Pope drinking the blood of a Mithraic Jesus
Peter Terry
Its a question of mistaken identity given that the Jesus worshiped by
Christianity
is actually Mithras, the Roman god-king, from which many of the pagan
pageants
and rituals practiced by the Catholic systems originated- including the
primitive and barbaric practice of transubstantiation..ie human sacrifice
and blood drinking.
The Panzer Pope drinking Jesus' blood
Pope drinking blood
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/ratzinger-pope-drippingblood1.jpg
Throughout the history of the Catholic Church it has displaced, maimed
and murdered tens of millions of innocent people only because they refused
to curtail and worship the image of the Roman pontiff. The facts remain
that popes of old led armies, made love and war, conspired for power,
and armed themselves with techniques of assassination and seduction,
while clothed with the authority of the church and in Jesus' name.
This modern crop of Popes, Bishops, Priests, nuns and brothers
are actual reincarnations- rebirths, of the ancient mob whose crimes
against the innocent and humanity are unprecedented!
PeterT
Revelations: Then I heard a voice from Heaven saying ,
"Come out my people- come out of her!
You must not take part of her sins:
you must not share in her punishment!
For her sins are pilled up as high as Heaven,
and God remembers her wicked ways.
Treat her exactly as she has treated you;
pay her back double for what she has done.Fill her cup with a drink
as strong as the drink she has prepared for you.
Give her as much suffering and grief as the glory and luxury
she gave herself.
Peter Terry
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Popeandsatanimage2.jpg
"Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vekgk.20915$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
H.D.
"Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vekgk.20915$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Key
> Popes Sydney communion
>
Unless you've been under a rock you've seen the vulgar political tripe
dished out under the name Harry Hope recently.
The real poster is one Peter Terry with the email address
momb...@yahoo.com
Edward Curtis
On Jul 19, 7:37 am, "H.D." <her...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Making a big idiot of himself, Peter terry wrote:
>
> "Peter Terry" <momba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vekgk.20915$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > Message from Jesus:
>
> >http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Je...
<snip>
duke
wrote:
>Please don't feed the troll.
Why not correct him. It's easy enough.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
>
> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
the wine.
It was that, named 'Transubstantiation', that Wycliffe, a priest of
the Church at Rome in England, protested was not the truth in the late
1300's. He has been given the title 'The Morning Star of the
Reformation' - ie the Protestant Reformation which began in earnest
after Martin Luther's work in Germany.
In the World Youth Days it is obvious that very large amounts of
moneys, both from the Vatican (I have read in an Internet article that
the Vatican bank is the richest in the world), and from public
governments are being used to convey an image of acceptablility with
the general public including Protestants that the Vatican is the 'true
church of Jesus Christ'. That is very far from the truth.
We are saved through faith and ***not of ourselves***
***it is the gift of God***. God gives us His unmerited gift of
salvation (by grace).
Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
We do not have to work for it by observing all the rituals
and accepting the reasons given by the Vatican to obtain that
salvation.
However, knowing that God in His mercy had freely forgiven us
we then should go on in right attitudes towards others.
It is not faith + works determined by the Vatican that gives us
salvation with the fact of their teaching that if later we fail in
some ways we must endure purgatory for a period of time that can be
lessened by prayers within the RC Church .
BUT
***IT IS SALVATION (THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE)
AS WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST***
and then we do good works that are pleasing to God.
When the Vatican comes to that realisation and the Pope 'gets off his
high horse' that there can be untity amongst Christians as all are
prepared ONLY
to follow New Testament teachings.
Gladys Swager
duke
>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
>>
>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> Pope Paul VI
>
>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>the wine.
We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>It was that, named 'Transubstantiation', that Wycliffe, a priest of
>the Church at Rome in England, protested was not the truth in the late
>1300's. He has been given the title 'The Morning Star of the
>Reformation' - ie the Protestant Reformation which began in earnest
>after Martin Luther's work in Germany.
Wychiffe was wrong.
>We are saved through faith and ***not of ourselves***
>***it is the gift of God***. God gives us His unmerited gift of
>salvation (by grace).
But does that not include following God's words? He said that unless we eat his
Body and drink his Blood, we have no life in us.
>Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
>We do not have to work for it by observing all the rituals
>and accepting the reasons given by the Vatican to obtain that
>salvation.
>
>However, knowing that God in His mercy had freely forgiven us
> we then should go on in right attitudes towards others.
>
>It is not faith + works determined by the Vatican that gives us
>salvation with the fact of their teaching that if later we fail in
>some ways we must endure purgatory for a period of time that can be
>lessened by prayers within the RC Church .
>BUT
>***IT IS SALVATION (THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE)
> AS WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST***
>and then we do good works that are pleasing to God.
>
>When the Vatican comes to that realisation and the Pope 'gets off his
>high horse' that there can be untity amongst Christians as all are
>prepared ONLY
>to follow New Testament teachings.
>
>Gladys Swager
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Peter Terry
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lb0c841536082mmic...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>>> Pope Paul VI
>>
>>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>>the wine.
>
> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>
however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, the
blood curdling freak Mithras.
To presume that Jesus recommended the primitive and disgusting practice
that we should drink his blood and eat his flesh is clearly out of his
character
and so pretty much negates the rest of his teachings...
Christ said..
"It is love that I want, NOT sacrifice"
"It is the spirit that quickenith, the flesh profits NONE"
PeterT
Peter Terry
紐. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:lb0c841536082mmic...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> > <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> >>> Pope Paul VI
> >>
> >>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
> >>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
> >>the wine.
> >
> > We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
> >
> You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factual,
> however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
> to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, the
> blood curdling freak Mithras.
** Mithras had multiple personalities, the Catholic God has multiple
personalities. Coincidence?
>
> To presume that Jesus recommended the primitive and disgusting practice
> that we should drink his blood and eat his flesh is clearly out of his
> character
** Indeed Peter, I find it curious that the Disciples John and Thomas,
both of whom attended the Last Supper, plumb forgot to report on any wine
to blood, bread to flesh "miracle". Additionally, the Didache fails to
mention any such thing. Does it make sense that a practice which forms
the core of post 4th Century Christian doctrine could have been overlooked
by two of the Disciples?
cheers Peter
> and so pretty much negates the rest of his teachings...
>
> Christ said..
>
> "It is love that I want, NOT sacrifice"
>
> "It is the spirit that quickenith, the flesh profits NONE"
>
> PeterT
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:lb0c841536082mmic...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>>>> Pope Paul VI
>>>
>>>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>>>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>>>the wine.
>>
>> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factual,
No doubt about that.
>however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
Name those theologians in 3 musical notes or less.
>To presume that Jesus recommended the primitive and disgusting practice
>that we should drink his blood and eat his flesh is clearly out of his
>character
>and so pretty much negates the rest of his teachings...
Think Melchizedek.
>Christ said..
>"It is love that I want, NOT sacrifice"
No, even RLknow it's mercy and not animal sacrifice.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>In article <AgXhk.22146$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter
>Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:lb0c841536082mmic...@4ax.com...
>> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
>> > <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
>> >>> Pope Paul VI
>> >>
>> >>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>> >>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>> >>the wine.
>> >
>> > We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>> >
>> You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factual,
>> however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
>> to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, the
>> blood curdling freak Mithras.
>
>** Mithras had multiple personalities, the Catholic God has multiple
>personalities. Coincidence?
The world's leading expert on mithra says they borrowed from Chrisitanity.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
紐. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:26:44 -0700, 2...@vc.net (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <AgXhk.22146$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "Peter
> >Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:lb0c841536082mmic...@4ax.com...
> >> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:44:36 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> >> > <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Jul 20, 10:57 pm, duke wrote:
> >> >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 Edward Curtis wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> >> >>> Pope Paul VI
> >> >>
> >> >>The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
> >> >>and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
> >> >>the wine.
> >> >
> >> > We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
> >> >
> >> You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factual,
> >> however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
> >> to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, the
> >> blood curdling freak Mithras.
> >
> >** Mithras had multiple personalities, the Catholic God has multiple
> >personalities. Coincidence?
>
> The world's leading expert on mithra says they borrowed from Chrisitanity.
>
• Expert? Mithraism was popular in Rome at least 6 decades before the
birth of Jesus of Nazareth in 4B.C.
duke
The world's leading expert says mithra is the worship of a ray of diffuse
sunlight from before man walked the earth.
And there ends the similarity.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
紐. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• How is it that the "world's leading expert" does not know when
Mithraism was introduced into Rome?
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>
>
> >The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
> >and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
> >the wine.
>
> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>
Jesus Christ at the Last Supper with His disciples before His betrayal
and subsequent crucifixion followed by His resurrection after three
days,
told His disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine
***in remembrance of Him***.
Did the disciples at that time have any sense that they were actually
eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
No, of course they didn't, because Jesus was present with them.
> >It was that, named 'Transubstantiation', that Wycliffe, a priest of
> >the Church at Rome in England, protested was not the truth in the late
> >1300's. He has been given the title 'The Morning Star of the
> >Reformation' - ie the Protestant Reformation which began in earnest
> >after Martin Luther's work in Germany.
>
> Wycliffe was wrong.
>
The priests of the RC Church dug up his bones, burnt them to ashes and
threw the ashes into the River Swift that flowed into the Thames and
out into the ocean. That said much more about an unchristian attitude
of the priests who wanted to obliterate his name than it said of
Wycliffe and the work that he did.
He gave the Bible in the English language as he wanted even ploughboys
to read it at a time when the leaders at the Church of Rome had
forbidden it reading by the laity.
Why? Surely it was because that for the previous nine hundred years
the church at Rome had been adding their interpretations to the New
Testment -
such as
*the doctrine of purgatory,
*canonisation of dead saints (the New Testament names all Christians
as saints - see the opening verse(s) to Corinthians, Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians;
*celibacy of the priests - only Jesus and Paul were celibate and
certainly not Peter
*transubstantiation - bread and wine become the actual body and blood
of Jesus when consecrated by the priest and
*others up to 1950 with the supposed assumption (taking up) into
heaven of the Virgin Mary because what was considered to be her place
of burial was found empty when it was opened. The reason for that
could have been that the bones had been taken and placed elsewhere, or
even stolen.
In 1976 I considered the possibility of Christians being united for
the first time in my life of nearly fifty years.
But why should Protestants return to Rome?.
That is the intention, surely of John Paul II's and Benedict's
statements
and the World Youth Days, also the intent of some decisions at Vatican
II (1962-1965).
The RC Church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ, as it has
imposed so many heresies and traditions on its members through the
centuries.
> >We are saved through faith and ***not of ourselves***
> >***it is the gift of God***. God gives us His unmerited gift of
> >salvation (by grace).
>
> But does that not include following God's words? He said that unless we eat his
> Body and drink his Blood, we have no life in us.
>
No, as above the bread and the wine does not change into Christ's
physical body. He does not come from heaven whenever Mass is given and
divide Himself into the number of people taking the bread and wine.
>
> >Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >We do not have to work for it by observing all the rituals
> >and accepting the reasons given by the Vatican to obtain that
> >salvation.
>
> >However, knowing that God in His mercy had freely forgiven us
> > we then should go on in right attitudes towards others.
>
> >It is not faith + works determined by the Vatican that gives us
> >salvation with the fact of their teaching that if later we fail in
> >some ways we must endure purgatory for a period of time that can be
> >lessened by prayers within the RC Church .
> >BUT
> >***IT IS SALVATION (THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE)
> > AS WE PLACE OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST***
> >and then we do good works that are pleasing to God.
and receive forgiveness as we trust in Jesus Christ
>
> >When the Vatican comes to that realisation and the Pope 'gets off his
> >high horse' then there can be untity amongst Christians as all are
Roger Pearse
> > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factual,
> > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
> > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, the
> > blood curdling freakMithras.
Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". Most
educated people and all scholars know different.
> ** Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
No ancient text records this.
Roger Pearse
duke
Mithraism was the Roman soldier's religion.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On Jul 23, 1:52 am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>> >The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>> >and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>> >the wine.
>> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>Jesus Christ at the Last Supper with His disciples before His betrayal
>and subsequent crucifixion followed by His resurrection after three
>days,
>told His disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine
>***in remembrance of Him***.
He also clearly stated as he raised bread nada wine to the Father "This IS my
Body and this IS my Blood".
Yes, he said "do this in remembrance of me". But what do the words mean:
1. A commeration only.
2. A meal of bread and wine only?
3. **You people** raise the bread and wine and declare them to be my Body and
Blood like I'm teaching you tonight.
4. Sit at a square table and under a roof.
Which one(s) is his words limited to, if any?
He went on to say "unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood, you have no life
in you".
Now I ask you - how do they do that?
>Did the disciples at that time have any sense that they were actually
>eating His flesh and drinking his blood.
>No, of course they didn't, because Jesus was present with them.
For 3 days + the 40 days after his resurrection.
>> >It was that, named 'Transubstantiation', that Wycliffe, a priest of
>> >the Church at Rome in England, protested was not the truth in the late
>> >1300's. He has been given the title 'The Morning Star of the
>> >Reformation' - ie the Protestant Reformation which began in earnest
>> >after Martin Luther's work in Germany.
>> Wycliffe was wrong.
>The priests of the RC Church dug up his bones, burnt them to ashes and
>threw the ashes into the River Swift that flowed into the Thames and
>out into the ocean. That said much more about an unchristian attitude
>of the priests who wanted to obliterate his name than it said of
>Wycliffe and the work that he did.
Wycliffe was a heretic.
>He gave the Bible in the English language as he wanted even ploughboys
>to read it at a time when the leaders at the Church of Rome had
>forbidden it reading by the laity.
And the people that know least of it and understand least of it are those that
read it for themselves without professional knowledge and assistance bringing it
all together - old testament and new testament and the ways of the people.
>Why? Surely it was because that for the previous nine hundred years
>the church at Rome had been adding their interpretations to the New
>Testment -
>such as
>*the doctrine of purgatory,
Nah, that's in scripture.
>*canonisation of dead saints (the New Testament names all Christians
>as saints - see the opening verse(s) to Corinthians, Ephesians,
>Philippians, Colossians;
???
>*celibacy of the priests - only Jesus and Paul were celibate and
>certainly not Peter
And anyone that chooses to do so for the good of the Kingdom of God.
Mat 19:12.
>*transubstantiation - bread and wine become the actual body and blood
>of Jesus when consecrated by the priest and
A man-attempt to describe the actions of the Consecration of the Body and Blood
of Christ at the Last Supper.
>*others up to 1950 with the supposed assumption (taking up) into
>heaven of the Virgin Mary because what was considered to be her place
>of burial was found empty when it was opened. The reason for that
>could have been that the bones had been taken and placed elsewhere, or
>even stolen.
Or wasn't even her tomb.
>In 1976 I considered the possibility of Christians being united for
>the first time in my life of nearly fifty years.
>But why should Protestants return to Rome?.
Because they left in protest.
>That is the intention, surely of John Paul II's and Benedict's
>statements
>and the World Youth Days, also the intent of some decisions at Vatican
>II (1962-1965).
>The RC Church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ, as it has
>imposed so many heresies and traditions on its members through the
>centuries.
Actually, all dogma comes from Scripture.
>> >We are saved through faith and ***not of ourselves***
>> >***it is the gift of God***. God gives us His unmerited gift of
>> >salvation (by grace).
>> But does that not include following God's words? He said that unless we eat his
>> Body and drink his Blood, we have no life in us.
>No, as above the bread and the wine does not change into Christ's
>physical body. He does not come from heaven whenever Mass is given and
>divide Himself into the number of people taking the bread and wine.
Christ said it did. I'll go with him.
紐. L. Measures
<ba29c1cb-fbf6-44cc...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 24 Jul, 10:26, 2...@vc.net (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factua=
> l,
> > > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
> > > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, =
> the
> > > blood curdling freakMithras.
>
> Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". Most
> educated people and all scholars know different.
>
> > ** Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
>
> No ancient text records this.
>
• Modern history books mention it. Example:
The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, New York, 1998.
M. Boyce. If you Google it you will discover more. Cheers Roger
紐. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• True enough Earl, but shouldn't the "world's leading expert" be made
aware of this?
Roger Pearse
> In article
> <ba29c1cb-fbf6-44cc-b09e-bdffc0b85...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 24 Jul, 10:26, 2...@vc.net (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is factua=
> > l,
> > > > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctored
> > > > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christianity, =
> > the
> > > > blood curdling freakMithras.
>
> > Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". Most
> > educated people and all scholars know different.
>
> > > ** Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
>
> > No ancient text records this.
>
> • Modern history books mention it. Example:
> The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, New York, 1998.
> M. Boyce. If you Google it you will discover more. Cheers Roger
So you say. But this is clearly Persian Mitra. Quite how this
relates to Roman Mithras, you don't explain. Nor do I suppose that
you have even read this.
Roger Pearse
紐. L. Measures
<6984255b-e1eb-4ae8...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jul, 14:00, 2...@vc.net (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <ba29c1cb-fbf6-44cc-b09e-bdffc0b85...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Roge=
> r
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 24 Jul, 10:26, 2...@vc.net (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper is fa=
> ctua=3D
> > > l,
> > > > > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were doctor=
> ed
> > > > > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christiani=
> ty, =3D
> > > the
> > > > > blood curdling freakMithras.
> >
> > > Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". =A0Most
> > > educated people and all scholars know different.
> >
> > > > ** =A0Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
> >
> > > No ancient text records this.
> >
> > =95 =A0Modern history books mention it. =A0Example: =A0
> > The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, New York, 1998=
> .
> > M. Boyce. =A0If you Google it you will discover more. =A0Cheers Roger
>
> So you say. But this is clearly Persian Mitra. Quite how this
> relates to Roman Mithras, you don't explain. Nor do I suppose that
> you have even read this.
** No such luck. Persian Mithraism was brought to Rome in 68B.C. by
P.O.W. Mediterranean pirates that the Roman Navy had captured.
>
cheers Roger P.
Roger Pearse
No ancient source records this; no evidence of Zoroastrianism in
Mithras exists either.
Since the archaeology shows that Mithras did not exist prior to 50 AD,
the reference to Mithras among Cilician pirates in Plutarch (ca 100AD)
is considered by scholar such as Manfred Clauss as a mistake for
Perseus.
•R. L. Measures
<a248e48d-0a59-4f10...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jul, 00:12, 2...@vc.net (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <6984255b-e1eb-4ae8-984f-13e484a03...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roge=
> r
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 25 Jul, 14:00, 2...@vc.net (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <ba29c1cb-fbf6-44cc-b09e-bdffc0b85...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, =
> Roge=3D
> > > r
> >
> > > > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 24 Jul, 10:26, 2...@vc.net (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supper i=
> s fa=3D
> > > ctua=3D3D
> > > > > l,
> > > > > > > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels were do=
> ctor=3D
> > > ed
> > > > > > > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Christ=
> iani=3D
> > > ty, =3D3D
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > blood curdling freakMithras.
> >
> > > > > Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". =3DA0=
> Most
> > > > > educated people and all scholars know different.
> >
> > > > > > ** =3DA0Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
> >
> > > > > No ancient text records this.
> >
> > > > =3D95 =3DA0Modern history books mention it. =3DA0Example: =3DA0
> > > > The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, New York, =
> 1998=3D
> > > .
> > > > M. Boyce. =3DA0If you Google it you will discover more. =3DA0Cheers R=
> oger
> >
> > > So you say. =A0But this is clearly Persian Mitra. =A0Quite how this
> > > relates to Roman Mithras, you don't explain. =A0Nor do I suppose that
> > > you have even read this.
> >
> > ** No such luck. =A0Persian Mithraism was brought to Rome in 68B.C. by
> > P.O.W. Mediterranean pirates that the Roman Navy had captured. =A0
>
> No ancient source records this; no evidence of Zoroastrianism in
> Mithras exists either.
>
> Since the archaeology shows that Mithras did not exist prior to 50 AD,
> the reference to Mithras among Cilician pirates in Plutarch (ca 100AD)
> is considered by scholar such as Manfred Clauss as a mistake for
> Perseus.
** - recalcitrance - adj,
1. Marked by stubborn resistance to and defiance of authority or guidance.
See Synonyms at unruly.
bam
".R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
news:r-2607080...@10.0.1.199...
sophist
etymology:
Latin sophista, from Greek sophistes, literally, expert, wise man,
from sophizesthai to become wise, deceive, from sophos clever, wise
Date:
14th century
1: philosopher2capitalized : any of a class of ancient Greek teachers
of rhetoric, philosophy, and the art of successful living prominent about
the middle of the fifth century b.c. for their adroit subtle and allegedly
often specious reasoning3: a captious or fallacious reasoner
BAM
Peter Terry
".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2507080...@10.0.1.199...
>>
>> >In article <312i84pu2b9tb67pc...@4ax.com>, duke
>> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 07:34:47 -0700, 2...@vc.net (.R. L. Measures) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <uqqg8411tcdr82k4b...@4ax.com>, duke
>> >> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >birth of Jesus of Nazareth in 4B.C.
>> >>
>> >> The world's leading expert
>> >
>> >Mithraism was introduced into Rome?
>>
>> Mithraism was the Roman soldier's religion.
>>
culture
and religion, in much the same as the US military has a substantial hold on
American culture and psyche. The US will not elect a president in that
country unless he pledges allegiance to Roman Christianity and War!
After all, the father of Roman Christianity Constantine was a soldier who
led
military incursions...lest we not forget his so called vision of the
barbaric
Roman cross from which he adopted this as his symbol of war. There in lies
the connection between Mithras- the Roman military- and Roman Christianity.
The facts are, the Roman cross was not a symbol of the first followers of
Christ until Constantine a Mithras sun worshiping freak adopted this
barbaric
symbol of killing from which it remains central to Christianity today.
Holy communion is founded by a barbaric stone age
blood cult, and Mithras is one of the many heads from time and culture
worn by this evil old religion. The catholic church is another! According
to the historian Durant transubstantiation (usurping another's power by
drinking
his blood and eating his flesh) is as old as civilisation itself.
The very first family of Christ who wrote this extract from revelations
condemning communion, did NOT practice blood letting rite, this disgusting
practice
was adopted by Paul who led a violently assault against Christs original
movement and then plagurised his teachings. It is these barbaric Pauline
cults who are responsible for holy communion and the notion that Jesus
had to die in sacrifice to save the world. Might I add rather ironic the
sacrifice given that human sacrifice contravened Jewish law!!
The Romans accused the early Pauline Christians of being cannibals because
they
WERE. This is why they were persecuted because the Romans abhorrer
human sacrifice.
Puke...you follow an evolved ancient blood cult and judgement day is upon
you and your violent pagan religion....and now the world has already judged
your perverted church as witness today by the thrashing of the tail of a
dying Christianity which has survived throughout history of human kind
by reintervening itself.....when exposed it simply grows a new head like a
mutating dragon or beast!!!
repent NOW!!!
This is what the original followers of Christ had to say about your
disgusting
rite of holy communion and this extract brings new meaning to this link to
the
pope drinking Jesus' blood.
"The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and covered in gold
ornaments, precious stones, and pearls.(depicts the CC and the papal
charade perfectly). In her hand she held a cup full of obscene and
filthy things , (chalice of holy communion) the result of her immorality.
(early Pauline Christians drinking blood and ritual cannibalism acts of
indecency as were widely practiced in the Catacombs) On her
forehead was written a name which had a secrete meaning: Great
Babylon the Mother of all prostitutes and perverts in the world.
(the secrete meaning is this old evolved evil blood cult the CC ..
which actually began even before Babylon). And I saw the woman
was drunk with the blood of God's people and the blood of
those who were killed because they were loyal to Jesus. (this depicts
the violent slaughter of Jesus original followers by the Pauls blood cults
and the subsequent history of the Roman catholic Church who with its
proxies and murdered and maimed millions of innocent human beings
for no other reasons that they refused to follow the false prophet
of the Roman catholic Church and Roman pontiff)
Speaks volume eh??
PeterT
Peter Terry
You must understand that Roman Christians are witnessing their
exposed and dying religion so they will understandably mould
facts into whatever shape they need to preserve their unholy alliance
with devilishness. It was not so long ago that these same people were
using scripture and the honour of Christ to justify mass murder, war
and pillage, for no other reasons that to preserve their pagan church.
However, we are living in exciting times and are witnessing the slaying
of the Christian dragon- beast!
Rest assured you honour Christ who refutes the Christian abomination.
<reaches over and gives Measure a good hug>
PeterT
REVELATIONS FACTS BEHIND CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION
"The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and covered in gold
ornaments, precious stones, and pearls.(depicts the CC and the papal
charade perfectly). In her hand she held a cup full of obscene and
filthy things , (chalice of holy communion) the result of her immorality.
(early Pauline Christians drinking blood and ritual cannibalism acts of
indecency as were widely practiced in the Catacombs) On her
forehead was written a name which had a secrete meaning: Great
Babylon the Mother of all prostitutes and perverts in the world.
(the secrete meaning is this old evolved evil blood cult the CC ..
which actually began even before Babylon). And I saw the woman
was drunk with the blood of God's people and the blood of
those who were killed because they were loyal to Jesus. (this depicts
the violent slaughter of Jesus original followers by the Pauls blood cults
and the subsequent history of the Roman catholic Church who with its
proxies and murdered and maimed millions of innocent human beings
for no other reasons that they refused to follow the false prophet
of the Roman catholic Church and Roman pontiff)
Cathoholics claim they are drinking Jesus' blood so lets cut to the
chase then!!!!
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Popeandsatanimage2.jpg
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/ratzinger-pope-drippingblood1.jpg
Peter Terry
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:VSIik.8221$w93....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
BAM- get help and get out of her before she completely consumes your soul!
revelatiuons 18. 4-8
Come out my people come out of her,
You must not take part of her sins
you must not share in her punishment.....
PeterT
Peter Terry
People such as Duke, Bambo and the deluded twit Pearse are simply
desperate spiritual adulterers trying to forcibly hold up a decayed theology
which
has no basis in Christ or history...you clearly evaluate truth through
some "secrete understanding" you possess as the results of your previous
life efforts and are to be commended.
PeterT
Peter Terry
varying gobbledegook. It was not that long ago when cathos and protos
slugged it out on the battlefield to control the notion of
Christ out of which millions died.
Both your vicious pagan religions are condemned eternally!!
PeterT
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:nefj84ho2e0autue4...@4ax.com...
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** The RC Jesus-God's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
Coincidence?
•R. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** Duke is quite unlikely to see the light at this point since he long
ago swallowed the one true church's constructs hook, line, and sinker.
>
> This is what the original followers of Christ had to say about your
> disgusting
> rite of holy communion and this extract brings new meaning to this link to
> the
> pope drinking Jesus' blood.
>
> "The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and covered in gold
> ornaments, precious stones, and pearls.(depicts the CC and the papal
> charade perfectly).
** Sounds a bit like the papal tiarra.
>In her hand she held a cup full of obscene and
> filthy things , (chalice of holy communion) the result of her immorality.
> (early Pauline Christians drinking blood and ritual cannibalism acts of
> indecency as were widely practiced in the Catacombs) On her
> forehead was written a name which had a secrete meaning: Great
> Babylon the Mother of all prostitutes and perverts in the world.
> (the secrete meaning is this old evolved evil blood cult the CC ..
> which actually began even before Babylon). And I saw the woman
> was drunk with the blood of God's people and the blood of
> those who were killed because they were loyal to Jesus. (this depicts
> the violent slaughter of Jesus original followers by the Pauls blood cults
> and the subsequent history of the Roman catholic Church who with its
> proxies and murdered and maimed millions of innocent human beings
> for no other reasons that they refused to follow the false prophet
> of the Roman catholic Church and Roman pontiff)
>
> Speaks volume eh??
>
** Indeed PeterT
•R. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** Nothing hurts as much as the awful truth.
> You must understand that Roman Christians are witnessing their
> exposed and dying religion so they will understandably mould
> facts into whatever shape they need to preserve their unholy alliance
> with devilishness. It was not so long ago that these same people were
> using scripture and the honour of Christ to justify mass murder, war
> and pillage, for no other reasons that to preserve their pagan church.
** Self-preservation has no reservation,
> However, we are living in exciting times and are witnessing the slaying
> of the Christian dragon- beast!
>
> Rest assured you honour Christ who refutes the Christian abomination.
>
> <reaches over and gives Measure a good hug>
>
> PeterT
>
cheers PeterT
> REVELATIONS FACTS BEHIND CATHOLIC HOLY COMMUNION
>
> "The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and covered in gold
> ornaments, precious stones, and pearls.(depicts the CC and the papal
> charade perfectly). In her hand she held a cup full of obscene and
> filthy things , (chalice of holy communion) the result of her immorality.
> (early Pauline Christians drinking blood and ritual cannibalism acts of
> indecency as were widely practiced in the Catacombs) On her
> forehead was written a name which had a secrete meaning: Great
> Babylon the Mother of all prostitutes and perverts in the world.
> (the secrete meaning is this old evolved evil blood cult the CC ..
> which actually began even before Babylon). And I saw the woman
> was drunk with the blood of God's people and the blood of
> those who were killed because they were loyal to Jesus. (this depicts
> the violent slaughter of Jesus original followers by the Pauls blood cults
> and the subsequent history of the Roman catholic Church who with its
> proxies and murdered and maimed millions of innocent human beings
> for no other reasons that they refused to follow the false prophet
> of the Roman catholic Church and Roman pontiff)
>
> Cathoholics claim they are drinking Jesus' blood so lets cut to the
> chase then!!!!
>
>
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Popeandsatanimage2.jpg
>
>
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/ratzinger-pope-drippingblood1.jpg
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
•R. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ".R. L. Measures" <r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> news:r-2607080...@10.0.1.199...
> > In article
> > <a248e48d-0a59-4f10...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roger
> >
>
> People such as Duke, Bambo and the deluded twit Pearse are simply
> desperate spiritual adulterers
** Now there's a new one.
>trying to forcibly hold up a decayed theology
> which
> has no basis in Christ or history...you clearly evaluate truth through
> some "secrete understanding" you possess as the results of your previous
> life efforts and are to be commended.
>
> PeterT
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
>Love it when the Christian family thug it out in support of their
>varying gobbledegook. It was not that long ago when cathos and protos
>slugged it out on the battlefield to control the notion of
>Christ out of which millions died.
>
>Both your vicious pagan religions are condemned eternally!!
Can't be. Christ said his Church would last for all times.
bam
That you & Peter Terry are full of donkey dust? Nope. Quite commonplace
among anti-Catholics.
BAM
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** The birthdays are as stated.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jul 23, 1:52 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
> >> >and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
> >> >the wine.
> >> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
> >Jesus Christ at the Last Supper with His disciples before His betrayal
> >and subsequent crucifixion followed by His resurrection after three
> >days,
> >told His disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine
> >***in remembrance of Him***.
>
> Body and this IS my Blood".
>
actually eating my body and drinking my blood. That would be
cannibalism.
And Jesus also said, "I am the Door of the sheep".
Was He a wooden door? No.
In fact sheepfolds didn't have doors. The shepherd sat in the opening
after all the sheep had gone in and any person or animal who wanted to
attack the sheep had to contend with the shepherd first. Jesus spoke
in metaphorical language.
Jesus was likening His ministry to that of His being a door.
> Yes, he said "do this in remembrance of me". But what do the words mean:
>
> 1. A commeration only.
> 2. A meal of bread and wine only?
> 3. **You people** raise the bread and wine and declare them to be my Body and
> Blood like I'm teaching you tonight.
> 4. Sit at a square table and under a roof.
>
> Which one(s) is/are his words limited to, if any?
He was speaking metaphorically.
He also said:
"I am the Light of the World"
"I am the way, the truth and the life".
"I am the vine".
"I am the Bread of Life".
It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
and blood of Jesus Christ?
Why did it take so long?
snip> I will come back later to the next section.
Gladys Swager
Roger Pearse
Enough said.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse
> The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
Evidence?
theo
Take your pick.
The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
was called “the light of the world.” After teaching for 36 years, he
ascended into heaven in 208 bc. ...
www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/romanempire.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
- Note this
The Surprising Origin of CHRISTMAS!But December 25 was the "birthday"
of the son-god, Mithra, a pagan deity whose ... This date was,
however, the birthday of MITHRA, and SOL INVICTUS, ...
www.hope-of-israel.org/christ~3.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages -
Note this
mithrasIt is the birth date of Mithra taken over from the Romans who
were celebrating this date as the 'birthday of Mithras'. Romans
worshipped Mithras as the ...
www.geocities.com/spenta_mainyu_2/mithras.htm - 47k - Cached - Similar
pages - Note this
Pagan Gods Copied From Christianity???Adopting the birthday/holiday of
a pagan God like Mithra as the birthday of Jesus in order to, as this
Christian asserts, "coordinate Christianity with the ...
www.geocities.com/b_r_a_d_99/pagangods.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar
pages - Note this
European Centre For Zoroastrian StudiesBut when Christianity spread,
the priests, since could not stop the practice of celebrating Mithra's
birthday on December the 25th. declared this day as ...
www.gatha.org/en/yalda-en.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages - Note
this
Iran Chamber Society: Religions of Iran: Mithraism, it's
Influence ...Because of the parallel presence of the two powerful
religious establishments December 25, which was Mithra's Birthday,
became Christ's Birthday. ...
www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/mithraism_influence_on_christianity.php
- 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Solstice Celebrations - Mithras and Dies Natalis Solis InvictiDecember
25 was Mithras' birthday before it was Jesus'. The Online Mithraic
Faith Newsletter [no longer available] says: "Since earliest history,
the Sun ...
ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm - 23k - Cached -
Similar pages - Note this
Cheers
Theo
•R. L. Measures
<a6039127-0670-40e7...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jul, 15:02, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a248e48d-0a59-4f10-804f-baeeb73dd...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roge=
> r
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 26 Jul, 00:12, 2...@vc.net (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <6984255b-e1eb-4ae8-984f-13e484a03...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, =
> Roge=3D
> > > r
> >
> > > > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 25 Jul, 14:00, 2...@vc.net (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <ba29c1cb-fbf6-44cc-b09e-bdffc0b85...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.co=
> m>, =3D
> > > Roge=3D3D
> > > > > r
> >
> > > > > > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 24 Jul, 10:26, 2...@vc.net (=3D3D3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > You are presuming that the gospels account of the Last Supp=
> er i=3D
> > > s fa=3D3D
> > > > > ctua=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > l,
> > > > > > > > > however most thinking theologians know that the gospels wer=
> e do=3D
> > > ctor=3D3D
> > > > > ed
> > > > > > > > > to give Jesus the same image as the father of your Roman Ch=
> rist=3D
> > > iani=3D3D
> > > > > ty, =3D3D3D
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > blood curdling freakMithras.
> >
> > > > > > > Perhaps we might have a list of these "thinking theologians". =
> =3D3DA0=3D
> > > Most
> > > > > > > educated people and all scholars know different.
> >
> > > > > > > > ** =3D3DA0Mithras had multiple personalities, ...
> >
> > > > > > > No ancient text records this.
> >
> > > > > > =3D3D95 =3D3DA0Modern history books mention it. =3D3DA0Example: =
> =3D3DA0
> > > > > > The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature, New Yo=
> rk, =3D
> > > 1998=3D3D
> > > > > .
> > > > > > M. Boyce. =3D3DA0If you Google it you will discover more. =3D3DA0=
> Cheers R=3D
> > > oger
> >
> > > > > So you say. =3DA0But this is clearly Persian Mitra. =3DA0Quite how =
> this
> > > > > relates to Roman Mithras, you don't explain. =3DA0Nor do I suppose =
> that
> > > > > you have even read this.
> >
> > > > ** No such luck. =3DA0Persian Mithraism was brought to Rome in 68B.C.=
> by
> > > > P.O.W. Mediterranean pirates that the Roman Navy had captured. =3DA0
> >
> > > No ancient source records this; no evidence of Zoroastrianism in
> > > Mithras exists either.
> >
> > > Since the archaeology shows that Mithras did not exist prior to 50 AD,
> > > the reference to Mithras among Cilician pirates in Plutarch (ca 100AD)
> > > is considered by scholar such as Manfred Clauss as a mistake for
> > > Perseus.
> >
> > ** =A0- recalcitrance - adj, (insults)
>
> Enough said.
>
> All the best,
>
> Roger Pearse
** cheers Roger
"Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the Unknown
Past."
- - historian John Acton
•R. L. Measures
<d6e5374d-851f-4ce7...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
>
> Evidence?
** Google it.
•R. L. Measures
<08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, theo
<th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 6:20=A0pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Take your pick.
>
** Thanks Theo. cheers
>
> The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
> was called =93the light of the world.=94 After teaching for 36 years, he
> www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/mithraism_influence_on_christianity.=
> php
> - 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
>
> Solstice Celebrations - Mithras and Dies Natalis Solis InvictiDecember
> 25 was Mithras' birthday before it was Jesus'. The Online Mithraic
> Faith Newsletter [no longer available] says: "Since earliest history,
> the Sun ...
> ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm - 23k - Cached -
> Similar pages - Note this
>
> Cheers
> Theo
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Tim
> Popes Sydney communion
>
> http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Po...
>
> "Peter Terry" <momba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vekgk.20915$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
> > Message from Jesus:
>
> >http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Je...
>
> > Its a question of mistaken identity given that the Jesus worshiped by
> > Christianity
>
> > is actually Mithras, the Roman god-king, from which many of the pagan
> > pageants
>
> > and rituals practiced by the Catholic systems originated- including the
>
> > primitive and barbaric practice of transubstantiation..ie human sacrifice
> > and blood drinking.
>
> > The Panzer Pope drinking Jesus' blood
>
> >http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/Je...
>
> > Pope drinking blood
>
> >http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i138/nambas/Christs%20revelation/ra...
>
> > Throughout the history of the Catholic Church it has displaced, maimed
>
> > and murdered tens of millions of innocent people only because they refused
>
> > to curtail and worship the image of the Roman pontiff. The facts remain
>
> > that popes of old led armies, made love and war, conspired for power,
>
> > and armed themselves with techniques of assassination and seduction,
>
> > while clothed with the authority of the church and in Jesus' name.
>
> > This modern crop of Popes, Bishops, Priests, nuns and brothers
>
> > are actual reincarnations- rebirths, of the ancient mob whose crimes
>
> > against the innocent and humanity are unprecedented!
>
> > PeterT
>
> > Revelations: Then I heard a voice from Heaven saying ,
>
> > "Come out my people- come out of her!
>
> > You must not take part of her sins:
>
>
> > For her sins are pilled up as high as Heaven,
>
> > and God remembers her wicked ways.
>
> > Treat her exactly as she has treated you;
>
> > pay her back double for what she has done.Fill her cup with a drink
>
> > as strong as the drink she has prepared for you.
>
> > Give her as much suffering and grief as the glory and luxury
>
> > she gave herself.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gay
duke
>On Jul 25, 10:08 pm, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>> >On Jul 23, 1:52 am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
>> >> >and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
>> >> >the wine.
>> >> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
>> >Jesus Christ at the Last Supper with His disciples before His betrayal
>> >and subsequent crucifixion followed by His resurrection after three
>> >days,
>> >told His disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine
>> >***in remembrance of Him***.
>>
>> He also clearly stated as he raised bread and wine to the Father "This IS my
>> Body and this IS my Blood".
>He did not say you and Christians throughout the centuries will be
>actually eating my body and drinking my blood. That would be
>cannibalism.
Well, you're not familiar with Melchizedek, are you?
>And Jesus also said, "I am the Door of the sheep".
>Was He a wooden door? No.
Not a wooden door, but a door to heaven, yes - in fact, he's the only door to
heaven.
>In fact sheepfolds didn't have doors. The shepherd sat in the opening
>after all the sheep had gone in and any person or animal who wanted to
>attack the sheep had to contend with the shepherd first. Jesus spoke
>in metaphorical language.
Yet he SHOWED us the Holy Eucharist.
>Jesus was likening His ministry to that of His being a door.
He is truly the only way to the Father. THAT............is a door.
>> Yes, he said "do this in remembrance of me". But what do the words mean:
>> 1. A commeration only.
>> 2. A meal of bread and wine only?
>> 3. **You people** raise the bread and wine and declare them to be my Body and
>> Blood like I'm teaching you tonight.
>> 4. Sit at a square table and under a roof.
>> Which one(s) is/are his words limited to, if any?
>He was speaking metaphorically.
>He also said:
>"I am the Light of the World"
That's right - coming out of the darkness of sin.
>"I am the way, the truth and the life".
Yep, it's his way or the highway.
>"I am the vine".
We are the branches.
>"I am the Bread of Life".
Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you.
>It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
>the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
>and blood of Jesus Christ?
>Why did it take so long?
Only the name. Paul was doing this in 1Cor 11:17-34
>snip> I will come back later to the next section.
>Gladys Swager
Well, bring back some true knowledge with you.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Jul 28, 6:20 pm, Roger Pearse wrote:
> > On 27 Jul, 10:33, wrote:
>
> > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
>
> was called “the light of the world.” After teaching for 36 years, he
> ascended into heaven in 208 bc.
pages
> - Note this
> The Surprising Origin of CHRISTMAS! But December 25 was the "birthday"
> of the son-god, Mithra, a pagan deity whose ... This date was,
> however, the birthday of MITHRA, and SOL INVICTUS,
> Note this
>
> mithrasIt is the birth date of Mithra taken over from the Romans who
> were celebrating this date as the 'birthday of Mithras'. Romans
> worshipped Mithras as the
Similar
> pages - Note this
> Pagan Gods Copied From Christianity???
> Adopting the birthday/holiday of a pagan God like Mithra as the birthday of
> Jesus in order to, as this Christian asserts, "coordinate Christianity with the
> pages - Note this
> European Centre For Zoroastrian StudiesBut when Christianity spread,
> the priests, since could not stop the practice of celebrating Mithra's
> birthday on December the 25th. declared this day
> as
> this
> Iran Chamber Society: Religions of Iran: Mithraism, it's
> Influence ...Because of the parallel presence of the two powerful
> religious establishments December 25, which was Mithra's Birthday,
> became Christ's Birthday.
...www.iranchamber.com/religions/articles/
> - 19k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
> Solstice Celebrations - Mithras and Dies Natalis Solis InvictiDecember
> 25 was Mithras' birthday before it was Jesus'. The Online Mithraic
> Faith Newsletter [no longer available] says: "Since earliest history,
> the Sun ...
> ancienthistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa122397b.htm - 23k - Cached -
> Similar pages - Note this
>
instead of the Sun Festival,
(my thoughts are that they may not have known the actual date of the
birth of Jesus as such days may not have been celebrated in Palestine
- but that may be incorrect) -
the fact is the Christians chose to celebrate the the birth of Christ
on that date. which was either on or very close to the Winter Soltice
- ie the time when the earth began to turn towards the sun giving
longer and warmer days of spring and subsequently summer.
That was appropriate as the birth of Jesus Christ brought in a new era
of human's relationship with God through His teaching and especially
His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven for all who put
their faith in Him. .
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jul 25, 10:08 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >> >On Jul 23, 1:52 am, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> >> >The Roman Catholic Church has claimed that in the Mass members eat
> >> >> >and drink Christ's blood as He is physically present in the bread and
> >> >> >the wine.
> >> >> We do exactly what Christ told us to do at the Last Supper.
> >> >Jesus Christ at the Last Supper with His disciples before His betrayal
> >> >and subsequent crucifixion followed by His resurrection after three
> >> >days,
> >> >told His disciples to eat of the bread and drink of the wine
> >> >***in remembrance of Him***.
>
> >> He also clearly stated as he raised bread and wine to the Father "This IS my
> >> Body and this IS my Blood".
> >He did not say you and Christians throughout the centuries will be
> >actually eating my body and drinking my blood. That would be
> >cannibalism.
>
> Well, you're not familiar with Melchizedek, are you?
>
A little. He is mentioned in Hebrew 5, 6 and 7. I have read that
Melchizedek was a Christophany = an appearance of Christ in the Old
Testment similar to a Theophany = an appearance of God to the
Israelites.
> >And Jesus also said, "I am the Door of the sheep".
> >Was He a wooden door? No.
>
> Not a wooden door, but a door to heaven, yes - in fact, he's the only door to
> heaven.
He was using a metaphor to explain an eternal truth.
> >In fact sheepfolds didn't have doors. The shepherd sat in the opening
> >after all the sheep had gone in and any person or animal who wanted to
> >attack the sheep had to contend with the shepherd first. Jesus spoke
> >in metaphorical language.
>
> Yet he SHOWED us the Holy Eucharist.
>
Holy Eucharist is not a Biblical phrase. In Protestant churches the
tern is either
'Lord's Supper' or 'Holy Communion' - the first is closer to the New
Testament phrase 'Last Supper', but surely, within reason, it is not
the name that is used.
Are you implying tha tunless Protestants accept the phrase and the
meaning
ie transubstantiation - partaking of Christ's ***actual, physical
body*** that they have not received Christ and His salvation by faith.
If you do, I don't believe you.
I've even conjectured that the use of the term Transubstantiation =
the actual presence of Jesus was used to ensure that members would
attend church very regularly to make sure they received the oral
teaching that was necessary in an relatively illiterate age and with
few or no Bibles available for the laity orm if available, they were
in the Latin language, not the vernacular of the people. .
> >Jesus was likening His ministry to that of His being a door.
>
> He is truly the only way to the Father. THAT............is a door.
>
<snip>
> >He was speaking metaphorically.
> >He also said:
> >"I am the Light of the World"
>
> That's right - coming out of the darkness of sin.
>
> >"I am the way, the truth and the life".
>
> Yep, it's his way or the highway.
>
> >"I am the vine".
>
> We are the branches.
>
It doesn't mean that we are stems of the grape vine with leaves
attached.
Jesus was likening those who put their faith in Him to the branches as
part of the vine = we in Him as He is in us.
> >"I am the Bread of Life".
>
> Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you.
>
That comes back to the 'works' situation. We are saved by faith, not
by the works that we do.
As well, what you are implying that all Christians through the century
who did not believe those words of Jesus to be literal were/are, in
the doctrines of the Vatican had to in the past or will in the future
spend more time in purgatory or will be consigned straight to hell. I
do not believe you if that's the way you believe.
> >It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
> >the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
> >and blood of Jesus Christ?
> >Why did it take so long?
>
> Only the name. Paul was doing this in 1Cor 11:17-34
>
Those verses do not read that way to me.
Well, bring back some true knowledge with you.
>
You believe that you and those who accept the teachings of the Church
at Rome are the only ones who have true knowledge on this matter.
I don't believe you.
That is part of the arrogance of the Church at Rome that was displayed
in Sydney during World Youth Week at a massive cost when there are
many needy children in the world.
And don't let the Church at Rome tell us that they will bring about
better behaviours in children as was stated in a radio news report..
We used to have those better behaviours until the secular
Psychologists and the politicians of the Labour Party incorrectly
implemented their policy of the non-physical punishment of all
children.
I haven't proof-read all of this. Hope it is correct.
Gladys Swager
bam
"theo" <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
>
> Evidence?
>Take your pick.
Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
BAM
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "theo" <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 6:20 pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> >Take your pick.
>
> Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
>
> BAM
• Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December long before the birth
of Jesus of Nazareth.
Roger Pearse
> On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
>
> > Evidence?
>
> Take your pick.
>
> The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
> was called “the light of the world.” After teaching for 36 years, he
> ascended into heaven in 208 bc. ...www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/romanempire.html-
Assertions on web pages are not evidence, I'm afraid. You note that
none of these urls offer any ancient evidence for their claims?
That's because it's a legend.
Roger Pearse
> In article <yXsjk.224$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
>
> > "theo" <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December.
>
> > > Evidence?
>
> > >Take your pick.
>
> > Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
>
> > BAM
>
> • Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December long before the birth
> of Jesus of Nazareth.
Evidence? And no, I don't mean some web page. Ancient evidence
please.
Roger Pearse
•R. L. Measures
<9eea2b6e-0e02-4fa2...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jul, 01:00, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <yXsjk.224$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
> >
> > <mcca5b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > "theo" <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> > >news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com..=
> .
> > > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December=
> .
> >
> > > > Evidence?
> >
> > > >Take your pick.
> >
> > > Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
> >
> > > BAM
> >
> > =95 =A0Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December long before the bi=
> rth
> > of Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> Evidence? And no, I don't mean some web page. Ancient evidence
> please.
>
** The books weren't good enough Roger?
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so."
ã Mark Twain
duke
>> >He did not say you and Christians throughout the centuries will be
>> >actually eating my body and drinking my blood. That would be
>> >cannibalism.
>> Well, you're not familiar with Melchizedek, are you?
>A little. He is mentioned in Hebrew 5, 6 and 7. I have read that
>Melchizedek was a Christophany = an appearance of Christ in the Old
>Testment similar to a Theophany = an appearance of God to the
>Israelites.
And what did Mel introduce to the Hebrews?
>> >And Jesus also said, "I am the Door of the sheep".
>> >Was He a wooden door? No.
>> Not a wooden door, but a door to heaven, yes - in fact, he's the only door to
>> heaven.
>He was using a metaphor to explain an eternal truth.
He's still the door. His blood was spread on the arm of the cross and the
animal blood spread on the doorsill of the door on the Passover.
>> >In fact sheepfolds didn't have doors. The shepherd sat in the opening
>> >after all the sheep had gone in and any person or animal who wanted to
>> >attack the sheep had to contend with the shepherd first. Jesus spoke
>> >in metaphorical language.
>> Yet he SHOWED us the Holy Eucharist.
>Holy Eucharist is not a Biblical phrase. In Protestant churches the
>tern is either 'Lord's Supper' or 'Holy Communion' - the first is closer to the New
>Testament phrase 'Last Supper', but surely, within reason, it is not
>the name that is used.
Eucharist is Greek for spiritual meal.
>Are you implying tha tunless Protestants accept the phrase and the
>meaning transubstantiation - partaking of Christ's ***actual, physical
>body*** that they have not received Christ and His salvation by faith.
>If you do, I don't believe you.
At the last supper, Christ raised the substance of unleavened bread and
naturally fermented wine to his Father, and said "This is my Body and Blood". He
specifically said "do THIS in memory of me."
Why do you reject the words of Christ?
Now. As far as your protest_er friends are concerned, they and their teachers
and their teacher's teachers going back to the Reformation rejected this action.
So when you sit down to your bread and grape juice, it has not been consecrated
into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.
So you and your protest_ants friends are enjoying a remembrance meal, but not
one in which the substance has been changed by God into the Body an dBlood of
God. Not my fault - your friends did it.
>I've even conjectured that the use of the term Transubstantiation =
>the actual presence of Jesus was used to ensure that members would
>attend church very regularly to make sure they received the oral
>teaching that was necessary in an relatively illiterate age and with
>few or no Bibles available for the laity orm if available, they were
>in the Latin language, not the vernacular of the people. .
You conjectured wrong.
>> >Jesus was likening His ministry to that of His being a door.
>> He is truly the only way to the Father. THAT............is a door.
><snip>
>> >He was speaking metaphorically.
>> >He also said:
>> >"I am the Light of the World"
>> That's right - coming out of the darkness of sin.
>> >"I am the way, the truth and the life".
>> Yep, it's his way or the highway.
>> >"I am the vine".
>> We are the branches.
>It doesn't mean that we are stems of the grape vine with leaves
>attached.
He didn't say he was a grape vine. He said he is the vine, or the central
figure in growth to God.
>Jesus was likening those who put their faith in Him to the branches as
>part of the vine = we in Him as He is in us.
>> >"I am the Bread of Life".
>> Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you have no life in you.
>That comes back to the 'works' situation. We are saved by faith, not
>by the works that we do.
God said in James 2:26 said that "faith without deeds is dead faith".
>As well, what you are implying that all Christians through the century
>who did not believe those words of Jesus to be literal were/are, in
>the doctrines of the Vatican had to in the past or will in the future
>spend more time in purgatory or will be consigned straight to hell. I
>do not believe you if that's the way you believe.
It's easiest to just say no.
>> >It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
>> >the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
>> >and blood of Jesus Christ?
>> >Why did it take so long?
>> Only the name. Paul was doing this in 1Cor 11:17-34
>Those verses do not read that way to me.
They do to the Roman Catholic Chruch. It's also historical for 2000 years now.
> Well, bring back some true knowledge with you.
Unless you know the history of the people and they way they thought, you can
never understand scripture. For it is not one verse here and there that counts,
but the entirety of the written and vocal word that describes God.
>That is part of the arrogance of the Church at Rome that was displayed
>in Sydney during World Youth Week at a massive cost when there are
>many needy children in the world.
Give up your expensive internet account and your computer so you can give the
money to the hungry.
>And don't let the Church at Rome tell us that they will bring about
>better behaviours in children as was stated in a radio news report..
> We used to have those better behaviours until the secular
>Psychologists and the politicians of the Labour Party incorrectly
>implemented their policy of the non-physical punishment of all
>children.
>I haven't proof-read all of this. Hope it is correct.
Don't worry. Much of what you said was in error unfortunately.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>
> >> Well, you're not familiar with Melchizedek, are you?
> >A little. He is mentioned in Hebrew 5, 6 and 7. I have read that
> >Melchizedek was a Christophany = an appearance of Christ in the Old
> >Testment similar to a Theophany = an appearance of God to the
> >Israelites.
>
Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
God through
His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
unmerited by us..
<snip>
> >Are you implying that unless Protestants accept the phrase and the
> >meaning transubstantiation - partaking of Christ's ***actual, physical
> >body*** that they have not received Christ and His salvation by faith.
> >If you do, I don't believe you.
>
> At the last supper, Christ raised the substance of unleavened bread and
> naturally fermented wine to his Father, and said "This is my Body and Blood". He specifically said "do THIS in memory of me."
>
> Why do you reject the words of Christ?
>
I am not rejecting the words of Jesus Christ.
I am rejecting the meaning that the Church at Rome has given them.
> Now. As far as your protest_er friends are concerned, they and their teachers
> and their teacher's teachers going back to the Reformation rejected this action.
> So when you sit down to your bread and grape juice, it has not been
> consecrated into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.
> So you and your protest_ants friends are enjoying a remembrance meal, but
> not one in which the substance has been changed by God into the Body and > Blood of God. Not my fault - your friends did it.
>
You mean that Jesus comes down from Heaven and changes Himself into as
many Christs as there are communicants in the church and some more for
use during the week. That is not what Jesus meant. It is what the
Church at Rome has determined.
It means that certain persons only are 'the priesthood' when Peter (1
Peter 2 : 5, 9) names the Christians to whom he was writing as 'a
holy, royal priesthood.'
The same thing happens with the word 'saint'. All Christians are
saints, but the church at Rome specifies certain persons with that
name so it would seem that those in the Church at Rome are more
saintly than others.
(In consideration of the above, Mary McKillop, when she does come to
be canonised by the Vatican, actually won't be Australia's first
saint, as Biblically Rev Richard Johnson, the Church of England
chaplain with the First Fleet and all the Christians in that company
were/are Australia's first saints.
<snip>
> >Jesus was likening those who put their faith in Him to the branches as
> >part of the vine = we in Him as He is in us.
> >.... We are saved by faith, not by the works that we do.
>
> God said in James 2:26 said that "faith without deeds is dead faith".
>
And Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 states that we are saved through faith ... not
by works.
The Vatican teaches 'Faith + works'.
The Protestant view is 'Faith alone in Jesus Christ for salvation and
the gift of Eternal Life and then good works should follow'.
>As well, what you are implying that all Christians through the
centuries
> >who did not believe those words of Jesus to be literal were/are, in
> >the doctrines of the Vatican had to in the past or will in the future
> >spend more time in purgatory or will be consigned straight to hell. I
> >do not believe you if that's the way you believe.
>
> It's easiest to just say no.
>
No! They were all deluded! - is that what you mean?.
> >> >It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
> >> >the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
> >> >and blood of Jesus Christ?
> >> >Why did it take so long?
> >> Only the name. Paul was doing this in 1Cor 11:17-34
> >Those verses do not read that way to me.
>
> They do to the Roman Catholic Church. It's also historical for 2000 years now.
>
So for more than twelve hundred years 'Transubstantiation' was not
emphasised, but from then it was taught as Doctrine. John Wycliffe, a
priest of the Church at Rome. complained and after His death other
rpriests dug up his bones and burnt them to ashes. I wonder if he had
been still living whether he would have been burnt at the stake.
> > Well, bring back some true knowledge with you.
>
It is only wht you teach that you claim to be true knowledge.
> Unless you know the history of the people and they way they thought, you can
> never understand scripture. For it is not one verse here and there that counts,
> but the entirety of the written and vocal word that describes God.
>
It is not basically what the peoples of Biblical times thought. Tthe
teaching that has been given in the New Testament is most vital.
The fact is Rome added heresies and traditions from about 300AD and
various times to 1950AD. Until they are removed there should not be
any unity, and even if there should come unity within Christendom it
should not be under the Vatican, Convert that 2 km square of buildings
into a Museum of all that should not have been added to the Christian
faith.
Do away with the terms 'Papacy', 'Popes', 'Indulgences', 'Purgatory'.
'Mother of God' and others. Let priests marry as the disciples were,
and let there be the priesthood of all believers as Peter stated.
Ignorance, culperability of error is with the Vatican in some of its
doctrines.
It needs a reformation, not massive Youth Weeks.
Gladys Swager
theo
Head, bucket, sand.
Theo
bam
Indeed.
BAM
•R. L. Measures
<bb0ec30d-d9a3-483c...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, theo
<th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 5:47=A0pm, Roger Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 28 Jul, 11:56, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 28, 6:20=A0pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December=
> .
> >
> > > > Evidence?
> >
> > > Take your pick.
> >
> > > The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
> > > was called =93the light of the world.=94 After teaching for 36 years, h=
> e
> > > ascended into heaven in 208 bc. ...www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/romanempire.h=
> tml-
> > >(etc)
> >
> > Assertions on web pages are not evidence, I'm afraid. =A0 You note that
> > none of these urls offer any ancient evidence for their claims?
> > That's because it's a legend.
>
> Head, bucket, sand.
>
> Theo
** Indeed Theo.
Roger Pearse
You perhaps suppose that I am as ignorant as the posters of those
pages? I'm not. I went and looked for sources, talked to Solar
scholars, etc.
But don't take my word for it. Why not check it for yourself?
Roger Pearse
>
>
>
>
>
> Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 29 Jul, 01:00, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > In article <yXsjk.224$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
>
> > > <mcca5b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > "theo" <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> > > >news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com..=
> > .
> > > > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> > > > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 December=
> > .
>
> > > > > Evidence?
>
> > > > >Take your pick.
>
> > > > Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
>
> > > > BAM
>
> > > =95 =A0Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December long before the bi=
> > rth
> > > of Jesus of Nazareth.
>
> > Evidence? And no, I don't mean some web page. Ancient evidence
> > please.
>
> ** The books weren't good enough Roger?
Which ancient books might those be?
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** Amen B______. Another one I like is:
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him thrive, He shouldn't bite --
and this is a major difference between dog and man."
- - Mark Twain - a.k.a. Sam Clemens
•R. L. Measures
<2efdbd17-e3ff-4db2...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 29 Jul, 14:48, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <9eea2b6e-0e02-4fa2-934d-cbbb6e649...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul, 01:00, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article <yXsjk.224$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
> >
> > > > <mcca5b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > "theo" <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > >news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.c=
> om..=3D
> > > .
> > > > > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 Dece=
> mber=3D
> > > .
> >
> > > > > > Evidence?
> >
> > > > > >Take your pick.
> >
> > > > > Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
> >
> > > > > BAM
> >
> > > > =3D95 =3DA0Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December long befor=
> e the bi=3D
> > > rth
> > > > of Jesus of Nazareth.
> >
> > > Evidence? =A0And no, I don't mean some web page. =A0Ancient evidence
> > > please.
> >
> > ** =A0The books weren't good enough Roger?
>
> Which ancient books might those be?
** Are all "ancient books" true?
Roger Pearse
No answer then? No evidence? I don't think it needs any further
comment from me, then.
Roger Pearse
•R. L. Measures
<15fa19eb-b6e0-456a...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Roger
Pearse <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jul, 09:25, r...@somis.org (=95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <2efdbd17-e3ff-4db2-ba1b-40eebd0db...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Roge=
> r
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pearse <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 29 Jul, 14:48, r...@somis.org (=3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <9eea2b6e-0e02-4fa2-934d-cbbb6e649...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,Ro=
> ger
> >
> > > > Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 29 Jul, 01:00, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > > > > > In article <yXsjk.224$rD2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, "bam"
> >
> > > > > > <mcca5b...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > "theo" <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > > >news:08094a2f-d072-4214...@r15g2000prd.googlegrou=
> ps.c=3D
> > > om..=3D3D
> > > > > .
> > > > > > > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wr=
> ote:
> > > > > > > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (=3D3D95R. L. Measures) wrot=
> e:
> >
> > > > > > > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25 =
> Dece=3D
> > > mber=3D3D
> > > > > .
> >
> > > > > > > > Evidence?
> >
> > > > > > > >Take your pick.
> >
> > > > > > > Wow! Thanks for the ancient sources. When was the first? 1990?
> >
> > > > > > > BAM
> >
> > > > > > =3D3D95 =3D3DA0Mithra's birthday was celebrated on 25 December lo=
> ng befor=3D
> > > e the bi=3D3D
> > > > > rth
> > > > > > of Jesus of Nazareth.
> >
> > > > > Evidence? =3DA0And no, I don't mean some web page. =3DA0Ancient evi=
> dence
> > > > > please.
> >
> > > > ** =3DA0The books weren't good enough Roger?
> >
> > > Which ancient books might those be?
> >
> > ** =A0Are all "ancient books" true?
>
> No answer then? No evidence? I don't think it needs any further
> comment from me, then.
>
> Roger Pearse
** Denial of reality, the greatest human malady.
duke
>On Jul 30, 3:04 am, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> Well, you're not familiar with Melchizedek, are you?
>
>> >A little. He is mentioned in Hebrew 5, 6 and 7. I have read that
>> >Melchizedek was a Christophany = an appearance of Christ in the Old
>> >Testment similar to a Theophany = an appearance of God to the
>> >Israelites.
>Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
>God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
>what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
>unmerited by us..
Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
>> >Are you implying that unless Protestants accept the phrase and the
>> >meaning transubstantiation - partaking of Christ's ***actual, physical
>> >body*** that they have not received Christ and His salvation by faith.
>> >If you do, I don't believe you.
>> At the last supper, Christ raised the substance of unleavened bread and
>> naturally fermented wine to his Father, and said "This is my Body and Blood". He specifically said "do THIS in memory of me."
>> Why do you reject the words of Christ?
>I am not rejecting the words of Jesus Christ.
>I am rejecting the meaning that the Church at Rome has given them.
We go by what he said. Where do you get your makeup meaning from?
>> Now. As far as your protest_er friends are concerned, they and their teachers
>> and their teacher's teachers going back to the Reformation rejected this action.
>> So when you sit down to your bread and grape juice, it has not been
>> consecrated into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.
>> So you and your protest_ants friends are enjoying a remembrance meal, but
>> not one in which the substance has been changed by God into the Body and
>> Blood of God. Not my fault - your friends did it.
>You mean that Jesus comes down from Heaven and changes Himself into as
>many Christs as there are communicants in the church and some more for
>use during the week. That is not what Jesus meant. It is what the
>Church at Rome has determined.
1. Jesus doesn't come down from heaven. He's been gone for 2000 years now.
2. The Holy Spirit does his work for him on earth until he returns.
3. How do you know what Jesus meant if not what he said?
>It means that certain persons only are 'the priesthood' when Peter (1
>Peter 2 : 5, 9) names the Christians to whom he was writing as 'a
>holy, royal priesthood.'
Christ, and the Catholic priesthood, is a priesthood on the order of
Melchizedek.
>The same thing happens with the word 'saint'. All Christians are
>saints, but the church at Rome specifies certain persons with that
>name so it would seem that those in the Church at Rome are more
>saintly than others.
Christ gave his Apostles the authority to go forward and make disciples of all
nations. Christ gave the Pope the authority to bind on earth to be so in
heaven. He declared certain people as saints now in heaven. All things that
the RCC believes that your Church doesn't is because at one point in time your
protest_ant leadership broke away and broke the chain of the laying on of hands.
>> >Jesus was likening those who put their faith in Him to the branches as
>> >part of the vine = we in Him as He is in us.
>> >.... We are saved by faith, not by the works that we do.
>> God said in James 2:26 said that "faith without deeds is dead faith".
>And Ephesians 2 : 8 - 9 states that we are saved through faith ... not
>by works.
And without letting your faith out of box and serving the least of Christ's
children (Mat 25:31-46), you have dead faith.
>The Vatican teaches 'Faith + works'.
Remember, Script does NOT say "faith alone". It says that faith without works
is dead faith.
>The Protestant view is 'Faith alone in Jesus Christ for salvation and
>the gift of Eternal Life and then good works should follow'.
But do they? You protest_ers have a horrible view of Catholics. You might say
that work without faith is dead work.
> >As well, what you are implying that all Christians through the
>centuries who did not believe those words of Jesus to be literal were/are, in
>> >the doctrines of the Vatican had to in the past or will in the future
>> >spend more time in purgatory or will be consigned straight to hell. I
>> >do not believe you if that's the way you believe.
>> It's easiest to just say no.
>No! They were all deluded! - is that what you mean?.
Study James 2:14-26 carefully. It says it all. Add Heb 10:26-27 to it.
>> >> >It was in the early Thirteenth century that the Church at Rome adopted
>> >> >the doctrine of Transubstantiation = bread and wine the actual body
>> >> >and blood of Jesus Christ?
>> >> >Why did it take so long?
>> >> Only the name. Paul was doing this in 1Cor 11:17-34
>> >Those verses do not read that way to me.
>> They do to the Roman Catholic Church. It's also historical for 2000 years now.
>So for more than twelve hundred years 'Transubstantiation' was not
>emphasised,
Nope, nobody in all those years knew how to describe the Holy Eucharist
adequately. You're free to reject Christ's words if you choose to. He clearly
said "this IS my Body and Blood". He didn't say "play like, kingsies, just
kidding", or anything else.
The critical thing is that you belong to a group that rejected this idea, moved
away from it, and now cannot offer you the "Body and Blood of Christ" that we
Catholics get.
>> > Well, bring back some true knowledge with you.
>It is only wht you teach that you claim to be true knowledge.
I'm only quoting the words of the 2000 year old RCC.
>> Unless you know the history of the people and they way they thought, you can
>> never understand scripture. For it is not one verse here and there that counts,
>> but the entirety of the written and vocal word that describes God.
>It is not basically what the peoples of Biblical times thought. Tthe
>teaching that has been given in the New Testament is most vital.
>The fact is Rome added heresies and traditions from about 300AD
No it didn't. The council at Nicea of 325AD established the creed for the
Chruch. The Council of Nicea, a gathering similar to the one described in Acts
15:4-22, condemned the beliefs of Arius and wrote the first version of the now
famous creed proclaiming that the Son was "one in being with the Father" by use
of the Greek word "homoousius."
Council of Trent
The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and
closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive
determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the
Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the
inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in
it.
>various times to 1950AD. Until they are removed there should not be
>any unity, and even if there should come unity within Christendom it
>should not be under the Vatican, Convert that 2 km square of buildings
>into a Museum of all that should not have been added to the Christian
>faith.
>Do away with the terms 'Papacy', 'Popes', 'Indulgences', 'Purgatory'.
>'Mother of God' and others. Let priests marry as the disciples were,
>and let there be the priesthood of all believers as Peter stated.
Those are all addressed in scripture. Like all protest_ers, you go ballistic
over the word rather than the action described in scripture. The only one I'm
unsure about is "indulgence".
>Ignorance, culperability of error is with the Vatican in some of its
>doctrines.
>It needs a reformation, not massive Youth Weeks.
>Gladys Swager
The youth of the world are being solidified in their faith.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>
> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
> >what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
> >unmerited by us..
>
> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
>
Ehoesians 2 : 8 - 9
For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
(our)selves:
***It is the gift of God***
Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
It can't be any plainer than that.
You say that Luther added 'alone'
ie through faith alone.
Luther was right on that, even though he continued to accept other
teachings of the Church at Rome from the indoctrinations given in his
training as a priest.
The Gift of God - poem
www.widomaker.com/~mlindell/gift_of_god.html
when you have read that
click on 'A Firm Foundation'
There is no indication of any church organisation affiliation.
I trust you will find it helpful.
<snip>
>
> >It means that certain persons only are 'the priesthood' when Peter (1
> >Peter 2 : 5, 9) names the Christians to whom he was writing as 'a
> >holy, royal priesthood.'
>
> Christ, and the Catholic priesthood, is a priesthood on the order of
> Melchizedek.
>
Those at the Vatican have taken those scriptures to refer only to
themselves.
However, their understandings are incorrect on that and other aspects
of scripture. They want to restore the authority they had prior to the
Great Schism (1054), and the Protestant Reformation (1517); in respect
of the second it was the Vatican's actions that led to that situation;
in fact their actions quite some time before 1517.
I need to reread about the Great Scism again as it is not fresh in my
mind as I did not commit my previous readings to memory. .
> >The same thing happens with the word 'saint'.
****All Christians are saints****
Read the opening verses to many of Paul's letters and not in the
Jerusalem Bible (1966) because you will find the word 'hagios'
translated as 'God's own people' very conveniently as it then leaves
the translation 'saints' as a reward designation
to members of its own organisation.
But obviously the translators of that Bible will say that other and
previous translations that do use the word 'saints' - 'had it wrong!'
But that will be just their ideas.
What is in the scriptures has the authority.
And whoever, Popes included, go against scripture, are the ones who
are the heretics.
<snip>
Gladys Swager
bam
Man you're right on this week Measures. You're starting to see yourself more
clearly.
BAM
Peter Terry
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s6so84tdk9a87h0ag...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:16:27 GMT, "Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Love it when the Christian family thug it out in support of their
>>varying gobbledegook. It was not that long ago when cathos and protos
>>slugged it out on the battlefield to control the notion of
>>Christ out of which millions died.
>>
>>Both your vicious pagan religions are condemned eternally!!
>
> Can't be. Christ said his Church would last for all times.
>
Stop telling lies....there is no mention of Christ having even formed a
Church in the strict religious sense.
Christ said that the gates of hell would not pierce his movement, yet we
know for a fact of history that adherence to the Roman Church leads
one straight to hell. Its clear hell has prevailed within Catholicism so
this proves
that the Catholic Church could NOT possibly be connected to Christ
in any way.
One must thus conclude that Christianity is the predicted false
prophet or anti-Christ...end of story!
PeterT
Peter Terry
"Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:b3d51752-b6d8-467e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
(Would someone please repost this for me as Pearse in
denial has me on ignore...such an open person to say the least.)
So you say, but without one iota of evidence to support your
position on this. You will have to do much better than simply making
unsubstantiated and wild assertions!
Seems Pearse cant get a grip on anything historical unless he finds
it written in some plagiarised copyists transcripts out of barbaric
Christian
history.
Would someone tell this denialist that Tertullians writings are mostly
Christian overlays based upon myth and assertions by unscrupulous people
driven by vested interests. No thinking person believes history
that has been brought down by antiquity via a religion whose
abhorrant history makes the likes of Hitler look like a saint.
Pearses external links supporting the Wikipedia article on Tertullian
should be removed because these have not been translated by a
qualified scholar, but buy a computer software salesman. Just because
he publishes this material on a web site does in no way authenticate
its content. RIGHT???
PeterT
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** Was it mere coincidence that Mithra and The Christ have the same day
of birth and the same holy day of the week? The odds of this happening
are 365 x 7 = 1 in 2555.
"There's one born every minute".
•R. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:s6so84tdk9a87h0ag...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:16:27 GMT, "Peter Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Love it when the Christian family thug it out in support of their
> >>varying gobbledegook. It was not that long ago when cathos and protos
> >>slugged it out on the battlefield to control the notion of
> >>Christ out of which millions died.
> >>
> >>Both your vicious pagan religions are condemned eternally!!
> >
> > Can't be. Christ said his Church would last for all times.
> >
> Stop telling lies....there is no mention of Christ having even formed a
> Church in the strict religious sense.
>
> Christ said that the gates of hell would not pierce his movement, yet we
> know for a fact of history that adherence to the Roman Church leads
> one straight to hell. Its clear hell has prevailed within Catholicism so
> this proves
> that the Catholic Church could NOT possibly be connected to Christ
> in any way.
** Peter -- For the 10% or so of altar-boys who are not hetero,
Catholicism is clearly a godsend.
>
> One must thus conclude that Christianity is the predicted false
> prophet or anti-Christ...end of story!
>
> PeterT
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
•R. L. Measures
Terry" <momb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
• Chortle.
- recalcitrance - adj.
1. Marked by stubborn resistance to and defiance of authority or guidance.
>
> Would someone tell this denialist that Tertullians writings are mostly
> Christian overlays based upon myth and assertions by unscrupulous people
> driven by vested interests. No thinking person believes history
> that has been brought down by antiquity via a religion whose
> abhorrant history makes the likes of Hitler look like a saint.
• Amen. On the cover of my Catholic Encyclopedia it says "Revised
Edition". After reading the one true church's version of its own history
I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Pearses external links supporting the Wikipedia article on Tertullian
> should be removed because these have not been translated by a
> qualified scholar, but buy a computer software salesman. Just because
> he publishes this material on a web site does in no way authenticate
> its content. RIGHT???
>
• In the mind of a recalcitrant person, only that which agrees with
him/her is authentic.
cheerz PeterT
duke
>> Can't be. Christ said his Church would last for all times.
>Stop telling lies....there is no mention of Christ having even formed a
>Church in the strict religious sense.
Yes there is. He told his Apostles to go forward and make all nations his
disciples, teaching them all that he had taught, and baptizing them in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
That's the new Church, bubba.
>Christ said that the gates of hell would not pierce his movement, yet we
>know for a fact of history that adherence to the Roman Church leads
>one straight to hell. Its clear hell has prevailed within Catholicism so
>this proves
>that the Catholic Church could NOT possibly be connected to Christ
>in any way.
>
>One must thus conclude that Christianity is the predicted false
>prophet or anti-Christ...end of story!
>
>PeterT
>
duke, American-American
duke
>On Jul 31, 2:48 am, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
>> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
>> >what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
>> >unmerited by us..
>>
>> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
>Ehoesians 2 : 8 - 9
>For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
>(our)selves:
>***It is the gift of God***
>Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
James 2:26 (New International Version)
26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
>It can't be any plainer than that.
That's right.
>You say that Luther added 'alone'
>ie through faith alone.
>Luther was right on that, even though he continued to accept other
>teachings of the Church at Rome from the indoctrinations given in his
>training as a priest.
Luther tried to rewrite scripture.
>> >It means that certain persons only are 'the priesthood' when Peter (1
>> >Peter 2 : 5, 9) names the Christians to whom he was writing as 'a
>> >holy, royal priesthood.'
>> Christ, and the Catholic priesthood, is a priesthood on the order of
>> Melchizedek.
>Those at the Vatican have taken those scriptures to refer only to
>themselves.
>However, their understandings are incorrect on that and other aspects
>of scripture.
> They want to restore the authority they had prior to the
>Great Schism (1054), and the Protestant Reformation (1517); in respect
>of the second it was the Vatican's actions that led to that situation;
>in fact their actions quite some time before 1517.
> I need to reread about the Great Scism again as it is not fresh in my
>mind as I did not commit my previous readings to memory. .
Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the Papacy
over Christ's Church. Mat 16:13-20.
> >The same thing happens with the word 'saint'.
>****All Christians are saints****
>Read the opening verses to many of Paul's letters and not in the
>Jerusalem Bible (1966) because you will find the word 'hagios'
>translated as 'God's own people' very conveniently as it then leaves
>the translation 'saints' as a reward designation
>to members of its own organisation.
>But obviously the translators of that Bible will say that other and
>previous translations that do use the word 'saints' - 'had it wrong!'
>But that will be just their ideas.
>
>What is in the scriptures has the authority.
>And whoever, Popes included, go against scripture, are the ones who
>are the heretics.
duke, American-American
•R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:50:14 -0700 (PDT), "s...@ozemail.com.au"
> <swa...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 31, 2:48 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
> >> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him,
not through
> >> >what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
> >> >unmerited by us..
> >>
> >> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
>
>
> >Ehoesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
> >(our)selves:
> >***It is the gift of God***
> >Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
>
> James 2:26 (New International Version)
> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
>
> >It can't be any plainer than that.
>
> That's right.
>
• And the pope is for damn sure right if he says black is really white.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 wrote:
> >On Jul 31, 2:48 am, duke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
> >> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
> >> >what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
> >> >unmerited by us..
>
> >> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
> >Ehoesians 2 : 8 - 9
> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
> >(our)selves:
> >***It is the gift of God***
> >Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
>
> James 2:26 (New International Version)
> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
Salvation is a gift given by God in response to faith in Jesus
Christ.
If that gift is fully understood then works (good deeds) will
follow.
But we do not have to present the evidence of works (good deeds to God
as giving merit towards salvation.
> >It can't be any plainer than that.
>
> >You say that Luther added 'alone'
> >ie through faith alone.
> >Luther was right on that, even though he continued to accept other
> >teachings of the Church at Rome from the indoctrinations given in his
> >training as a priest.
>
> Luther tried to rewrite scripture.
>
He didn't..... that is denigration by the leaders at the Vatican.
It is clearly through faith ...... It is .... not of works...
(Ephesians 2 : 9)
and certainly not the works determined by the Vatican
* believing that Jesus comes back to earth and is in the bread and
wine consecrated on the altar by the RC priest, When He ascended (Acts
2 : 11)
states He will return in the same way (visibly)
*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
(decreed 1950)
* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
Jerusalem Bible (1966)
* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
* that priests should wear special clothes and be celibate - not much
choosing allowed or has that be changed very quietly
> >> >It means that certain persons only are 'the priesthood' when Peter (1
> >> >Peter 2 : 5, 9) names the Christians to whom he was writing as 'a
> >> >holy, royal priesthood.'
> >> Christ, and the Catholic priesthood, is a priesthood on the order of
> >> Melchizedek.
> >Those at the Vatican have taken those scriptures to refer only to
> >themselves.
> >However, their understandings are incorrect on that and other aspects
> >of scripture.
> > They want to restore the authority they had prior to the
> >Great Schism (1054), and the Protestant Reformation (1517); in respect
> >of the second it was the Vatican's actions that led to that situation;
> >in fact their actions quite some time before 1517.
> > I need to reread about the Great Scism again as it is not fresh in my
> >mind as I did not commit my previous readings to memory. .
>
> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the Papacy
> over Christ's Church. Mat 16:13-20.
>
The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's curch. Peter was
the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
> > >The same thing happens with the word 'saint'.
> >****All Christians are saints****
> >Read the opening verses to many of Paul's letters and not in the
> >Jerusalem Bible (1966) because you will find the word 'hagios'
> >translated as 'God's own people' very conveniently as it then leaves
> >the translation 'saints' as a reward designation
> >to members of its own organisation.
> >But obviously the translators of that Bible will say that other and
> >previous translations that do use the word 'saints' - 'had it wrong!'
> >But that will be just their ideas.
>
> >What is in the scriptures has the authority.
> >And whoever, Popes included, go against scripture, are the ones who
> >are the heretics.
>
Gladys Swager
bam
Your question contains a false axiom.
BAM
•R. L. Measures
<mcca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
** Which is ________?
duke
But it can't be without error unless it's a matter of faith and morals.
duke
>On Jul 31, 10:31 pm, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 wrote:
>> >On Jul 31, 2:48 am, duke wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
>> >> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not through
>> >> >what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
>> >> >unmerited by us..
>>
>> >> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
>> >Ehoesians 2 : 8 - 9
>> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
>> >(our)selves:
>> >***It is the gift of God***
>> >Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
>>
>> James 2:26 (New International Version)
>> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
>Salvation is a gift given by God in response to faith in Jesus
>Christ.
>If that gift is fully understood then works (good deeds) will
>follow.
That's exactly the Catholic position.
>But we do not have to present the evidence of works (good deeds to God
>as giving merit towards salvation.
God sees, knows, and understands all without your help.
>> >It can't be any plainer than that.
>> >You say that Luther added 'alone'
>> >ie through faith alone.
>> >Luther was right on that, even though he continued to accept other
>> >teachings of the Church at Rome from the indoctrinations given in his
>> >training as a priest.
>> Luther tried to rewrite scripture.
>He didn't..... that is denigration by the leaders at the Vatican.
>It is clearly through faith ...... It is .... not of works...
>(Ephesians 2 : 9)
Luther added "...alone".
>and certainly not the works determined by the Vatican
>* believing that Jesus comes back to earth and is in the bread and
>wine consecrated on the altar by the RC priest, When He ascended (Acts
>2 : 11)
>states He will return in the same way (visibly)
Yep, he's due back one day. But nobody knows the day.
>*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
>virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
>(decreed 1950)
In Scripture.
>* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
>are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
>Jerusalem Bible (1966)
Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
>* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
>indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
>* that priests should wear special clothes and be celibate - not much
>choosing allowed or has that be changed very quietly
Should they wear 3-piece suits and have slick back well groomed hair?
>> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the Papacy
>> over Christ's Church. Mat 16:13-20.
>The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's curch. Peter was
>the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
Christ assigned Peter to head up his Church, the Christian Church.
•R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• and when he blunders it was retroactively only his opinion.
duke
He's never been wrong. That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
•R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• ... thanks to the power of retroactivity.
>That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
• So God was guiding him when the pope gave the green light to the
Aftican slave trade in the 16th Century? Apparently God changed his mind
about black slavery in 1895.
>
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
duke
>> >> >• And the pope is for damn sure right if he says black is really white.
>> >> But it can't be without error unless it's a matter of faith and morals.
>> >• and when he blunders it was retroactively only his opinion.
>> He's never been wrong.
>• ... thanks to the power of retroactivity.
He can't be wrong, because that would make the guiding Holy Spirit wrong. And
Godcan never be wrong.
>>That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
>• So God was guiding him when the pope gave the green light to the
>Aftican slave trade in the 16th Century? Apparently God changed his mind
>about black slavery in 1895.
No, that's not an infallible action. It must be only issues of faith and
morals.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> >On Jul 31, 10:31 pm, duke wrote:
> >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 wrote:
> >> >On Jul 31, 2:48 am, duke wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
> >> ><snip>
>
> >> >> >Jesus Christ provided the way for a renewal of our relationship with
> >> >> >God through His sacrifice for us, which we accept by faith in Him, not > >> >> >through what we do, for God gives as Eternal Life by grace, His gift,
> >> >> >unmerited by us..
>
> >> >> Please support your words with Holy Scripture.
> >> >For by grace are (we) saved, through faith; and that not of
> >> >(our)selves: ***It is the gift of God***
> >> >Not of works, lest any (wo)man should boast.
>
> >> James 2:26 (New International Version)
> >> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
> >Salvation is a gift given by God in response to faith in Jesus
> >Christ.
> >If that gift is fully understood then works (good deeds) will
> >follow.
>
> That's exactly the Catholic position.
>
> >But we do not have to present the evidence of works (good deeds to God
> >as giving merit towards salvation.
>
> God sees, knows, and understands all without your help.
>
The Roman Catholic position is
faith + works (doctrines believed and deeds done) is the basis of
salvation.
The Protestant position is that through faith ( acceptance of Christ's
work in His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven) is the
basis of salvation,
and good deeds should follow.
While the difference may appear to be minor there is much difference
in the outcomes of the two basic beliefs.
> >> >It can't be any plainer than that.
> >> >You say that Luther added 'alone'
> >> >ie through faith alone.
> >> >Luther was right on that, even though he continued to accept other
> >> >teachings of the Church at Rome from the indoctrinations given in his
> >> >training as a priest.
> >> Luther tried to rewrite scripture.
> >He didn't..... that is denigration by the leaders at the Vatican.
> >It is clearly through faith ...... It is .... not of works...
> >(Ephesians 2 : 9)
>
> Luther added "...alone".
>
Yes, but for emphasis. As we are saved through faith ...***not*** of
works
as the text given above, for clarity He could say 'alone'
> >and certainly not the works determined by the Vatican
> >* believing that Jesus comes back to earth and is in the bread and
> >wine consecrated on the altar by the RC priest,
> > When He ascended (Acts 2 : 11), states He will return in the same way
> > (visibly)
>
But, in the Mass it is stated He has come back invisibly and is in the
bread and wine and participants must believe that. .
> Yep, he's due back one day. But nobody knows the day.
>
That has nothing to do with the daily/weekly participation in the
Mass.
> >*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
> >virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
> >(decreed 1950)
>
> In Scripture.
>
Please give me the scriptural references, as you are not convincing
me.
> >* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
> >are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
> >Jerusalem Bible (1966)
>
> Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
>
According to my knowledge it is the one now accepted by the Vatican
and, I assume, the Vatican authorised its printing in serial form to
be sold through newagents and, possibly bookstores, in the early
1980's.
> >* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
> >indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
>
> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
>
Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
> >* that priests should wear special clothes and be celibate - not much
> >choosing allowed or has that be changed very quietly
>
> Should they wear 3-piece suits and have slick back well groomed hair?
>
Not necessarily 3-piece suits, but modern men's wear, ie business
suits.
Some nuns from about 1970 wore secular - everyday - dress
> >> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the
> >> Papacy over Christ's Church.
EOC = Evangelical Orthodox Churches
Yes, over the Filoque clause (concerning the Holy Spirit) in the
Creed.
> >> Mat 16:13-20.
> >The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's church. Peter was
> >the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
>
> Christ assigned Peter to head up his Church, the Christian Church.
>
Well, if that is, as you assert, why is it that Peter has such a minor
role in the New Testament scriptures. Most of the writings come from
Paul, and even John has more writings in it than does Peter. If, as I
assume, you would assert that Peter was in Rome, why doesn't Paul
acknowledge that fact in his letter to the Romans.
Gladys Swager
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
•R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:14:35 -0700, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >> >> >• And the pope is for damn sure right if he says black is really
white.
> >> >> But it can't be without error unless it's a matter of faith and morals.
> >> >• and when he blunders it was retroactively only his opinion.
> >> He's never been wrong.
> >• ... thanks to the power of retroactivity.
>
> He can't be wrong, because that would make the guiding Holy Spirit wrong. And
> Godcan never be wrong.
>
> >>That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
>
> >• So God was guiding him when the pope gave the green light to the
> >Aftican slave trade in the 16th Century? Apparently God changed his mind
> >about black slavery in 1895.
>
> No, that's not an infallible action. It must be only issues of faith and
> morals.
>
• Are you saying that slavery is not a moral issue?
Gen. Postings
In
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,aus.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:44:05 GMT, Peter Terry wrote:
> "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:b3d51752-b6d8-467e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 30 Jul, 00:53, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 5:47 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
<accumulated blank lines only - snipped>
>>> On 28 Jul, 11:56, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (‧R. L. Measures) wrote:
>>
>>> > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25
>>> > > > December.
>>
>>> > > Evidence?
>>
>>> > Take your pick.
>>
>>> > The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
>>> > was called “the light of the world.” After teaching for 36 years, he
>>> > ascended into heaven in 208 bc.
>>> > ...www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/romanempire.html-
>>> >(etc)
>>
>>> Assertions on web pages are not evidence, I'm afraid. You note that
>>> none of these urls offer any ancient evidence for their claims?
>>> That's because it's a legend.
>>
>> Head, bucket, sand.
>
>>You perhaps suppose that I am as ignorant as the posters of those
>>pages? I'm not. I went and looked for sources, talked to Solar
>>scholars, etc.
>>
> (Would someone please repost this for me as Pearse in
> denial has me on ignore...such an open person to say the least.)
As I have no dog in this fight - done.
>
> So you say, but without one iota of evidence to support your
> position on this. You will have to do much better than simply making
> unsubstantiated and wild assertions!
>
> Seems Pearse cant get a grip on anything historical unless he finds
> it written in some plagiarised copyists transcripts out of barbaric
> Christian
> history.
>
> Would someone tell this denialist that Tertullians writings are mostly
> Christian overlays based upon myth and assertions by unscrupulous people
> driven by vested interests. No thinking person believes history
> that has been brought down by antiquity via a religion whose
> abhorrant history makes the likes of Hitler look like a saint.
>
> Pearses external links supporting the Wikipedia article on Tertullian
> should be removed because these have not been translated by a
> qualified scholar, but buy a computer software salesman. Just because
> he publishes this material on a web site does in no way authenticate
> its content. RIGHT???
>
> PeterT
Reply generated 11:48 2/8/'08. Posted whenever I get back on line.
Posted to all groups as not sure where Peter and Pearse are not talking.
I hope some-one has complied with Peter's request already.
My apoligies for both the delay and possible repitition.
Regards Lindsay
--
The similarities between people makes communication possible,
The differences between them makes it worthwhile.
e@mail ID is false - may be cloned from the top poster or spammer de jour.
Thanks to Ant for the idea.
•R. L. Measures
<Err...@chfile.dne> wrote:
> Read in aus.polics 2/8/2008 11:42 Altho' I cannot see the Topicality here.
> In
>
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,aus.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:44:05 GMT, Peter Terry wrote:
>
> > "Roger Pearse" <roger....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:b3d51752-b6d8-467e...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 30 Jul, 00:53, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Jul 29, 5:47 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> <accumulated blank lines only - snipped>
>
> >>> On 28 Jul, 11:56, theo <t...@bekkers.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > On Jul 28, 6:20 pm,Roger Pearse<roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> > > On 27 Jul, 10:33, r...@somis.org (ĄER. L. Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >>> > > > The Persian Sun God Mithra 's birthday is celebrated on 25
> >>> > > > December.
> >>
> >>> > > Evidence?
> >>
> >>> > Take your pick.
> >>
> >>> > The Roman EmpireMithra's birthday was celebrated December 25 and he
> >>> > was called Ą§the light of the world.Ą¨ After teaching for 36 years, he
> >>> > ascended into heaven in 208 bc.
> >>> > ...www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/romanempire.html-
> >>> >(etc)
> >>
> >>> Assertions on web pages are not evidence, I'm afraid. You note that
> >>> none of these urls offer any ancient evidence for their claims?
> >>> That's because it's a legend.
> >>
> >> Head, bucket, sand.
> >
> >>You perhaps suppose that I am as ignorant as the posters of those
> >>pages? I'm not. I went and looked for sources, talked to Solar
> >>scholars, etc.
> >>
> > (Would someone please repost this for me as Pearse in
> > denial has me on ignore...such an open person to say the least.)
>
> As I have no dog in this fight - done.
>
** Pearce's resistance to history is not possible to deal with.
duke
I don't think they had green lights in the 1500's. Maybe if we had a clearer
picture of what took place on the two dates, we might understand better.
duke
>> >> James 2:26 (New International Version)
>> >> 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
>> >Salvation is a gift given by God in response to faith in Jesus
>> >Christ. If that gift is fully understood then works (good deeds) will
>> >follow.
>> That's exactly the Catholic position.
>> >But we do not have to present the evidence of works (good deeds to God
>> >as giving merit towards salvation.
>> God sees, knows, and understands all without your help.
>You have avoided the implication of what I posted.
>The Roman Catholic position is
>faith + works (doctrines believed and deeds done) is the basis of
>salvation.
No it is not. It's the Jewish position that salvation is based on the number of
Levi laws observed and kept. God said no. Paul said no. John 13:34, Mat
25:31-46, James 2:14-26
And for your information, none of this counts as absolutes. Jesus will judge us
at the moment of our deaths. And that judgment will be based on brotherhood.
Jesus and only Jesus will decide.
>The Protestant position is that through faith ( acceptance of Christ's
>work in His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven) is the
>basis of salvation, and good deeds should follow.
If that's true, why did Luther try to add "faith alone".
>While the difference may appear to be minor there is much difference
>in the outcomes of the two basic beliefs.
You bet, and those protest_ants that cruise around thinking that their sins are
not seen as sins because they are Christians (supposedly) are in for a rude
awakening.
If, as a Christian, you can walk by a person in need and not help, you are not
in Christ.
>> Luther added "...alone".
>Yes, but for emphasis. As we are saved through faith ...***not*** of
>works as the text given above, for clarity He could say 'alone'
Right, works of the Levitical laws.
>> >and certainly not the works determined by the Vatican
>> >* believing that Jesus comes back to earth and is in the bread and
>> >wine consecrated on the altar by the RC priest,
>> > When He ascended (Acts 2 : 11), states He will return in the same way
>> > (visibly)
>But, in the Mass it is stated He has come back invisibly and is in the
>bread and wine and participants must believe that. .
Wrong again.
First, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can explain the mystery of what is actually
taking place, or even why God chose this method of remembrance, or what it truly
means.
We know that Christ said "This **IS**...". Ok, a mystery we can't truly answer.
BUT, Christ said it and we believe he meant it. Who wouldn't?
How does the 2000 year old Jewish mind accept this or even a 200 year old mind?
How about "trans-substance". No "invisible" to it.
What do we believe in the Holy Eucharist as enacted by Christ:
1. We bring the gifts of bread and wine, basic life substances, to the altar as
Christ used bread and wine at the Last Supper.
2. He raised the basic life substances to the Father and declared "This **IS**
my Body and Blood" and consumed the.
3. He took our basic life substances to the cross with him.
4. In the Mass, the trans-substanced Body and Blood of Christ and of mankind
are returned to us as spiritual nourishment.
>> Yep, he's due back one day. But nobody knows the day.
>That has nothing to do with the daily/weekly participation in the
>Mass.
The Spiritual nourishment is unimaginable. Your refusal is your business.
>> >*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
>> >virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
>> >(decreed 1950)
>> In Scripture.
>Please give me the scriptural references, as you are not convincing
>me.
Do you realize that not everything is written down (Holy Scripture)? John
21:25.
A. Mother of God
Main Entry: lord
1 : one having power and authority over others: a : a ruler by hereditary right
or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
Luke 1:43 (New International Version)
43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
B. Queen of Heaven
Revelation 12:1-6
Psalm 2:9 (New International Version)
9 You will rule them with an iron scepter [a] ;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
C. Perpetual virgin
As the most blessed of women, (Luke 1:42), we follow the total silence of
scripture re her future earthly life to one totally dedicated to her son and not
consumed by earthly desires.
D. The Assumptions
Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
God's Church thru the teachings and counseling of the Holy Spirit.
>> >* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
>> >are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
>> >Jerusalem Bible (1966)
>> Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
>According to my knowledge it is the one now accepted by the Vatican
>and, I assume, the Vatican authorised its printing in serial form to
>be sold through newagents and, possibly bookstores, in the early
>1980's.
<g> Why would you not accept the Jerusalem bible? One of the worst and
admittedly erroneous bibles is the KJV.
>> >* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
>> >indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
>> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
>Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
Purgatory:
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
Now here's the kicker.
Matthew 12
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
in the age to come.
What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
Note:
Matthew 12
32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
in the age to come.
Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
Now Rev 21:27 says: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…". That means there is
an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
whereas no sin enters heaven.
>> >* that priests should wear special clothes and be celibate - not much
>> >choosing allowed or has that be changed very quietly
>> Should they wear 3-piece suits and have slick back well groomed hair?
>Not necessarily 3-piece suits, but modern men's wear, ie business
>suits.
>Some nuns from about 1970 wore secular - everyday - dress
The Christian faith had it's beginning 2000 years ago, and the RCC in particular
evolved in Rome. The clothing worn by the priest at Mass and other religious
gatherings is symbolic and reflective of that dress wear.
>> >> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the
>> >> Papacy over Christ's Church.
>EOC = Evangelical Orthodox Churches
>Yes, over the Filoque clause (concerning the Holy Spirit) in the
>Creed.
EOC = Eastern Orthodox Church
Primarily the Papacy + filoque and original sin and unleavened bread.
>> >> Mat 16:13-20.
>> >The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's church. Peter was
>> >the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
>> Christ assigned Peter to head up his Church, the Christian Church.
>Well, if that is, as you assert, why is it that Peter has such a minor
>role in the New Testament scriptures. Most of the writings come from
>Paul, and even John has more writings in it than does Peter. If, as I
>assume, you would assert that Peter was in Rome, why doesn't Paul
>acknowledge that fact in his letter to the Romans.
You do realize, of course, that Peter was the first Holy Father assigned by
Christ to lead and guide his Church.
Paul "only" wrote letters regarding Chrisitan beliefs to the expanding Church to
guide them and keep them on track. Paul had no need to advise the expanding
Church that Peter was in Rome. That's not the purpose of the letters.
It is most important to understand that a) the gospels reflect the beliefs and
practices of the new Christians 30-60 years after Christ's resurrection, and
that b) other writings have been rejected for inclusion as **inspired
scripture** due to error, fabrication, or previously revealed information. There
are such as the gospel of Peter, Mary, James, etc etc that are not accepted as
fully inspired scripture and are not included in the Book of Books, but are
certainly acceptable historically with a bit of caution.
duke, American-American
Peter Terry
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:25:56 -0700, r...@somis.org (.R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
>>In article <krv694ti33sj9so5r...@4ax.com>, duke
>><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But it can't be without error unless it's a matter of faith and morals.
>>>
>
> He's never been wrong. That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
>
concept
of ritual cannibalism or holy communion is right???
Get help my friend, Come out of her!!!
PeterT
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>.
> >> God sees, knows, and understands all without your help.
> >You have avoided the implication of what I posted.
> >The Roman Catholic position is
> >faith + works (doctrines believed and deeds done) is the basis of
> >salvation.
>
> No it is not. It's the Jewish position that salvation is based on the number of
> Levi laws observed and kept. God said no. Paul said no. John 13:34, Mat
> 25:31-46, James 2:14-26
>
In Roman Catholic doctrine Christ's death does not cover all sins.
If at the moment of death and after the Last Rites (there is not such
a command in the New Testament that such should be given -
if a person sins in thoughts that person has to suffer in purgatory?.
I had contact with an eight-year old girl of the Roman Catholic
religion who was in fear of purgatory. Purgatory is not in the New
Testament.
We are saved ...by faith. Not of works. Wphesians 2 : 8 - 9
But purgatory is a good way to keep the members of the RC Church under
the thumbs of the priests.
> And for your information, none of this counts as absolutes. Jesus will judge us
> at the moment of our deaths. And that judgment will be based on brotherhood.
> Jesus and only Jesus will decide.
What do you mean by 'brotherhood'. Or do you mean that only Roamn
catholics will have salvation after their time in purgatory?
I was of the opinion that Jesus judged on whether we had accepted his
gift of Eternal Life or not.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
that whoever ***believes*** in Him shal not perish
***but shall have everlasting life*** Nothing abour Purgatory there!
> >The Protestant position is that through faith ( acceptance of Christ's
> >work in His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven) is the
> >basis of salvation, and good deeds should follow.
>
> If that's true, why did Luther try to add "faith alone".
>
> >While the difference may appear to be minor there is much difference
> >in the outcomes of the two basic beliefs.
>
> You bet, and those Protesants that cruise around thinking that their sins are
> not seen as sins because they are Christians (supposedly) are in for a rude
> awakening.
>
What about members of the Roman Catholic Church who sin(ned), sin(ned)
etc after confession. There was a time back in 1975 when it was stated
(Radio) that the priests were not to divulge sins from the
Confessional to civil authorities. That could have been about
situations of which I was aware involving members of the Roman
Catholic religion.
Can an RC member steal ideas from a Protestant and not be accounted
for by God?.
Can RC members manipulate to have a Protestant blamed for something
that they should have corrected?
> If, as a Christian, you can walk by a person in need and not help, you are not
> in Christ.
>
I am not able to help all in need, but I do what I can and when I
can.
Pity the RC members teaching in some Public schools had not helped
more.
When an RC member took a position of authority they changed their
tune!
How much time in purgatory for that according to your beliefs.
> >> Luther added "...alone".
> >Yes, but for emphasis. As we are saved through faith ...***not*** of
> >works as the text given above, for clarity He could say 'alone'
>
> Right, works of the Levitical laws.
>
Not of works - not of all / any good deeds.
> >> >and certainly not the works determined by the Vatican
> >> >* believing that Jesus comes back to earth and is in the bread and
> >> >wine consecrated on the altar by the RC priest,
> >> > When He ascended (Acts 2 : 11), states He will return in the same way
> >> > (visibly)
> >But, in the Mass it is stated He has come back invisibly and is in the
> >bread and wine and participants must believe that. .
>
> Wrong again.
>
> First, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can explain the mystery of what is actually
> taking place, or even why God chose this method of remembrance, or what it > truly means.
And you do not understand metaphorical language.
A simile uses 'like'. He is like a robot.
A metapohor is also a comparison, but without the word 'like'
He is a robot.
This is my body = This represents my body.
> We know that Christ said "This **IS**...". Ok, a mystery we can't truly answer.
> BUT, Christ said it and we believe he meant it. Who wouldn't?
>
You have to follow the RC teaching, and as a deaon/priest you can't go
against it, unless you are a modern day Wycliffe or Luther or others
who protested against the wrong teachings of Rome.
> How does the 2000 year old Jewish mind accept this or even a 200 year old mind?
No human minds are those ages. I am being a literalist.
> How about "trans-substance". No "invisible" to it.
> What do we believe in the Holy Eucharist as enacted by Christ:
> 1. We bring the gifts of bread and wine, basic life substances, to the altar as
> Christ used bread and wine at the Last Supper.
> 2. He raised the basic life substances to the Father and declared "This **IS**
> my Body and Blood" and consumed the.
> 3. He took our basic life substances to the cross with him.
> 4. In the Mass, the trans-substanced Body and Blood of Christ and of
> mankind are returned to us as spiritual nourishment.
>
But Jesus does not return and is in the bread and the wine. He is in
heaven.
Acts states that when he returns He will return visibly.
> >> Yep, he's due back one day. But nobody knows the day.
> >That has nothing to do with the daily/weekly participation in the
> >Mass.
>
And there has to be an excessive number of priests to hear all the
confessions and provide all those services, as well as other duties.I
do not have to confess to a priest.
Confess you faults one to another, ie a Christian friend without
theological training even, and pray one for another that you may be
healed.
Christians are a royal priesthood (Galatians).
> The Spiritual nourishment is unimaginable. Your refusal is your business.
>
I am sorry to have to tell you that the most difficult persons I have
met have been Roman Catholics who at those times did not display 'the
unimaginable nourishment' of which you have written above.
> >> >*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
> >> >virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
> >> >(decreed 1950)
> >> In Scripture.
> >Please give me the scriptural references, as you are not convincing
> >me.
>
> Do you realize that not everything is written down (Holy Scripture)? John
> 21:25.
>
Yes, but what is written is sufficient to believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of the Living God.
> A. Mother of God
> Main Entry: lord
> 1 : one having power and authority over others: a : a ruler by hereditary right
> or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
> Luke 1:43 (New International Version)
> 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
>
She was the mother of the earthly body of Jesus. There are women who
have done much, much, more than Mary did as they taught the Christian
faith in many parts of the world. Many of them were those, to you,
despised Protestants.
> B. Queen of Heaven Revelation 12:1-6
>
Not Mary. The woman is not called the Queen of Heaven (ie from
Jerimiah)
The child to whom she gave birth was 'to rule with a rod of iron"
Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
>
> C. Perpetual virgin
>
> As the most blessed of women, (Luke 1:42), we follow the total silence of
> scripture re her future earthly life to one totally dedicated to her son and not
> consumed by earthly desires.
>
Joseph knew Mary not ***until*** she had brought forth her first-born
son.
After the birth of Jesus she consumated her marriage with Joseph and
had four sons and at least two daughters. The Vatican has to stop its
nonsense that those children were cousins.
> D. The Assumptions
>
> Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
> God's Church thru the teachings and counselling of the Holy Spirit.
>
Was it the Holy Spirit or was it the spirit of Satan who prompted the
idea that Mary was taken bodily into heaven (declared 1950) and the
apparitions of Mary (supposed) during the last century.
> >> >* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
> >> >are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
> >> >Jerusalem Bible (1966)
> >> Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
> >According to my knowledge it is the one now accepted by the Vatican
> >and, I assume, the Vatican authorised its printing in serial form to
> >be sold through newagents and, possibly bookstores, in the early
> >1980's.
>
> <g> Why would you not accept the Jerusalem bible? One of the worst and
> admittedly erroneous bibles is the KJV.
>
I have read about Bible translations, but would need to check. The
Bible that the Vatican used prior to the Jerusalem bible came from
different documents (which had incorrect translations) to the those
used for the KJV.
The Douay-Rheimes Bible translates 'hageos' as 'saints, but the
Jerusalem Bible uses 'God's own people'.
Quite clever because the word 'saint' can be used as a reward for
certain people. Pope John Paull II raised to blessedness more than all
who had been canonised in the centuries before.
Saints-in-waiting throughout the world to be canonised so that the RC
Church can be made to seem holier than Protestants.
The first Christian saints in Australia were Rev. Richard Johnson,
Church of England chaplain to the First Fleet and all the Christians
that were in that Fleet, either from starting from England or who
became Christian on the way.
I have come to believe that the inadequate media publicity about those
years from 1787 may have come from Roman Catholics who wanted to paint
Protestants in the worst possible 'colours'.
> >> >* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
> >> >indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
> >> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
> >Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
>
> Purgatory:
>
> Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
> Now here's the kicker.
>
> Matthew 12
> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
> in the age to come.
>
> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>
Just implied by faulty reasoning. Why isn't the word 'purgatory' in
the New Testament? This doctrine has been made up as the authorites at
the Vatican have made their own decisions.
Gladys Swager
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snip>
> >The Protestant position is that through faith ( acceptance of Christ's
> >work in His death, resurrection and ascension into heaven) is the
> >basis of salvation, and good deeds should follow.
>
<snip>
>
> If, as a Christian, you can walk by a person in need and not help, you are not
> in Christ.
>
Even some non-Christians will not ignore another person in need.
<snip>
>
> First, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can explain the mystery of what is actually
> taking place, or even why God chose this method of remembrance, or what it > truly means.
Then do away with the idea of transubstantiation, or any other name
that is used to try to describe what happens to the bread and wine.
The Vatican, then, can take the Protestant position. Just a pity it
didn't do that before the time of John Wycliffe in England, also
Luther in Germany. .
>
<snip>
> B. Queen of Heaven
>
Jeremiah 7 : 18, and Jeremiah 44 : 17 - 19, 25 are the references I
have to the 'queen of heaven' and they do not refer to Mary.
>
<snip>
>
> D. The Assumptions
> Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
> God's Church thru the teachings and counseling of the Holy Spirit.
>
Well, don't make up the story as you go along. Mary was a sinner, as
we all are. Mary said, "My spirit has rejoiced in God my
***Saviour***.
Only sinners need a 'Saviour'.
> >> >* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
> >> >are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
> >> >Jerusalem Bible (1966)
> >> Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
> >According to my knowledge it is the one now accepted by the Vatican
> >and, I assume, the Vatican authorised its printing in serial form to
> >be sold through newagents and, possibly bookstores, in the early
> >1980's.
>
> <g> Why would you not accept the Jerusalem bible? One of the worst and
> admittedly erroneous bibles is the KJV.
>
> >> >* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
> >> >indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
> >> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
> >Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
>
> Purgatory:
> Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>
However, when we are saved through faith in jesus Christ,
***ALL*** sins are forgiven. As far as the east is from the west so
far has (God) removed our transgressions from us. Psalm 103 : 12.
>
> Matthew 12
> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
> in the age to come.
>
> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>
> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>
> Now Rev 21:27 says: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…". That means there is
> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
> whereas no sin enters heaven.
>
There is nothing in the Bible that states the age to come is short of
heaven and therefore is purgatory.
> >> >* that priests should wear special clothes and be celibate - not much
> >> >choosing allowed or has that be changed very quietly
> >> Should they wear 3-piece suits and have slick back well groomed hair?
> >Not necessarily 3-piece suits, but modern men's wear, ie business
> >suits.
> >Some nuns from about 1970 wore secular - everyday - dress
>
> The Christian faith had it's beginning 2000 years ago,
> and the RCC in particular evolved (?)
Better to say 'was established in Rome'. Yes about 300 AD when
Constanine was Emperor.
From my reading he introduced some pagan ideas into the Christian
faith.
in Rome.
> The clothing worn by the priest at Mass and other religious
> gatherings is symbolic and reflective of that dress wear.
>
Jesus did not wear special clothing when he had the Last Supper with
His disciples.
> >> >> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the
> >> >> Papacy over Christ's Church.
> >EOC = Evangelical Orthodox Churches
> >Yes, over the Filoque clause (concerning the Holy Spirit) in the
> >Creed.
>
> EOC = Eastern Orthodox Church
Thank you for the correction. What I entered was the first response to
my googling. I just could not think of the right words.
> Primarily the Papacy + filoque and original sin and unleavened bread.
>
> >> >> Mat 16:13-20.
> >> >The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's church. Peter was
> >> >the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
> >> Christ assigned Peter to head up his Church, the Christian Church.
Yes,. the Jews who had converted to Christ. Peter was the apostle to
the
circumcised, as Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised.
Jesus had to correct, Peter, because of his impetuosity. "Get thee
behind Me, (and called him) Satan. Peter denied Christ three times at
the time of Christ's trial. Yes, Jesus gave him the opportunity to
three times confess Him later,
Paul had to contend with Peter.
Peter was a lovable, hasty, quick-thinking at times for which he was
sorry later,
but Paul was the one, a Pharisee, (studied under Gamaliel), a Roman
citizen from his father, who was called to take the gospel through the
Mediterranean area.
Peter, the first Pope? The Papacy came into existence in 610AD and the
title was given by a wicked Emperor. Peter was named first Pope on a
count-back.
>Well, if that is, as you assert, why is it that Peter has such a minor
> >role in the New Testament scriptures. Most of the writings come from
> >Paul, and even John has more writings in it than does Peter. If, as I
> >assume, you would assert that Peter was in Rome, why doesn't Paul
> >acknowledge that fact in his letter to the Romans.
>
> You do realize, of course, that Peter was the first Holy Father assigned by
> Christ to lead and guide his Church.
>
It does not read that way to me. And why 'Holy Father'. Didn't Jesus
say' call no man 'father'. Popes are no holier, and at times, have
been less holy, than Protestant leaders.
> Paul "only" wrote letters regarding Chrisitan beliefs to the expanding Church to
> guide them and keep them on track. Paul had no need to advise the
> expanding Church that Peter was in Rome. That's not the purpose of the
> letters.
>
Why then Paul's letter to the Romans? Where are the documents of Peter
while he was (supposedly) in Rome as the leader of the Christians
there?
> It is most important to understand that a) the gospels reflect the beliefs and
> practices of the new Christians 30-60 years after Christ's resurrection,
You had better read the gospels again. They give the necessary
information about the ministry of Jesus during His three years before
His crucifixion and also of His resurrection and short time after
that. .
and
> that b) other writings have been rejected for inclusion as **inspired
> scripture** due to error, fabrication, or previously revealed information. There
> are such as the gospel of Peter, Mary, James, etc etc that are not accepted as > fully inspired scripture and are not included in the Book of Books, but are
> certainly acceptable historically with a bit of caution.
>
Not necessary to accept them even with 'a bit of caution'. What is in
the New Testament (KJV and other similar to it) is all that is
necessary for us.
Gladys Swager
•R. L. Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 16:07:37 -0700, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <e6d994pd6h7l5q374...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:14:35 -0700, r...@somis.org (•R. L. Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> >• And the pope is for damn sure right if he says black is really
> >white.
> >> >> >> But it can't be without error unless it's a matter of faith and
morals.
> >> >> >• and when he blunders it was retroactively only his opinion.
> >> >> He's never been wrong.
> >> >• ... thanks to the power of retroactivity.
> >>
> >> He can't be wrong, because that would make the guiding Holy Spirit
wrong. And
> >> Godcan never be wrong.
> >>
> >> >>That's difficult to do when God is guiding you.
> >>
> >> >• So God was guiding him when the pope gave the green light to the
> >> >Aftican slave trade in the 16th Century? Apparently God changed his mind
> >> >about black slavery in 1895.
>
> >> No, that's not an infallible action. It must be only issues of faith and
> >> morals.
>
> >• Are you saying that slavery is not a moral issue?
>
> I don't think they had green lights in the 1500's.
• For as long as there have been copper salts, there has been green light.
> Maybe if we had a clearer
> picture of what took place on the two dates, we might understand better.
>
• In the 1500s, His Holiness gave Portugese sea captains permission to
sell POWs from African tribal warfare. However, it can be argued that
since POWs were routinely killed, selling them into slavery at least
offered an opportunity for life. To its credit, 20-years after the Civil
War ended, the RCC reversed its position that black slavery was okay with
the RC Jesus-God.
duke
>> Maybe if we had a clearer
>> picture of what took place on the two dates, we might understand better.
>• In the 1500s, His Holiness gave Portugese sea captains permission to
>sell POWs from African tribal warfare. However, it can be argued that
>since POWs were routinely killed, selling them into slavery at least
>offered an opportunity for life. To its credit, 20-years after the Civil
>War ended, the RCC reversed its position that black slavery was okay with
>the RC Jesus-God.
If it reversed it's position, it was never dogma.
duke
>On Aug 4, 12:49 am, duke wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
>
><snip>.
>
>> >> God sees, knows, and understands all without your help.
>> >You have avoided the implication of what I posted.
>> >The Roman Catholic position is
>> >faith + works (doctrines believed and deeds done) is the basis of
>> >salvation.
>>
>> No it is not. It's the Jewish position that salvation is based on the number of
>> Levi laws observed and kept. God said no. Paul said no. John 13:34, Mat
>> 25:31-46, James 2:14-26
>In Roman Catholic doctrine Christ's death does not cover all sins.
For the life of me, I can't imagine what you're trying to say here. You appear
to be making the fatal protest_er error that Christ died **for** your sins -
past, present and future.
No such thing. Christ died in obedience to his Father. Mat 26:39 He was our
example on how to live our lives. And when we screw up and sin, he gave us the
Sacrament of Confession to come forward to be ask for forgiveness for that sin
and to have it's stain removed from our soul. For nothing unclean can enter
heaven.
>If at the moment of death and after the Last Rites (there is not such
>a command in the New Testament that such should be given -
>if a person sins in thoughts that person has to suffer in purgatory?.
>I had contact with an eight-year old girl of the Roman Catholic
>religion who was in fear of purgatory. Purgatory is not in the New
>Testament.
Of course it is.
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>We are saved ...by faith. Not of works. Wphesians 2 : 8 - 9
Do you believe that if you continue to sin, Christ paid for your sins thru
faith?
Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
>But purgatory is a good way to keep the members of the RC Church under
>the thumbs of the priests.
Purgatory, or a purging, is a cleansing of the soul of the propensity to sin for
the saved. The unsaved go straight to hell.
>> And for your information, none of this counts as absolutes. Jesus will judge us
>> at the moment of our deaths. And that judgment will be based on brotherhood.
>> Jesus and only Jesus will decide.
>What do you mean by 'brotherhood'. Or do you mean that only Roamn
>catholics will have salvation after their time in purgatory?
Purgatory is for the saved only.
John 13:34, Mat 25:31-46, James 2:14-26 are excellent examples of the way we
need to live our lives. Mat 7:21 makes it abundantly clear.
>I was of the opinion that Jesus judged on whether we had accepted his
>gift of Eternal Life or not.
You do that by way you treat the least of his in this life. Mat 25:31-46
Remember, he said to repent of your sins, pick up your own cross, and follow him
in service to man.
Matthew 10:38 (New International Version)
38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 20:28 (New International Version)
28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give
his life as a ransom for many."
>For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son
>that whoever ***believes*** in Him shal not perish
>***but shall have everlasting life*** Nothing abour Purgatory there!
If you don't take up your cross and follow him in service, do you ***believe***
in him??? Mat 25:31-46, Mat 7:21.
>> You bet, and those Protesants that cruise around thinking that their sins are
>> not seen as sins because they are Christians (supposedly) are in for a rude
>> awakening.
>What about members of the Roman Catholic Church who sin(ned), sin(ned)
>etc after confession.
Confession cleanses the soul of sin past and present. Sin again and you need to
return to confession.
> There was a time back in 1975 when it was stated
>(Radio) that the priests were not to divulge sins from the
>Confessional to civil authorities.
That's absolutely guaranteed. The confessional is sealed.
> That could have been about
>situations of which I was aware involving members of the Roman
>Catholic religion. an an RC member steal ideas from a Protestant and not be accounted
>for by God? Can RC members manipulate to have a Protestant blamed for something
>that they should have corrected?
Sin is sin, although sins may be "venial" not serious, and "mortal", which
destroys one's relationship with God
>> If, as a Christian, you can walk by a person in need and not help, you are not
>> in Christ.
>I am not able to help all in need, but I do what I can and when I
>can. Pity the RC members teaching in some Public schools had not helped
>more.
No body helps all in need. It's the rejection of their human dignity as a
creation of God that nails you.
>When an RC member took a position of authority they changed their
>tune!
>How much time in purgatory for that according to your beliefs.
Only God knows. If they don't go straight to hell instead of purgatory.
>> >> Luther added "...alone".
>> >Yes, but for emphasis. As we are saved through faith ...***not*** of
>> >works as the text given above, for clarity He could say 'alone'
>> Right, works of the Levitical laws.
>Not of works - not of all / any good deeds.
No, Pauls reference was to the works of the levi laws. These are different to
works/deeds indicative of faith in God. James 2:26.
>> >But, in the Mass it is stated He has come back invisibly and is in the
>> >bread and wine and participants must believe that. .
>> Wrong again.
>> First, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can explain the mystery of what is actually
>> taking place, or even why God chose this method of remembrance, or what it truly means.
>And you do not understand metaphorical language.
Why didn't Jesus say "kingses, or just kidding" if he didn't mean exactly what
he said.
>A simile uses 'like'. He is like a robot.
>A metapohor is also a comparison, but without the word 'like'
>He is a robot.
God spoke. I listen. I don't look for metaphors.
>This is my body = This represents my body.
Nope - he said "This **IS**..". However, you may play with is words if you
wish. I don't have to pay for your mistake.
>> We know that Christ said "This **IS**...". Ok, a mystery we can't truly answer.
>> BUT, Christ said it and we believe he meant it. Who wouldn't?
>You have to follow the RC teaching, and as a deaon/priest you can't go
>against it, unless you are a modern day Wycliffe or Luther or others
>who protested against the wrong teachings of Rome.
The RCC quotes Jesus.
>> How does the 2000 year old Jewish mind accept this or even a 200 year old mind?
>No human minds are those ages. I am being a literalist.
No, you're rejecting the Word of God based on your own rejection as literal.
>> How about "trans-substance". No "invisible" to it.
>> What do we believe in the Holy Eucharist as enacted by Christ:
>> 1. We bring the gifts of bread and wine, basic life substances, to the altar as
>> Christ used bread and wine at the Last Supper.
>> 2. He raised the basic life substances to the Father and declared "This **IS**
>> my Body and Blood" and consumed the.
>> 3. He took our basic life substances to the cross with him.
>> 4. In the Mass, the trans-substanced Body and Blood of Christ and of
>> mankind are returned to us as spiritual nourishment.
>But Jesus does not return and is in the bread and the wine. He is in
>heaven.
>Acts states that when he returns He will return visibly.
But his Body and Blood does, becasue the priest does just exactly what he told
them to do "Do this in memory of me".
I believe. If you choose to reject his words, so be it.
>> >> Yep, he's due back one day. But nobody knows the day.
>> >That has nothing to do with the daily/weekly participation in the
>> >Mass.
>And there has to be an excessive number of priests to hear all the
>confessions and provide all those services, as well as other duties.I
>do not have to confess to a priest.
Jesus told the apostles they were put in charge of sin. John 20:22-23. Then he
left for his Father.
>Confess you faults one to another, ie a Christian friend without
>theological training even, and pray one for another that you may be
>healed. Christians are a royal priesthood (Galatians).
But not of the Melchisedek order.
>> The Spiritual nourishment is unimaginable. Your refusal is your business.
>I am sorry to have to tell you that the most difficult persons I have
>met have been Roman Catholics who at those times did not display 'the
>unimaginable nourishment' of which you have written above.
I struggle with your refusal to consider the Word of God.
>> >> >*believing that Mary is the Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, perpetual
>> >> >virgin, had an immaculate conception and an assumption into heaven
>> >> >(decreed 1950)
>> >> In Scripture.
>> >Please give me the scriptural references, as you are not convincing
>> >me.
>> Do you realize that not everything is written down (Holy Scripture)? John
>> 21:25.
>Yes, but what is written is sufficient to believe that Jesus is the
>Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Yet you admitted that you elect on your own what to believe about his words.
>> A. Mother of God
>> Main Entry: lord
>> 1 : one having power and authority over others: a : a ruler by hereditary right
>> or preeminence to whom service and obedience are due
>> Luke 1:43 (New International Version)
>> 43But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
>She was the mother of the earthly body of Jesus. There are women who
>have done much, much, more than Mary did as they taught the Christian
>faith in many parts of the world. Many of them were those, to you,
>despised Protestants.
Yet Elizabeth, her mother, acknowledged the baby was her Lord, and not just her
grandson.
>> B. Queen of Heaven Revelation 12:1-6
>Not Mary. The woman is not called the Queen of Heaven (ie from
>Jerimiah)
>The child to whom she gave birth was 'to rule with a rod of iron"
>Jesus is the Prince of Peace.
But she is in Rev 12. He son ruling with an iron rod is a further giveaway
>> C. Perpetual virgin
>> As the most blessed of women, (Luke 1:42), we follow the total silence of
>> scripture re her future earthly life to one totally dedicated to her son and not
>> consumed by earthly desires.
>Joseph knew Mary not ***until*** she had brought forth her first-born
>son.
"Until" means up to but is silent thereafter. Luther added "after".
>After the birth of Jesus she consumated her marriage with Joseph and
>had four sons and at least two daughters. The Vatican has to stop its
>nonsense that those children were cousins.
Yet there is zero scripture speaking of there marriage afterwards.
Brother & sister has several accepted usages:
1. Cousin because the word cousin is not in the biblical Aramaic.
2. Joseph's children by a prior marriage. He was 91+, she 14.
3. People of common beliefs.
4. Even Mary's children, but this is not stated.
#2 is pushed as the likely answer.
>> D. The Assumptions
>> Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
>> God's Church thru the teachings and counselling of the Holy Spirit.
>Was it the Holy Spirit or was it the spirit of Satan who prompted the
>idea that Mary was taken bodily into heaven (declared 1950) and the
>apparitions of Mary (supposed) during the last century.
It was the Holy Spirit. History well reveals how highly she was regarded by
Jesus as well as everyone around her.
The apparitions are not declared dogma.
>> >> >* saints are ones given that reward by the church when all Christians
>> >> >are 'saints'. Read the Epistles opening verses, but not in the
>> >> >Jerusalem Bible (1966)
>> >> Is the Jerusalem Bible the correct one?
>> >According to my knowledge it is the one now accepted by the Vatican
>> >and, I assume, the Vatican authorised its printing in serial form to
>> >be sold through newagents and, possibly bookstores, in the early
>> >1980's.
>> <g> Why would you not accept the Jerusalem bible? One of the worst and
>> admittedly erroneous bibles is the KJV.
>
>I have read about Bible translations, but would need to check. The
>Bible that the Vatican used prior to the Jerusalem bible came from
>different documents (which had incorrect translations) to the those
>used for the KJV.
Look, I was kidding about the Jerusalem bible. Based on the way you worded your
comment.
>> >> >* that there is purgatory and that the Pope has authority to give
>> >> >indulgences even going to Lourdes on the way to a WYD
>> >> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
>> >Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
>> Purgatory:
>>
>> Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>>
>> Now here's the kicker.
>>
>> Matthew 12
>> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
>> in the age to come.
>>
>> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
>> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
>> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>Just implied by faulty reasoning.
Why isn't your reasoning faulty?
If you look at those inspired verses, it doesn't say anything about being
forgiven to see the face of God, it says "unclean will not see God". And the
propensity to sin of mankind over and above the stain of an actual sin is an
unclean splotch on the soul.
Those that live their lives in the grace of God and who die in his friendship (
no mortal sins unconfessed) will still be purged of the propensity to sin.
> Why isn't the word 'purgatory' in
>the New Testament?
Why isn't anyone word not in scripture, like Trinity, and altar call? The word
may be a modern derivation to acknowledge an act in scripture.
> This doctrine has been made up as the authorites at
>the Vatican have made their own decisions.
Scripture well reveals the word of God.
duke
>> First, no one, and I mean NO ONE, can explain the mystery of what is actually
>> taking place, or even why God chose this method of remembrance, or what it > truly means.
>Then do away with the idea of transubstantiation, or any other name
>that is used to try to describe what happens to the bread and wine.
>The Vatican, then, can take the Protestant position. Just a pity it
>didn't do that before the time of John Wycliffe in England, also
>Luther in Germany. .
But it's no big deal to us Catholics. We understand it simply as an
explanation probably offered hundreds of years ago to the simple mind of the
medieval past. I never hear the word except when protest_ers go ballistic. It's
never mentioned in my Catholic faith or Church.
>> B. Queen of Heaven
>Jeremiah 7 : 18, and Jeremiah 44 : 17 - 19, 25 are the references I
>have to the 'queen of heaven' and they do not refer to Mary.
Rev 12 does. And an iron rod is the kicker.
>> D. The Assumptions
>> Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
>> God's Church thru the teachings and counseling of the Holy Spirit.
>Well, don't make up the story as you go along. Mary was a sinner, as
>we all are. Mary said, "My spirit has rejoiced in God my
>***Saviour***.
>Only sinners need a 'Saviour'.
Yet we Catholics have always proclaimed that Jesus, as the 2nd person of the
Holy Trinity existing before all time, took away her sin at her own conception.
Again, it's the protest_ants that do ballistic, but never listen to the
explanation.
>> >> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
>> >Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
>> Purgatory:
>> Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
>> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
>> Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
>> Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
>However, when we are saved through faith in jesus Christ,
>***ALL*** sins are forgiven. As far as the east is from the west so
>far has (God) removed our transgressions from us. Psalm 103 : 12.
Heb 10:26-27 disagrees.
Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)
26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
>> Matthew 12
>> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
>> in the age to come.
>>
>> What age to come? "Speaking against the Son of Man" forgiven in the age to come
>> and "nothing unclean will enter heaven" are contradictory terms in scripture if
>> there is nothing in between; ie, a state of purging of the sin nature.
>>
>> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
>> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>>
>> Now Rev 21:27 says: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…". That means there is
>> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
>> whereas no sin enters heaven.
>There is nothing in the Bible that states the age to come is short of
>heaven and therefore is purgatory.
Then come up with something for yourself to describe the condition. Purging of
the soul fits the bill perfectly.
>> The clothing worn by the priest at Mass and other religious
>> gatherings is symbolic and reflective of that dress wear.
>Jesus did not wear special clothing when he had the Last Supper with
>His disciples.
The priest is not Jesus. The vestments are a throwback to the early days after
Christ.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/vestments.htm
>> >> >> Let me help you. The EOC schismed in rejection of the authority of the
>> >> >> Papacy over Christ's Church.
>> >EOC = Evangelical Orthodox Churches
>> >Yes, over the Filoque clause (concerning the Holy Spirit) in the
>> >Creed.
>> EOC = Eastern Orthodox Church
>Thank you for the correction. What I entered was the first response to
>my googling. I just could not think of the right words.
I also saw "evangelical", so you're not wrong.
>> Primarily the Papacy + filoque and original sin and unleavened bread.
>> >> >> Mat 16:13-20.
>> >> >The Pope was not given authority over all of Christ's church. Peter was
>> >> >the apostle to the Jews (the circumcised)
>
>> >> Christ assigned Peter to head up his Church, the Christian Church.
>
>Yes,. the Jews who had converted to Christ. Peter was the apostle to
>the circumcised, as Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised.
>Jesus had to correct, Peter, because of his impetuosity. "Get thee
>behind Me, (and called him) Satan. Peter denied Christ three times at
>the time of Christ's trial. Yes, Jesus gave him the opportunity to
>three times confess Him later,
>Paul had to contend with Peter.
>Peter was a lovable, hasty, quick-thinking at times for which he was
>sorry later,
>but Paul was the one, a Pharisee, (studied under Gamaliel), a Roman
>citizen from his father, who was called to take the gospel through the
>Mediterranean area.
>Peter, the first Pope? The Papacy came into existence in 610AD and the
>title was given by a wicked Emperor. Peter was named first Pope on a
>count-back.
All men are sinners - 24/7 - you, me, the Pope, etc, except Jesus. Heb 4:15.
>>Well, if that is, as you assert, why is it that Peter has such a minor
>> >role in the New Testament scriptures. Most of the writings come from
>> >Paul, and even John has more writings in it than does Peter. If, as I
>> >assume, you would assert that Peter was in Rome, why doesn't Paul
>> >acknowledge that fact in his letter to the Romans.
>> You do realize, of course, that Peter was the first Holy Father assigned by
>> Christ to lead and guide his Church.
>It does not read that way to me. And why 'Holy Father'. Didn't Jesus
>say' call no man 'father'. Popes are no holier, and at times, have
>been less holy, than Protestant leaders.
Jesus said call no man your "Father in Heaven". Paul particularly id's himself
as "father" to this flock.
1 Corinthians 4:15 (New International Version)
15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many
fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
>> Paul "only" wrote letters regarding Chrisitan beliefs to the expanding Church to
>> guide them and keep them on track. Paul had no need to advise the
>> expanding Church that Peter was in Rome. That's not the purpose of the
>> letters.
>Why then Paul's letter to the Romans? Where are the documents of Peter
>while he was (supposedly) in Rome as the leader of the Christians
>there?
The Romans represented a particular problem needing guidance/correcting. Peter
ventured forth thru the Eastern provinces like Paul did. Maybe Peter wasn't
even there in Rome yet.
Paul states his thesis: The gospel: it is God's power to save all who
believe'.
>> It is most important to understand that a) the gospels reflect the beliefs and
>> practices of the new Christians 30-60 years after Christ's resurrection,
>You had better read the gospels again. They give the necessary
>information about the ministry of Jesus during His three years before
>His crucifixion and also of His resurrection and short time after
>that. .
I don't have to. The time frame of the Gospel publications/writings varied from
65AD to 95AD. That's 30-60 years after Christ's death on the Cross. Some of
what they said could be actual experience of the writer and/or what the
practices and religious beliefs of the people 30-60 years later professed, etc.
>and
>> that b) other writings have been rejected for inclusion as **inspired
>> scripture** due to error, fabrication, or previously revealed information. There
>> are such as the gospel of Peter, Mary, James, etc etc that are not accepted as > fully inspired scripture and are not included in the Book of Books, but are
>> certainly acceptable historically with a bit of caution.
>Not necessary to accept them even with 'a bit of caution'. What is in
>the New Testament (KJV and other similar to it) is all that is
>necessary for us.
Then believe in your heart but with reservation. For the word of God is without
error, but the supporting stories likely have been embellished.
For instance, Jesus was not born in a stable but born is a cave and moved to a
stable. When did the 3 kings really arrive - on the day of the birth of Christ,
or 3 years later?
Which of the 3 events on Easter morning is the accurate and correct one? Did
the soldiers run away? Were they asleep? How many angels were there? Were
they sitting or standing or outside?
Did Joseph and mary travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem, or from A to B to C or
from A to C to B, or from A to C to B and then back to C.
Gladys, believe in your heart that God became man to die on the cross for our a)
redemption from sin and, b) to restore salvation to souls. But don't hang your
hang on the things that don't matter.
swa...@ozemail.com.au
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 swa...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
<snp>
> >Then do away with the idea of transubstantiation, or any other name
> >that is used to try to describe what happens to the bread and wine.
> >The Vatican, then, can take the Protestant position. Just a pity it
> >didn't do that before the time of John Wycliffe in England, also
> >Luther in Germany. .
>
> But it's no big deal to us Catholics. We understand it simply as an
> explanation probably offered hundreds of years ago to the simple mind of the
> medieval past. I never hear the word except when protest_ers go ballistic. It's
> never mentioned in my Catholic faith or Church.
>
I am a Protestant and I have never heard anything in any of the
Protestant churches concerning the RC Church. I can assure you that I
have never seen or heard a Protestant go 'ballistic' about the RC
beliefs. Perhaps, I am the one you are denigrating as 'ballistic' as
you do not like any opposition to what your church teaches. You are
stuck in a rut and not willing to get out to a truer faith in Jesus
Christ, a faith of salvation that is not of works, lest any one should
boast; but simply through belief that Jesus has done it all for us =
he died for all the sins of the world and was resurrested for our
justification.
***It is through faith in Jesus Christ that we are saved***
The works should follow, but, please note carefully,
***** it is not faith + works for salvation*****
> >> B. Queen of Heaven
> >Jeremiah 7 : 18, and Jeremiah 44 : 17 - 19, 25 are the references I
> >have to the 'queen of heaven' and they do not refer to Mary.
>
> Rev 12 does. And an iron rod is the kicker.
Read Rev 12 again - that is not Mary.
>> D. The Assumptions
> >> Assumptions come from lack of solid scripture reference, but as revealed to
> >> God's Church thru the teachings and counseling of the Holy Spirit.
> >Well, don't make up the story as you go along. Mary was a sinner, as
> >we all are. Mary said, "My spirit has rejoiced in God my
> >***Saviour***.
> >Only sinners need a 'Saviour'.
>
> Yet we Catholics have always proclaimed that Jesus, as the 2nd person of the
> Holy Trinity existing before all time, took away her sin at her own conception.
>
Mary is not proclaimed 'without sin' in the New Testament. The dating
I have from one website is that she was termed 'The Mother of God' in
431AD at the Council of Ephesus - a long time after she lived. You
haven't understood (above) "My spirit rejoices in God ***my Saviour***
- she was stating she knew she was a sinner.
> Again, it's the protest_ants that do ballistic, but never listen to the
> explanation.
>
But why should we acxede to something that the RC Church teaches
incorrectly.
The Vatican has got to shift - to change its teachings.
For the Vatican it is 'unity, but according to our teachings'.
> >> >> Purgatory is for sure according to scripture.
> >> >Proof verses in the New Testament, please.
> >> Purgatory:
> >> Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
> >> Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
> >> Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
> >> Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
> >However, when we are saved through faith in jesus Christ,
> >***ALL*** sins are forgiven. As far as the east is from the west so
> >far has (God) removed our transgressions from us. Psalm 103 : 12.
>
> Heb 10:26-27 disagrees.
>
> Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)
> 26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
> the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of
> judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
>
If we have been given the truth and do not follow it then we have not
received Jesus Christ as our only saviour - either deliberately
rejecting the teaching or not fully understanding what was given.
>
> >> Matthew 12
> >> 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone
> >> who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or
> >> in the age to come.
>
> >> Speaking against the Son of Man (man) can be forgiven in the next age. Anyone
> >> who speaks against the Holy Spirit (God) will not be forgiven in the next age.
>
> >> Now Rev 21:27 says: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…". That means there is
> >> an age to come that is short of heaven because sins can be forgiven there
> >> whereas no sin enters heaven.
> >There is nothing in the Bible that states the age to come is short of
> >heaven and therefore is purgatory.
>
> Then come up with something for yourself to describe the condition. Purging of
> the soul fits the bill perfectly.
>
When we realise the fullness of Christ's work for us - even the wonder
that God in Jesus Christ was reconciling us to Himself through His own
sacrifice then we should not want to sin, but should that happen God's
forgiveness is there for the asking. Purgatory does not exist and you
are wrong when you tell people that it does.
> >> The clothing worn by the priest at Mass and other religious
> >> gatherings is symbolic and reflective of that dress wear.
> >Jesus did not wear special clothing when he had the Last Supper with
> >His disciples.
>
> The priest is not Jesus. The vestments are a throwback to the early days after
> Christ.
>
The dating I have for vestments is 500AD, the scapular was introduced
in 1287AD - certainly not the early days after Christ.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/things/vestments.htm
>
> > Peter was the apostle to
> >the circumcised, as Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised.
<snip>
> >but Paul was the one, a Pharisee, (studied under Gamaliel), a Roman
> >citizen from his father, who was called to take the gospel through the
> >Mediterranean area.
> >Peter, the first Pope? The Papacy came into existence in 610AD and the
> >title was given by a wicked Emperor. Peter was named first Pope on a
> >count-back.
>
> All men are sinners - 24/7 - you, me, the Pope, etc, except Jesus. Heb 4:15.
>
> >>Well, if that is, as you assert, why is it that Peter has such a minor
> >> >role in the New Testament scriptures. <snip>.
>
> Jesus said call no man your "Father in Heaven". Paul particularly is himself
> as "father" to this flock.
>
> 1 Corinthians 4:15 (New International Version)
> 15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many
> fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
>
He was acting as a father - one who instructs the younger person in
age or the faith. The word 'Father' was not to be a designation of
office.
Today, it will be more and more possible for those not ordained to
have all the information for the Christian faith from the Internet. It
will not be necessay to sit in pews and be taught as children are
taught and that for all our adult lives, as it was in an illiterate
age.
<snip>
>
> The Romans represented a particular problem needing guidance/correcting. Peter
> ventured forth thru the Eastern provinces like Paul did. Maybe Peter wasn't
> even there in Rome yet.
>
If there is no evidence, then no doctrine based on the absence of
evidence.
> Paul states his thesis: The gospel: it is God's power to save all who
> believe'.
>
> >> It is most important to understand that a) the gospels reflect the beliefs and
> >> practices of the new Christians 30-60 years after Christ's resurrection,
Beliefs of the new church from the Day of Pentecost and kept as an
oral tradition
until they were written down as it was realised that those first
Christians were getting older and would die.
Those are all trivialities and are not necessary for our basic faith
in Christ. They are the points that occupy academic theolgians who can
cause much confusion and divide Christians.
> Gladys, believe in your heart that God became man to die on the cross for our a)
> redemption from sin and, b) to restore salvation to souls. But don't hang your
> hang
> (hat?) on the things that don't matter.
>
It seems to me that you and other dignatories of the RC Church are the
ones who are hanging hats on issues that are irrelevant, that are
incorrect, and which surely must be recognised by some (at least) in
modern times that it was the leadership at the Vatican which was
responsible for the breakaway movement of the Protestants.
What arrogance John Paull II had when he came to Sydney in 1982 to say
'all ye wanderers from Rome, return', when he should have been saying,
'We, at the Vatican, apologise that we sent Christianity the wrong way
from the early
300's AD and we will reform.
Some time later, after much thought I wrote to Cardinal Clancy, then
RC Archbishop of Sydney, sending him papers of my studies I had done
as advocate of reform in Psychiatric treatments, a more naturalistic
means of treating such conditions and others papers. .
But the RC Church leaders are only involved in power, as much as
possible, all of it if they can get it.
Protestants are expected to crawl quietly back and take their places
in pews to be taught all the RC heresies and traditions that have been
added to the Christian faith. I trust they will not do that. Let Rome
(Vatican) repent that it did so much that was wrong to Christendom!
Gladys Swager