahahahahaha Fact remains, this my friends is the chief job description of Jesus Christ, NOT the Pope! For it is written! 1 Timothy 2:5, "For there is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
Pitty you didn’t think to read the full quote, Paul is saying he is the hearld of the above message. And teaching that Christ is the mediator between God and man yet our Pope is his autority on earth as hearld of the message. 1 Timothy 2: 1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, 2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity. 3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior, 4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. My point is this. They call Peter the first Pope. Yet we see that the Caeser’s were called "Pontifex Maximus" or "Pontiff" as well! So, riddle me this. Was not Rome STILL in power at the time Jesus made this statement to Peter? I ask, HOW is it possible for Peter to be holding the title Pontifex Maximus, or Pontiff, while Caesar still lived?
You are such a moron.The title is not the subsance of the office Peter recieved from Jesus and handed on to his sucessor!!! Matthew 16:18, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Catholic church always quotes this verse to claim Peter as Pope. Regardless of the facts laid out in easy to research historic records. Regardless of the fact that it is also recorded that the Church of Rome did not officially start until… "Vigilius…ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius."
Ohhh, boy!!! This is a real corker. I did my Theses on the Christians in Rome and guess what? Paul went to Rome to met the Christians there! Acts 27:1-28:33 where there existed the official Catholic Church. They were first expelled by C. Suetonius Tranquillus in approx 49 AD for a period of time and then later blaimed for the Great Fire in Rome in 64 A.D. by Nero. He expelled a proportion of them at that time. Jewish Christians in the Roman Church. Here is some of the Text! We have no documented evidence of a Christian presence in the Rome during the thirties and forties, ‘we do know that these are the years when Christianity reached Rome and when a group of Christians began to take shape in the Capital of the Empire’. As we have seen in our attention given to the Jewish community in Rome, the Jews of this period still had no central organisation the likes of which we would find in Alexandria. There was a pluralism existing that would be typical of any loosely connected community. Their political and social standing was by no means shared equally among all the Jewish community. They had that same kind of exposure to Roman and Greek culture and philosophy that that the Jews of Alexandria and Jerusalem had from the Hellenised world and even to a greater extent. ’We can suppose with relative security that Christianity first took root among Jewish communities that had already for some time belonged to the diverse ethnic and religious geography of the Capital. If this is the case then the Christians and Jews shared much in common and were likely to have known the same political and religious troubles. Historical and Literary Evidence. The first text of this period is the report of C. Suetonius Tranquillus written in 49 AD (dated by Orosius). ‘The emperor Claudius Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit, "expelled the Jews from Rome when they were in great ferment at the instigation of a Chrestus" Cl. 25.’ The suggestion is firstly, either this name belonged to a Jewish troublemaker or secondly, that it belonged to the known name of Jesus Christ given by missionaries. Looking at the great fire in Rome in 64AD., 25 years later, the Christians (Chrestianos) alone were blamed. Therefore it reasonable to assume that the Christian message had already spread as far as Rome and become significantly controversial enough among the Jews of Rome to cause the emperor Claudius to expel a proportion of them. We know that under Nero the Jews were again allowed to return. The proportion that were expelled we could assume were the Christian missionaries who had gone to Rome from Jerusalem and had for a time belonged to the Jewish communities, taking root in the synagogues. ‘Missionaries converted a number of Jews and a greater number of "God-fearers", who had attached themselves to the synagogues.’ We know that this proportion that were expelled were of a particular synagogue because of the lack of unity in the Roman community and synagogue. This synagogue, of approx. 4000 people, was closed until Nero’s reign. Dio Cassius gives us an idea of how this happened, ’As for the Jews, who had again increased so greatly by reason of their multitude that it would have been hard without raising a tumult to expel them from the city, he did not drive them out, but ordered them, while continuing their tradition mode of life, not to hold meetings’ They were dispersed to other synagogues, or to assemble in their own homes (Rom. 26: v. 5, 14, 15) if they were citizens, and if they were not citizens of Rome they were expelled altogether, as in the case of Aquila and Priscilla. We know of the case of Aquila and Priscilla from Acts 18:1-3, where they were forced to leave Rome under the ‘edict of Claudius’ in 49AD. They had originally come from Pontus and travelled to Rome; we do not know who had converted them to Christianity it was not Paul or we would find it recorded by Luke, but it took place presumably in Rome or before they got to Rome. Raymond E. Brown suggests that they went to Rome as Christian missionaries. They waited in Corinth, then moved to Antioch and then to Ephesus, where they waited until they could return to Rome at the death of Claudius. The Place of the Letters to the Romans and Galatians. To discover the nature of the Christian mission to Rome, if that is what we are to call it, we must bear one particular factor in mind. That the mission to the gentiles, is not exclusively the domain of Paul. Luke would have us believe that Paul orchestrated the Christian mission to the gentiles and the Jewish world was left to the domain of the ‘Apostles’ of Jerusalem. The fact was that the nature of the Christian mission to the gentiles was shaped by numerous disciples going out into the Roman Empire and preaching a gospel at variance with that of Paul’s and often closer to that of the Jerusalem community. This was a major cause of concern to Paul and as we shall see one that caused him a lot of heartache. They sought to hammer out an agreement on the nature of their Orthodoxy. The question of Orthodoxy plagued the Church of the time. This is the question, and the compromise, which we will explore here. The fifties provide us with the first Christian document of the Christian mission and the debate on Orthodoxy. It is of course the Letter to the Romans. It is dateable to between 55 and 58 AD, and provides us with a clearer understanding of the motivation of Paul to write to the Romans and go to Rome. Luke does not supply this to us in Acts. We find that ’in the Letter to the Romans Paul revises and attenuates his previous and polemical position on the value and the function of the Law, positions previously expressed in the Letter to the Galatians, when he had to confront ultra-conservative Jewish-Christians.’ It leads to the Jerusalem debates about Paul’s orthodoxy, as we shall see. Paul must defend himself against the attacks of the conservatives who have affected the Jerusalem camp and turned James and the Apostle momentarily against him. He uses his influence with Aquilla and Pricilla to gain their help in writing to the Romans to call for help and support about his orthodoxy because he has known of the close link between Rome and Jerusalem. We know about this link among the Jewish population in Rome and can also recognise the link between Roman and Jerusalem Christians on the basis of their previously held Jewish faith. The background to the Jerusalem debate is found in the letter to the Galatians. Galatians where Paul had been, had been visited by some ultra-conservative missionaries for Jerusalem. They had totally revised the message that Paul had given to the Galatians and therefore in Paul’s letter he goes totally on the offensive, defending his character and belief, which they sought to undo. Paul says in Gal. 1:7, ‘there are trouble-makers among you who are seeking to the gospel of Christ’. These ‘trouble-makers’ had preached the need for circumcision and the dietary laws of the Jewish Law. Some of Paul’s statements to the contrary are defiant, ‘if saving justice comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly’, Gal. 2:21; ‘Christ set us free, so that we should remain free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be fastened again to the yoke of slavery’, Gal. 5:1; ’I could wish that those who are unsettling you would go further and mutilate themselves’, Gal. 5:12. Paul’s strict rebukes have an unsettling effect, and because of this response to these missionaries (who had come … read more »
Response:
Notice the proof PIED PIPER gives OUTSIDE the Bible? Writings of ROME? It’s like a Satanist using quotes from the Satanic Bible to prove it of God. There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see… PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of PIED PIPER folks? The Bible tells us that this is an open sign of NONChristians… James 1:26, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain." By the way folks… Jack Chick is NOT of the Remnant (yet). So why would I steal let alone READ any of his stuff? Pied Piper can only resort to LIES to try and sway you. And MOST of you WILl be swayed by the LIES of the PIED PIPER. Guess what… I DON’T CARE! That’s right! I am ONLU concerned with the REAL Children of God that seek Truth. The rest of the PIGS can do what they want. Jesus told us NOT to cast swine to such as these. So, in essence.. all you PIGS out there, do me a favor. Steer clear eh? I need not your turning and rendering. As for those acting LIKE the pigs… WAKE UP! It’s time ti open your esye and see the Pope as the murderor he is. — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Your so called proof Nicky is crap you stole off Jack Chick and the plethora of other anti-Catholic morons. The title of Pope is and was first spoken and used in Latin, so the words Pontifex Maximus were already in use for the title of the head priest, or head of a church. Your claim proves what a cretin you are, as the title was part of the Latin vernacular and were the words used to describe a particular office. They would not of course merely make up a new title, as the term for the head of the church was already in there common tongue. You leap to the faulty conclusion that because a particular title or term for an office was previously used that by the miracle of your wild assumption the two are automatically connected. Latin was in use long before the date you steal from Boettner later on, it was the language of the Roman Empire and was used long before this date within the church. Your second claim also falls flat as you chose a date out of thin air, yet we have posted the words of several saints that predate 538AD using the term Catholic and speaking of the Papacy. Here are a few to refresh your memory. Ignatius of Antioch "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). The Martyrdom of Polycarp "And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]). Council of Constantinople I "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]). So as we see your revisionist view of history is laughable. When Christ spoke to Peter and made him the Rock, there was no Church yet as it did not come into being until Pentecost. He was the head of the church as were many who followed him before the title of Pope was first used. The point is that all the "leaders of the church" from Peter to JP II were the earthly leaders of Christ’s church, irregardless of an official title. Your next point again is laughable as JP II is asking for forgiveness for individuals or members of the body of Christ who strayed and not for the church as an institution. Note he says "sins committed by Christians through the centuries." He speaks of the individuals not the church as an institution. You then after a bout of poor biblical scholarship, wild accusations, and psychotic fantasy you go on to quote verabatim, Boettner and the fictious load she wrote about Catholic inventions. I have posted many examples in the past showing the ridicuolousness of her contentions, I will not repost them here. I would however say that repeating the poor scholarship of another does little to boulster you credibility Nicky, nor does the fact that you blatantly plagerize someone else. The stufff afterward is basically personal opinion and further plagerization of other sources. Here is a little truth for you Nicky. The Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church In the Nicene Creed, which is accepted my most Christians, the Christian Church is described as being "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic." These are known as the four marks of the Church. The notions of holiness and catholicity are not much in dispute. The mark of holiness may be defined as the possession, and dissemination of the sublime, holy, Christ-centered moral code of Christianity (as best exemplified by saints or otherwise great, godly figures). All parties – while disagreeing on many particulars – concur that this is a central function of the Church. Catholicity simply means universal. Here Protestants and Catholics disagree only on the nature of that Church which is to be considered universal and all-encompassing. This brings us to the oneness and apostolicity of the Church, where the disagreements are great indeed. Most Protestants (especially evangelicals) see unity and oneness subsisting primarily or solely in the inner, invisible, spiritual unity of those who are in fact in Christ by virtue of being justified, or born again, or regenerated (with or without baptism, depending on denomination). For them, the church consists of the Spirit-filled, predestined elect, who will persevere and are saved, now and in eternity. The Catholic Church has always proclaimed this unifying characteristic also, under the broad and rich concept of the Mystical Church (under which it acknowledges Protestantism), yet it doesn’t pit the Mystical Church against the institutional, or visible Church, as most evangelicals do. For Catholics, then, the issue of oneness is substantially related to organizational and practical aspects of ecclesiology. Catholics believe that the Church is both organism and organization, not merely the former. The Mystical and visible "churches" are like two circles which largely intersect, but which are not synonymous. They exist together – somewhat paradoxically and with tension – until the "end of the age." But what kind of organization is this Church, which includes within itself these two aspects (as well as many others)? At this point in the discussion Catholics appeal to the hierarchical, or episcopal (that is, under the jurisdiction of bishops) nature of Church government. Furthermore, Catholics maintain that this form is divinely-instituted and biblical, therefore not optional or of secondary theological importance. Finally, Catholics believe that bishops are – by the intention of Jesus Christ – the successors of the Apostles (the concept of apostolic succession). This is the methodology whereby the Catholic Church traces itself back historically in an unbroken succession to the Apostles and the early Church. Catholicism thus greatly emphasizes both historical and doctrinal continuity, whereas evangelical Protestants are more concerned with maintaining the passion and intense commitment and zeal of the Apostles and early Christians, and are less interested in governmental forms or doctrines which are now regarded as Catholic "distinctives." They tend to see clearly in the Bible and early Church those doctrines with which they agree, but overlook those which are more in accordance with Catholicism, such as the episcopacy, purgatory, and apostolicity. We shall examine the marks of the Church with which Protestants (despite many exceptions) largely disagree: its visibility, the hierarchy of bishops, apostolic succession, and related issues such as ordination, the duties of priests, and sectarianism. Most of these questions are concerned ultimately with authority per se. Protestants emphasize biblical authority, and Catholics ecclesiastical and episcopal leadership, and Tradition. But if the Bible points to and encourages submission to the latter, then the two types of authority cannot (biblically) be opposed. One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1). This is clearly no trifling matter. Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes
… read more »
Response:
What a might tract, pity it is all so full of rubbish.
Care to PROVE that remark with SCRIPTURES? Fact is, I shared Scriptures and DOCUMENTED comments that came from that DEMON called Mary. Rubbish? To you perhaps… 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." In other words… Jellyfis is simply CONFIRMING that the Scriptures are indeed TRUTH! This prophetic statement that JELLYFIS is fulfilling is proof of that fact — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
Response:
Your so called proof Nicky is crap you stole off Jack Chick and the plethora of other anti-Catholic morons.
Notice the proof PIED PIPER gives OUTSIDE the Bible? Writings of ROME? It’s like a Satanist using quotes from the Satanic Bible to prove it of God. There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see… PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of PIED PIPER folks? The Bible tells us that this is an open sign of NONChristians… James 1:26, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain." By the way folks… Jack Chick is NOT of the Remnant (yet?). So why would I steal let alone READ any of his stuff? Pied Piper can only resort to LIES to try and sway you. And MOST of you WILl be swayed by the LIES of the PIED PIPER. Guess what… I DON’T CARE! That’s right! I am ONLY concerned with the REAL Children of God that seek Truth. The rest of the PIGS can do what they want. Jesus told us NOT to cast Pearls to such as these. So, in essence.. all you PIGS out there, do me a favor. Steer clear eh? I need not deal with your turning and rendering. As for those acting LIKE the pigs… WAKE UP! It’s time to open your eyes and see the Pope as the murderor he is. — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
Response:
PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of **** ***** folks?
You made him do it, you-know-who-you-are. Alan
Response:
emanated: PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of **** ***** folks? You made him do it, you-know-who-you-are. Alan
For those of you that are wondering why Alan Craft covered up a couple words, here’s the original line I wrote… "PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of PIED PIPER folks? The Bible tells us that this is an open sign of NONChristians…" James 1:26, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain." Did you also notice that Alan Craft says "I made Pied Piper use foul language?" Do you realize what Alan Craft just did here folks? HE ADMITTED that Pied Piper and HIMSELF have no concept of the power of the Holy Spirit. Pied Piper proved it with his UNBRIDLED TONGUE, while Alan Craft proved it with his admission that it is possible for a man to cause a ’so called" Christian to ignore the Holy Spirit’s power over them and spew forth sewage. Can you see what’s up here? BOTH Pied Piper and Alan Craft are openly admitting they can’t possibly believe that the Holy Spirit really is capable of bridling the tongues of those Christians it indwells. And why is that? 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Fact is people. It’s not my words that Pied Piper and Alan Craft have a problem with. They have a problem with the SCRIPTURES I post. (Fact is… I did not write the Bible.) It’s THAT easy folks! — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
Response:
Truth is truth. …Nicholas
And the truth is, the younger a Christian denomination is, the less civil its members are to older denominations. So how old is your little denomination, Nicholas? A year? Ten years? Even a hundred years? I belong to the ONLY denomination which can honestly claim to be continuous all the way back to twelve frightened men in an upstairs room in Jerusalem… twelve frightened men who, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, became bold as lions, and proudly marched out to preach the truth to the world that Jesus Christ had risen. Yep. THAT one. The Holy Catholic Church. And, as Jesus promised, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it (Mt 16:16-19). — A young boy had a dream. A young girl had passion. A mysterious stranger had a mission. And now the entire world knows their story. – Skies of Arcadia, epilogue
Response:
Truth is truth. …Nicholas And the truth is, the younger a Christian denomination is, the less civil its members are to older denominations.
Is the catholic faith that young then? Or do you deny Bruce, Patrick, Alan, Dawn and Pied Piper as members? — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan arc’s Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm ICQ UIN: 12811297
Response:
Truth is truth. …Nicholas And the truth is, the younger a Christian denomination is, the less civil its members are to older denominations. Is the catholic faith that young then? Or do you deny Bruce, Patrick, Alan, Dawn and Pied Piper as members?
It’s a general rule. There are exceptions. And no particular inhibitions against giving fools what they deserve. Besides, I speak of the mythic "real world." In here, to quote Isaac Asimov, "Put some starch in your spine and say something nasty!" — A young boy had a dream. A young girl had passion. A mysterious stranger had a mission. And now the entire world knows their story. – Skies of Arcadia, epilogue
Response:
Truth is truth. …Nicholas And the truth is, the younger a Christian denomination is, the less civil its members are to older denominations. So how old is your little denomination, Nicholas? A year? Ten years? Even a hundred years?
6000 years old. That’s right. The Remnant Church is of the REAL Christian Church of the Almighty God. It was founded in Eden, and wen into hiding during the time YOUR POPES were killing it’s members. You do recall YOUR POPE’S admission of that fact on March 12, 2000 right? As for Biblical proof see Revelation 12 where it speaks of the 1260 years the Church of Christ was "hidden" in the wilderness. Then exactly as prophecy declared in the very year 1798 ad Napoleon sent in Berthier to knock your murderous Pope out of businsess. The "deadly wound" was administered in 1798 EXACTLY 1260 YEARS after the Roman Church began. And directly after that wound was administred the REAL Christian church came out of hiding. That’s why Sabbath keeping Christians weren’t really heard of until 1844 when some of the Sabbath keepers formed the SDA Church. ALL these documented FACTS can be researched here… http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/mark.htm (Scroll down to the INSERT section) or here… http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm (See Characteristic #1) I belong to the ONLY denomination which can honestly claim to be continuous all the way back to twelve frightened men in an upstairs room in Jerusalem… twelve frightened men who, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, became bold as lions, and proudly marched out to preach the truth to the world that Jesus Christ had risen.
That is a bold face LIE. the ONLY thing 2000 years old is of antichrist. For it is written… 1 John 2:18, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Historic FACT is the Roman Catholic Church began in 538 ad. For a glimps as "some" of the FACTS any REAL seeker can research… When Pagan Rome fell in 476AD it resulted in the formation of TEN KINGDOMS. THREE of these ten kingdoms rejected the "Catholic faith" and they were therefore annihilated for it. 1. Heruli (493AD) was annihilated. 2. Vandals (534AD) were annihilated. 3. Ostrogoths (538AD) were the final of the THREE KINGS THAT WOULD BE SUBDUED as Daniel put it. With the fall of the Ostrogoths in the year 538AD the Roman Catholic institution saw there "official" beginning as the FOURTH BEAST mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel. THE TEN HORNS: 1 The Alamannis which is now called Germany 2 the Visigoths which is now called Spain 3 the Franks which is now called France 4 The Sueves which is now called Portugal 5 the Burgundians which is now called Switzerland 6 the Anglo Saxons which is now called England 7 the Lombards which is now called Italy 8 the Ostrogoths and 9 the Vandal 10 the Herulis "The three divisions which were plucked up where the Heruli in 493 the vandals and 534 and the Ostrogoths in 538. Justinian, the emperor, who see was at Constantinople, working through the general Belisarius, was the power that overthrough the three kingdoms represented by the three horns, and the reason for their overthrow with their adherence to Arianism in opposition to the orthodox Catholic faith." – the book of Daniel, page 109 "History records that a courier for the Illuminati, named Lanze, was racing on horse back from Frankfurt to Paris carrying documents relating to Illuminati activities in general, and specific instructions for the planned French revolution in particular. The documents originated with… members of Illuminati in Germany and were addressed to the Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons in Paris. As the courier galloped through Ratisdon (which is not called Regensberg) he was struck by lightning and killed. All the papers he was carrying fell into the hands of the local police who turned them over to the Bavarian Government. The authorities or the police to raid the headquarters of Illuminati and this resulted in additional documents being captured." – Des Griffin, Forth Reich of the Rich, page 43, 44 "Vigilius…ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius." History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 327 Catholic emperors of the eastern empire found ways to help the pope by eliminating three of the Arian tribes. (These "Arian type" nations would not agree with the popes plans) The Catholic emperor Zeno (474-491) arranged a treaty with the Ostrogoths in 487 which resulted in the eradication of the kingdom of the Arian Heruls in 492. And the catholic emperor Justinian (527-565) exterminated the Arian Vandals in 534 and signifcally broke the power of the Arian Ostrogoths in 538. Thus were Daniels three horns – The Heruls, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths – "plucked up by the roots." -C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares Vol. 1, p. 129 WHO IS THIS VIGILIUS? WAS HE EVEN A CHRISTIAN? As the ten kingdoms of Rome were falling apart, there was an emperor Justinian who was worried about his crumbling empire. He has a General Bellsarius who he devises a plan with during the war. They decided that if they can get into the city of Rome they will banish the bishop of Rome to allow for a takeover that would allow for the system of "Catholcism" to be set up. They needed this system because they felt they had no more political power to control the people. So they devised a plan that would give them Religious as well as political strenght. While Bellsarius is fighting, the bishop of Rome has proclaimed that he will not allow any fighting in his city. This Bishop loves his people and closes the gates and refuses to have anything to do with the war to protect the people in the city. The fighting on this day is particularly strenuous. The Goths had pushed back Bellsarius and his fighters all the way back to the walls of Rome. It looked hopeless, it looked as if Bellsarius was going to be wiped out. So, Bellsarius sent a note to Justinian saying, "save us!" Justinian’s wife is a Christian who happens to be a friend of the bishop of Rome. Justinian pleads with his wife to get the bishop of Rome to open the gates of the city so that Bellsarius and his men can enter inside so as not to be wiped out by the Goth’s. Out of respect for her bishop, Salverius of Rome opens the gates of the city to allow Bellsarius and his army into the city to spare their lives. Justinian and Bellsarius however had already agreed that once inside the city they would banish the bishop of Rome. So once inside they did indeed banished the bishop and put their own man Vigilius who was not a Christian on the seat of bishop and proclaimed him Pope. And there you have it, just as this prophecy of Revelation 13:4 predicted. In the year 538 AD the official beginning of the Roman Catholic church and state conglomeration prophetically began. -(Generalized Information taken from Hope Beyond 2000 "Rise of the little horn of Daniel 7) Yep. THAT one. The Holy Catholic Church. And, as Jesus promised, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it (Mt 16:16-19).
Fact is, March 12, 2000 your Pope ADMITTED the gates of hell DID prevail against the Roman Catholic Church. And ALL THE WORLD saw it! Want proof…? See this… http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/nl000327.htm — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
Response:
NIckie, go to Confession. You’ve been very very bad. BAM
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Truth is truth. …Nicholas And the truth is, the younger a Christian denomination is, the less civil its members are to older denominations. So how old is your little denomination, Nicholas? A year? Ten years? Even a hundred years? 6000 years old. That’s right. The Remnant Church is of the REAL Christian Church of the Almighty God. It was founded in Eden, and wen into hiding during the time YOUR POPES were killing it’s members. You do recall YOUR POPE’S admission of that fact on March 12, 2000 right? As for Biblical proof see Revelation 12 where it speaks of the 1260 years the Church of Christ was "hidden" in the wilderness. Then exactly as prophecy declared in the very year 1798 ad Napoleon sent in Berthier to knock your murderous Pope out of businsess. The "deadly wound" was administered in 1798 EXACTLY 1260 YEARS after the Roman Church began. And directly after that wound was administred the REAL Christian church came out of hiding. That’s why Sabbath keeping Christians weren’t really heard of until 1844 when some of the Sabbath keepers formed the SDA Church. ALL these documented FACTS can be researched here… http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/mark.htm (Scroll down to the INSERT section) or here… http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm (See Characteristic #1) I belong to the ONLY denomination which can honestly claim to be continuous all the way back to twelve frightened men in an upstairs room in Jerusalem… twelve frightened men who, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, became bold as lions, and proudly marched out to preach the truth to the world that Jesus Christ had risen. That is a bold face LIE. the ONLY thing 2000 years old is of antichrist. For it is written… 1 John 2:18, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." Historic FACT is the Roman Catholic Church began in 538 ad. For a glimps as "some" of the FACTS any REAL seeker can research… When Pagan Rome fell in 476AD it resulted in the formation of TEN KINGDOMS. THREE of these ten kingdoms rejected the "Catholic faith" and they were therefore annihilated for it. 1. Heruli (493AD) was annihilated. 2. Vandals (534AD) were annihilated. 3. Ostrogoths (538AD) were the final of the THREE KINGS THAT WOULD BE SUBDUED as Daniel put it. With the fall of the Ostrogoths in the year 538AD the Roman Catholic institution saw there "official" beginning as the FOURTH BEAST mentioned in the prophecy of Daniel. THE TEN HORNS: 1 The Alamannis which is now called Germany 2 the Visigoths which is now called Spain 3 the Franks which is now called France 4 The Sueves which is now called Portugal 5 the Burgundians which is now called Switzerland 6 the Anglo Saxons which is now called England 7 the Lombards which is now called Italy 8 the Ostrogoths and 9 the Vandal 10 the Herulis "The three divisions which were plucked up where the Heruli in 493 the vandals and 534 and the Ostrogoths in 538. Justinian, the emperor, who see was at Constantinople, working through the general Belisarius, was the power that overthrough the three kingdoms represented by the three horns, and the reason for their overthrow with their adherence to Arianism in opposition to the orthodox Catholic faith." – the book of Daniel, page 109 "History records that a courier for the Illuminati, named Lanze, was racing on horse back from Frankfurt to Paris carrying documents relating to Illuminati activities in general, and specific instructions for the planned French revolution in particular. The documents originated with… members of Illuminati in Germany and were addressed to the Grand Master of the Grand Orient Masons in Paris. As the courier galloped through Ratisdon (which is not called Regensberg) he was struck by lightning and killed. All the papers he was carrying fell into the hands of the local police who turned them over to the Bavarian Government. The authorities or the police to raid the headquarters of Illuminati and this resulted in additional documents being captured." – Des Griffin, Forth Reich of the Rich, page 43, 44 "Vigilius…ascended the papal chair (538 A.D.) under the military protection of Belisarius." History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p. 327 Catholic emperors of the eastern empire found ways to help the pope by eliminating three of the Arian tribes. (These "Arian type" nations would not agree with the popes plans) The Catholic emperor Zeno (474-491) arranged a treaty with the Ostrogoths in 487 which resulted in the eradication of the kingdom of the Arian Heruls in 492. And the catholic emperor Justinian (527-565) exterminated the Arian Vandals in 534 and signifcally broke the power of the Arian Ostrogoths in 538. Thus were Daniels three horns – The Heruls, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths – "plucked up by the roots." -C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares Vol. 1, p. 129 WHO IS THIS VIGILIUS? WAS HE EVEN A CHRISTIAN? As the ten kingdoms of Rome were falling apart, there was an emperor Justinian who was worried about his crumbling empire. He has a General Bellsarius who he devises a plan with during the war. They decided that if they can get into the city of Rome they will banish the bishop of Rome to allow for a takeover that would allow for the system of "Catholcism" to be set up. They needed this system because they felt they had no more political power to control the people. So they devised a plan that would give them Religious as well as political strenght. While Bellsarius is fighting, the bishop of Rome has proclaimed that he will not allow any fighting in his city. This Bishop loves his people and closes the gates and refuses to have anything to do with the war to protect the people in the city. The fighting on this day is particularly strenuous. The Goths had pushed back Bellsarius and his fighters all the way back to the walls of Rome. It looked hopeless, it looked as if Bellsarius was going to be wiped out. So, Bellsarius sent a note to Justinian saying, "save us!" Justinian’s wife is a Christian who happens to be a friend of the bishop of Rome. Justinian pleads with his wife to get the bishop of Rome to open the gates of the city so that Bellsarius and his men can enter inside so as not to be wiped out by the Goth’s. Out of respect for her bishop, Salverius of Rome opens the gates of the city to allow Bellsarius and his army into the city to spare their lives. Justinian and Bellsarius however had already agreed that once inside the city they would banish the bishop of Rome. So once inside they did indeed banished the bishop and put their own man Vigilius who was not a Christian on the seat of bishop and proclaimed him Pope. And there you have it, just as this prophecy of Revelation 13:4 predicted. In the year 538 AD the official beginning of the Roman Catholic church and state conglomeration prophetically began. -(Generalized Information taken from Hope Beyond 2000 "Rise of the little horn of Daniel 7) Yep. THAT one. The Holy Catholic Church. And, as Jesus promised, the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it (Mt 16:16-19). Fact is, March 12, 2000 your Pope ADMITTED the gates of hell DID prevail against the Roman Catholic Church. And ALL THE WORLD saw it! Want proof…? See this… http://www.remnantofgod.org/~nicholas/nl000327.htm — Presents of God ministry Devastatingly accurate prophecies authenticated with historic facts confirming Antichrist resides in Vatican! www.remnantofgod.com or www.popeisantichrist.com (The "major" prophetic facts… Summarized) http://www.remnantofgod.com/~nicholas/666-CHAR.htm Truth is truth. …Nicholas
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – emanated: PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of **** ***** folks? You made him do it, you-know-who-you-are. Alan For those of you that are wondering why Alan Craft covered up a couple words, here’s the original line I wrote… "PLUS.. did you notice the FOUR LETTER WORDS and NAME CALLING of PIED PIPER folks? The Bible tells us that this is an open sign of NONChristians…" James 1:26, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain." Did you also notice that Alan Craft says "I made Pied Piper use foul language?" Do you realize what Alan Craft just did here folks? HE ADMITTED that Pied Piper and HIMSELF have no concept of the power of the Holy Spirit. Pied Piper proved it with his UNBRIDLED TONGUE, while Alan Craft proved it with his admission that it is possible for a man to cause a ’so called" Christian to ignore the Holy Spirit’s power over them and spew forth sewage. Can you see what’s up here? BOTH Pied Piper and Alan Craft are openly admitting they can’t possibly believe that the Holy Spirit really is capable of bridling the tongues of those Christians it indwells. And why is that? 1 Corinthians 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Fact is people. It’s not my words that Pied Piper and Alan Craft have a problem with. They have a problem with the SCRIPTURES I post. (Fact is… I did not write the Bible.) It’s THAT easy folks!
…amazing what a one-liner will do. Your technique, Nicholas, would be far, far better suited to the hawking of bottles of dubious remedies from the side of a wagon. Alan
Response:
<snip You sir, are a bold face liar. I do not worship a "day" I worship the Lord Creator ON a day. Your gOD in the Vat-of-sin is where your worship is apparent. For your Pope declares himself a gOD and you embrace him as such by staying under his roof. In fact, you are alos a murderor as well, for the Pope did in fact admit to killing omillions of Christians on Mrach 12, 2000. Since you stay under his roof and worship him, you are guilty by association. Just BLUNT Truth is all folks. Now watch Alan share his Craft at spewing blunt insults.
<snip You did not deny that you are Seventh-Day Adventist. Someone hit a raw nerve. You need to settle down before typing; your spelling, etc. wasn’t so hot in that last message. The Pope (God bless his soul) is a man not God (Mary is not God either, she is a woman). He is a bishop elected to the Office of the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church does not worship the Pope or Mary. The Pope was merely admitting to the world and to God above, that the Church is made up of people and that in the past (and in the future) mistakes have been made (including persecution of Jews, etc.). He was publicly asking God for forgiveness of our transgressions and sins. BTW: Didn’t the Seventh Day Adventists predict the end of the world a few times in the past (1800’s) or was that a different cult. John
Response:
Nickie, the Bible belongs to the Catholic Church. You have no right to even own one.
Strange, I was taught by the catholics that it was gods book. Ahh well, just one more thing that has changed since I left. — Alan Ferris eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div. When the only colour is black – the only sound the broken bell THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan arc’s Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm ICQ UIN: 12811297
Response:
Strange, I was taught by the catholics that it was gods book.
BS BAM
Response:
Would you have liked it if the pope took an oozie and started shooting at Germans? NO POPE KILLED A SINGLE JEW!!! The fact that the pope had remained silent also is ridiculous as he had sent various catholic groups to help out Jewish people who were suffering during the holocaust! Quit malong ludicrous accusations before I report your postings that go against this rooms guidelines! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip You sir, are a bold face liar. I do not worship a "day" I worship the Lord Creator ON a day. Your gOD in the Vat-of-sin is where your worship is apparent. For your Pope declares himself a gOD and you embrace him as such by staying under his roof. In fact, you are alos a murderor as well, for the Pope did in fact admit to killing omillions of Christians on Mrach 12, 2000. Since you stay under his roof and worship him, you are guilty by association. Just BLUNT Truth is all folks. Now watch Alan share his Craft at spewing blunt insults. <snip You did not deny that you are Seventh-Day Adventist. Someone hit a raw nerve. You need to settle down before typing; your spelling, etc. wasn’t so hot in that last message. The Pope (God bless his soul) is a man not God (Mary is not God either, she is a woman). He is a bishop elected to the Office of the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church does not worship the Pope or Mary. The Pope was merely admitting to the world and to God above, that the Church is made up of people and that in the past (and in the future) mistakes have been made (including persecution of Jews, etc.). He was publicly asking God for forgiveness of our transgressions and sins. BTW: Didn’t the Seventh Day Adventists predict the end of the world a few times in the past (1800’s) or was that a different cult. John
Response:
1) it’s an Uzi I don’t want to know what an oozie is ech… 2) Pius XII was praised during the war as the lone voice of sanity. Don’t blame the Pope for people not listening. 3) after the war MANY Jews private and public thanked the Pope for what he SAID and DID for the Jews during the war. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Would you have liked it if the pope took an oozie and started shooting at Germans? NO POPE KILLED A SINGLE JEW!!! The fact that the pope had remained silent also is ridiculous as he had sent various catholic groups to help out Jewish people who were suffering during the holocaust! Quit malong ludicrous accusations before I report your postings that go against this rooms guidelines!
Response:
Would you have liked it if the pope took an oozie and started shooting at Germans? NO POPE KILLED A SINGLE JEW!!! The fact that the pope had remained silent also is ridiculous as he had sent various catholic groups to help out Jewish people who were suffering during the holocaust! Quit malong ludicrous accusations before I report your postings that go against this rooms guidelines!
Sorry to inform you but this is a PUBLIC forum. catholics constantly lie in here and they are allowed to stay. If you don’t like a certain post, feel free to not read it. BTW, learn to spell. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip You sir, are a bold face liar. I do not worship a "day" I worship the Lord Creator ON a day. Your gOD in the Vat-of-sin is where your worship is apparent. For your Pope declares himself a gOD and you embrace him as such by staying under his roof. In fact, you are alos a murderor as well, for the Pope did in fact admit to killing omillions of Christians on Mrach 12, 2000. Since you stay under his roof and worship him, you are guilty by association. Just BLUNT Truth is all folks. Now watch Alan share his Craft at spewing blunt insults. <snip You did not deny that you are Seventh-Day Adventist. Someone hit a raw nerve. You need to settle down before typing; your spelling, etc. wasn’t so hot in that last message. The Pope (God bless his soul) is a man not God (Mary is not God either, she is a woman). He is a bishop elected to the Office of the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church does not worship the Pope or Mary. The Pope was merely admitting to the world and to God above, that the Church is made up of people and that in the past (and in the future) mistakes have been made (including persecution of Jews, etc.). He was publicly asking God for forgiveness of our transgressions and sins. BTW: Didn’t the Seventh Day Adventists predict the end of the world a few times in the past (1800’s) or was that a different cult. John
– Psalm 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
Response:
Quit malong ludicrous accusations before I report your postings that go against this rooms guidelines!
I admire your spunk, but there aren’t any guidelines for this newsgroup AFAIK, although proper usenet etiquette certainly should apply. Guideline’s are generally a waste of time, they are only ignored by some people. In my other newsgroup there are guidelines the and spammers and trolls are reported; it hasn’t deterred them, and in some cases it has made it worse. They get their accounts terminated and sign up with another service or sign up with false information. I think it is better to ignore them, without feedback they move on to another newsgroup eventually anyway. It is only fun if you are ticking people off. Cathy
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.