###The Other Side at WACO!

[Ted McMillan]

Dear Honest Readers:

Here is another side of the story about the murders of the Branch
Davidians that never reaches the general public through the contolled
media. This is one way that we understand that we are dealing with
the masters of the Dark Ages: They keep telling us about diversity
and how all views are to be heard, but to act in accordance with this
seeming virtuous goal has been grueling for them.

On the news we are supposed to hear everything from both sides. Just
check the websites that deal with the other side. Write down their
points and produce questions for the government, and the other
non-tinfoil hats here, and you will begin to understand who they are
and what is happening.

Here is one such example of the other side. Prepare to write down the
points. As you read, you will see the same tactics and problems I
have encountered here with the other non-tinfoil heads:

http://www.dallasmorningnews.com/specials/waco/1209wa1co.htm

Davidian lawyers start questioning FBI agents about cameras, bugging
Justice Department bars release of witness names
12/09/99
By Lee Hancock / The Dallas Morning News

Lawyers for the Branch Davidians began questioning FBI agents under
oath in Washington Wednesday in the first of a series of depositions
aimed at determining what happened on the tragic final day of the 1993
Waco siege.

Justice Department lawyers imposed strict secrecy, using a court order
to prohibit the release of even the names of witnesses being called
for the series of depositions, scheduled to continue through next
week. A department spokesman declined to comment.

Lawyers for the Branch Davidian sect confirmed that agents to be
questioned included several involved with the deployment of an
airborne FBI infrared camera and a separate airborne still camera used
to record the final hours of the standoff.
Also to be questioned were FBI electronics experts assigned to help
infiltrate the compound with tiny eavesdropping devices and maintain a
system of closed-circuit television cameras outside the building.
Although government documents include statements from FBI technicians
that the cameras were running on the final day of the siege, no
recordings have been released to lawyers who defended Branch Davidians
in a 1994 criminal trial or to lawyers involved in the ongoing
wrongful death lawsuit.

[note to the honest readers. We have been informed that tiny sensing
devices were used by the government, and that the Branch Davidians
were largely out hi-teched and out powered by the government. With
these sensing devices, we understood that they knew where everyone
was, and what they were doing. We contend that it was because they
knew where everyone was why so many of them died.]

Other witnesses to be questioned include members of the FBI hostage
rescue team who bashed the rear of the compound with tanks and fired
tear gas rounds during the final government assault on April 19, 1993.

Some current and former FBI agents and commanders have already been
interrogated by the office of Waco special counsel John Danforth. Some
have also been interviewed by congressional investigators, as have
members of the Justice Department's legal team assigned to defend the
massive wrongful death lawsuit filed by the Branch Davidians in a Waco
federal court.

Among the key questions are why it took more than six years for
authorities to admit that pyrotechnic tear gas was used during the
FBI's final assault and whether any government agents fired their guns
at the compound during the last hours of the siege.

[Here is one problem we have sustained with the non-tinfoil heads on
this forum. It was the length of time it took for them to make the
right reactions and admissions.]

The compound caught fire during the FBI tank and tear gas assault, and
sect leader David Koresh and more than 80 followers died inside.
Government arson investigators ruled that the fire was set by compound
occupants; FBI officials have maintained that their agents' actions
did not contribute to the blaze.

FBI officials have also long insisted that none of their agents fired
a single gunshot during the entire 51-day standoff.

But the FBI acknowledged in late August that at least two pyrotechnic
tear gas grenades were fired after a former FBI official admitted that
their use had been "common knowledge" for years among members of the
hostage rescue team.

Attorneys for the sect contend that infrared videotape shot by an FBI
airplane during the final assault captured gunfire coming from
government positions outside the compound.

Experts hired by the Branch Davidians' lawyers have said the repeated
rhythmic flashes captured on the video could have only come from
gunfire. An expert hired by the House Government Reform Committee said
earlier this fall that he also believed the flashes came from gunfire.

Experts hired by the government have disputed that, and FBI officials
say the flashes were probably caused by unexplainable electronic
anomalies.

Last month, the federal judge presiding over the wrongful death
lawsuit indicated that he would appoint a scientific expert to develop
a field test designed to determine how gunfire might appear on
infrared videotape recorded by a similar or identical camera.

Michael Caddell, lead lawyer for the Branch Davidians, said last week
that he planned to show agents being deposed segments of the FBI's
infrared tape from April 19.

He said he also planned to question FBI infrared operators and pilots
and seek explanations for what appear to be gaps and erasures in
infrared videotapes made on April 19. The tapes also captured repeated
orders by FBI pilots to shut off the camera's audio recording
capability.

In a letter last week to government lawyers, Mr. Caddell indicated
that he also is challenging their efforts to block public access to
most of the thousands of documents that they have turned over to the
Branch Davidian legal team.

Even government reports, statements and other documents previously
surrendered to Congress or submitted to defense lawyers during a 1994
criminal trial have been stamped "Confidential" and "Attorney's Eyes
Only" before being surrendered to the lawyers involved in the wrongful
death case, Mr. Caddell wrote.

Justice Department lawyers also marked confidential their refusal to
answer questions about the number and identities of U.S. Army Special
Forces personnel sent to Waco during the siege, he noted.

"It is becoming increasingly clear that this overzealous use of the
'Confidential' and 'Attorney's Eyes Only' stamps are not for the
legitimate protection of law enforcement personnel involved in ongoing
operations, but rather to keep information concerning the FBI's
missteps and bad acts at [Waco] from the American people," Mr. Caddell
wrote.

Under the federal court's previous orders, the government has until
Dec. 16 to respond.
For the work finished!
Ted McMillan, Owner
Truth of Adventism Defended Forum
truth_of_adv...@egroups.com
THE TRUTH OF ADVENTISM DEFENDED WEBSITE:
http://www2.50megs.com/tmac1238/home.htm

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Ted McMillan wrote:

> Dear Honest Readers:
>
> Here is another side of the story about the murders of the Branch
> Davidians that never reaches the general public through the contolled
> media.

A really big hint, Anti-Ted, since you seem to need a clue: What
Protestants like Clinton do to other Protestants like Koresh is not of
Catholic Concern.

If you didn't persist in the Sola Scriptura lie by adding junk like the
writings of Ellen Govld VVhite to scripture, you'd be much better off.

Oh, and by the way, when is your webpage going to explain why:
1. Ellen Govld VVhite's name adds up to 666 just like the fake title she
created for the Pope.
2. None of the prophecies proclaimed by Adventists have ever come true.
3. Who created the Bible.

Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of Saint Gilles du Gard
Somtimes, the best-laid plans of mice and men...go VERY awry.
http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Theodore Michael Seeber
Coo! he's the remedial beer.
mailto:see...@aracnet.com
Emergency Address (100 bytes or less) mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
Tired of Dubba Bush and Gore, and you still have several months of
campaigning to get through? Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>
Blessed are the PeaceMakers, for they shall take flack from both sides
-Unofficial UN motto.

[Dolf Boek]

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
A really big hint, Anti-Ted, since you seem to need a clue: What >
Protestants like Clinton do to other Protestants like Koresh is not of
Catholic Concern.

If you didn't persist in the Sola Scriptura lie by adding junk like the
writings of Ellen Govld VVhite to scripture, you'd be much better off.

Oh, and by the way, when is your webpage going to explain why:
1. Ellen Govld VVhite's name adds up to 666 just like the fake title she
created for the Pope.
2. None of the prophecies proclaimed by Adventists have ever come true.
3. Who created the Bible.

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
You are simply trading epithets of speech so characteristic of Mystery Cult
cosmological behaviour and are your own proof that Ellen G. White was
correct in her Institutional characterisations...

Johannes Kepler's (1596) in his 'MYSTERIUM COSMOGRAPHICUM AS MATAIOLOGIA
(METATHESIS) UPON NATURE', expresses evidence of a non-biblical Mathematical
and Geometrical basis for the origin of Catholic Trinitarian Dogma
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/philadelphia.html#METATHESIS

"The human face is the place where 'mh mataion' is, or ought to be, seen. It
is there that 'svfrosunh' rules. Thus the question of the limitation of the
'mataion' even though 'mataios' is not itself an ethical or religious term,
is an ethical and ultimately a religious question. If we try to get beyond
this individual hint, and seek a comprehensive answer from all the tragic
poets and the Greek world as a whole, the answer would still be religious.
Only words of faith-pistis can hold in check a tormented or weary
'mataios'--'All earthly being is as smoke;... only the gods abide.' The
portion of man in 'mh mataion' is to be measured by his portion in the
divine." [KITTEL 1995 IV:520]

So the LORD said to Joshua, "'Get Up! Why do you lie thus on your face?
Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I
commanded them, For they have even taken some of the accursed things, and
have both stolen and deceived; and they have also put it among their own
stuff. [Romans 2:17-24] Therefore the children of Israel could not stand
before their enemies, because they have become doomed to destruction.
Neither will I be with you any more, unless you destroy the accursed from
among you.'

...Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I
have done: 'When I saw among the spoils a beautiful Babylonian garment, two
hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I
coveted them and took them. And there they are, hidden in the earth in the
midst of my tent, with silver under it.'

...And Joshua said, 'Why have you troubled us? The LORD will trouble you
this day.' So all Israel stoned him with stones, then they raised over him a
great heap of stones, still there to this day. So the LORD turned from the
fierceness of his anger. Therefore the name of that place has been called
the Valley of Achor {trouble} to this day." [Joshua 7:10-12...20-21...25-26]

As metathesis of transposition (artificial quaternary) upon the Canon of
Scripture known as the 10 Commandments, it is equally true to say Kepler
claims his transcendental Trinitarian image of God reflects the
numerological symbolism: '6 + 6 + 10' (= 22) [as the initial sequence Hebrew
letters -

# IS ISRAEL TRUE TO IT'S JEWISHNESS? A PARABLE ON THE LOST PASSWORD AS THE
NAME OF GOD
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/four.html#PASSWORD

# PHILOSOPHIC FIRST PRINCIPLES & THE FINE ART OF DECEPTION
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#DECEPTION

] if it is indeed drawn from the Logos (Living Oracles-logion) as the Canon
of Scripture. Otherwise it represents an image made like corruptible man: '6
+ 6 + 6' (= 18)--"For since the creation of the world his invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were
darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of
the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and
four footed beasts and creeping things." [Epistle to the Romans 1:20-23]

The sayings of false prophets are also 'mataia', hence it is this supreme
ignorance of God which makes men 'ousei mataioi' [Wisdom 13:1]: "They have
envisioned futility and false divination, saying, 'Thus says the LORD!' But
the LORD has not sent them; yet they hope that the word may be confirmed.
Have you not seen a futile vision, and have you not spoken false divination?
You say, 'The LORD says,' but I have not spoken." [Ezekiel 13:6-7]

As indeed Martin Heidegger, a lifelong Nazi said of his conceptions of the
Mysteries conveyed by Egyptian/Greek metaphysical thinking, "[They
challenged] a very ancient parameter so deeply embedded in our life and
thought as to remain invisible to us. I call this parameter 'ousia'. As a
parameter, ousia functions at once like a concept and like a set of
instructions. Fronting referentially onto the world and pragmatically onto
our behaviour, it both mirrors the beheld and structures the beholder. In
its 'mirroring' or referential function, ousia denotes a certain structure.
According to the reading of Aristotle, something is ousia if:

. It is securely and determinately bounded;
. One unitary component within its boundaries--what Aristotle calls the
'form'--generates and/or orders everything else within these boundaries;
. Only this governing unit affects the world outside these boundaries.

I call these traits 'boundary' (Arch/Point), 'disposition' (Duad/Line) and
'initiative' (Triad/Superficiality) respectively. In its pragmatic or
properly 'parametric' function, ousia is deployed in three ways:

. Referentially: anything which meets conditions 1-3 is an ousia
. Hermeneutically: Anything which approximates conditions 1-3 should be
interpeted as if they held.
. Practically: everything human not coming under conditions 1-3 should be
remade to conform to them as far as possible.

It is this deployment of ousia that I call 'metaphysics'. Its oppressive
character should be obvious." Therefore it is an especially important
consideration within 'hermetic mataiologia' to seek clarification on the
precise interpretation placed upon any three (Trinity) qualified and
recursive terms. It is afteral the 'poor' and 'bondservant' who are equally
encompassed by the liberty and unity, strangely expressed by the Sabbath
Commandment [Exodus 31:12-18, 20:8-11; 23:10-13; Jubilees 50:1-13;
Deuteronomy 5:12-15, 15:1-18]

. Their 'member[ship]' is implicit and explicit within the 7th day [Isaiah
56:1-8],
. As 'Christian' who is attributed by gender
. And 'Denomination' through heterodox homogeneity rather than orthodox
heterogeneity.

- dolf boek

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> A really big hint, Anti-Ted, since you seem to need a clue: What >
> Protestants like Clinton do to other Protestants like Koresh is not of
> Catholic Concern.
>
> If you didn't persist in the Sola Scriptura lie by adding junk like the
> writings of Ellen Govld VVhite to scripture, you'd be much better off.
>
> Oh, and by the way, when is your webpage going to explain why:
> 1. Ellen Govld VVhite's name adds up to 666 just like the fake title she
> created for the Pope.
> 2. None of the prophecies proclaimed by Adventists have ever come true.
> 3. Who created the Bible.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> You are simply trading epithets of speech so characteristic of Mystery Cult
> cosmological behaviour and are your own proof that Ellen G. White was
> correct in her Institutional characterisations...

If she was correct, then her own name proves the Adventist Cult to be as
much of the antiChrist as the Pope and the Catholic Church are.

You can't Clinton your way out of this one.

> Johannes Kepler's (1596) in his 'MYSTERIUM COSMOGRAPHICUM AS MATAIOLOGIA
> (METATHESIS) UPON NATURE', expresses evidence of a non-biblical Mathematical
> and Geometrical basis for the origin of Catholic Trinitarian Dogma
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/philadelphia.html#METATHESIS

So? Johannes Kepler was not the Pope, and thus has NO bearing upon our
religion.

snip rest of crap from people who simply did not have the authority to say
what they did.

[Dolf Boek]

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
If she was correct, then her own name proves the Adventist Cult to be as
much of the antiChrist as the Pope and the Catholic Church are.

You can't Clinton your way out of this one.

So? Johannes Kepler was not the Pope, and thus has NO bearing upon our
religion.

snip rest of crap from people who simply did not have the authority to say
what they did.

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Once again, ignorance and calluminous opinion is no defence against facts...
I note once again you have failed to produce any facts.

ON THE QUESTION OF THE POPE'S STATUS WITHIN THE MYSTERY CULTS: The modern
world seems to have forgotten the existence of those unwritten teachings
which explained satisfactorily the apparent contradictions of the written
Scriptures http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE , nor
does it remember that the pagans appointed their two-faced Janus as
custodian of the key to the Temple of Wisdom. Janus has been metamorphosed
into Saint Peter, so often symbolised as holding in his hand the key to the
gate of heaven. The gold and silver keys of 'God's Vicar on Earth,' the
Pope, symbolizes this 'secret doctrine' which when properly understood,
unlocks the treasure chest of the [Hellenised] Christian and Jewish
Qabbalah.

The temples-naos of Egyptian mysticism (from which the Tabernacle was copied
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#TITLE )
were--according to their own priests--miniature representations of the
universe. The solar system was always regarded as a great temple of
initiation, which candidates entered through the gates of birth; after
threading the tortuous passageways of earthly existence, they finally
approached the veil of the Great Mystery--Death. Life then is that great
mystery, and only those who pass successfully through its tests and trials,
interpreting them aright and extracting the essence of experience
(quintessence/5th element) therefrom, achieve true understanding: "Therefore
I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; nor about the
body, what you will put on. Life is more than food, and the body is more
than clothing. Consider the ravens [SPERMOLOGIST (Religous Babbler): a seed
picker (as the crow), that is, (figuratively) a sponger, loafer
(specifically a gossip or trifler in talk)], for they neither sow nor reap,
which have neither storehouse nor barn; and God feeds them. Of how much more
value are you than the birds?

And which of you by worrying can add one cubit to his stature? If you then
are not able to do the least, why are you anxious for the rest? Consider the
lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you,
even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God
so clothes the grass, which today is in the field and tomorrow is thrown
into the oven, how much more will He clothe you, O you of little-oligopistos
faith-oligopistos?

And do not seek what you should eat or what you should drink, nor have an
anxious mind. For all these things the nations of the world seek after, and
your Father knows that you need these things. But seek the kingdom of God,
and all these things shall be added to you. Do not fear, little flock, for
it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell what you
have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a
treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor
moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Let your waist be girded and your lamps burning; and you yourselves be like
men who wait for their master, when he will return from the wedding, that
when he comes and knocks they may open to him immediately." [Luke 12:22-36]

ON THE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ARBITARY DEPLOYMENT OF NUMEROLOGICAL SYMBOLLISM
as DIVINATION BY NUMBERS: Upon the near affinity which Pythagorus (following
Orpheus) conceived to be betwixt the gods and numbers, he collected a kind
of Arithmomanty; not practiced by himself only, but communicated to his
disciples, as is manifest from Iamblichus
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#ARCHON [vit. Pyth C
chap 28], who cites this fragment of the 'Sacred Discourse' a Book ascribed
to him: Concerning the gods of Pythagorus, son of Mnefarchus, I learned this
when I was initiated at Libeth in Thrace, Aglaophemus administering the
rites to me; Orpheus son of Calliope, instructed by his mother in the
Pangoean mountain, said, 'That number is an eternal substance, the most
provident principle of the Universe, Heaven, and Earth, and middle Nature;
likewise the root of Divine beings
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/semen.html#MATRIX , and daemons
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#PISCUS .
Hence says Iamblichus, 'it is manifest, that Pythagoras received of Numbers
the determinate essence of the gods, from the traditions of Orpheus. By
these Numbers he framed a wonderful divination and service of the gods, of
nearest affinity to numbers, as may be evinced from hence [Procession of the
Elements - http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/semen.html#SOLIDS ], (for
it is requisite to give an instance for confirmation of what we say,
'Whereas Abaris performed those kind of sacrifices to which he was
accustomed, and practised diligently divination, after all the ways of the
Barbarians, by victims, principally of Cocks whose entrails they conceived
to be most exact for inspection.

Pythagoras willing not to take him off from his study of truth; yet to
direct him by a safer way, without blood and slaughter, moreover esteeming
the Cock sacred to the Sun, taught him to find out all truth by the science
of Arithmetick. Thus Iamblichus [vit Pyth. cap 19] and elsewhere he saith,
that Pythagoras, instead of the Art of divining by sacrifices, taught him
that kind of prediction which is by Numbers, as conceiving that to be more
sacred and divine, and more agreeable to the celestial numbers of the gods.

This hint some have taken to impose upon the world, under the name
Pythagoras, an Onomantick kind of Arithmentick [
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/hymeneal.html#onoma ], assigning
particular numbers to the letters of the Alphabet, to the Planets, to the
days of the Week, and to the Signs of the Zodiack; thereby resolving
questions concerning Nativities, victory, life, or death, journeys,
prosperity or adversity; as is set down by Flud [Microcosm] who adds,
'Apollonius hath delivered another way of divination, according to the
Pythagorean Doctrine; affirming, that future things may be prognosticated by
virtue of a Wheel http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/four.html#PLANETS
invented by Pythagoras, whereby is treated of life and death, of fugitives,
of litigiuos business, of victories, of the sex of children unborn, and
infinite others of the kind. But concerning the exposition of the Wheel, and
the true position of Numbers, therein the ancient Authors have written very
inconstantly, so as the truth of its composition cannot be comprehended
otherwise than by conjecture.'

What ancient Authors he means, I know not; the citation of Apollonius, I
doubt to be no less supposititius, than the Wheel it self, which Trithemius
[Antip. Mal. I 3] and others acknowledge to be an invention of later times."
[Pythagorus - His Life & Teachings, 1687 CE Edition of 'The History of
Philosophy' by Thomas Stanley, © 1970, The Philosophical Research Society,
Inc, p 529-530]

Now unless you have some facts to contribute, beyond conjecture, one would
assume, there is no biblical basis for Catholic Dogma.

- dolf

[Ryan]

When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:20:10 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>So? Johannes Kepler was not the Pope, and thus has NO bearing upon our
>religion.

So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your
religion either?

I don't know if your comment about the Pope was intentional, or just
simply careless, but in either case it is an exceptional example of
Catholic error.

By error, I do mean precisely the lack of emphasis upon Christ the
Lord and the exaltation of a mere human as the supreme head of a body
of like minded individuals.

In other words, who needs Christ when you have the Pope.

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> If she was correct, then her own name proves the Adventist Cult to be as
> much of the antiChrist as the Pope and the Catholic Church are.
>
> You can't Clinton your way out of this one.
>
> So? Johannes Kepler was not the Pope, and thus has NO bearing upon our
> religion.
>
> snip rest of crap from people who simply did not have the authority to say
> what they did.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Once again, ignorance and calluminous opinion is no defence against facts...

My point is that you have yet to produce any facts.

> I note once again you have failed to produce any facts.

To be facts (in a Catholic regligious sense), first of all one must prove
that one recieved authority from Jesus Christ.

Since Protestantism does not have any such authority
Snip crap posted by people who don't have authority.

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:20:10 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >So? Johannes Kepler was not the Pope, and thus has NO bearing upon our
> >religion.
>
> So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> religion either?

In a way, Jesus Christ, not Peter, was the first Pope.

> I don't know if your comment about the Pope was intentional, or just
> simply careless, but in either case it is an exceptional example of
> Catholic error.

Careless to a point, yes. But since Jesus Christ himself appointed Peter
as Pope, he must have had the power of a Pope.

> By error, I do mean precisely the lack of emphasis upon Christ the
> Lord and the exaltation of a mere human as the supreme head of a body
> of like minded individuals.

I know what you think you mean, but it simply isn't true.

> In other words, who needs Christ when you have the Pope.

The Pope does, since he's the Vicar of Christ. :-) Thank you for
reminding us of that fact: Without Christ, there would be no Pope, just
like without the Pope, there'd be no Bible.

[Darren Gunter]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:24:10 -0700, "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Ted McMillan wrote:
>
>If you didn't persist in the Sola Scriptura lie by adding junk like the
>writings of Ellen Govld VVhite to scripture, you'd be much better off.

Why is Ellen G White's writing junk?

>Oh, and by the way, when is your webpage going to explain why:
>1. Ellen Govld VVhite's name adds up to 666 just like the fake title she
>created for the Pope.

If you really understood the prophecy in Daniel/Revelation, you would
understand why the pope's latin title equates to 666.

>2. None of the prophecies proclaimed by Adventists have ever come true.

Like?

>3. Who created the Bible.

Who do you believe created the bible? Do you believe in the bible?

Darren

[Ryan]

When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:40:50 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>> So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your

>> religion either?
>
>In a way, Jesus Christ, not Peter, was the first Pope.

I'll take that as a yes since you failed to answer the question.

>> By error, I do mean precisely the lack of emphasis upon Christ the
>> Lord and the exaltation of a mere human as the supreme head of a body
>> of like minded individuals.
>
>I know what you think you mean, but it simply isn't true.

'splain to me.

You neglect any mention of Christ until I bring it up, and even after
I bring it up, you are still focusing on your pope instead of Christ.

These things are true, my statement above is an iteration of those
facts.

>> In other words, who needs Christ when you have the Pope.
>
>The Pope does, since he's the Vicar of Christ. :-) Thank you for
>reminding us of that fact: Without Christ, there would be no Pope, just
>like without the Pope, there'd be no Bible.
>Ted

vicar - a person who takes the place or role of another

You are trying to substitute your pope for Christ, either in whole or
in part. Either way, it is blasphemy. Either way, the office of the
pope is a prime example of John's description of an antichrist.

Greek prefix - anti = against; to take the place of
Greek root - Christos = Christ

Which definition of the prefix 'anti' would you prefer?

And without your pope, there would be a Bible, there is simply no
guarantee that it would be in the same format as we have it today.

Your precious, precious fathers wrote nothing of what is in Scripture.
Scripture does not exist because of them. It has a particular format
today because of them.

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> My point is that you have yet to produce any facts.
>

> To be facts (in a Catholic regligious sense), first of all one must prove
> that one recieved authority from Jesus Christ. Since Protestantism does not
> have any such authority Snip crap posted by people who don't have authority.
>

> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Alas, I have produced facts as matters of history which the church claims as
> her own:

snip what DOLF thinks are facts, when he's merely repeating historical
opinions.

Dolf, you still don't get it do you.
Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of St. Bertin

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:40:50 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >> So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> >> religion either?
> >
> >In a way, Jesus Christ, not Peter, was the first Pope.
>
> I'll take that as a yes since you failed to answer the question.

Rather, I showed that Jesus Christ was the Pope. That's the problem with
Protestants, they claim answers while the validity of the question is
still under discussion.

> >> By error, I do mean precisely the lack of emphasis upon Christ the
> >> Lord and the exaltation of a mere human as the supreme head of a body
> >> of like minded individuals.
> >
> >I know what you think you mean, but it simply isn't true.
>
> 'splain to me.

The Mass mentions Christ a minimum of 65 times every Sunday. There's no
"lack of emphasis on Christ".

> You neglect any mention of Christ until I bring it up, and even after
> I bring it up, you are still focusing on your pope instead of Christ.

That's because you have yet to understand who the Pope is. He is the
Vicar of Christ. A "vicar" is a trusted Servant who you leave behind to
guard these afairs that must be taken care of. That's all the Pope is, a
Servant, the Servant of the Servants of Christ.

> These things are true, my statement above is an iteration of those
> facts.

And your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding of who the
Pope is.

> >> In other words, who needs Christ when you have the Pope.
> >
> >The Pope does, since he's the Vicar of Christ. :-) Thank you for
> >reminding us of that fact: Without Christ, there would be no Pope, just
> >like without the Pope, there'd be no Bible.
> >Ted
>
> vicar - a person who takes the place or role of another

Yep.

> You are trying to substitute your pope for Christ, either in whole or
> in part.

Not me, Christ did. Mathew 16 & 18, if you're interested.

> Either way, it is blasphemy. Either way, the office of the
> pope is a prime example of John's description of an antichrist.
>
> Greek prefix - anti = against; to take the place of
> Greek root - Christos = Christ
>
> Which definition of the prefix 'anti' would you prefer?

Against, since that's the true GREEK prefix (as opposed to the invented
1600s English prefix).

> And without your pope, there would be a Bible, there is simply no
> guarantee that it would be in the same format as we have it today.

There's nothing in Scripture that guarantees THAT. In fact, since without
the Pope there's no Christ on earth, chances are the religion would have
been killed off by the Romans.

> Your precious, precious fathers wrote nothing of what is in Scripture.
> Scripture does not exist because of them. It has a particular format
> today because of them.

No man born in 0 A.D. lived to see the completion of John's work.
Your false Protestant Scripture did not exist at all until 1500 A.D.
Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of St. Bertin

[Ryan]

When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:43:18 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:
>
>> When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:40:50 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
>> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>>
>> >> So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your
>> >> religion either?
>> >
>> >In a way, Jesus Christ, not Peter, was the first Pope.
>>
>> I'll take that as a yes since you failed to answer the question.
>
>Rather, I showed that Jesus Christ was the Pope. That's the problem with
>Protestants, they claim answers while the validity of the question is
>still under discussion.

I will reiterate once more the original question.

So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
religion either?

I made no mention of who was first, second, third, etc. and so forth.

Titus 3:
9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

>> >> By error, I do mean precisely the lack of emphasis upon Christ the
>> >> Lord and the exaltation of a mere human as the supreme head of a body
>> >> of like minded individuals.
>> >
>> >I know what you think you mean, but it simply isn't true.
>>
>> 'splain to me.
>
>The Mass mentions Christ a minimum of 65 times every Sunday. There's no
>"lack of emphasis on Christ".

And how many times does it mention the pope, early church fathers,
tradition, Mary, saints, and other individuals who are not Jesus
Christ?

If you had 65$ in your wallet, it would be a fortune to a 10 year old
who gets 2$ a week for allowance. If you had 65$ in your wallet, it
would be nothing to Bill Gates' bank account.

>> You neglect any mention of Christ until I bring it up, and even after
>> I bring it up, you are still focusing on your pope instead of Christ.
>
>That's because you have yet to understand who the Pope is. He is the
>Vicar of Christ. A "vicar" is a trusted Servant who you leave behind to
>guard these afairs that must be taken care of. That's all the Pope is, a
>Servant, the Servant of the Servants of Christ.

Correction. The Holy Spirit was left to aide the disciples of Christ,
not some holy human father.

>> These things are true, my statement above is an iteration of those
>> facts.
>
>And your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding of who the
>Pope is.

And why do you insist on calling him Father, with a capital "P"???

Matthew 23:
9) And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
which is in heaven.

>> >> In other words, who needs Christ when you have the Pope.
>> >
>> >The Pope does, since he's the Vicar of Christ. :-) Thank you for
>> >reminding us of that fact: Without Christ, there would be no Pope, just
>> >like without the Pope, there'd be no Bible.
>> >Ted
>>
>> vicar - a person who takes the place or role of another
>
>Yep.

So the Pope is hear to take the place of Christ. Grand.

>> You are trying to substitute your pope for Christ, either in whole or
>> in part.
>
>Not me, Christ did. Mathew 16 & 18, if you're interested.

You have yet to provide the scriptural evidence which you stated
exists for the Assumption.

Your passage above does not place anyone in the place of Christ.

>> Either way, it is blasphemy. Either way, the office of the
>> pope is a prime example of John's description of an antichrist.
>>
>> Greek prefix - anti = against; to take the place of
>> Greek root - Christos = Christ
>>
>> Which definition of the prefix 'anti' would you prefer?
>
>Against, since that's the true GREEK prefix (as opposed to the invented
>1600s English prefix).

Ah, so the pope's office is against Christ.

>> And without your pope, there would be a Bible, there is simply no
>> guarantee that it would be in the same format as we have it today.
>
>There's nothing in Scripture that guarantees THAT. In fact, since without
>the Pope there's no Christ on earth, chances are the religion would have
>been killed off by the Romans.

The Pope is by no stretch of the imagination any inkling of Christ on
earth. This is utter blasphemy.

>> Your precious, precious fathers wrote nothing of what is in Scripture.
>> Scripture does not exist because of them. It has a particular format
>> today because of them.
>
>No man born in 0 A.D. lived to see the completion of John's work.
>Your false Protestant Scripture did not exist at all until 1500 A.D.
>Ted

False protestant scripture? To what do you refer? The Received Text?
Textus Receptus? Majority Text? It is from this that the KJV was
translated, and these documents existed in the first century AD.
Quite a far cry from 1500.

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:43:18 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:
> >
> >> When: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:40:50 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
> >>
> >> >> So does Jesus Christ, not being the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> >> >> religion either?
> >> >
> >> >In a way, Jesus Christ, not Peter, was the first Pope.
> >>
> >> I'll take that as a yes since you failed to answer the question.
> >
> >Rather, I showed that Jesus Christ was the Pope. That's the problem with
> >Protestants, they claim answers while the validity of the question is
> >still under discussion.
>
> I will reiterate once more the original question.
>
> So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> religion either?

But Jesus Christ IS the Pope, regardless of who the current holder of that
low office is. Without Christ, there is no Pope. Within Christ, there is
Pope, Clegy, Religious and Laity.

> I made no mention of who was first, second, third, etc. and so forth.
>
> Titus 3:
> 9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
> strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

I see nothing in this about hierarchies.

> >> 'splain to me.
> >
> >The Mass mentions Christ a minimum of 65 times every Sunday. There's no
> >"lack of emphasis on Christ".
>
> And how many times does it mention the pope, early church fathers,
> tradition, Mary, saints, and other individuals who are not Jesus
> Christ?

Mary, twice. The Pope, once. Why? Do you think that these are not also
Christ? The rest, maybe on their feast days or in the readings.

Tell me, more than half the books in the Bible doen't mention
Christ. Would you also say that the Bible lacks "emphasis" on Christ?

> If you had 65$ in your wallet, it would be a fortune to a 10 year old
> who gets 2$ a week for allowance. If you had 65$ in your wallet, it
> would be nothing to Bill Gates' bank account.

So?

> >That's because you have yet to understand who the Pope is. He is the
> >Vicar of Christ. A "vicar" is a trusted Servant who you leave behind to
> >guard these afairs that must be taken care of. That's all the Pope is, a
> >Servant, the Servant of the Servants of Christ.
>
> Correction. The Holy Spirit was left to aide the disciples of Christ,
> not some holy human father.

The Pope is a servant of the Holy Spirit.
Plus, I'd say that the Protestant Churches either don't have the Holy
Spirit at all, or don't listen to him.

> >And your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding of who the
> >Pope is.
>
> And why do you insist on calling him Father, with a capital "P"???

Papa is not abba and not father.

> Matthew 23:
> 9) And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
> which is in heaven.

Try it in aramaic, since that is now the language we know is the earliest
used for this passage.

> >> >The Pope does, since he's the Vicar of Christ. :-) Thank you for
> >> >reminding us of that fact: Without Christ, there would be no Pope, just
> >> >like without the Pope, there'd be no Bible.
> >> >Ted
> >>
> >> vicar - a person who takes the place or role of another
> >
> >Yep.
>
> So the Pope is hear to take the place of Christ. Grand.

The Pope is listening to Christ, yes. Unlike you Protestants.

> >> You are trying to substitute your pope for Christ, either in whole or
> >> in part.
> >
> >Not me, Christ did. Mathew 16 & 18, if you're interested.
>
> You have yet to provide the scriptural evidence which you stated
> exists for the Assumption.

Uh, I did. Revelations 12:1-14 clearly establishes the woman as the
Mother of Christ, and Revelations 12:14 has her carried away on the wings
of an eagle (the scriptural symbol for assumption). If you are not blind,
you will see.

> Your passage above does not place anyone in the place of Christ.

If the place of Christ is not to forgive sins, then what is it?

> >Against, since that's the true GREEK prefix (as opposed to the invented
> >1600s English prefix).
>
> Ah, so the pope's office is against Christ.

So YOU claim, who can't even read aramaic and who thinks that the Pope,
rather than Nero, is the beast.

> >> And without your pope, there would be a Bible, there is simply no
> >> guarantee that it would be in the same format as we have it today.
> >
> >There's nothing in Scripture that guarantees THAT. In fact, since without
> >the Pope there's no Christ on earth, chances are the religion would have
> >been killed off by the Romans.
>
> The Pope is by no stretch of the imagination any inkling of Christ on
> earth. This is utter blasphemy.

Really? What other man claims to forgive sin?

> >> Your precious, precious fathers wrote nothing of what is in Scripture.
> >> Scripture does not exist because of them. It has a particular format
> >> today because of them.
> >
> >No man born in 0 A.D. lived to see the completion of John's work.
> >Your false Protestant Scripture did not exist at all until 1500 A.D.
>

> False protestant scripture? To what do you refer? The Received Text?
> Textus Receptus? Majority Text? It is from this that the KJV was
> translated, and these documents existed in the first century AD.
> Quite a far cry from 1500.

Oh, that's funny. You're claiming that the Recieved Text, the Textus
Receptus, and the Majority Text existed in the first century?
Here's a hint: The scriptures were not even in Latin until St. Jerome
translated them in the 300s (the FOURTH century, not the first)and the
Textus Receptus was a condemned French translation which contained many
errors.
But I'm not talking about these. Rather, I'm talking about the fake
modern "Bibles" that remove books from the Old Testament.

[Dolf Boek]

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
snip what DOLF thinks are facts, when he's merely repeating historical
opinions.

Dolf, you still don't get it do you.

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Everywhere within the Christian Era, and seemingly in contradiction of
[Romans 5:6-11] as the gospel's priority emphasis to representation of
'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Colossians 1:27] as instance of
individual 'belief'
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#BEGIN or 'value
system' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/two.html#SDA as worldview
(kosmos http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE ) [Hebrews
8:7-13; 10:11-39], the Spirit became considered God-given, not immanent
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/two.html#MODERATE [1. remaining
within; indwelling; inherent. 2. (of a mental act) taking place within the
mind of the subject, and having no effect outside it. 3. Theological a.
pertaining to the continuing presence of God among His people and in each
individual believer. b. (of the deity) seen as indwelling in the Church] and
therefore was viewed as not readily apprehensible in psychological or
sociological terms.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/info/review27042000.html

The religion of early Christianity was claimed to represent the first
pneumatic of the risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth, yet today remains strangely
Institutionally detached from representations given by the Apostle's living
testimony as recipients of the Holy Spirit and evinced by their reflections
of the historical Jesus . [KITTEL 1995 I:675]

- dolf

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> snip what DOLF thinks are facts, when he's merely repeating historical
> opinions.
>
> Dolf, you still don't get it do you.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Everywhere within the Christian Era, and seemingly in contradiction of
> [Romans 5:6-11] as the gospel's priority emphasis to representation of
> 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Colossians 1:27] as instance of
> individual 'belief'

So what?
None of this gives you the right to play Pope with my beliefs.

You still don't get it. Christ left us a hierarchy (Matthew 16 & 18), who
have the charism of teaching. Your "church" does not have such a charism.

[Ryan]

When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:14:13 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>> I will reiterate once more the original question.

>>
>> So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
>> religion either?
>
>But Jesus Christ IS the Pope, regardless of who the current holder of that
>low office is. Without Christ, there is no Pope. Within Christ, there is
>Pope, Clegy, Religious and Laity.

Scripture, please.

>> I made no mention of who was first, second, third, etc. and so forth.
>>
>> Titus 3:
>> 9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
>> strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
>
>I see nothing in this about hierarchies.

Genealogies, followings of one generation to the next, pope after pope
after pope after pope and so on and so forth.

>> And how many times does it mention the pope, early church fathers,
>> tradition, Mary, saints, and other individuals who are not Jesus
>> Christ?
>
>Mary, twice. The Pope, once. Why? Do you think that these are not also
>Christ? The rest, maybe on their feast days or in the readings.

Mary and the pope are not Christ. To claim that they are is
blasphemy.

>Tell me, more than half the books in the Bible doen't mention
>Christ. Would you also say that the Bible lacks "emphasis" on Christ?
>
>> If you had 65$ in your wallet, it would be a fortune to a 10 year old
>> who gets 2$ a week for allowance. If you had 65$ in your wallet, it
>> would be nothing to Bill Gates' bank account.
>
>So?

It is a comparison, Theodore. When you compare 65 to 2, 65 becomes a
large number. When you have 10 billion compared to 65, 65 becomes a
small number. You have to look at the 65 in context, not just as 65,
all off by it's lonesome.

>> Correction. The Holy Spirit was left to aide the disciples of Christ,
>> not some holy human father.
>
>The Pope is a servant of the Holy Spirit.
>Plus, I'd say that the Protestant Churches either don't have the Holy
>Spirit at all, or don't listen to him.

You'd say a lot of things, Theodore. You've lied to me in the past,
if you'll remember, and I do not trust your words.

Say what you like. Just don't get upset with me when you say
something that attempts to demote Christ and I point it out.

>> >And your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding of who the
>> >Pope is.
>>
>> And why do you insist on calling him Father, with a capital "P"???
>
>Papa is not abba and not father.

A blatent lie; but I suppose I should expect little else from you by
now.

If papa does not mean father, then tell me.. what does it mean?
Mother?

>> Matthew 23:
>> 9) And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
>> which is in heaven.
>
>Try it in aramaic, since that is now the language we know is the earliest
>used for this passage.

Enlighten us, o master of the unbiblical language.

>> So the Pope is hear to take the place of Christ. Grand.
>
>The Pope is listening to Christ, yes. Unlike you Protestants.

Listening to? I didn't say listening to. You are twisting words to
suit your own perverted viewpoint. I said take the place of, and you
agreed, but only after completely altering the statement.

The word Wicca, yes, a pagan religion, is derived from the word weik,
which is defined as "to twist."

Are you a Wiccan, Theodore? You like to twist my words so much, it
would appear the above question warrants an affirmative answer.

>> You have yet to provide the scriptural evidence which you stated
>> exists for the Assumption.
>
>Uh, I did. Revelations 12:1-14 clearly establishes the woman as the
>Mother of Christ, and Revelations 12:14 has her carried away on the wings
>of an eagle (the scriptural symbol for assumption). If you are not blind,
>you will see.

Once again, your falsehood rears its abominable head. You never
shared this passage as any form of scriptural proof of the assumption.

>> Your passage above does not place anyone in the place of Christ.
>
>If the place of Christ is not to forgive sins, then what is it?

It is Christ's duty and Christ's duty only to forgive sins. Not
priests, not popes, not bishops, not any of the other miriad of
leaders the Catholic church has heaped up to itself.

>> >Against, since that's the true GREEK prefix (as opposed to the invented
>> >1600s English prefix).
>>
>> Ah, so the pope's office is against Christ.
>
>So YOU claim, who can't even read aramaic and who thinks that the Pope,
>rather than Nero, is the beast.

No, not just the pope, but the entirety of Catholic doctrine. In
essence, the Catholic Church itself.

And I have seen no inclination of you to pass the buck from your
church to Nero to date.

>> The Pope is by no stretch of the imagination any inkling of Christ on
>> earth. This is utter blasphemy.
>
>Really? What other man claims to forgive sin?

None should. God alone forgives sin. Not man.

>> False protestant scripture? To what do you refer? The Received Text?
>> Textus Receptus? Majority Text? It is from this that the KJV was
>> translated, and these documents existed in the first century AD.
>> Quite a far cry from 1500.
>
>Oh, that's funny. You're claiming that the Recieved Text, the Textus
>Receptus, and the Majority Text existed in the first century?
>Here's a hint: The scriptures were not even in Latin until St. Jerome
>translated them in the 300s (the FOURTH century, not the first)and the
>Textus Receptus was a condemned French translation which contained many
>errors.
>But I'm not talking about these. Rather, I'm talking about the fake
>modern "Bibles" that remove books from the Old Testament.
>Ted

Theodore, the phrase "Textus Receptus" is Greek for "Received Text."
The term "Majority Text" is the name applied to the Textus Receptus..
these three are different names for the same thing, or didn't you know
that?

And it is not in Latin.. it is in Greek. It is not in French either.
It is in Greek. It is not in Aramaic, but in Greek.

I have stated this to you before, and you rejected it. I doubt you'll
change your tone this go round either.

/*

*/

[Francis Lapeyre]

"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:rWct5.44861$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

{Blah, blah..}

Two words: Eschew obfuscation (Carlos, you can look it up).
--

Regards,
Francis
---------------
Francis Lapeyre

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus rogatur?"

Spam deterrent: Remove the sound of the domestic feline in my address to
reply via e-mail.

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:14:13 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >> I will reiterate once more the original question.
> >>
> >> So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> >> religion either?
> >
> >But Jesus Christ IS the Pope, regardless of who the current holder of that
> >low office is. Without Christ, there is no Pope. Within Christ, there is
> >Pope, Clegy, Religious and Laity.
>
> Scripture, please.

Rom.12
[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service.
[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
[3] For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among
you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to
think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of
faith.
[4] For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the
same office:
[5] So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one
of another.
[6] Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to
us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of
faith;
[7] Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on
teaching;
[8] Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it
with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy,
with cheerfulness.
[9] Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
that which is good.
[10] Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour
preferring one another;
[11] Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
[12] Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in
prayer;
[13] Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
[14] Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
[15] Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
[16] Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but
condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
[17] Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the
sight of all men.
[18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.
[19] Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto
wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
[20] Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him
drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
[21] Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

> >> I made no mention of who was first, second, third, etc. and so forth.
> >>
> >> Titus 3:
> >> 9) But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
> >> strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
> >
> >I see nothing in this about hierarchies.
>
> Genealogies, followings of one generation to the next, pope after pope
> after pope after pope and so on and so forth.

But the Popes are not related to each other, nor do they follow one
generation to the next.
They have been taught the same and show a continuous bond back to the
Apostles, but the Popes are not like a monarchy.
Can't be in fact, for the Once and Future King of the Catholic Church was
raised from the dead, ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right
hand of the Father (Nicene Creed).

> >> And how many times does it mention the pope, early church fathers,
> >> tradition, Mary, saints, and other individuals who are not Jesus
> >> Christ?
> >
> >Mary, twice. The Pope, once. Why? Do you think that these are not also
> >Christ? The rest, maybe on their feast days or in the readings.
>
> Mary and the pope are not Christ.

Rom.12
[1] I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which
is your reasonable service.
[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
[3] For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among
you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to
think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of
faith.
[4] For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the
same office:
[5] So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one
of another.
[6] Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to
us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of
faith;
[7] Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on
teaching;
[8] Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it
with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy,
with cheerfulness.
[9] Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to
that which is good.
[10] Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour
preferring one another;
[11] Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
[12] Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in
prayer;
[13] Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.
[14] Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.
[15] Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
[16] Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but
condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
[17] Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the
sight of all men.
[18] If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.
[19] Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto
wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
[20] Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him
drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
[21] Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

We're all a part of the Body of Christ.

> To claim that they are is
> blasphemy.

Then Paul, and therefore the Bible, is guilty of blasphemy. Are you going
out to burn your Bible?

> >Tell me, more than half the books in the Bible doen't mention
> >Christ. Would you also say that the Bible lacks "emphasis" on Christ?

Why didn't you answer this question? Could it be you're afraid of this
question?

> >> If you had 65$ in your wallet, it would be a fortune to a 10 year old
> >> who gets 2$ a week for allowance. If you had 65$ in your wallet, it
> >> would be nothing to Bill Gates' bank account.
> >
> >So?
>
> It is a comparison, Theodore. When you compare 65 to 2, 65 becomes a
> large number. When you have 10 billion compared to 65, 65 becomes a
> small number. You have to look at the 65 in context, not just as 65,
> all off by it's lonesome.

Ok. So let's compare the 65 to the ONE mention of the Pope, sometimes, if
the priest picks the right Eucharistic prayer (the Pope is mentioned in
3/6 Eucharistic prayer options, Mary in 2). Is not 65 in this case a
large number?
Plus, Christ is mentioned even more, for I have not counted the readings
or the gospels.

> >> Correction. The Holy Spirit was left to aide the disciples of Christ,
> >> not some holy human father.
> >
> >The Pope is a servant of the Holy Spirit.
> >Plus, I'd say that the Protestant Churches either don't have the Holy
> >Spirit at all, or don't listen to him.
>
> You'd say a lot of things, Theodore.

Yes I do. But some of these have proof. In this case, the 30,000
Protestant denominations prove either:
1. Protestants don't listen to the Holy Spirit
2. The Holy Spirit is hopelessly schizophrenic.

Since I don't believe that God is mentally ill, I go with #1.

> You've lied to me in the past,
> if you'll remember, and I do not trust your words.

You twisted my words to make them into a lie.

> Say what you like. Just don't get upset with me when you say
> something that attempts to demote Christ and I point it out.

Depends, are you going to twist my words, or try to understand them?

> >> >And your statement above shows a complete lack of understanding of who the
> >> >Pope is.
> >>
> >> And why do you insist on calling him Father, with a capital "P"???
> >
> >Papa is not abba and not father.
>
> A blatent lie; but I suppose I should expect little else from you by
> now.

Papa does not mean father, it means spiritual guardian.

> If papa does not mean father, then tell me.. what does it mean?
> Mother?

spiritual guardian.

Even an adopted son will call his adopted father papa.
But you have only one Father in heaven.

I'm amazed that you have a problem with this.

> >> Matthew 23:
> >> 9) And call no man your Father upon the earth: for one is your Father,
> >> which is in heaven.
> >
> >Try it in aramaic, since that is now the language we know is the earliest
> >used for this passage.
>
> Enlighten us, o master of the unbiblical language.

Abba is a different term than abbat.
Abba is the child-form, for a loving Father
Abbat is any male ancestor.

I would call English the unbiblical language.

> >The Pope is listening to Christ, yes. Unlike you Protestants.
>
> Listening to? I didn't say listening to. You are twisting words to
> suit your own perverted viewpoint. I said take the place of, and you
> agreed, but only after completely altering the statement.

To take the place of, one must be in communion with. Else it is a false
taking the place of.

Kind of like your adding of the word "authority" to 2 Tim 3:14-17?

> The word Wicca, yes, a pagan religion, is derived from the word weik,
> which is defined as "to twist."
>
> Are you a Wiccan, Theodore? You like to twist my words so much, it
> would appear the above question warrants an affirmative answer.

I have been many things.

> >> You have yet to provide the scriptural evidence which you stated
> >> exists for the Assumption.
> >
> >Uh, I did. Revelations 12:1-14 clearly establishes the woman as the
> >Mother of Christ, and Revelations 12:14 has her carried away on the wings
> >of an eagle (the scriptural symbol for assumption). If you are not blind,
> >you will see.
>
> Once again, your falsehood rears its abominable head. You never
> shared this passage as any form of scriptural proof of the assumption.

I did last week on tnn.religion.catholic. Check Deja.
Or did you mean in our private conversation? In our private conversation,
you claimed that Jesus was a sinner who didn't follow the Ten
Commandments, which was step #3, so we never got to this.

> >> Your passage above does not place anyone in the place of Christ.
> >
> >If the place of Christ is not to forgive sins, then what is it?
>
> It is Christ's duty and Christ's duty only to forgive sins. Not
> priests, not popes, not bishops, not any of the other miriad of
> leaders the Catholic church has heaped up to itself.

Really? Then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to bind and
loose?
Matt 18:
[14] Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
one of these little ones should perish.
[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
gained thy brother.
[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if
he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
a publican.
[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven.
[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
Father which is in heaven.

> >So YOU claim, who can't even read aramaic and who thinks that the Pope,
> >rather than Nero, is the beast.
>
> No, not just the pope, but the entirety of Catholic doctrine. In
> essence, the Catholic Church itself.

In that case, better throw out your Bible, which came from Catholic
Doctrine.

> And I have seen no inclination of you to pass the buck from your
> church to Nero to date.

666. Nero Ceasar was the 666th Emperor of Pagan Rome.

> >Really? What other man claims to forgive sin?
>
> None should. God alone forgives sin. Not man.

So you claim the Bible to be false. No wonder you have a problem with the
Catholic Church.

> >> False protestant scripture? To what do you refer? The Received Text?
> >> Textus Receptus? Majority Text? It is from this that the KJV was
> >> translated, and these documents existed in the first century AD.
> >> Quite a far cry from 1500.
> >
> >Oh, that's funny. You're claiming that the Recieved Text, the Textus
> >Receptus, and the Majority Text existed in the first century?
> >Here's a hint: The scriptures were not even in Latin until St. Jerome
> >translated them in the 300s (the FOURTH century, not the first)and the
> >Textus Receptus was a condemned French translation which contained many
> >errors.
> >But I'm not talking about these. Rather, I'm talking about the fake
> >modern "Bibles" that remove books from the Old Testament.
> >Ted
>
> Theodore, the phrase "Textus Receptus" is Greek for "Received Text."
> The term "Majority Text" is the name applied to the Textus Receptus..
> these three are different names for the same thing, or didn't you know
> that?

Doesn't matter. It was a translation back into Greek from the Latin.

> And it is not in Latin.. it is in Greek. It is not in French either.
> It is in Greek. It is not in Aramaic, but in Greek.
>
> I have stated this to you before, and you rejected it. I doubt you'll
> change your tone this go round either.

Do you have any proof for what you say? You who added words to scripture
to deny Christ and worship the Bible instead?

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:

> I would call English the unbiblical language.

And just to prove HOW unbiblical it is, check out this, the Revised
Protestant Version of Scripture:
http://www.angelfire.com/va/ProtestantGuide/RPV.html
Holding true to the writings of Martin Luther and Jean Calvin, the
creators of Protestantism!
Especially check out what they do with 2 Peter verse 20....

[Dolf Boek]

Your argument is cyclic...

"No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God's
Word taken from them, or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and
clear. God grant we and our descendants be not witnesses to such a
calamity." [Martin Luther] If the conception of the Trinity is encapsulated
within the virtue of the first 3 Commandments, then it must also hold true
that the foundational basis for the entire 10 Commandments is established by
the 4th as the Sabbath because the Pythagoreans held:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
'teles' = 'arch' + c²

Only words of faith-pistis can hold in check a tormented or weary
'mataios'--'All earthly being is as smoke;... only the gods abide.' The
portion of man in 'mh mataion' is to be measured by his portion in the

divine." [KITTEL 1995 IV:520] In other words, the entire intellectual
cosmological basis for the 10 Commandments is expressed by the microcosm of
the first 4 Commandments. Hence, the intellectual basis of the 10
Commandments are not only intrinsically associated with Seventh-day
chronology but also bounded by the apogee of 6,000 years.

I've also heard the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away: The modern world

seems to have forgotten the existence of those unwritten teachings which
explained satisfactorily the apparent contradictions of the written

Scriptures, nor does it remember that the pagans appointed their two-faced

Janus as custodian of the key to the Temple of Wisdom. Janus has been
metamorphosed into Saint Peter, so often symbolised as holding in his hand
the key to the gate of heaven. The gold and silver keys of 'God's Vicar on
Earth,' the Pope, symbolizes this 'secret doctrine' which when properly
understood, unlocks the treasure chest of the [Hellenised] Christian and

Jewish Qabbalah. http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE

The temples-naos of Egyptian mysticism (from which the Tabernacle was

copied) were--according to their own priests--miniature representations of

the universe. The solar system was always regarded as a great temple of
initiation, which candidates entered through the gates of birth; after
threading the tortuous passageways of earthly existence, they finally
approached the veil of the Great Mystery--Death. Life then is that great
mystery, and only those who pass successfully through its tests and trials,
interpreting them aright and extracting the essence of experience
(quintessence/5th element) therefrom, achieve true understanding:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#TITLE

- dolf

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:

[Dolf Boek]

"Francis Lapeyre" <flap...@meow.gs.verio.net> wrote:
{Blah, blah..}

Two words: Eschew obfuscation (Carlos, you can look it up).

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Yet more epithets of speech which are so characteristic of the party
religious politics of those who possess a faulty cosmological model (world
view): http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/kosmos.html

"Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it [Use of JHVH
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#SIGN deployed as
numerological symbollism by an "occulted animistic admixture of light and
darkness through which 'hermetic mataiologia' (heterodidaskaleo) declares
the material world came into existence, as the male and female principle [2
Peter 3:10-13] [Plato, Timaeus, p 32]"] in ignorance, as did also your
rulers. But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all his
prophets, that the Christ would suffer, he has thus fulfilled. Repent
therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times
of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send
Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until
the time of restoration of all things, of which God has spoken by the mouth
of all his holy prophets since-apo the world-aion began.

For Moses truly said to the fathers, 'The LORD your God will raise up for
you a prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things,
whatever he says to you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will
not hear the prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.' Yes,
and all the prophets, from Samuel {heard of God; asked of God} and those who
follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold-prokataggello
these-tautais days-hemera." [Acts 3:17-24]
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/yahad.html#DARASH

- dolf

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> Your argument is cyclic...

As are all true things in theology. To apply Euclid to theology is
laughable at best.

> "No greater mischief can happen to a Christian people than to have God's
> Word taken from them, or falsified, so that they no longer have it pure and
> clear. God grant we and our descendants be not witnesses to such a
> calamity." [Martin Luther]

Of course, this is the same Martin Luther that later complained that Sola
Scriptura made "ev'ry Scullery Maid a Pope", so his view of scripture is
rather twisted to begin with. He should have read John 1:1-14 to find out
what God's Word REALLY was.

snip down through false numerology that would have never worked in the
"filled hands" method of counting used by the Hebrews anyway.

> > [Romans 5:6-11] as the gospel's priority emphasis to representation of
> > 'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Colossians 1:27] as instance of
> > individual 'belief'
>
> So what? None of this gives you the right to play Pope with my beliefs.
>
> You still don't get it. Christ left us a hierarchy (Matthew 16 & 18), who
> have the charism of teaching. Your "church" does not have such a charism.

And Dolf still doesn't get it. He needs to figure it out, sooner or
later.

[Francis Lapeyre]

"Dolf Boek" <dolf...@bigpond.com> wrote in message

news:PAft5.44917$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...

> "Francis Lapeyre" <flap...@meow.gs.verio.net> wrote:
> {Blah, blah..}
>
> Two words: Eschew obfuscation (Carlos, you can look it up).
>

> DOLF BOEK SPEWS FORTH:

> Yet more epithets of speech which are so characteristic of the party
> religious politics of those who possess a faulty cosmological model
(world
> view): http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/kosmos.html

--

You can use those highfalutin' words all you want. I'm not impressed.
The ones who are truly saved do not need a "world view". They need
faith. How much of that do YOU have?

Step back and look at the forest.

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to
ask them, "What were you arguing about on the way [from the mountain of
Tabor]?"

34 But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves
on the way who was the greatest.

35 Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, "If anyone
wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all."

36 Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms
around it he said to them,

37 "Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and
whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me."

All of which means that if you don't have faith as a little child, you
will not see the Kingdom of God.

[mnshadow]

Misty wrote:

If the popes are not related then, Why do they all gave the same name
along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?

Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests,
and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?
Is it that you and the priests and the pope is alive,
While Mary and the rcc saints are all "DEAD"?

Misty, of the mist.

[Tom A.]

mnshadow wrote:
>
> Misty wrote:
>
> If the popes are not related then, Why do they all gave the same name
> along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?

What do you mean "the same name"? Do you mean title (Servant of the
servants of Christ)? That's like saying all the presidents are related
because they are all called "Mr. President."

As for the title "Father", what's wrong with that? Stephen, being
filled with the Holy Spirit, called the elders "Father". We call those
who are learned in the faith "father" because they are our spiritual
father. We call the first person of the Trinity "Father" because that's
His name.

Must they be called Father? I don't think so. I believe there are
countries where it is against the law. It's traditional (small "t"),
and it's polite (I know, a no-no to be polite in current American
society. So sue me.)

> Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests,
> and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?

The pope is a priest. The priests have the sacrament of Orders. I am a
lay person, have no Orders, and am therefore, according to the Bible, to
follow those who have been given Authority, either secular or religious,
to the full use of my God given mind and informed conscience.
Mary is the "God Bearer", and the Saints are those who have been
proclaimed to be in heaven. Is that what you want to know?

> Is it that you and the priests and the pope is alive,
> While Mary and the rcc saints are all "DEAD"?

Not so. The Church proclaims that those who have gone before us are
more alive in God than we who remain in this mortal coil are. For they
see God, author of all Life, face to face, while we view, as in a glass,
darkly.

> Misty, of the mist.

--
Tom A.
Doctor:"What will you be when you're older?"
"Six" - John, 5 year old lawyer

[Ryan]

When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:31:43 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:
>
>> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:14:13 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
>> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>>
>> >> I will reiterate once more the original question.
>> >>
>> >> So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
>> >> religion either?
>> >
>> >But Jesus Christ IS the Pope, regardless of who the current holder of that
>> >low office is. Without Christ, there is no Pope. Within Christ, there is
>> >Pope, Clegy, Religious and Laity.
>>
>> Scripture, please.

<snip>
Perhaps I should be more specific. Scripture which states that we
have a human being taking the place of Christ at the present.

>> Mary and the pope are not Christ.

<snip>

>We're all a part of the Body of Christ.

But we are not Christ.

>> To claim that they are is
>> blasphemy.
>
>Then Paul, and therefore the Bible, is guilty of blasphemy. Are you going
>out to burn your Bible?

Please show us where Paul says "I am Christ."

>> >Tell me, more than half the books in the Bible doen't mention
>> >Christ. Would you also say that the Bible lacks "emphasis" on Christ?
>
>Why didn't you answer this question? Could it be you're afraid of this
>question?

Most of the books do not mention the name Jesus because most of the
books record history before Jesus lived. Is chronology that difficult
of a subject for you to understand?

>Ok. So let's compare the 65 to the ONE mention of the Pope, sometimes, if
>the priest picks the right Eucharistic prayer (the Pope is mentioned in
>3/6 Eucharistic prayer options, Mary in 2). Is not 65 in this case a
>large number?
>Plus, Christ is mentioned even more, for I have not counted the readings
>or the gospels.

You say one mention of the Pope.. I have difficulty believing you,
past experiences of our discussion tend to destroy your credibility.

>> You'd say a lot of things, Theodore.
>
>Yes I do. But some of these have proof. In this case, the 30,000
>Protestant denominations prove either:
>1. Protestants don't listen to the Holy Spirit
>2. The Holy Spirit is hopelessly schizophrenic.
>
>Since I don't believe that God is mentally ill, I go with #1.

Please tell me where "protestant" or "catholic" is the term applied to
followers of Christ in scripture.

<snip>

>To take the place of, one must be in communion with. Else it is a false
>taking the place of.

No one can take the place of Christ.

>Kind of like your adding of the word "authority" to 2 Tim 3:14-17?

2 Timothy 3:
14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast
been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which
are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
Christ Jesus.
16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
good works.

Where did I add the word authority?

Yes, I understand that by "your" you were referring to Protestants,
but unfortunately I'm not a member of any protestant church. Many of
them are just as wrong in their own way as the catholic church.

>I have been many things.

According to the dictionary, the word "vicar" is also a derivative of
"weik."

From what you have told me, it seems quite clear that the pope is
twisting the image of Christ, also, trying to take His place as the
head of the church.

>I did last week on tnn.religion.catholic. Check Deja.
>Or did you mean in our private conversation? In our private conversation,
>you claimed that Jesus was a sinner who didn't follow the Ten
>Commandments, which was step #3, so we never got to this.

I was speaking of our private conversation.

I never, ever, ever said such a blasphemous thing. Christ was
perfect, and pure, and His sacrifice is all that is needed to wash
away our sins.

A sinner's blood would not be sufficient for salvation.

>> It is Christ's duty and Christ's duty only to forgive sins. Not
>> priests, not popes, not bishops, not any of the other miriad of
>> leaders the Catholic church has heaped up to itself.
>
>Really? Then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to bind and
>loose?
>Matt 18:
>[14] Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
>one of these little ones should perish.
>[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
>his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
>gained thy brother.
>[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
>that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
>[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if
>he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
>a publican.
>[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
>bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
>heaven.
>[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
>touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
>Father which is in heaven.

That dialect was directed to all of Christ's disciples, not just the
apostles.

>> No, not just the pope, but the entirety of Catholic doctrine. In
>> essence, the Catholic Church itself.
>
>In that case, better throw out your Bible, which came from Catholic
>Doctrine.

Would I throw out Christ as well, simply because Catholicism uses His
name? No, of course not. Not everything that came out of the new
Roman Empire is evil. The books of the Bible existed prior to and
independently of the Catholic church. All the catholics did was stick
them together in one cover. The Bible did not come from Catholic
doctrine.

>> And I have seen no inclination of you to pass the buck from your
>> church to Nero to date.
>
>666. Nero Ceasar was the 666th Emperor of Pagan Rome.

Oh, numerology? Ok.

On the Pope's Mitre are the words VICARIUS FILII DEI which mean "Vicar
of the Son of God."

If you take the Roman numeral values of the letters in the name, you
come up with 666.

There is more to the litmus test than just a number, Theodore. Shall
we discuss Revelation 13 and 17 in detail?

<snip>

>> Theodore, the phrase "Textus Receptus" is Greek for "Received Text."
>> The term "Majority Text" is the name applied to the Textus Receptus..
>> these three are different names for the same thing, or didn't you know
>> that?
>
>Doesn't matter. It was a translation back into Greek from the Latin.

No, some parts for a few of the collective were translated from Latin
to Greek.

The "Majority Text" is called "Majority" because it is the most
common. There are over 5000 copies of it, as opposed to I think no
more than 200 of the non majority texts. The non majority
(Alexandria, etc.) were used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. The
majority were used for the KJV.

>> And it is not in Latin.. it is in Greek. It is not in French either.
>> It is in Greek. It is not in Aramaic, but in Greek.
>>
>> I have stated this to you before, and you rejected it. I doubt you'll
>> change your tone this go round either.
>
>Do you have any proof for what you say? You who added words to scripture
>to deny Christ and worship the Bible instead?
>Ted

The bible is a book, ink and paper, sometimes leather. It is not a
thing to be worshipped, and I do not hold it in any higher regard than
I do a 3 ring binder.

It is what God inspired, His message, Christ's word, that holds
importance, and it is God alone that receives worship.

I have added no words to scripture, Theodore, and you are bearing
false witness by saying that I have.

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

I removed the pound signs so that I don't accidently delete your reply
(when I delete most of the junk in this newsgroup)

On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Darren Gunter wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:24:10 -0700, "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Ted McMillan wrote:
> >
> >If you didn't persist in the Sola Scriptura lie by adding junk like the
> >writings of Ellen Govld VVhite to scripture, you'd be much better off.
>
> Why is Ellen G White's writing junk?

Because she is a false prophet and didn't even bother to do BASIC
research on her opinions.

Also, because as the Bible tells us:
Matt.7
[15] Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matt.24
[11] And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
[24] For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall
shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they
shall deceive the very elect.
Mark.13
[22] For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs
and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Luke.6
[26] Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their
fathers to the false prophets.
Acts.13
[6] And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a
certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus:
2Pet.2
[1] But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there
shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable
heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction.
1John.4
[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Rev.16
[13] And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of
the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the
false prophet.
Rev.19
[20] And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the
mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were
cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev.20
[10] And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be
tormented day and night for ever and ever.

> >Oh, and by the way, when is your webpage going to explain why:
> >1. Ellen Govld VVhite's name adds up to 666 just like the fake title she
> >created for the Pope.
>
> If you really understood the prophecy in Daniel/Revelation, you would
> understand why the pope's latin title equates to 666.

What I understand is that the Pope's latin title is Vicarius Christi, not
Vicarius Fillus Dei as Ellen Govld VVhite claimed. And Vicarius Christi
only adds up to 444.

> >2. None of the prophecies proclaimed by Adventists have ever come true.
>
> Like?

How about the coming of Christ? Let's see, starting with the earliest
Adventists: 1834 (two different dates), 1835, 1866, 1888, 1904, 1975,
2000.
It ain't happened yet, and as Christ's prophecy states:
Matt.24
[36] But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of
heaven, but my Father only.
[50] The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for
him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
Matt.25
[13] Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the
Son of man cometh.
Mark.13
[32] But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Luke.12
[46] The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for
him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and
will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

> >3. Who created the Bible.
>
> Who do you believe created the bible? Do you believe in the bible?

1. The Synod of Orange, under direction of the Holy Spirit and the Pope.
2. Yes, I believe in all the Bible and I also believe that we shouldn't
add words to the Bible as all the Protestants seem to want to do.
Check out this link to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.angelfire.com/va/ProtestantGuide/RPV.html#2peter
Especially read the Revised Protestant Version of 1 & 2 Peter, then read
the original text, and see the difference between common Protestant
interpretation and what the Pope originally gave us.
Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of Blessed Bertrand of Garrigue, o.p.
In case you're wondering (I did) the o.p. stands for Order of
Preachers (Bertrand was the third prior of this Order, while
St Dominic traveled to the Vatican to receive final approbation)

[Ryan]

I am a Christian, I follow Christ.

I am not a follower of Martin Luther, I am not Lutheran.
I am not a follower of John Calvin, I am not Calvanist.
I protest false teaching, whether that false teaching comes from
Calvanism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism. I suppose in that sense, I am
a protestant, but I do not follow in the vein of Calvin and Luther.

The life I try to live is outlined in the New Testament, not in some
creed, or oath. My life is not described behind a set of doors with a
name on them, or with a sign in the yard.

Christians follow Christ. Catholics follow Catholicism.

And no, Biblical times did not use English. At least that much we can
agree on.

When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:48:54 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Theodore M. Seeber wrote:

/*

*/

[Tom A.]

Dolf Boek wrote:
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> My point is that you have yet to produce any facts.
>

> To be facts (in a Catholic regligious sense), first of all one must prove
> that one recieved authority from Jesus Christ. Since Protestantism does not
> have any such authority Snip crap posted by people who don't have authority.
>

> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Alas, I have produced facts as matters of history which the church claims as
> her own:
>

> Peter Cromwell in his book 'Polyhedra' offers the following explanation for
> Kepler's discovery:--"Besides answering his question of why there were six
> planets, Kepler's discovery could also describe their spacing. Into the
> sphere which carried Saturn he inscribed a cube, and into the cube another
> sphere which carried Jupiter. Between the spheres of Jupiter and Mars he
> placed the tetrahedron; between Mars and Earth, the dodecahedron; between
> Earth and Venus, the icosahedron; and between Venus and Mercury, the
> octahedron. The fact that in classical times these particular polyhedra had
> been called the Cosmic Figures gave some credibility to their incorporation
> into the design of the universe...Each planet is associated withthe adjacent
> polyhedron nearest Earth. Thus Saturn is linked with the cube; Jupiter with
> the tetrahedron; Mars, the dodecahedron; Venus, the icosahedron; and
> Mercury, the octahedron. The astrological attributes of each planet were
> then shown to match the characteristics of its associated solid."

Unfortunately, the theory that the planets' orbits are related by the
five regular solids fails when you get accurate measurements. It's like
saying a Panda is a type of
raccoon, from external evidence. It has been shown that genetically,
they are bears.

Also, Catholicism doesn't accept astrology, numerology, tea reading,
tarot reading, or other forms of fortune telling as being based on
reality. Nor does Astonomy nor Geometry associate astrological
characteristics with either planets or solids.
<snip bizar convolution of words and phrases that may or may not signify
anything, but I can't understand what they have to do with any real
discussion in these groups.>

> This is my last post to you, as it is difficult to comprehend you possess
> any rational claim upon Truth

And I have trouble comprehending that you possess any rational claim to
rationality. So it goes.

> - dolf

You sound like you're trying to force Christianity into a theosophical
hole. I'm afraid the result doesn't look much like Christianity.

[Tom A.]

Dolf Boek wrote:
>
> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
> snip what DOLF thinks are facts, when he's merely repeating historical
> opinions.
>
> Dolf, you still don't get it do you.
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:

>

> The religion of early Christianity was claimed to represent the first
> pneumatic of the risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth,

I was about to ask who said that about the religion of early
Christianity, until I saw:
> [KITTEL 1995 I:675]

So someone 1900 years after early Christianity says something about it.
OK.

Unfortunately, I've _read_ some of the early Christians' writings. I
haven't seen anything about their religion representing the first spirit
of Jesus (since I assume you meant pneumatic in the sense of pneuma,
rather than fluid driven machine).

> yet today remains strangely
> Institutionally detached from representations given by the Apostle's living
> testimony as recipients of the Holy Spirit and evinced by their reflections
> of the historical Jesus .

I disagree (as near as I can understand you.) The current Church
believes what the early Christians believed, and these beliefs are
explicit or implicit in the Scriptures.

> [KITTEL 1995 I:675]
>
> - dolf

Question to the world (since this is x-posted to 5 newsgroups, and Dolf
is new to the one I'm on - does any group claim him? Is his ideas
reflective of the Adventists, or the Baptists, or of any group that
might be posting to the Biblestudy or Last-days groups? Does anyone but
Dolf understand what he's saying?

On this day the Lord has made. Anyone want to rejoice and be glad in it
with me?

[Al Norris]

[snipped Ted's 359 line post]

In message <39B69B...@rconnect.com>,
it appeared that mnshadow <mnsh...@rconnect.com> enlightened us with:

>Misty wrote:

[snipped Misty's 10 line answer]

Misty really needs to learn some usenet manners.

--
Al.

For as much as you think,
Therefore so shall you be.

[Dolf Boek]

"Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, the theory that the planets' orbits are related by the five
regular solids fails when you get accurate measurements. It's like saying a
Panda is a type of raccoon, from external evidence. It has been shown that
genetically, they are bears.

Also, Catholicism doesn't accept astrology, numerology, tea reading, tarot
reading, or other forms of fortune telling as being based on reality. Nor
does Astonomy nor Geometry associate astrological characteristics with
either planets or solids. <snip bizar convolution of words and phrases that
may or may not signify anything, but I can't understand what they have to do
with any real discussion in these groups.>

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
In reality, astrology, numerology would appear to lay at the heart of
Catholicism's nomenclature:--

Coincidal with Galileo and Kepler's conflicts with ecclesiastical
authorities over innovations within the field of cosmology, which remained
clearly reflective of Pythagorean/Platonic solids as the processional
precedence given to the philosophical sciences, is this curious appeal to
Pythagorean mathematical and geometric first principles made by Carmelite
friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini:--"To explore this point, we may turn to a
significant work published in January 1615. In his Lettera sopra L'opinione
de' Pittagorici e del Copernico ('Letter on the opinion of the Pythagoreans
and Copernicus'), the Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini argued that
the heliocentric model of the solar system was not incompatible with the
Bible. Foscarini did not introduce any new principles of biblical
interpretation in his analysis; rather, he sets out and applies traditional
rules of interpretation:

'When Holy Scripture attributes something to God or to any other creature
which would otherwise be improper and incommensurate, then it should be
interpreted and explained in one or more of the following ways. First, it is
said to pertain metaphorically and proportionately, or by similitude.
Second, it is said...according to our mode of consideration, apprehension,
understanding, knowing, etc. Thirdly, it is said according to vulgar opinion
and the common way of speaking.'" [Alister E. McGrath, © 1999, Science &
Religion - An Introduction, p 12-13]

"Seeing they [the Pythagoreans] could not clearly explain the first Forms
and Principles in discourse (those being the most difficult to understand
and express) had recourse to Numbers for the better explication of their
Doctrine." [Thomas Stanley, Pythagorus His Life Teachings - Being a
Photographic Facsimile of the 1687 Edition of 'The History of Philosophy',
Chapter 8, Part 9, p 524]

INTELLECTUAL GENESIS:--Mathematics, generation of a figure: Just as numbers
are implicitly contained in numbers, and lines in lines figures within
figures, so all are in all; and this is here occulty expressed. If the

conception of the Trinity is encapsulated within the virtue of the first 3
Commandments, then it must also hold true that the foundational basis for
the entire 10 Commandments is established by the 4th as the Sabbath because
the Pythagoreans held:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10

'teles' = 'arch' + c²

In other words, the entire intellectual cosmological basis for the 10

Commandments is expressed by the microcosm of the first 4 Commandments.
Hence, the intellectual basis of the 10 Commandments are not only
intrinsically associated with Seventh-day chronology but also bounded by the
apogee of 6,000 years.

St. Augustine (354-430 CE), well known for bringing Platonism and
Christianity together, in his work 'On Christian Doctrine' naturally
describes the Trinity in terms compatible with Pythagorean/Platonic harmonic
and numeric theory:--"The true objects of enjoyment, then, are the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are at the same time the Trinity, one
Being, supreme above all, and common to all who enjoy Him, if He is an
object, and not rather the cause of all objects, or indeed even if He is the
cause of all. For it is not easy to find a name that will suitably express
so great excellence, unless it is better to speak in this way: The Trinity,
one God, of whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are
all things. Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and each of
these by Himself, is God, and at the same time they are all one God; and
each of them by Himself is a complete substance, and yet they are all one
substance. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the
Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor the Son:
but the Father is only Father, the Son is only Son, and the Holy Spirit is
only Holy Spirit. To all three belong the same eternity, the same
unchangeableness, the same majesty, the same power. In the Father is unity,
in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality;
and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal
because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit."
[Augustine, 'The Trinity the true object of enjoyment', BOOK I, Chapter 5]

Please don't be disappointed if I choose not to respond to your other post
in this thread.

- dolf
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, mnshadow wrote:

Big snip, since she snipped nothing.

> Misty wrote:
>
> If the popes are not related then, Why do they all gave the same name
> along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?

What do you mean gave the same name? We've had Popes named Innocent,
Gregory, John, Peter, Paul, Pius, Clement, Linus, Cletus, and many other
names besides that.

As to the history behind calling priests Father, please open your Bible
and read:
Genesis 17 (Abraham becomes Father of Israel)
Genesis 32 (Abraham and Isaac are refered to as Fathers)
Skipping ahead to the new testament:
1 Cor 4 (Paul claims to be the Father of the Corinthians)
2 Cor 6
Phil 2:11-22 (Paul claims to be a father to Timothy)
1 Thes 1:3
1 Thes 2:11
1 Tim 1:2
1 Tim 5:1
2 Tim 1:2
2 Pet 3:4
1 John 2:1-13

So obviously, this is not the way you think it is.

> Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests,
> and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?

None. We are all a part of the Body of Christ.

> Is it that you and the priests and the pope is alive,
> While Mary and the rcc saints are all "DEAD"?

But if Mary and the RCC saints (or any other saints, the RCC does not
pretend to know of all who are saints) had a living faith, then they are
alive in Christ, and alive in the Body of Christ, in the communion of
saints, or as Paul put it:
Heb.12
[1] Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,
let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and
let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us,
[2] looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the
joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is
seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
[3] Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself,
so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.
[4] In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of
shedding your blood.
[5] And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --
"My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor lose courage when you are punished by him.
[6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives."
[7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as
sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
[8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated,
then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
[9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we
respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits
and live?
[10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he
disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
[11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than
pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who
have been trained by it.
[12] Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees,
[13] and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not
be put out of joint but rather be healed.
[14] Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no
one will see the Lord.

> Misty, of the mist.

Misty, I pray that you heed and hear the words of Scripture, that you
begin to strive for the peace that you seem to be missing and which caused
you to write this message.
Ted

--

On this day, the Feast of Blessed Bertrand of Garrigue, o.p.
In case you're wondering (I did) the o.p. stands for Order of
Preachers (Bertrand was the third prior of this Order, while
St Dominic traveled to the Vatican to receive final approbation)

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:31:43 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:
> >
> >> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:14:13 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
> >>
> >> >> I will reiterate once more the original question.
> >> >>
> >> >> So does Jesus Christ, not BEING the Pope, have no bearing upon your
> >> >> religion either?
> >> >
> >> >But Jesus Christ IS the Pope, regardless of who the current holder of that
> >> >low office is. Without Christ, there is no Pope. Within Christ, there is
> >> >Pope, Clegy, Religious and Laity.
> >>
> >> Scripture, please.
>
> <snip>
> Perhaps I should be more specific. Scripture which states that we
> have a human being taking the place of Christ at the present.

Oh, OK. Matthew Chapter 16 then.

But unless you use the correct historical understanding that Matthew was
written to Jews, you won't understand the chapter.

> >> Mary and the pope are not Christ.
> <snip>
> >We're all a part of the Body of Christ.
>
> But we are not Christ.

How can we be a part of the Body of Christ and not be Christ? Think about
what you are saying. Paul claims that we are all a part of the Body of
Christ, and that we have to be Christ to one another.

> >> To claim that they are is
> >> blasphemy.
> >
> >Then Paul, and therefore the Bible, is guilty of blasphemy. Are you going
> >out to burn your Bible?
>
> Please show us where Paul says "I am Christ."

Where he says "We are the Body of Christ".

> >> >Tell me, more than half the books in the Bible doen't mention
> >> >Christ. Would you also say that the Bible lacks "emphasis" on Christ?
> >
> >Why didn't you answer this question? Could it be you're afraid of this
> >question?
>
> Most of the books do not mention the name Jesus because most of the
> books record history before Jesus lived.

So? Can't be Christian then, by your argument against the Mass.

> Is chronology that difficult
> of a subject for you to understand?

No, but apparently it is for you.

> >Ok. So let's compare the 65 to the ONE mention of the Pope, sometimes, if
> >the priest picks the right Eucharistic prayer (the Pope is mentioned in
> >3/6 Eucharistic prayer options, Mary in 2). Is not 65 in this case a
> >large number?
> >Plus, Christ is mentioned even more, for I have not counted the readings
> >or the gospels.
>
> You say one mention of the Pope.

Yes.

> I have difficulty believing you,
> past experiences of our discussion tend to destroy your credibility.

Go read the Roman Missal, Novus Ordo (the current one being used). It's
freely available. You don't have to depend upon me for information.

In fact, I'll see if I can find the link. I saw the entire missal on the
Beggar King website. Used it for my Wedding.

> >Yes I do. But some of these have proof. In this case, the 30,000
> >Protestant denominations prove either:
> >1. Protestants don't listen to the Holy Spirit
> >2. The Holy Spirit is hopelessly schizophrenic.
> >
> >Since I don't believe that God is mentally ill, I go with #1.
>
> Please tell me where "protestant" or "catholic" is the term applied to
> followers of Christ in scripture.

It isn't. Catholic is the term used in 110 A.D. by Ignatius of Antioch,
Patriarch, to describe the Church under his Father in Christ, Clement of
Rome, the second Pope.

Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the Church
that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants to a
large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are believers in
the Bible only, not in Christ.

> >To take the place of, one must be in communion with. Else it is a false
> >taking the place of.
>
> No one can take the place of Christ.

And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?

> >Kind of like your adding of the word "authority" to 2 Tim 3:14-17?
>
> 2 Timothy 3:
> 14) But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast
> been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
> 15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which
> are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in
> Christ Jesus.
> 16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
> for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness:
> 17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
> good works.
>
> Where did I add the word authority?

In private e-mail, you claimed that inspiration of God meant that the
Bible was created by the authority of God.

> Yes, I understand that by "your" you were referring to Protestants,
> but unfortunately I'm not a member of any protestant church. Many of
> them are just as wrong in their own way as the catholic church.

No, I'm talking about the messages one "Ryan" wrote to me in private
e-mail about a week ago.

> >I have been many things.
>
> According to the dictionary, the word "vicar" is also a derivative of
> "weik."
>
> From what you have told me, it seems quite clear that the pope is
> twisting the image of Christ, also, trying to take His place as the
> head of the church.

Here's a parable that describes what the Pope is really doing:
Matt.20
[1] "For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in
the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard.
[2] After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them
into his vineyard.
[3] And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the
market place;
[4] and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is
right I will give you.' So they went.
[5] Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the
same.
[6] And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and
he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?'
[7] They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You
go into the vineyard too.'
[8] And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward,
`Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up
to the first.'
[9] And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them
received a denarius.
[10] Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but
each of them also received a denarius.
[11] And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder,
[12] saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them
equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'
[13] But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did
you not agree with me for a denarius?
[14] Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I
give to you.
[15] Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do
you begrudge my generosity?'
[16] So the last will be first, and the first last."
[17] And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples
aside, and on the way he said to them,
[18] "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be
delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to
death,
[19] and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and
crucified, and he will be raised on the third day."
[20] Then the mother of the sons of Zeb'edee came up to him, with her
sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something.
[21] And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Command
that these two sons of mine may sit, one at your right hand and one at
your left, in your kingdom."
[22] But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you
able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "We are
able."
[23] He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand
and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has
been prepared by my Father."
[24] And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.
[25] But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority
over them.
[26] It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you
must be your servant,
[27] and whoever would be first among you must be your slave;
[28] even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to
give his life as a ransom for many."
[29] And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him.
[30] And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard
that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
[31] The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out
the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"
[32] And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do
for you?"
[33] They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened."
[34] And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received
their sight and followed him.

I pray that your eyes will be opened.

> >I did last week on tnn.religion.catholic. Check Deja.
> >Or did you mean in our private conversation? In our private conversation,
> >you claimed that Jesus was a sinner who didn't follow the Ten
> >Commandments, which was step #3, so we never got to this.
>
> I was speaking of our private conversation.

Ok.

> I never, ever, ever said such a blasphemous thing. Christ was
> perfect, and pure, and His sacrifice is all that is needed to wash
> away our sins.

Then why did you not agree when I put forth the supposition that Christ
would have followed the commandment "Honor your father and your mother"?

> A sinner's blood would not be sufficient for salvation.

Certainly. And one who does not sin, cannot ignore his mother. One who
forgives sins but does not forgive his mother's sins, has sinned himself.

> >> It is Christ's duty and Christ's duty only to forgive sins. Not
> >> priests, not popes, not bishops, not any of the other miriad of
> >> leaders the Catholic church has heaped up to itself.
> >
> >Really? Then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to bind and
> >loose?
> >Matt 18:
> >[14] Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
> >one of these little ones should perish.
> >[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
> >his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
> >gained thy brother.
> >[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
> >that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> >[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if
> >he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
> >a publican.
> >[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
> >bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
> >heaven.
> >[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
> >touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
> >Father which is in heaven.
>
> That dialect was directed to all of Christ's disciples, not just the
> apostles.

Which only makes your argument all the less true, since then Christ gave
all of the disciples (the priests) and the apostles (the bishops) the
power to forgive sins.

> >> No, not just the pope, but the entirety of Catholic doctrine. In
> >> essence, the Catholic Church itself.
> >>In that case, better throw
> >> out your Bible, which came from Catholic >Doctrine.
>
> Would I throw out Christ as well, simply because Catholicism uses His
> name?

I would suppose so, for apparently, by your statement above, the entirety
of Catholic doctrine is evil.

> No, of course not. Not everything that came out of the new
> Roman Empire is evil.

Then you recant your last statement, that all Catholic doctrine is evil?

> The books of the Bible existed prior to and
> independently of the Catholic church.

Actually, no they didn't. Or at least, not all of them. Paul's letters
were written after the events in Matthew 16 & 18, as were all the Gospels,
as was Acts, the Epistles of the Apostles, and of course, Revelations was
written VERY late.

> All the catholics did was stick
> them together in one cover.

300 years after they were written.

> The Bible did not come from Catholic
> doctrine.

Then why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic Council to put it all
together in one cover?
Come to think of it, why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic Council to
discover what to put in the Bible.

> >> And I have seen no inclination of you to pass the buck from your
> >> church to Nero to date.
> >
> >666. Nero Ceasar was the 666th Emperor of Pagan Rome.
>
> Oh, numerology? Ok.

Yep.

> On the Pope's Mitre are the words VICARIUS FILII DEI which mean "Vicar
> of the Son of God."

No it doesn't. Vicarius Filii Dei translates as Vicar of the Son of God,
but that's not a title the Pope has ever used. Vicarius Christus is the
proper title.

But you wouldn't know that, since you only read and repeat lies about the
Catholic Church.

> There is more to the litmus test than just a number, Theodore. Shall
> we discuss Revelation 13 and 17 in detail?

I'd be happy to. If you can refrain from adding words, that is, or
refering to fake titles for the Pope.

> <snip>

> >Doesn't matter. It was a translation back into Greek from the Latin.
>
> No, some parts for a few of the collective were translated from Latin
> to Greek.

All of it was.

> The "Majority Text" is called "Majority" because it is the most
> common. There are over 5000 copies of it, as opposed to I think no
> more than 200 of the non majority texts. The non majority
> (Alexandria, etc.) were used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. The
> majority were used for the KJV.

I go to the Earliest texts, not to some garbage created during the middle
ages by Protestants.

> >Do you have any proof for what you say? You who added words to scripture
> >to deny Christ and worship the Bible instead?
> >Ted
>
> The bible is a book, ink and paper, sometimes leather. It is not a
> thing to be worshipped, and I do not hold it in any higher regard than
> I do a 3 ring binder.

Then why do you refer to it?

> It is what God inspired, His message, Christ's word, that holds
> importance, and it is God alone that receives worship.

Ah, but God's message, God's word, what is it really? It ain't the Bible,
according to the Gospel of John 1:1-14.

> I have added no words to scripture, Theodore, and you are bearing
> false witness by saying that I have.

Then why claim in private e-mail that the Bible has authority?
Ted

--

On this day, the Feast of Blessed Bertrand of Garrigue, o.p.
In case you're wondering (I did) the o.p. stands for Order of
Preachers (Bertrand was the third prior of this Order, while
St Dominic traveled to the Vatican to receive final approbation)

[Al Norris]

In message <39B67826...@my-deja.com>,
it appeared that "Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> enlightened us with:

>Question to the world (since this is x-posted to 5 newsgroups, and Dolf
>is new to the one I'm on - does any group claim him? Is his ideas
>reflective of the Adventists, or the Baptists, or of any group that
>might be posting to the Biblestudy or Last-days groups? Does anyone but
>Dolf understand what he's saying?

Good old Dolf! Never tracked him down, I kill-filed him a couple of
years ago. (he's more obtuse than Mark J!)

>On this day the Lord has made. Anyone want to rejoice and be glad in it
>with me?

I have, I do, I will!
(posted from trc)

[mnshadow]

Misty wrote:

See corrections below. Typing is not
one of my better languages, nor is the Computer.
I know I am not Gods Like you people show yourselves to be.
I do not think my typos are so bad that you are not so dumb that you
can not get the gist of what I am trying to say.
Just make the Corrections in the spelling and we can move on.
I hope you religion does not condone putting some one down just because
they may have a fiew glitches and imperfections.
Or is this NG only for the "PERFECT"?

Tom A. wrote:
>
> mnshadow wrote:
> >
> > Misty wrote:
> >

> > If the popes are not related then, Why do they all (HAVE) the same name

> > along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?
>
> What do you mean "the same name"? Do you mean title (Servant of the
> servants of Christ)? That's like saying all the presidents are related
> because they are all called "Mr. President."

No, they all do have the same name. The Rcc gives all of thier
graduating
seminary students that same name, and that name Makes them all related.

It is a most Blasphemous name too. For Who on earth can take the Place
of
the Son Of God? I know, none but the name says they are the type that
are trying to do just that.

>
> As for the title "Father", what's wrong with that? Stephen, being
> filled with the Holy Spirit, called the elders "Father". We call those
> who are learned in the faith "father" because they are our spiritual
> father. We call the first person of the Trinity "Father" because that's
> His name.

For you there May Be nothing wrong with calling him/them father, but it
sure does make God jealous, I would imagin.

Matthew 23:8-10
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one

is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

>
> Must they be called Father? I don't think so. I believe there are
> countries where it is against the law. It's traditional (small "t"),
> and it's polite (I know, a no-no to be polite in current American
> society. So sue me.)

You do not have to convince me. Let the Bible Convince you.

>
> > Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests;

> > and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?
>
> The pope is a priest. The priests have the sacrament of Orders. I am a
> lay person, have no Orders, and am therefore, according to the Bible, to
> follow those who have been given Authority, either secular or religious,
> to the full use of my God given mind and informed conscience.

Do not sell yourself Short For you are of a Royal Priesthood of
believers
See Revelation 1:5-7

5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and
the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings
of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our
sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father;
to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth
shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

YOU give up being a living Saint to fallow those kind of people?
I guess you are not an Adventist then, but a member of the Rcc.?
Do You Want To Be Christian(Fallower of Christ)?

see Revelation 18 especialy Verse 4.

1 And after these things I saw another angel come down
from heaven, having great power; andthe earth was lightened
with his glory.
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the
habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath
of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have
committed fornication with her, and the merchants of
the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her
delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come
out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

> Mary is the "God Bearer", and the Saints are those who have been
> proclaimed to be in heaven. Is that what you want to know?

Then is Saint Paul Writing His epistols to people in heaven only?
No He is writing to living people Called to be Saints or the Church,
or the bride of the lamb, or The New Jerusalem ect. ect.

Romans 1:7

7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus
Christ.

Or the next 8 or so epistols(letters) that Paul wrote to the churches.
Just read only the first 2 verses of each one.
Saints are not something that are in Heaven but are here on Earth and
in this world that you and I are in.

And who gave who the authority to Judge as to who have been proclaimed
to
be in heaven?
This is Only God and his Son Jesus to be doing that sort of work.

As for mary being able to do anything for you well not according to the
bibles I have seen.
See Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know
not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the
memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now
perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in
any thing that is done under the sun.

Come to Jesus where He build His House on the Rock, and not on human
traditions.
I beseech you to take a closer look at the Mary thing.
Or Just question your own Faith for your self and stop letting others
tell you what your belief is to be. For you are showing a great
traditional religious faith built on the Traditions of Man, not
The Truths(Rock) of The Living God.

>
> > Is it that you and the priests and the pope is alive,
> > While Mary and the rcc saints are all "DEAD"?
>
> Not so. The Church proclaims that those who have gone before us are
> more alive in God than we who remain in this mortal coil are. For they
> see God, author of all Life, face to face, while we view, as in a glass,
> darkly.

See the Ecclesiastes verse above. ^ ^ ^

The Living God wants you to see more clearly then you are now and that
is
what The New Testament is for, so you can see more clearly then they did
2000 years ago.
You are the Church not them. Did you tell yourself that?
If "They" Proclaim they are the Church, and not you, then you are being
deceived for sure. Do not except that some one other then you are the
Church
Aka The Bride of the Lamb. Throw of the yokes of slavory that they are
putting you under and Come to the Christian Church and not some thing of
another name.

Read the bible for yourself and do not let someone else tell you what is
in the scriptures that are just fory your eyes only and not through some
Religious interpreter That will lie to you sooner then tell you the
truth
of a Loving Living God.

Misty,
>

[mnshadow]

Misty wrote:

What is needed is to expose the lies for what they are.
And Learn the Truths for what they are.

Misty, of the mist.

[mnshadow]

Misty wrote:

With corrections to former reply. Sorry

Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, mnshadow wrote:
>
> Big snip, since she snipped nothing.
>
> > Misty wrote:
> >

> > If the popes are not related then, Why do they all (H)ave the same name

> > along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?
>
> What do you mean gave the same name? We've had Popes named Innocent,
> Gregory, John, Peter, Paul, Pius, Clement, Linus, Cletus, and many other
> names besides that.

Sorry a typo that should be "have"
The name that they all have is also given to all priests as soon as they
are ordained, and from the Teaching theaters that they have been
indoctrinated
in.
I will see if you have that information before I tell you what that is.

>
> As to the history behind calling priests Father, please open your Bible
> and read:
> Genesis 17 (Abraham becomes Father of Israel)

Abraham is also known as the Father of Rightiousness.
We are addopted into his family of Believers because of that same
"Righteousness.

> Genesis 32 (Abraham and Isaac are refered to as Fathers)
> Skipping ahead to the new testament:
> 1 Cor 4 (Paul claims to be the Father of the Corinthians)
> 2 Cor 6
> Phil 2:11-22 (Paul claims to be a father to Timothy)
> 1 Thes 1:3
> 1 Thes 2:11
> 1 Tim 1:2
> 1 Tim 5:1
> 2 Tim 1:2
> 2 Pet 3:4
> 1 John 2:1-13
>
> So obviously, this is not the way you think it is.

Maybe so but did you consider,

Matt 23:8-10

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one

is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master,
even Christ.

I will use this as my authority not mans words and interpretations.

>
> > Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests,
> > and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?
>
> None. We are all a part of the Body of Christ.

She and them are all Dead and gone but you are alive and still have a
chance
to become one of the Living Saints.
See Ecc 9:5-6

5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead
know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward;
for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
now perished; neither have they any more a portion for
ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Do you know what
Necrolatry: "worship of the dead"
and Necromancy: 1. "Magic in general: enchantment; comjuration 2, the
pretended art of divination through communication with the dead.
Means?
Can you realy talk to Mary? ? ?

Also from above; That is if indeed you are of the Communion of Living
Saints.

What do the passed on have to do with the living breathing people of
today
that are under the sun?
And where does the authority come from to pretend to talk to the Dead?
I can assure you it does not Come From the Holy Spirit of Truth.
Wake up oh sleeper.

>
> > Misty, of the mist.
>
> Misty, I pray that you heed and hear the words of Scripture, that you
> begin to strive for the peace that you seem to be missing and which caused
> you to write this message.

OH yes Scripture unbridled is my authority, not its interpretations of
deceiptive religious people that are only pretending to preach a corpus
cristy.
My Lord Is alive not on the tree still.

Misty, assure I'm a sir.

[Tom A.]

Dolf Boek wrote:
>
> "Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, the theory that the planets' orbits are related by the five
> regular solids fails when you get accurate measurements. It's like saying a
> Panda is a type of raccoon, from external evidence. It has been shown that
> genetically, they are bears.
>
> Also, Catholicism doesn't accept astrology, numerology, tea reading, tarot
> reading, or other forms of fortune telling as being based on reality. Nor
> does Astonomy nor Geometry associate astrological characteristics with
> either planets or solids. <snip bizar convolution of words and phrases that
> may or may not signify anything, but I can't understand what they have to do
> with any real discussion in these groups.>
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:

<snip same stuff that was in a previous post, still with no explaination
as to its relevence or meaning>

> Please don't be disappointed if I choose not to respond to your other post
> in this thread.

I won't. I don't even think you responded to this one.

> - dolf

[Tom A.]

mnshadow wrote:
>
> Misty wrote:
>
> See corrections below. Typing is not
> one of my better languages, nor is the Computer.
> I know I am not Gods Like you people show yourselves to be.

Ah, your version of charity. I see.

> I do not think my typos are so bad that you are not so dumb that you
> can not get the gist of what I am trying to say.

I said nothing about your typos. It's your content I can't quite
understand.

> Tom A. wrote:
> >
> > mnshadow wrote:
> > >
> > > Misty wrote:
> > >
> > > If the popes are not related then, Why do they all (HAVE) the same name
> > > along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?
> >
> > What do you mean "the same name"? Do you mean title (Servant of the
> > servants of Christ)? That's like saying all the presidents are related
> > because they are all called "Mr. President."

> No, they all do have the same name. The RCC gives all of thier

> graduating
> seminary students that same name, and that name Makes them all related.
>
> It is a most Blasphemous name too. For Who on earth can take the Place
> of
> the Son Of God? I know, none but the name says they are the type that
> are trying to do just that.

What are you talking about? What name does Pius and Clement, Sixtus,
Cornelius, Ciprian and Peter have in common? Certainly not their last
name! There weren't even last names for most of the Church's history.

> > As for the title "Father", what's wrong with that? Stephen, being
> > filled with the Holy Spirit, called the elders "Father". We call those
> > who are learned in the faith "father" because they are our spiritual
> > father. We call the first person of the Trinity "Father" because that's
> > His name.
>
> For you there May Be nothing wrong with calling him/them father, but it
> sure does make God jealous, I would imagin.

I see. Your opinion. I point out that someone filled with the Holy
Spirit does it, and but you still think its wrong. OK.

I'll stick with the Bible on this opinion.

> Matthew 23:8-10
> 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
> even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
> 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one
> is your Father, which is in heaven.
> 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Yet every time you call someone "Mister" or "Missus" you are calling
them "master". So give it up.

But think. Paul calls himself a spiritual father. He calls Timothy his
spiritual son. Stephen, filled with the Holy Spirit, calls the Jewish
leaders "Father". So it looks, from the Bible, that this is not to be
taken as literally as you claim (but I doubt you follow, see note about
"Mister", above). Christ was using hyperbole, or Stephen, filled with
the Holy Spirit, was contradicting Jesus, and the Holy Spirit cannot
contradict Jesus.

> > Must they be called Father? I don't think so. I believe there are
> > countries where it is against the law. It's traditional (small "t"),
> > and it's polite (I know, a no-no to be polite in current American
> > society. So sue me.)
>
> You do not have to convince me. Let the Bible Convince you.

The Bible has convinced me that the injunction is not on a word, but on
an idea.

> > > Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests;
> > > and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?
> >
> > The pope is a priest. The priests have the sacrament of Orders. I am a
> > lay person, have no Orders, and am therefore, according to the Bible, to
> > follow those who have been given Authority, either secular or religious,
> > to the full use of my God given mind and informed conscience.
>
> Do not sell yourself Short For you are of a Royal Priesthood of
> believers
> See Revelation 1:5-7

Yes, but the Church follows the Jewish set up. They had a high priest,
priests, and people, and the Church has a high priest (Christ) priests,
and people. The Jewish people were also called a priestly people
(cannot remember exactly where at the moment, it's in one of the books
of Moses). Peter is keeping with the setup God ordained when he called
Christians a priestly people. Just as in ancient times certain people
were set aside as priests, so too in the Church certain people are set
aside as priests. Paul also refers to this hierarchy, relating it to
the Jewish culture he was from, when he calls Jesus our High Priest.
Very Biblical.

> YOU give up being a living Saint to fallow those kind of people?

What kind of people are you talking about? My parents were very devout
people. The priests I have known not only take their responsibility for
their flock very seriously, but they posses a gentle manner and radiate
the love of God. Every attack I have read against the Church has proven
to be nothing when I've looked into it.

> I guess you are not an Adventist then, but a member of the RCC.?

> Do You Want To Be Christian(Fallower of Christ)?

I am a Christian. I am a member of the Body of Christ, and part of His
Church built on Peter, and the gates of hell have not prevailed. The
Holy Spirit still reminds the successors of the Apostles of all that
Jesus taught, and leads them to all Truth, as Jesus promised. It is the
pillar and foundation of truth, the preserver and compiler of the Bible,
and the visible presence of Christ on Earth.

> see Revelation 18 especialy Verse 4.
>
> 1 And after these things I saw another angel come down
> from heaven, having great power; andthe earth was lightened
> with his glory.
> 2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
> Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the
> habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
> and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
> 3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath
> of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have
> committed fornication with her, and the merchants of
> the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her
> delicacies.
> 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come
> out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her
> sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Your opinion, but not backed up by anything. I've seen this before, but
it remains just opinion.

> > Mary is the "God Bearer", and the Saints are those who have been
> > proclaimed to be in heaven. Is that what you want to know?
>
> Then is Saint Paul Writing His epistols to people in heaven only?
> No He is writing to living people Called to be Saints or the Church,
> or the bride of the lamb, or The New Jerusalem ect. ect.

Sorry, I'm posting from a Catholic newsgroup, and there is a technical
difference between "saint" and "Saint". I was answering your question
about what is a "Saint".

> Or the next 8 or so epistols(letters) that Paul wrote to the churches.
> Just read only the first 2 verses of each one.
> Saints are not something that are in Heaven but are here on Earth and
> in this world that you and I are in.

No problem with that.

> And who gave who the authority to Judge as to who have been proclaimed
> to
> be in heaven?
> This is Only God and his Son Jesus to be doing that sort of work.

"Whatsoever you declare bound on earth, is bound in heaven." Jesus gave
the Apostles and their successors the authority. Besides, the Church
proclaims after the fact. They are in Heaven before the Church declares
them "Saint". How can she do this? The Holy Spirit will lead her to
all truth.

> As for Mary being able to do anything for you well not according to the

> bibles I have seen.
> See Ecclesiastes 9:5-6

You don't believe in the communion of saints, I guess.

I'm surrounded by a cloud of invisible witnesses. Sorry everyone who
has gone before is dead to you.

> Come to Jesus where He build His House on the Rock, and not on human
> traditions.

Peter means "Rock". BTW, why did Jesus give Simon a name (the giving of
names is pretty important in the Bible) that had been previously
reserved for God alone?

> I beseech you to take a closer look at the Mary thing.

I have. I suggest you do too, to learn what Catholics _really_
believe. So many seem to misunderstand.

> Or Just question your own Faith for your self and stop letting others
> tell you what your belief is to be.

Like you here? :-)

> For you are showing a great
> traditional religious faith built on the Traditions of Man, not
> The Truths(Rock) of The Living God.

The Church is built on the Apostolic Tradition given by Jesus Himself to
the Apostles. It has been preserved like a precious jewel throughout
the Ages, and Jesus Himself promised His Church would not fail. What
other church can show it was started by Jesus? If you think it can,
then please show me their writings. Show me their actions through the
centuries. The Church has been a light set up for the world, a shining
City on a hill. An invisible church won't do - it would be against what
Jesus said. So show me another church; prove it is the one started by
Jesus, and I will go there.

> > > Is it that you and the priests and the pope is alive,

> > > While Mary and the RCC saints are all "DEAD"?

> >
> > Not so. The Church proclaims that those who have gone before us are
> > more alive in God than we who remain in this mortal coil are. For they
> > see God, author of all Life, face to face, while we view, as in a glass,
> > darkly.
>
> See the Ecclesiastes verse above. ^ ^ ^
>
> The Living God wants you to see more clearly then you are now and that
> is
> what The New Testament is for, so you can see more clearly then they did
> 2000 years ago.
> You are the Church not them. Did you tell yourself that?

The Church is the people of God. I am but one person, a member of the
Body of Christ, but I am not the Church. Only in America would someone
believe that they are the Church. The Church has hierarchy (read
Paul). The Church holds to those Traditions taught by writing and by
word (see Paul again).

> If "They" Proclaim they are the Church, and not you, then you are being
> deceived for sure. Do not except that some one other then you are the
> Church Aka The Bride of the Lamb. Throw of the yokes of slavory that they are
> putting you under and Come to the Christian Church and not some thing of
> another name.

No one says I am not in the Church. I'm not sure what you are getting
at.

> Read the bible for yourself

I do.

> and do not let someone else tell you what is
> in the scriptures that are just fory your eyes only and not through some
> Religious interpreter

Everyone who reads the Bible must interpret the words. But Peter says
it is not for private interpretation. Therefore I follow public
interpretation. I am fallible. 30,000 different interpretations of the
Bible are fallible. God set up a teaching authority. I will follow
God's plan.

> That will lie to you sooner then tell you the
> truth
> of a Loving Living God.
>
> Misty,

"I am in Love, and out of Him I will not go." C.S. Lewis.

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
>
> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 15:31:43 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:
> >
> >> When: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:14:13 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> >> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:

> >Ok. So let's compare the 65 to the ONE mention of the Pope, sometimes, if
> >the priest picks the right Eucharistic prayer (the Pope is mentioned in
> >3/6 Eucharistic prayer options, Mary in 2). Is not 65 in this case a
> >large number?
> >Plus, Christ is mentioned even more, for I have not counted the readings
> >or the gospels.
>
> You say one mention of the Pope.. I have difficulty believing you,
> past experiences of our discussion tend to destroy your credibility.

Go to Mass. You will hear the priest say "We pray for John Paul, our
Pope, <n> our Bishop, and all who hold and teach the Catholic Faith"
during the Eucharistic prayer. That's the only time.

Your belief doesn't change facts.

> >> You'd say a lot of things, Theodore.
> >
> >Yes I do. But some of these have proof. In this case, the 30,000
> >Protestant denominations prove either:
> >1. Protestants don't listen to the Holy Spirit
> >2. The Holy Spirit is hopelessly schizophrenic.
> >
> >Since I don't believe that God is mentally ill, I go with #1.
>
> Please tell me where "protestant" or "catholic" is the term applied to
> followers of Christ in scripture.

And this answers the problem of hopeless fractionalism in the Body of
Christ, how?

> Yes, I understand that by "your" you were referring to Protestants,
> but unfortunately I'm not a member of any protestant church. Many of
> them are just as wrong in their own way as the catholic church.

Ah, and you have all the correct answers. Why didn't you tell us you
were an infallible teaching authority.

> >I have been many things.
>
> According to the dictionary, the word "vicar" is also a derivative of
> "weik."
>
> From what you have told me, it seems quite clear that the pope is
> twisting the image of Christ, also, trying to take His place as the
> head of the church.

Peter, and his successors, were made head of the Church by Jesus. Live
with it.

> >> It is Christ's duty and Christ's duty only to forgive sins. Not
> >> priests, not popes, not bishops, not any of the other miriad of
> >> leaders the Catholic church has heaped up to itself.
> >
> >Really? Then why did Christ give the Apostles the power to bind and
> >loose?
> >Matt 18:
> >[14] Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that
> >one of these little ones should perish.
> >[15] Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him
> >his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast
> >gained thy brother.
> >[16] But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,
> >that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
> >[17] And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if
> >he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and
> >a publican.
> >[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
> >bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
> >heaven.
> >[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
> >touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
> >Father which is in heaven.
>
> That dialect was directed to all of Christ's disciples, not just the
> apostles.

But after the ressurection Jesus came to only the Apostles and breathed
on them, and gave them the power and authority (and responsibility) to
forgive sins.

> >> No, not just the pope, but the entirety of Catholic doctrine. In
> >> essence, the Catholic Church itself.
> >
> >In that case, better throw out your Bible, which came from Catholic
> >Doctrine.
>
> Would I throw out Christ as well, simply because Catholicism uses His
> name? No, of course not. Not everything that came out of the new
> Roman Empire is evil. The books of the Bible existed prior to and
> independently of the Catholic church. All the catholics did was stick
> them together in one cover. The Bible did not come from Catholic
> doctrine.

You should look into the history of the Bible. You will find that there
were books that were considered Scripture that are not, and books that
some didn't consider Scripture that are included in the Bible (like
Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter). When it came down to decide which books
"measured up" (Cannon) the major consideration was which matched
Apostolic Teaching. So yes, Catholic doctrine was very important to the
creation of the Bible.

> >> And I have seen no inclination of you to pass the buck from your
> >> church to Nero to date.
> >
> >666. Nero Ceasar was the 666th Emperor of Pagan Rome.
>
> Oh, numerology? Ok.

Not numerology, but subversive literature. John was writing to a people
suffering under government persecution. He used code. He was writing
in a style that was known at that time. The people he was writing to
understood.

> On the Pope's Mitre are the words VICARIUS FILII DEI

That's not true. I'd reject anything else that that source said.

> There is more to the litmus test than just a number, Theodore. Shall
> we discuss Revelation 13 and 17 in detail?
>
> <snip>
> >> Theodore, the phrase "Textus Receptus" is Greek for "Received Text."
> >> The term "Majority Text" is the name applied to the Textus Receptus..
> >> these three are different names for the same thing, or didn't you know
> >> that?
> >
> >Doesn't matter. It was a translation back into Greek from the Latin.
>
> No, some parts for a few of the collective were translated from Latin
> to Greek.
>
> The "Majority Text" is called "Majority" because it is the most
> common. There are over 5000 copies of it, as opposed to I think no
> more than 200 of the non majority texts. The non majority
> (Alexandria, etc.) were used for translating the NIV, NASB, etc. The
> majority were used for the KJV.

According to a post by Stephne Quist in
<gWoJ4.161$NY6....@news.uswest.net>,

HOW ERASMUS STARTED THINGS

In the early 1500's a Spanish publisher released a polyglot (many
languages) bible that included the Greek) in print form for the first
time, (p. 96, TEXT). This sparked great interest in a printed version of
the Greek New Testament.

The first printed edition of the Greek New Testament to be widely
published was the one prepared by the Dutch scholar, Desiderius
Erasmus. A publisher offered Erasmus a sizable amount of money and gave
him a deadline for publication, (p. 98-99, TEXT).

Because of time constraints, Erasmus had to rely on several inferior
Greek texts for the edition. And in some places when he could not find
a Greek text, he took the Latin Vulgate, translated it back into a Greek
that he THOUGHT it should be and then placed that, imagined Greek Text,
in he edition along with his own retranslation back into Latin (p.
99-100, TEXT).

This flawed Greek edition of the New Testament was called the Textus
Receptus and in Metzger's words, this "debased" version became the
basis of the 1611 version of the King James Bible.
...

This information was taken from, "The Text of the New Testament," Bruce
M. Metzger, Oxford, (1992).

------------End included text------------------------

"I am in Love, and out of Him I will not go." C.S. Lewis

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
>
> I am a Christian, I follow Christ.
>
> I am not a follower of Martin Luther, I am not Lutheran.
> I am not a follower of John Calvin, I am not Calvanist.
> I protest false teaching, whether that false teaching comes from
> Calvanism, Lutheranism, or Catholicism. I suppose in that sense, I am
> a protestant, but I do not follow in the vein of Calvin and Luther.
>
> The life I try to live is outlined in the New Testament, not in some
> creed, or oath. My life is not described behind a set of doors with a
> name on them, or with a sign in the yard.

Then you have done what Martin Luther regretted allowing to happen - you
have made yourself Pope and final authority on what God wants. You have
made your own church, and so add one more Protestant denomination to the
wound of disunity that has afflicted the Body of Christ.

"I am in Love, and out of Him I will not go." C.S. Lewis.

[Stephen Quist]

"Ryan" <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message
news:39b7acf5.2063821487@news.hiwaay.net...
> When: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:08:42 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>

> >> >> Mary and the pope are not Christ.

> >> <snip>
> >> >We're all a part of the Body of Christ.
> >>
> >> But we are not Christ.
> >
> >How can we be a part of the Body of Christ and not be Christ?
Think about
> >what you are saying. Paul claims that we are all a part of the
Body of
> >Christ, and that we have to be Christ to one another.
>

> So you claim to be Jesus Christ? Tell me, what was the world like
> 2000 years ago? What was it like being a sinless individual? How
did
> it feel when the nails entered your hands and feet? And if you are
> Jesus, then you are all-knowing, so I have a few questions...
>
> Is there other intelligent life in the universe?
>
> If so, then they are not human, and may have a different history
than
> we. Did they fall into sin as well? If so, are you their savior?
>
> I don't mean to sound sarcastic, Christ, but I thought your second
> coming was to be seen by all, not just usenet?
>
But you are sounding just silly. We Catholics take the Bible
pretty literally. The "Body of Christ" is more than just a
metaphor.

> >> Please show us where Paul says "I am Christ."
> >
> >Where he says "We are the Body of Christ".
>

> Read 1 Corinthians 12. We are the body of Christ, we are the bride
of
> Christ, we have put on Christ, but WE ARE NOT CHRIST.
>
> We are sons of God, but we are not God.
>
Agreed.

> >Go read the Roman Missal, Novus Ordo (the current one being used).
It's
> >freely available. You don't have to depend upon me for
information.
>

> How many have been used? Are the previous versions available to the
> public?
>
The text of the Mass can be found online at catholicliturgy.com.

> >It isn't. Catholic is the term used in 110 A.D. by Ignatius of
Antioch,
> >Patriarch, to describe the Church under his Father in Christ,
Clement of
> >Rome, the second Pope.
>

> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
> Christ's ascention?
>
Yes, IIRC its based on the writings of Eusebius.

> >Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the
Church
> >that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants
to a
> >large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are
believers in
> >the Bible only, not in Christ.
>

> You claim defiance, I claim harmony.
>
> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
>
As *you* interpret the Scripture. Didn't Peter have a few
words to say about private interpretation?

> >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
>

> Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
> sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.
>
> Read John 14. The Holy Spirit took Christ's place when He left, not
> an office filled by a mere human.
>
Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.

> >> Where did I add the word authority?
> >
> >In private e-mail, you claimed that inspiration of God meant that
the
> >Bible was created by the authority of God.
>

> Ah, I see. So again you would like to claim that God did not have
> authority over what he inspired? Tell me, who held a gun to His
head
> and demanded that He say this, that, and the other?
>
At the highest level God did and does have authority over
Scripture. But the point is, He used His Church as the agent
through which he gave the world the Bible. There were over
a hundred different writings circulating through the early
Church. It took a Council, several actually, to determine
which were truly inspired and which were not. God used the
Catholic Church to convey his judgement on the scriptures.

> >> Yes, I understand that by "your" you were referring to
Protestants,
> >> but unfortunately I'm not a member of any protestant church.
Many of
> >> them are just as wrong in their own way as the catholic church.

Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?

> >
> >Then why did you not agree when I put forth the supposition that
Christ
> >would have followed the commandment "Honor your father and your
mother"?
>

> Christ did honor father and mother, but that does not condone the
> worship of Mary as displayed by Catholic doctrine.
>
It neither condones nor condemns.
The worship of Mary is of a different nature than the
worship of God. Please learn the difference before
you make judgements.

> >> A sinner's blood would not be sufficient for salvation.
> >
> >Certainly. And one who does not sin, cannot ignore his mother.
One who
> >forgives sins but does not forgive his mother's sins, has sinned
himself.
>

> And who said that Christ never forgave Mary for her sins?
> >> >Matt 18:

> >> >[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be
> >> >bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in
> >> >heaven.
> >> >[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on
earth as
> >> >touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them of my
> >> >Father which is in heaven.
> >>
> >> That dialect was directed to all of Christ's disciples, not just
the
> >> apostles.
> >
> >Which only makes your argument all the less true, since then Christ
gave
> >all of the disciples (the priests) and the apostles (the bishops)
the
> >power to forgive sins.
>

> I believe this to be speaking along the lines of "ask and you shall
> receive."
>
> Also, the disciples are not priests. So far as I can tell,
> Christianity has only one priest, and that is Christ.
>
> Hebrews 8:
> 1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have
> such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of
the
> Majesty in the heavens;
>
> Hebrews 9:
> 11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by
a
> greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
> say, not of this building;
>
Christ is our High Priest. Our bishops and priests are his
servants....

> >> The books of the Bible existed prior to and
> >> independently of the Catholic church.
> >
> >Actually, no they didn't. Or at least, not all of them. Paul's
letters
> >were written after the events in Matthew 16 & 18, as were all the
Gospels,
> >as was Acts, the Epistles of the Apostles, and of course,
Revelations was
> >written VERY late.
>

> In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the
church
> would be built. He did not establish Catholicism. The Catholic
> church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded
history.
>
Not right. The Church takes as her founding the coming of the
Holy Spirit to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, as recorded
in Acts.

> >Then why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic Council to put it all
> >together in one cover?
> >Come to think of it, why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic
Council to
> >discover what to put in the Bible.
>

> Somebody took the initiative to combine it all. It happened to be
the
> Eccumenical Catholic Council.
> As for the latter, I don't know.
>
Let me tell you. God's inspiration is given to the Church. As such
the Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

> >> On the Pope's Mitre are the words VICARIUS FILII DEI which mean
"Vicar
> >> of the Son of God."
> >
> >No it doesn't. Vicarius Filii Dei translates as Vicar of the Son
of God,
>

> What?? You vomit up "No it doesn't" faster than you can read, in a
> vain effort to contradict me, and then repeat exactly what I said.
>
Ted meant that the Pope's Mitre does not have "VICARIUS FILII DEI"
on it. Whoever told you that lied to you. The mitre does have
"VICARIUS CHRISTUS" on it which means Vicar of Christ.

> >but that's not a title the Pope has ever used. Vicarius Christus
is the
> >proper title.
> >
> >But you wouldn't know that, since you only read and repeat lies
about the
> >Catholic Church.
>

> It's on the pope's pointy crown, Theodore.
>
Nope, check it out. BTW, what is your source for the "vicarius
filii dei" canard?

Steve

[Stephen Quist]

"mnshadow" <mnsh...@rconnect.com> wrote in message
news:39B7EA...@rconnect.com...

> > > If the popes are not related then, Why do they all (HAVE) the
same name
> > > along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?
> >
> > What do you mean "the same name"? Do you mean title (Servant of
the
> > servants of Christ)? That's like saying all the presidents are
related
> > because they are all called "Mr. President."
>
> No, they all do have the same name. The Rcc gives all of thier
> graduating
> seminary students that same name, and that name Makes them all
related.
>

I have no idea what you are talking about here. What name?
Where did you get your information?

Steve

[Dolf Boek]

"Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
snip same stuff that was in a previous post, still with no explaination as
to its relevence or meaning

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Indeed I responded with factual and historical sources which I believe even
the Catholic Church claims as her own. It also seems that Kepler and
Galileo's cosmological innovations were dismissed by the Catholic Church on
the basis that their think did not establish any precendence in thought.
This is conclusive proof that Catholic Dogma is formulated upon
numerological (heteros) symbollism, rather than in through considerations
upon the Canon of Scripture known as Torah.

Hence it's hermeneutic principle are nothing more than an astrological
occultation to which that most famous of false interpolations upon the
Scriptures, the Philosopher's Stone applies: "For there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one." [1 John 5:7 (KJV)] This point is no better illustrated than by the
Gregorian 400 year (146097 day) decade chronology which is not only derived
from the elapse of 7 days but equally capable of being accommodated within
Jewish prophetic Jubilee (Year/7th day) based chronology.

This (heteros) gospel as Magnus Opus {malakos -
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE } upon gender and
sexuality which is promulgated by Dogmatic Theology manifests through the
use of JHVH deployed as numerological symbollism by an "occulted animistic

admixture of light and darkness through which 'hermetic mataiologia'
(heterodidaskaleo) declares the material world came into existence, as the

male and female principle." [Acts 3:17-24; 2 Peter 3:10-13; Plato, Timaeus,
p 32] As I said in my earlier post, "Coincidal with Galileo and Kepler's

conflicts with ecclesiastical authorities over innovations within the field
of cosmology, which remained clearly reflective of Pythagorean/Platonic
solids as the processional precedence given to the philosophical sciences,
is this curious appeal to Pythagorean mathematical and geometric first
principles made by Carmelite friar Paolo Antonio Foscarini:--"To explore
this point, we may turn to a significant work published in January 1615. In
his Lettera sopra L'opinione de' Pittagorici e del Copernico ('Letter on the
opinion of the Pythagoreans and Copernicus'), the Carmelite friar Paolo
Antonio Foscarini argued that the heliocentric model of the solar system was
not incompatible with the Bible. Foscarini did not introduce any new
principles of biblical interpretation in his analysis; rather, he sets out
and applies traditional rules of interpretation:

'When Holy Scripture attributes something to God or to any other creature
which would otherwise be improper and incommensurate, then it should be
interpreted and explained in one or more of the following ways. First, it is
said to pertain metaphorically and proportionately, or by similitude.
Second, it is said...according to our mode of consideration, apprehension,
understanding, knowing, etc. Thirdly, it is said according to vulgar opinion
and the common way of speaking.'" [Alister E. McGrath, © 1999, Science &
Religion - An Introduction, p 12-13]

INTELLECTUAL GENESIS:--Mathematics, generation of a figure: Just as numbers
are implicitly contained in numbers, and lines in lines figures within
figures, so all are in all; and this is here occulty expressed. If the
conception of the Trinity is encapsulated within the virtue of the first 3
Commandments, then it must also hold true that the foundational basis for
the entire 10 Commandments is established by the 4th as the Sabbath because
the Pythagoreans held:

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10

'teles' = 'arch' + c²

In other words, the entire intellectual cosmological basis for the 10
Commandments is expressed by the microcosm of the first 4 Commandments.
Hence, the intellectual basis of the 10 Commandments are not only
intrinsically associated with Seventh-day chronology but also bounded by the

apogee of 6,000 years. This too is expressed by the Pythgarean's Principle
element of the cosmos, known by the equation x² + y² = z² as an accommodated
perspective of chronology:

THE MATHEMATICAL 'GENESIS OF MAN' AS AN OCCULTED CONCEPTION OF TIME
AUM {Arcifex Universus Mundi - Architect of the Universe of Worlds}
Represented by a Trinity of Daimons: 3 - Saturn, Brahma, Osiris; 4 - Mars,
Shiva, Isis; 5 - Jupiter, Vishnu, Horus

"If the 47th problem be exhibited, as it frequently is, divided into
alternating black and white squares, symbolic, among other things, of the
'Dual Principle', 26 (10+5+6+5 as Tetragrammation of JHVH) of one color and
24 (3 x 8) of another, while the measure around-about the whole figure will
be 36 spaces, giving the Pythagorean sacred number of the Sun, upon which
the Sage of Samos swore his pupils to secrecy. The 9+16+25=50 squares thus
gave rise to the old Greek cabalistic name of the Sun, 'Damnamenos of the
fifty faces'. The Hebrews celebrated each fiftieth year as a Jubilee year,
calling it the 'Power of the Number Twelve' (3+4+5) " [Frank Higgons,
Hermetic Masonry - The Beginning of Masonry, p 32]

"The importance of 'the triangle of Huramon' (Horus-Ammon-Hiram), ages older
than Pythagoras, as a human contemplation and coequal with creation as a
divine principle, resides in the fact that it was the center, core, or
nucleus of the ancient sacred philosophy, to which we owe so much. Its
symbol for at least 5,000 years has been an eye, now the 'all-seeing eye' of
Freemasonry. From it emanated, as a plant from a seed, the various canons of
symmetry and order (time, space, number, and proportion), which still reign
over the heart and intelligence of man, for man does not regard as beautiful
that which his eyes show him by consensus of agreement to be ugly." [Frank
Higgins, Hermetic Masonry - The Beginning of Masonry, p 28]

The triangle of Huramon (Horus-Ammon-Hiram) by which Pythagorus achieved
religious/political concord in his day, represents an occulted cosmological
representation of decade chronology encapsulating the intellectual
mathematical and geometrical construction of the 'Genesis of Man': As the
CHiramic Life Principle which is also identified with Hermes through the
inscription on the Emerald Table, it is evidently considered as a prototype
of humanity. In fact, he is Plato's idea (archetype) of man. Just as Adam is
considered the 'anthropos nous' which is both derived from the breath of God
[Genesis 2:7] and partly because it is fashioned after the 'logos'; And the
Fall symbolises the 'archetupos' Idea of human degeneration through the
embrace of hymeneal folly, so too CHiram through his resurrection symbolises
the Idea of human regeneration.

- dolf

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, mnshadow wrote:

> Misty wrote:
>
> With corrections to former reply. Sorry

Ok, take #2.

> Theodore M. Seeber wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, mnshadow wrote:
> >
> > Big snip, since she snipped nothing.
> >
> > > Misty wrote:
> > >
> > > If the popes are not related then, Why do they all (H)ave the same name
> > > along with all of the Priests that must be called Father too?
> >
> > What do you mean gave the same name? We've had Popes named Innocent,
> > Gregory, John, Peter, Paul, Pius, Clement, Linus, Cletus, and many other
> > names besides that.
>
> Sorry a typo that should be "have"
> The name that they all have is also given to all priests as soon as they
> are ordained, and from the Teaching theaters that they have been
> indoctrinated
> in.
> I will see if you have that information before I tell you what that is.

I don't. I know of nothing that is a "name". A "title" certainly, but
not a name.

> > As to the history behind calling priests Father, please open your Bible
> > and read:
> > Genesis 17 (Abraham becomes Father of Israel)
>
> Abraham is also known as the Father of Rightiousness.
> We are addopted into his family of Believers because of that same
> "Righteousness.

Some of us are, some only have false righteousness and false prophets
(prophetesses? But a prophetess is an oxymoron in Jewish OR Christian
tradition).

> > Genesis 32 (Abraham and Isaac are refered to as Fathers)
> > Skipping ahead to the new testament:
> > 1 Cor 4 (Paul claims to be the Father of the Corinthians)
> > 2 Cor 6
> > Phil 2:11-22 (Paul claims to be a father to Timothy)
> > 1 Thes 1:3
> > 1 Thes 2:11
> > 1 Tim 1:2
> > 1 Tim 5:1
> > 2 Tim 1:2
> > 2 Pet 3:4
> > 1 John 2:1-13
> >
> > So obviously, this is not the way you think it is.
>
> Maybe so but did you consider,

Yes, I did.

> Matt 23:8-10
> 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master,
> even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
> 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one
> is your Father, which is in heaven.
> 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master,
> even Christ.

And you need to understand what the Pharasees were doing. They were
taking the title wrongly.

> I will use this as my authority not mans words and interpretations.

If so, then would you at least be honest enough to use the original
language, culture, and situation instead of applying it to current times
illicitly?

> > > Also, what is the difference between you, the pope, the priests,
> > > and Mary and the Roman catholic Saints?
> >
> > None. We are all a part of the Body of Christ.
>
> She and them are all Dead

Can you prove this? For instance, where is Mary Burried if she is dead?

> and gone but you are alive and still have a
> chance
> to become one of the Living Saints.
> See Ecc 9:5-6
>
> 5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead
> know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward;
> for the memory of them is forgotten.
> 6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
> now perished; neither have they any more a portion for
> ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Old Testament. Happened before the Resurrection. Or perhaps you deny
the ressurection?
Tell me, did Elijah die?

> Do you know what
> Necrolatry: "worship of the dead"
> and Necromancy: 1. "Magic in general: enchantment; comjuration 2, the
> pretended art of divination through communication with the dead.
> Means?
> Can you realy talk to Mary? ? ?

Yes and no. I can talk through God to Mary, and through Mary back to
Christ.
But can I do magic or divination through communication with Mary? No.
Nor would I wish to. The third Fatima prophecy proves we have the ability
to change the future, because it was inaccurate.

Which is what Mary and the other RCC are.

> What do the passed on have to do with the living breathing people of
> today
> that are under the sun?

They are of the "cloud of Witnesses" in Hebrews 12:1 as shown above.

> And where does the authority come from to pretend to talk to the Dead?

Only Christ, who is the one who brought us the Communion of Living
Saints. But like I said, they are not dead, but alive in Christ.

> I can assure you it does not Come From the Holy Spirit of Truth.

Who is the "Holy Spirit of Truth"? Sounds like 19th century Adventist
garbage to me.

> > Misty, I pray that you heed and hear the words of Scripture, that you
> > begin to strive for the peace that you seem to be missing and which caused
> > you to write this message.
>
> OH yes Scripture unbridled is my authority,

"unbridled"? Is not God in control then?

> not its interpretations of
> deceiptive religious people that are only pretending to preach a corpus
> cristy.

How can one preach the Body of Christ to the Body of Christ?

> My Lord Is alive not on the tree still.

As is mine.
But you cannot see that.
Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of Blessed Thomas Tsugi, martyr

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:08:42 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>

> >Oh, OK. Matthew Chapter 16 then.
> >
> >But unless you use the correct historical understanding that Matthew was
> >written to Jews, you won't understand the chapter.
>

> Written "to" the Jews?

Yes.

> Who wrote it "to" the Jews?

Matthew

> "To" whom did the
> author send this after he finished writing it?

The Church at Jerusalem, who distributed it to the upper classes living in
Jerusalem at the time.

Just like Catholic Answer spreads around copies of "Pillar of Fire, Pillar
of Truth" today.

> >> >> Mary and the pope are not Christ.
> >> <snip>
> >> >We're all a part of the Body of Christ.
> >>
> >> But we are not Christ.
> >
> >How can we be a part of the Body of Christ and not be Christ? Think about
> >what you are saying. Paul claims that we are all a part of the Body of
> >Christ, and that we have to be Christ to one another.
>

> So you claim to be Jesus Christ?

Not by myself I don't. But in collusion with all of the Chruch, yes.

> >Where he says "We are the Body of Christ".
>

> Read 1 Corinthians 12. We are the body of Christ, we are the bride of
> Christ, we have put on Christ, but WE ARE NOT CHRIST.

We are the Body of Christ.

> We are sons of God, but we are not God.

Yet God is within us:
2Tim.1
[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you
through the laying on of my hands;
[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who
dwells within us.

> >> Most of the books do not mention the name Jesus because most of the
> >> books record history before Jesus lived.
> >
> >So? Can't be Christian then, by your argument against the Mass.
>

> And so progress is made.

What progress? Seems to me, you just proved that the Bible isn't
Christian.
That's regress, not progress.

> >> Is chronology that difficult
> >> of a subject for you to understand?
> >
> >No, but apparently it is for you.
>

> How do you discern this?

You seem to have a problem with Jesus being eternal.

> You were correct, most of the books of the
> Bible are not Christian, they are Jewish!

So? Does that make the Bible not Christian?

> >Go read the Roman Missal, Novus Ordo (the current one being used). It's
> >freely available. You don't have to depend upon me for information.
>

> How many have been used?

Several hundred.

> Are the previous versions available to the
> public?

Those that are still around, yes.
Many of them were lost, over 2000 years.

> >It isn't. Catholic is the term used in 110 A.D. by Ignatius of Antioch,
> >Patriarch, to describe the Church under his Father in Christ, Clement of
> >Rome, the second Pope.
>

> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
> Christ's ascention?

Yes, so what?
Rome was considered the Center of the World at that time. Can you think
of a more fitting place to center what was supposed to be a universal
Church?

> >Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the Church
> >that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants to a
> >large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are believers in
> >the Bible only, not in Christ.
>

> You claim defiance, I claim harmony.

Then how come there are so many denominations?

> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.

Christ claimed:
John.14
[21] He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and
he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and
manifest myself to him."

How can you claim to be a believer in Christ if you don't follow the
hierarchy he himself set up?

> >> >To take the place of, one must be in communion with. Else it is a false
> >> >taking the place of.
> >>
> >> No one can take the place of Christ.
> >
> >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
>

> Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
> sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.

Cephas. Use the original language, as Paul did, and you'll see.

> Read John 14. The Holy Spirit took Christ's place when He left, not
> an office filled by a mere human.

In that case, you're claiming that the Holy Spirit is schizophrenic?
Or is it possible that the Protestants don't have the Holy Spirit?
I suggest looking into the book of Acts. How was the Spirit passed on?
Do you still have a sacrament that passes the spirit on?

> >In private e-mail, you claimed that inspiration of God meant that the
> >Bible was created by the authority of God.
>

> Ah, I see. So again you would like to claim that God did not have
> authority over what he inspired?

I not only claim that, but I also claim that nobody ever has authority
over what they inspire.

> Tell me, who held a gun to His head
> and demanded that He say this, that, and the other?

God never said anything. Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, they're the ones
who said things.
Things that were "inspired", yes. But it was the MEN doing the writing.

> This is a description of the gift of salvation.

Is it? Or is it a description of a hierarchy in reverse?

> The Pope has no
> ability to give salvation from his own pocket.

No, but he has the ability, as the Vicar of Christ, to give salvation from
Christ's pocket!

> That above does not speak of the Pope.

Only because you are too stupid to see it.

> And this was directed to all who would follow Christ, not just one
> individual or office.

Oh really? Then why does John Continue:
John.21
[1] After this Jesus revealed himself again to the disciples by the Sea of
Tibe'ri-as; and he revealed himself in this way.
[2] Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathan'a-el of Cana in Galilee,
the sons of Zeb'edee, and two others of his disciples were together.
[3] Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We
will go with you." They went out and got into the boat; but that night
they caught nothing.
[4] Just as day was breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples
did not know that it was Jesus.
[5] Jesus said to them, "Children, have you any fish?" They answered him,
"No."
[6] He said to them, "Cast the net on the right side of the boat, and you
will find some." So they cast it, and now they were not able to haul it
in, for the quantity of fish.
[7] That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord!" When
Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was
stripped for work, and sprang into the sea.
[8] But the other disciples came in the boat, dragging the net full of
fish, for they were not far from the land, but about a hundred yards off.
[9] When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire there, with fish
lying on it, and bread.
[10] Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish that you have just
caught."
[11] So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large
fish, a hundred and fifty-three of them; and although there were so many,
the net was not torn.
[12] Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast." Now none of the
disciples dared ask him, "Who are you?" They knew it was the Lord.
[13] Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the
fish.
[14] This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples
after he was raised from the dead.
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon,
son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes,
Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love
me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to
him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love
me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love
me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love
you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
[18] Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself
and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out
your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish
to go."
[19] (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after
this he said to him, "Follow me."
[20] Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved,
who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is
it that is going to betray you?"
[21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, "Lord, what about this man?"
[22] Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come,
what is that to you? Follow me!"

> This too does not speak of the pope.

Or so you claim. But you've had problems in the past, since your claim is
not Biblical.

> >[29] And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him.
> >[30] And behold, two blind men sitting by the roadside, when they heard
> >that Jesus was passing by, cried out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!"
> >[31] The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent; but they cried out
> >the more, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!"
> >[32] And Jesus stopped and called them, saying, "What do you want me to do
> >for you?"
> >[33] They said to him, "Lord, let our eyes be opened."
> >[34] And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they received
> >their sight and followed him.
>

> Does the pope walk down the streets of the Vatican (no) performing
> miracles and healing the sick and afflicted?

Actually, yes. Though less so since the assasination attempt.

> >> I never, ever, ever said such a blasphemous thing. Christ was
> >> perfect, and pure, and His sacrifice is all that is needed to wash
> >> away our sins.
> >
> >Then why did you not agree when I put forth the supposition that Christ
> >would have followed the commandment "Honor your father and your mother"?
>

> Christ did honor father and mother, but that does not condone the
> worship of Mary as displayed by Catholic doctrine.

Either he did condone the HONOR of Mary in Catholic Doctrine (Latria,
worship, is reserved for God alone), or he did not honor his
mother. Which is it?

> >> A sinner's blood would not be sufficient for salvation.
> >
> >Certainly. And one who does not sin, cannot ignore his mother. One who
> >forgives sins but does not forgive his mother's sins, has sinned himself.
>

> And who said that Christ never forgave Mary for her sins?

You did, when you said that Christ did not condone the Honor of Mary shown
in Catholic Doctrine.

All Catholic Doctrine states about Mary is that she was preserved from the
STAIN of all sin, throughout her life, from conception until natural
death.

It does NOT say that Mary was preserved from the COMMISSION of sin.

> >> >Matt 18:

> >> >[18] Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
> >> >bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
> >> >heaven.
> >> >[19] Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as
> >> >touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my
> >> >Father which is in heaven.
> >>
> >> That dialect was directed to all of Christ's disciples, not just the
> >> apostles.
> >
> >Which only makes your argument all the less true, since then Christ gave
> >all of the disciples (the priests) and the apostles (the bishops) the
> >power to forgive sins.
>

> I believe this to be speaking along the lines of "ask and you shall
> receive."

Why? That isn't in the verse.

> Also, the disciples are not priests.

They are presbyters, which became priests later on.

> So far as I can tell,
> Christianity has only one priest, and that is Christ.

Then so far as you can tell, Christ lied.

> Hebrews 8:
> 1) Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have

> such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the
> Majesty in the heavens;

That's a "High priest"

> Hebrews 9:
> 11) But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a
> greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
> say, not of this building;

Once again, a "High Priest"
Yet we have the ordinations in the book of Acts.

> >> Would I throw out Christ as well, simply because Catholicism uses His
> >> name?
> >
> >I would suppose so, for apparently, by your statement above, the entirety
> >of Catholic doctrine is evil.
> >
> >> No, of course not. Not everything that came out of the new
> >> Roman Empire is evil.
> >
> >Then you recant your last statement, that all Catholic doctrine is evil?
>

> Christ's teachings existed before the Catholic church. Some of what
> the Catholic church can be found in scripture. That is not Catholic
> doctrine, even though it can be heard in a Catholic church.

Funny, the Priests call it doctrine. Why do you use the word differently?

> That
> which was added to scripture, being the traditions, infallible humans,
> etc. I would venture to say is blatently and sometimes blasphemously
> wrong.

Ah, ok. But none of that is doctrine, the way the Church uses the word,
nor is it to be followed if it is against your conscience.

Why do you invent a new definition for the word?

> >> The books of the Bible existed prior to and
> >> independently of the Catholic church.
> >
> >Actually, no they didn't. Or at least, not all of them. Paul's letters
> >were written after the events in Matthew 16 & 18, as were all the Gospels,
> >as was Acts, the Epistles of the Apostles, and of course, Revelations was
> >written VERY late.
>

> In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the church
> would be built.

No he didn't, and it's been explained to you why.

> He did not establish Catholicism.

Why do you lie?

> The Catholic
> church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded history.

Then why did Paul have to go see the Apostles and Elders in Jerusalem?

> >Then why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic Council to put it all
> >together in one cover?
> >Come to think of it, why did it take an Eccumenical Catholic Council to
> >discover what to put in the Bible.
>

> Somebody took the initiative to combine it all.

Yep. Pope Leo II.

> It happened to be the
> Eccumenical Catholic Council.

Yep.

> As for the latter, I don't know.

Because only in the councils can the Holy Spirit's will be determined and
separated from the individual human will.

> >> On the Pope's Mitre are the words VICARIUS FILII DEI which mean "Vicar
> >> of the Son of God."
> >
> >No it doesn't. Vicarius Filii Dei translates as Vicar of the Son of God,
>

> What?? You vomit up "No it doesn't" faster than you can read, in a
> vain effort to contradict me, and then repeat exactly what I said.

Finish the sentence first.

> >but that's not a title the Pope has ever used. Vicarius Christus is the
> >proper title.
> >
> >But you wouldn't know that, since you only read and repeat lies about the
> >Catholic Church.
>

> It's on the pope's pointy crown, Theodore.

No it isn't. It's on some doctored fake photographs. One would think
you'd never been to see the Pope.

> >I'd be happy to. If you can refrain from adding words, that is, or
> >refering to fake titles for the Pope.
>

> Just like you were happy to discuss one topic with me at a time?

Yes.

> Just
> like you could provide scriptural references for everything the
> Catholic church teaches?

Yes.

> Why oh why did I even ask...
>
> Revelation 13:
> 1) And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out
> of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten
> crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

Yep. Refers to Pagan Rome. Next.

> Revelation 17:
> 3) So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw
> a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy,
> having seven heads and ten horns.

Still refers to pagan rome.

> 9) And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven
> mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
> 10) And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the
> other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short
> space.
> 11) And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
> of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

And it still refers to Pagan Rome.

> 15) And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the
> whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
> 16) And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall
> hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat
> her flesh, and burn her with fire.
> 17) For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree,
> and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be
> fulfilled.
> 18) And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth
> over the kings of the earth.

Yep. Pagan Rome again.

Snip fake adding to scripture.

> stated something to that effect. I assume therefore that we do not
> have to enter into a debate as to whether or not this is referring to
> Rome?

Nope. The only debate is Which Rome.
Pagan Rome, in which Nero ruled, is on seven hills, and had all the other
makings of the Beast.
Christian Rome, on the other hand, sat on 8 hills, after annexing Vatican
Hill.

So anything after the annex that led to jumping to the other side of the
Tiber, is not in this prophecy.

> >I go to the Earliest texts, not to some garbage created during the middle
> >ages by Protestants.
>

> The Majority Text are the earliest known copies of the New Testament,
> dating back to the first and second century, and they are in Greek.

What about the findings at Nag Hammadai?
Or the Etheopian Manuscripts?
Or the Jerusalem Matthew?

We've got loads better that were found in the last century.

> The Textus Receptus was originally a compilation of 5 or 6 of the MT
> manuscripts in the very early 16th century, and it was from this TR
> that the KJV was translated.

No, that's not quite what I've heard. I know it's what liars like Jack
Chick like to claim.

> However, the Majority Text is in Greek and is comprised of over 5000
> separate manuscripts dating back to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
> centuries.

And I ask again: What about the other, non-greek texts that carbon date
as early as 40 A.D.?

> Because it is the word (not the Word) of God.

Can you explain the difference? We've been bitten by the Language bug
once already.

> >> It is what God inspired, His message, Christ's word, that holds
> >> importance, and it is God alone that receives worship.
> >
> >Ah, but God's message, God's word, what is it really? It ain't the Bible,
> >according to the Gospel of John 1:1-14.
>

> God's message is Scripture. God's word is Scripture. The Word is
> Jesus Christ.

Who is not entirely in Scripture.

> >Then why claim in private e-mail that the Bible has authority?
>

> Because it comes from God.

Ah, but does it? It's inspired by God, true, but inspiration isn't
thought control, or automatic writing, or authorship.
Ted

--
On this day, the Feast of Blessed Thomas Tsugi, martyr

[Al Norris]

In message <39B7EA...@rconnect.com>,

it appeared that mnshadow <mnsh...@rconnect.com> enlightened us with:

>Al Norris wrote:
>>
>> [snipped Ted's 359 line post]
>>
>> In message <39B69B...@rconnect.com>,
>> it appeared that mnshadow <mnsh...@rconnect.com> enlightened us with:
>>
>> >Misty wrote:
>>
>> [snipped Misty's 10 line answer]
>>
>> Misty really needs to learn some usenet manners.
>

>What is needed is to expose the lies for what they are.
>And Learn the Truths for what they are.

So you needed to quote 359 lines, to which you responded to how many of
them? It would have been different if you had responded point by point
to Ted's dialogue, but NOOOOO, you simply added 10 lines of useless
gibberish. I say useless, because you answered to none of Ted's points.
I say gibberish because you added nothing of content to the post.

Since when did common curtesy become anathema? I have not entered into
this discussion. I could care less what YOU consider lies or what YOU
consider truth. I do consider curtesy extended to those outside of the
USA who have to pay dearly for the use of the net. Apparently you (and
several others) don't give a rats whisker about anything other than
yourselves. Now that's a real Christian attitude if I ever saw one.

HTH

*PLONK*

[Ryan]

So I should join a church, even if they are full of false teachings?

When: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:07:45 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
<tar...@my-deja.com> > What:

/*

*/

[Ryan]

When: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:35:29 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
<see...@aracnet.com> > What:

>> We are sons of God, but we are not God.

>
>Yet God is within us:
>2Tim.1
>[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you
>through the laying on of my hands;
>[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who
>dwells within us.

God is within us, but that does not make us God.

>> >> Most of the books do not mention the name Jesus because most of the
>> >> books record history before Jesus lived.
>> >
>> >So? Can't be Christian then, by your argument against the Mass.
>>
>> And so progress is made.
>
>What progress? Seems to me, you just proved that the Bible isn't
>Christian.
>That's regress, not progress.

Most of the Bible is not Christian oriented, it is Jew oriented.

>> >> Is chronology that difficult
>> >> of a subject for you to understand?
>> >
>> >No, but apparently it is for you.
>>
>> How do you discern this?
>
>You seem to have a problem with Jesus being eternal.

No problems at all. John 1, the Word is God. God the Son is eternal.
There are references to His coming to live among men contained in the
Old Testament, but by and large the Old Testament is Jewish in nature,
not Christian.

>> You were correct, most of the books of the
>> Bible are not Christian, they are Jewish!
>
>So? Does that make the Bible not Christian?

No, it doesn't. And Christianity has a very close link to Judaism,
but that does not make them the same thing. The OT is a wonderful
part of Scripture, and has tons of excellent material to share with
Christians today, but the fact of the matter is that the OT is Jewish,
the NT is Christian, the Bible is a record of Jewish and Christian
doctrines, history, and an explination for the blending of the two.

>> Are the previous versions available to the
>> public?
>
>Those that are still around, yes.
>Many of them were lost, over 2000 years.

How could Catholic documents from over 2000 years ago be lost if the
Catholic church did not exist 2000 years ago?

>> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
>> Christ's ascention?
>
>Yes, so what?
>Rome was considered the Center of the World at that time. Can you think
>of a more fitting place to center what was supposed to be a universal
>Church?

I just wonder why, if Peter were in Rome, Paul made no mention of him
in his letter to the church at Rome.

>> >Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the Church
>> >that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants to a
>> >large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are believers in
>> >the Bible only, not in Christ.
>>
>> You claim defiance, I claim harmony.
>
>Then how come there are so many denominations?

a) Self-indulgent power trips.
b) Perverse versions of Scripture.
c) Disregard for Christ, with the sole interest lying in outward
appearance.
d) Prostitution of the Christian faith, trying to blend it with other
faiths in an effort to bring members of another faith into the "fold."
(Yes, I am fully aware of Christmas celebration)

The pre-tribulation rapture, for instance, is a topic that has caused
a few denominational splits.

The idea of the rapture came from some woman's dream, pardon me for
forgetting her name, in the early 1800's. Scripture was then sought
out and twisted to conform to her idea, and thus her 15 minutes of
fame. Unfortunately, her idea still persists due to causes 'a' and
'b' above.

>> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
>
>Christ claimed:
>John.14
>[21] He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and
>he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and
>manifest myself to him."
>
>How can you claim to be a believer in Christ if you don't follow the
>hierarchy he himself set up?

Christ did not establish papal progression.

>> >> >To take the place of, one must be in communion with. Else it is a false
>> >> >taking the place of.
>> >>
>> >> No one can take the place of Christ.
>> >
>> >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
>>
>> Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
>> sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.
>
>Cephas. Use the original language, as Paul did, and you'll see.

Petra. Fewer problems arise when you trust the words of Christ,
rather than relying on an accurate but loosly translated document from
Paul.

>> Ah, I see. So again you would like to claim that God did not have
>> authority over what he inspired?
>
>I not only claim that, but I also claim that nobody ever has authority
>over what they inspire.

I see.

>> Tell me, who held a gun to His head
>> and demanded that He say this, that, and the other?
>
>God never said anything. Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, they're the ones
>who said things.
>Things that were "inspired", yes. But it was the MEN doing the writing.

And the red letters in your Bible? I suppose those weren't really the
words of Christ?

I see.

>> >[3] And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the
>> >market place;
>> >[4] and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is
>> >right I will give you.' So they went.
>> >[5] Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the
>> >same.
>> >[6] And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and
>> >he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?'
>> >[7] They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You
>> >go into the vineyard too.'
>> >[8] And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward,
>> >`Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up
>> >to the first.'
>> >[9] And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them
>> >received a denarius.
>> >[10] Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but
>> >each of them also received a denarius.
>> >[11] And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder,
>> >[12] saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them
>> >equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.'
>> >[13] But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did
>> >you not agree with me for a denarius?
>>

>> This is a description of the gift of salvation.
>
>Is it? Or is it a description of a hierarchy in reverse?

Salvation. It outlines those people who have been Christians and
worked for God for decades, and it outlines Christians who joined the
faith yesterday. If Christ were to come tomorrow, the gift of
salvation would not be handed out based upon how long each individual
had been waiting in line.

>> The Pope has no
>> ability to give salvation from his own pocket.
>
>No, but he has the ability, as the Vicar of Christ, to give salvation from
>Christ's pocket!
>
>> That above does not speak of the Pope.
>
>Only because you are too stupid to see it.

The above speaks of Christ, not the Pope.

>> And this was directed to all who would follow Christ, not just one
>> individual or office.
>
>Oh really? Then why does John Continue:

He made an example of Peter.

You waste bandwidth posting long passages like this, get to the point,
which I suspect is the last portion of the chapter.

>John 21

I beg to differ, since you constantly refer to tradition, and
Tradition, and church fathers, and a host of other non-biblical
references.

>> Does the pope walk down the streets of the Vatican (no) performing
>> miracles and healing the sick and afflicted?
>
>Actually, yes. Though less so since the assasination attempt.

What would a man of God have to fear from those outside the faith? If
God is for us, who can be against us?

Something stinks in Denmark.

>> Christ did honor father and mother, but that does not condone the
>> worship of Mary as displayed by Catholic doctrine.
>
>Either he did condone the HONOR of Mary in Catholic Doctrine (Latria,
>worship, is reserved for God alone), or he did not honor his
>mother. Which is it?

Christ honored His mother, but He did not condone worship of her as
the Catholic church practices. I will not answer this question a
third time.

>> And who said that Christ never forgave Mary for her sins?
>
>You did, when you said that Christ did not condone the Honor of Mary shown
>in Catholic Doctrine.

I grow weary of your lies, Theodore. Final post.

<snip>

/*

*/

[Tom A.]

Stephen Quist wrote:
>
> "Ryan" <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message
> news:39b7acf5.2063821487@news.hiwaay.net...
> > When: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:08:42 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> > <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
> >
>
>

> > >It isn't. Catholic is the term used in 110 A.D. by Ignatius of
> Antioch,
> > >Patriarch, to describe the Church under his Father in Christ,
> Clement of
> > >Rome, the second Pope.
> >
> > Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
> > Christ's ascention?
> >
> Yes, IIRC its based on the writings of Eusebius.

As well as (IIRC) more than a half dozen writers before him.

Eusebius records that both Peter's and Paul's graves are known, and he
can even show you if you visit him, or words to that effect.

History. It's not just for breakfast anymore. :-)

> > >Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the
> Church
> > >that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants
> to a
> > >large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are
> believers in
> > >the Bible only, not in Christ.
> >
> > You claim defiance, I claim harmony.

Ah, that's why there are all those conflicting interpretations of the
Bible. Got it. Harmon means conflict. Newspeak! George Orwell lives!

> > And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
> >
> As *you* interpret the Scripture. Didn't Peter have a few
> words to say about private interpretation?

Amazing! They hear but do not understand.

Ted doesn't have his own interpretation (mostly :-). He is using public
interpretation. Public interpretation has remained consistent
throughout the history of Christianity. Do you know where to read it?

> > >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
> >
> > Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
> > sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.

No, but he was given "they keys." See Isaiah for a biblical description
of what the Jews understood Christ as saying when he gave Peter the
Keys. Then read the early Christian writers for confirmation of this.
It's implied in one of the earliest post-Apostolic writing, the Letter
of Clement of Rome, which was considered Scripture by parts of the
Church until the Cannon was set in the late 300's, by a council of
Bishops, and approved by the Pope.

History, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

> > Read John 14. The Holy Spirit took Christ's place when He left, not
> > an office filled by a mere human.

The Holy Spirit was given to the Church. Doesn't change the fact that
Jesus gave Simon a new name, one reserved for God alone up until that
time, and gave him the keys. As Ted said, if you understand Jewish
thought at the time, the giving of keys was the giving of authority and
responsibility. And none of the early Christians disputed the office of
the Bishop of Rome.

> Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
> of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
> where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
> the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
> to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
> the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.

Well said.

> > >> Where did I add the word authority?
> > >
> > >In private e-mail, you claimed that inspiration of God meant that
> the
> > >Bible was created by the authority of God.
> >
> > Ah, I see. So again you would like to claim that God did not have
> > authority over what he inspired? Tell me, who held a gun to His
> head
> > and demanded that He say this, that, and the other?
> >
> At the highest level God did and does have authority over
> Scripture. But the point is, He used His Church as the agent
> through which he gave the world the Bible. There were over
> a hundred different writings circulating through the early
> Church. It took a Council, several actually, to determine
> which were truly inspired and which were not. God used the
> Catholic Church to convey his judgement on the scriptures.

And the bottom line for determining what was Scripture was "Is this
consistent with the Faith passed on by the Apostles" (as well as (for
the NT) was the work attributed traditionally to an Apostle or one who
was accompanying an Apostle (like Mark).)

> > >> Yes, I understand that by "your" you were referring to
> Protestants,
> > >> but unfortunately I'm not a member of any protestant church.
> Many of
> > >> them are just as wrong in their own way as the catholic church.
>
> Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?
>
> > >
> > >Then why did you not agree when I put forth the supposition that
> Christ
> > >would have followed the commandment "Honor your father and your
> mother"?
> >
> > Christ did honor father and mother, but that does not condone the
> > worship of Mary as displayed by Catholic doctrine.
> >
> It neither condones nor condemns.
> The worship of Mary is of a different nature than the
> worship of God. Please learn the difference before
> you make judgements.
>
> > >

> > >Which only makes your argument all the less true, since then Christ
> gave
> > >all of the disciples (the priests) and the apostles (the bishops)
> the
> > >power to forgive sins.
> >
> > I believe this to be speaking along the lines of "ask and you shall
> > receive."

Private interpretation. Isn't that what you warned Ted about?

> > Also, the disciples are not priests. So far as I can tell,
> > Christianity has only one priest, and that is Christ.

Read the early Christian writers.
Besides, in the Jewish faith, there was one high priest, and other
priests, and they too had a concept of the priesthood of the people.
But that didn't change the fact that there were different jobs for the
different priests. The High priest was the only one to enter the Holy
of Holies. The other priests performed the sacrifices. The people
approached God in prayer. The organizational structure was continued in
the early Church, but, as Paul said, Christ is the High Priest (and the
Sacrifice).

> Christ is our High Priest. Our bishops and priests are his
> servants....
>
> > >> The books of the Bible existed prior to and
> > >> independently of the Catholic church.
> > >
> > >Actually, no they didn't. Or at least, not all of them. Paul's
> letters
> > >were written after the events in Matthew 16 & 18, as were all the
> Gospels,
> > >as was Acts, the Epistles of the Apostles, and of course,
> Revelations was
> > >written VERY late.
> >
> > In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the
> church
> > would be built. He did not establish Catholicism. The Catholic
> > church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded
> history.
> >
> Not right. The Church takes as her founding the coming of the
> Holy Spirit to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, as recorded
> in Acts.

Again, if you read the early Christian writers you will not only see
Catholic beliefs, but even Catholic actions. The Mass is described by
Justin Martyr around the year 150, and Paul's description of the the
importance of Communion is consistent and actually confirms Catholic
beliefs in the Real Presence.

>Steve

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> "Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> snip same stuff that was in a previous post, still with no explaination as
> to its relevence or meaning
>
> DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
> Indeed I responded with factual and historical sources which I believe even
> the Catholic Church claims as her own.

Get this straight Dolf, you've been told enough times:
The only "factual and historical sources" that the "Catholic Church claims
as her own" are the Magisterium, the Councils, and the Popes.

And they have NOTHING to do with science.

> It also seems that Kepler and
> Galileo's cosmological innovations were dismissed by the Catholic Church on
> the basis that their think did not establish any precendence in thought.

Nope, that was not the reason, and it wasn't the Catholic Church who
dismissed those cosmological innovations, but rather the scientists of the
day.

> This is conclusive proof that Catholic Dogma is formulated upon
> numerological (heteros) symbollism, rather than in through considerations
> upon the Canon of Scripture known as Torah.

No it isn't, two entirely different things. Catholic Dogma and the Torah
have nothing to do with science at all.

> Hence it's hermeneutic principle are nothing more than an astrological
> occultation to which that most famous of false interpolations upon the
> Scriptures, the Philosopher's Stone applies: "For there are three that bear
> record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
> are one." [1 John 5:7 (KJV)]

And look at the Gospel of John 1:1-14 to see that the Word in this case is
NOT Torah.

> This point is no better illustrated than by the
> Gregorian 400 year (146097 day) decade chronology which is not only derived
> from the elapse of 7 days but equally capable of being accommodated within
> Jewish prophetic Jubilee (Year/7th day) based chronology.

So what? Still has absolutely NOTHING to do with either Dogma OR Torah.

Snip rest for not understanding BASIC Catholicism, that Dogma was closed
with the death of the last Apostle.

Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Fascinating historical evidence in today's Saint's description.

[Ryan]

When: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:31:24 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
<qui...@msei-co.com> > What:

>> I don't mean to sound sarcastic, Christ, but I thought your second
>> coming was to be seen by all, not just usenet?
>>
>But you are sounding just silly. We Catholics take the Bible
>pretty literally. The "Body of Christ" is more than just a
>metaphor.

If you take it literally, then you are actually part of the physical
body of Christ, and not an individual.

>> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
>> Christ's ascention?
>>
>Yes, IIRC its based on the writings of Eusebius.

Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the church at
Rome?

>> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
>>
>As *you* interpret the Scripture. Didn't Peter have a few
>words to say about private interpretation?

I believe so, but I don't think in the context which you are
suggesting.

2 Peter 1:
19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well
that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until
the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>> >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
>>
>> Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
>> sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.
>>
>> Read John 14. The Holy Spirit took Christ's place when He left, not
>> an office filled by a mere human.
>>
>Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
>of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
>where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
>the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
>to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
>the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.

As for the keys, they were not given solely to Peter. Read Matthew
18, pay close attention to who Christ is speaking to throughout the
chapter.

And unfortunately, John was incorrect.

No, not the John you are speaking of, but John Lennon. Love is not
all you need.

A close look at the dialect shows Peter repeating that he loves Christ
three times. What a statement of love!

Unfortunately, that's not ~ exactly ~ what Peter was trying to say.
Did you ever wonder why Peter grieved at that last "I love you, Jesus"
bit? Look at the Greek text.

Jesus: Do you agape me? (agape = love in action; love in works)
Peter: I phileo you (phileo = friendship love; lacking works)

Jesus: Do you agape me?
Peter: I phileo you

Jesus: Do you phileo me?
Peter (grieved): You know I phileo you!

Peter didn't want to work for Jesus.

John 21:
18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou
girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou
shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall
gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

>At the highest level God did and does have authority over
>Scripture. But the point is, He used His Church as the agent
>through which he gave the world the Bible. There were over
>a hundred different writings circulating through the early
>Church. It took a Council, several actually, to determine
>which were truly inspired and which were not. God used the
>Catholic Church to convey his judgement on the scriptures.

Please explain the fact that God has authority over what He inspired
to Theodore. He won't listen to the evil non-Catholic.

And no, I disagree. The content of the Bible existed before the
Catholic church did. The Catholics did nothing to give those
scriptures to the world, they just put them all into one volume. The
scriptures existed without the involvement of the Catholic church, and
in some cases, even in spite of the catholic church.

>Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?

No, I do not belong to any earthly listing of membership which uses
the word "church."

Why not? I am more interested in being identified with Christ than I
am about being identified with Such-and-Such Church of Christ, or the
Catholic church, or the Lutheran church, or whatever else you want to
note. I do attend the sermons, and listen to the message, and test
them against the scriptures. I have learned, and I have had to
dismiss. I have attended both protestant and catholic sermons, I have
attended but not participated in mass.

Why am I treating Christianity like a buffet bar? I'm not.

1 Thessalonians 5:
21) Prove ALL things; hold fast that which is good.

1 John 4:
1) Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Matthew 7:
15) Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
17) Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18) A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.
19) Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire.
20) Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

>It neither condones nor condemns.
>The worship of Mary is of a different nature than the
>worship of God. Please learn the difference before
>you make judgements.

I beg to differ; Catholic doctrine does condone Marian worship.

>Christ is our High Priest. Our bishops and priests are his
>servants....

All who follow Christ are to be servants of Christ.

James 2:
17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy
faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19) Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble.
20) But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

>>In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the
>>church would be built. He did not establish Catholicism. The Catholic
>>church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded
>>history.
>
>Not right. The Church takes as her founding the coming of the
>Holy Spirit to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, as recorded
>in Acts.

The catholic church can claim all it wants, but their claims
concerning the papacy are simply not supported in Scripture.

>Let me tell you. God's inspiration is given to the Church. As such
>the Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.

What is and what is not canon is not in question at this point in
time. What is in question is the Catholic church's authority and
position on contradicting what God has set forth in scripture.

>Nope, check it out. BTW, what is your source for the "vicarius
>filii dei" canard?

I've seen it a few places, in both Catholic and non Catholic sources.
Frankly I don't have the references directly in front of me, but I'll
dig them up again and get them to you.

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:35:29 -0700 > Who: "Theodore M. Seeber"
> <see...@aracnet.com> > What:
>
> >> We are sons of God, but we are not God.
> >
> >Yet God is within us:
> >2Tim.1
> >[6] Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you
> >through the laying on of my hands;
> >[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who
> >dwells within us.
>
> God is within us, but that does not make us God.

Correct in one way, wrong in another. Don't you just love theological
paradoxes, where the paradox is always the truth?

> >> >> Most of the books do not mention the name Jesus because most of the
> >> >> books record history before Jesus lived.
> >> >
> >> >So? Can't be Christian then, by your argument against the Mass.
> >>
> >> And so progress is made.
> >
> >What progress? Seems to me, you just proved that the Bible isn't
> >Christian.
> >That's regress, not progress.
>
> Most of the Bible is not Christian oriented, it is Jew oriented.

Now go to the next obvious step: That Christianity is a sect of Judaism.

> >> How do you discern this?
> >
> >You seem to have a problem with Jesus being eternal.
>
> No problems at all. John 1, the Word is God. God the Son is eternal.
> There are references to His coming to live among men contained in the
> Old Testament, but by and large the Old Testament is Jewish in nature,
> not Christian.

But those references are not by name, are they?

> >> You were correct, most of the books of the
> >> Bible are not Christian, they are Jewish!
> >
> >So? Does that make the Bible not Christian?
>
> No, it doesn't. And Christianity has a very close link to Judaism,
> but that does not make them the same thing.

Now I wrap it back to my original argument: Thus, the number of times the
Mass, which is essentially a JEWISH method of Worship (it goes back to the
time when all Christians were Jews), is a valid form of worship for a
Christian.

> The OT is a wonderful
> part of Scripture, and has tons of excellent material to share with
> Christians today, but the fact of the matter is that the OT is Jewish,
> the NT is Christian, the Bible is a record of Jewish and Christian
> doctrines, history, and an explination for the blending of the two.

Yep. And one of those explainations is the Mass.

> >> Are the previous versions available to the
> >> public?
> >
> >Those that are still around, yes.
> >Many of them were lost, over 2000 years.
>
> How could Catholic documents from over 2000 years ago be lost if the
> Catholic church did not exist 2000 years ago?

Ah, I'm using a different meaning of the word "Over".

Perhaps replacing it with "During" is correct.

Where are you living? It might help if I knew the accent with which you
are reading English.

For 2000 years, and more, the Mass has been practiced. In fact, you might
say it goes back to Moses, or at least, half of it does. The Liturgy of
the Eucharist is so close to the Jewish Passover that many Reform Jews
will recognize. The other half, or at least so far in my research, seems
to go back to the time of the earliest synagogues and formalized Sabbath
Worship, after the destruction of the first Temple and the captivity in
Babylon, when all they had left was the sacred scrolls of Torah and the
Prophets. This became the Liturgy of the Word in the Mass.

But you're also right in a way: It was the Catholics who first joined the
Liturgy of the Word with the Passover in at first a weekly, then later a
daily, celebration.

> >> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after
> >> Christ's ascention?
> >
> >Yes, so what?
> >Rome was considered the Center of the World at that time. Can you think
> >of a more fitting place to center what was supposed to be a universal
> >Church?
>
> I just wonder why, if Peter were in Rome, Paul made no mention of him
> in his letter to the church at Rome.

For the same reason that Paul made no mention of himself in his letter to
the Church of Rome, despite the fact that he died there.

Don't forget, there are two seats of Peter, in Antioch and Rome. Today
they are in schism from one another, and have been since 1054, but in the
early Church of the first 400 years, they were in communion. That's why
the Letter of Ignatius of Antioch is so important in proving Papal
Supremacy in the Catholic Church: At one time, the Patriarch of Antioch
did refer to the Patriarch of Rome as "My Brother" and "First Among
Equals". It is also from this letter that we get the word Catholic, which
proves that the Catholic Church existed, with it's hierarchy, at the end
of the first century.

> >> >Protestants didn't come about until people started PROTESTing the Church
> >> >that Christ started. In defiance of the Holy Spirit. Protestants to a
> >> >large extent, claim to be Christian when in reality, they are believers in
> >> >the Bible only, not in Christ.
> >>
> >> You claim defiance, I claim harmony.
> >
> >Then how come there are so many denominations?
>
> a) Self-indulgent power trips.

Which is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

> b) Perverse versions of Scripture.

Which is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

> c) Disregard for Christ, with the sole interest lying in outward
> appearance.

Which is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

> d) Prostitution of the Christian faith, trying to blend it with other
> faiths in an effort to bring members of another faith into the "fold."
> (Yes, I am fully aware of Christmas celebration)

Which IS listening to the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit wants us to
evangelize.

> The pre-tribulation rapture, for instance, is a topic that has caused
> a few denominational splits.

Which is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

> The idea of the rapture came from some woman's dream, pardon me for
> forgetting her name, in the early 1800's. Scripture was then sought
> out and twisted to conform to her idea, and thus her 15 minutes of
> fame. Unfortunately, her idea still persists due to causes 'a' and
> 'b' above.

Which is not listening to the Holy Spirit.

So tell me, since we have 4/5 cases of not listening to the Holy Spirit,
exactly how sure are you that denial of the ability of the Church to set
it's own days for feasts for the purpose of evangelization is listening to
the Holy Spirit?

And If they're not listening, haven't they denied the Holy Spirit?

> >> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
> >
> >Christ claimed:
> >John.14
> >[21] He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and
> >he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and
> >manifest myself to him."
> >
> >How can you claim to be a believer in Christ if you don't follow the
> >hierarchy he himself set up?
>
> Christ did not establish papal progression.

Funny, several of the Early Church Fathers, going back to the people who
were taught ORALLY by Paul and Peter, seem to think that Christ did
establish Apostolic Succession.

Why are you not in communion with the Early Church?

> >> >And yet, he picked Cephas to do so. Wonder why?
> >>
> >> Petra did not take the place of Christ. Petra did not become a
> >> sacrifice for sins. Petra did not become God.
> >
> >Cephas. Use the original language, as Paul did, and you'll see.
>
> Petra. Fewer problems arise when you trust the words of Christ,
> rather than relying on an accurate but loosly translated document from
> Paul.

And since all the earliest manuscripts report the word to be Cepha or
Kepha, why are you trusting a later translation? And why are you not in
communion with the earlier versions?

> >> Ah, I see. So again you would like to claim that God did not have
> >> authority over what he inspired?
> >
> >I not only claim that, but I also claim that nobody ever has authority
> >over what they inspire.
>
> I see.

Does a model have authority over the painting of her?

> >> Tell me, who held a gun to His head
> >> and demanded that He say this, that, and the other?
> >
> >God never said anything. Paul, Peter, Mark, Luke, John, they're the ones
> >who said things.
> >Things that were "inspired", yes. But it was the MEN doing the writing.
>
> And the red letters in your Bible?

There are no red letters in my Bible. And there were no red letters in
the original scrolls. In fact, no Bible had "red letters" until the
19th century, when multi-color printing was invented.

> I suppose those weren't really the
> words of Christ?

Might have been, might not have been. The Gospels were written for
EVANGELIZATION, not as a literal history.

Right. But what else do you see?

> >No, but he has the ability, as the Vicar of Christ, to give salvation from
> >Christ's pocket!
> >
> >> That above does not speak of the Pope.
> >
> >Only because you are too stupid to see it.
>
> The above speaks of Christ, not the Pope.

Not if you dig a bit deeper.

> >> And this was directed to all who would follow Christ, not just one
> >> individual or office.
> >
> >Oh really? Then why does John Continue:
>
> He made an example of Peter.

Where? And isn't this what you claim I'm doing above? If what John Wrote
is not what Jesus said, what does that do to your claim that all the "red
letters" in your Bible are exactly what Jesus Said?

> You waste bandwidth posting long passages like this, get to the point,
> which I suspect is the last portion of the chapter.

If you don't see the early part, how will you understand the last part?

So do you. You rely upon the tradition that you, personally, are the only
person on the planet with the authority to interpret scripture.

> >> Does the pope walk down the streets of the Vatican (no) performing
> >> miracles and healing the sick and afflicted?
> >
> >Actually, yes. Though less so since the assasination attempt.
>
> What would a man of God have to fear from those outside the faith?

Nothing. But the bodyguards of this man might have a bit to say about it.

> If
> God is for us, who can be against us?

Apparently, Protestants.

> >> Christ did honor father and mother, but that does not condone the
> >> worship of Mary as displayed by Catholic doctrine.
> >
> >Either he did condone the HONOR of Mary in Catholic Doctrine (Latria,
> >worship, is reserved for God alone), or he did not honor his
> >mother. Which is it?
>
> Christ honored His mother, but He did not condone worship of her as
> the Catholic church practices. I will not answer this question a
> third time.

But you have answered it in an obviously self-contradictory way.
Once again: The Catholic Canon reserves LATRIA (worship) for God
alone. Any Latria to Mary is not only invalid, but blasephemous and
heretical.
So why do you insist that the Catholic Church practices Latria to Mary,
when it's clearly forbidden in Canon Law?
Unless of course, that you're lying.

> >> And who said that Christ never forgave Mary for her sins?
> >
> >You did, when you said that Christ did not condone the Honor of Mary shown
> >in Catholic Doctrine.
>
> I grow weary of your lies, Theodore. Final post.

You did it again above.

And you're lying again right now, because you know that I have a point.
Ted

--

On this day, the Feast of Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Fascinating historical evidence in today's Saint's description.

[Stephen Quist]

"Ryan" <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message

news:39b915c3.2156200550@news.hiwaay.net...

> When: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:31:24 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:
>

> >> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after

> >> Christ's ascention?
> >>
> >Yes, IIRC its based on the writings of Eusebius.
>
> Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the church at
> Rome?
>

There could be any number of reasons. First off, no one I know
says that Peter journeyed to Rome directly after the Ascension.
In fact, we know he spent time in Antioch. Perhaps Peter was
not in Rome when Paul wrote to the Roman community. Maybe
Peter was there and Paul had not heard the news. Maybe Paul
knew Peter did not need instruction, and so did not address the
letter to him. Maybe Peter and Paul did not get along.... There
can be any number of reasons. To argue that Peter was not in
Rome because Paul did not mention him in Romans is to argue
from a pretty slender foundation. At best you can say that Paul
provides no evidence that Peter was in Rome. You cannot, logically,
extend this to be evidence that Peter was not in Rome.

> >> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
> >>
> >As *you* interpret the Scripture. Didn't Peter have a few
> >words to say about private interpretation?
>
> I believe so, but I don't think in the context which you are
> suggesting.
>
> 2 Peter 1:
> 19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well
> that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
until
> the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
> private interpretation.
> 21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy
> men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
>

Yes, and what do you make of this passage?

> >>
> >Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
> >of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
> >where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
> >the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
> >to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
> >the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.
>
> As for the keys, they were not given solely to Peter. Read Matthew
> 18, pay close attention to who Christ is speaking to throughout the
> chapter.
>

Matthew 18 is a different story:
15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault
between
you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your
brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so
that
'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three
witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to
listen
even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax
collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This passage correlates with the passage in John where the Apostles
were given the authority to forgive and retain sins.

The delegation of the keys is in Matthew 16:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on

earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus was clearly talking directly to Peter, not the rest of the
Apostles.

> And unfortunately, John was incorrect.
>
> No, not the John you are speaking of, but John Lennon. Love is not
> all you need.
>
> A close look at the dialect shows Peter repeating that he loves
Christ
> three times. What a statement of love!
>
> Unfortunately, that's not ~ exactly ~ what Peter was trying to say.
> Did you ever wonder why Peter grieved at that last "I love you,
Jesus"
> bit? Look at the Greek text.
>
> Jesus: Do you agape me? (agape = love in action; love in works)
> Peter: I phileo you (phileo = friendship love; lacking works)
>
> Jesus: Do you agape me?
> Peter: I phileo you
>
> Jesus: Do you phileo me?
> Peter (grieved): You know I phileo you!
>
> Peter didn't want to work for Jesus.
>

Fascinating.
Still Jesus told him "Feed my lambs." and "Tend my sheep." and
"Feed my sheep."

What else can that be but that Peter was made a shepherd
to the followers of Jesus?

> John 21:
> 18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou
> girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou
> shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall
> gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
>
> >At the highest level God did and does have authority over
> >Scripture. But the point is, He used His Church as the agent
> >through which he gave the world the Bible. There were over
> >a hundred different writings circulating through the early
> >Church. It took a Council, several actually, to determine
> >which were truly inspired and which were not. God used the
> >Catholic Church to convey his judgement on the scriptures.
>
> Please explain the fact that God has authority over what He inspired
> to Theodore. He won't listen to the evil non-Catholic.
>
> And no, I disagree. The content of the Bible existed before the
> Catholic church did. The Catholics did nothing to give those
> scriptures to the world, they just put them all into one volume.
The
> scriptures existed without the involvement of the Catholic church,
and
> in some cases, even in spite of the catholic church.
>

No, the Catholic Church predates the Bible. The Church started
at the first Pentecost mentioned in Acts. The first of the New
Testament
writings did not happen until approximately 20 years later. Of course,
a large part of the Bible, the Old Testament, predates the Church!

> >Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?
>
> No, I do not belong to any earthly listing of membership which uses
> the word "church."
>
> Why not? I am more interested in being identified with Christ than
I
> am about being identified with Such-and-Such Church of Christ, or
the
> Catholic church, or the Lutheran church, or whatever else you want
to
> note. I do attend the sermons, and listen to the message, and test
> them against the scriptures. I have learned, and I have had to
> dismiss. I have attended both protestant and catholic sermons, I
have
> attended but not participated in mass.
>
> Why am I treating Christianity like a buffet bar? I'm not.
>

I disagree, you are doing just that by rejecting the
legitimate authority of the Church.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch
over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their
task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no
advantage to you.

>
> >It neither condones nor condemns.
> >The worship of Mary is of a different nature than the
> >worship of God. Please learn the difference before

> >you make judgments.

>
> I beg to differ; Catholic doctrine does condone Marian worship.
>

In what sense are you using the word "worship"?

> >>In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the
> >>church would be built. He did not establish Catholicism. The
Catholic
> >>church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded
> >>history.
> >
> >Not right. The Church takes as her founding the coming of the
> >Holy Spirit to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, as recorded
> >in Acts.
>
> The catholic church can claim all it wants, but their claims
> concerning the papacy are simply not supported in Scripture.
>

They are fully supported in Scripture and in history. If you
care to judge the evidence objectively.

> >Let me tell you. God's inspiration is given to the Church. As such
> >the Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.
>
> What is and what is not canon is not in question at this point in
> time. What is in question is the Catholic church's authority and
> position on contradicting what God has set forth in scripture.
>

The Church does not and cannot teach authoritatively anything
that is in Scripture. The fact that you do not realize this has more
to do with your interpretation of Scripture than with the true
teachings contained therein.

Steve

[S.T. Stevenson]

mnshadow <mnsh...@rconnect.com> wrote in message
news:39B7EA...@rconnect.com...

> Misty wrote:
>
> See corrections below. Typing is not
> one of my better languages, nor is the Computer.
> I know I am not Gods Like you people show yourselves to be.
> I do not think my typos are so bad that you are not so dumb that you
> can not get the gist of what I am trying to say.
> Just make the Corrections in the spelling and we can move on.
> I hope you religion does not condone putting some one down just because
> they may have a fiew glitches and imperfections.
> Or is this NG only for the "PERFECT"?
>

No, that's the Calvinist newsgroup.

[S.T. Stevenson]

Become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox if you want to find the truth.

Ryan <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message

news:39b8fc55.2149689674@news.hiwaay.net...

[Dolf Boek]

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:
Get this straight Dolf, you've been told enough times: The only "factual and
historical sources" that the "Catholic Church claims as her own" are the
Magisterium, the Councils, and the Popes.

And they have NOTHING to do with science.

[snipped for context]

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS:
Indeed you raise the quintessential issue, that apart from sublimating
Nature for its own ends, there would appear to be no factual and scientific
basis for Catholic Church's unilateral claim to Truth apart from the
Scriptures as Torah--There is no such thing as Natural Religion.

Aside from the illusion of pedantry, the most perverse display of
false-piety that can be readily observed amongst self-styled Christians, is
the claim to participation in a saving virtue which is founded upon a
certain irrationality known as ignorance--A spiritual mundaneness which
promulgates as institutional virtue, a contrivance of superficiality
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/superficial.html born out of
dynamic similarity
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/dynamics.html . In reality,
they do little more than continue to prostitute themselves, by debasing
their minds for what amounts to be nothing but the passage of wind in the
annals (abyss) of time.

On which the Apostle Paul, as father and steward to the Christian Church
"according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to
[his] trust." [1 Timothy 1:11]] as the dispensation and religious economy of
God, said, :--"Through faith-pistis
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/pistis.html we
understand-noieo http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/noeo.html
that the worlds-aion http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/aion.html
were framed-katartizo
http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/katartizo.html by the
word-rhema http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/lexicon/rhema.html of
God-Theos, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which
are visible...And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith,
did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us,
that they should not be made perfect apart from us." [Hebrews 11:3; 39-40]

- dolf

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
> >> The life I try to live is outlined in the New Testament, not in some
> >> creed, or oath. My life is not described behind a set of doors with a
> >> name on them, or with a sign in the yard.
> >
> >Then you have done what Martin Luther regretted allowing to happen - you
> >have made yourself Pope and final authority on what God wants. You have
> >made your own church, and so add one more Protestant denomination to the
> >wound of disunity that has afflicted the Body of Christ.
>

> So I should join a church, even if they are full of false teachings?

You have made a church, whether you want to or not. It is based on your
own understanding of the Bible, but of course you already know (since
you quoted it in another post) about St. Peter's injunction against
private interpretation. You should also note that Jesus did indeed
found a Church and Acts shows that the Church was not a bunch of
individuals each coming to their own conclusions about what the Bible
meant. The NT clearly shows that there were people who had authority to
correct errors in the local branches of the Church.

All this is from the Bible you are using as a basis for your faith.

I put it to you, that yes, you should join a church. However, I think
you are too egotistical, too individualistic - in other words too
American - to actually do that, and thus you will flounder alone and I
pray God that in that state you do not lose your Faith.

I will not tell you which church to join, only that in my examination of
the evidence I believe that the Holy Catholic Church is the Church Jesus
founded. You obviously do not. One of the tennets of the Catholic
Church is that an informed conscience takes presidence over any outside
agency. So I say to you, go - inform your conscience. Go in humility
and go in peace, for a Christian is to be humble and at peace with all
as far as possible. Go prayerfully, since with God all things are
possible, and without Him we are lost. Go with the desire and goal to
learn, because without that, your quest is doomed before it starts. Go
with charity and respect, for you would like those who question you to
afford you respect and charity. Seek for God's Church truthfully, and
He will lead you there, for whoever seeks, finds.

God made man a social being. That is why He created a Church. It is
not good that man should be alone. And that doesn't just mean marriage,
because Paul describes the Church as the Bride of Christ. We are also
described as the Body of Christ, a community of members, each with
different gifts.

Even God Himself is in community.

I'll keep you in my prayers.

In His Faith, Hope, and Love,

[Ryan]

I will follow Christ for the truth.

When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:08:48 -0400 > Who: "S.T. Stevenson"
<st...@email.msn.com> > What:

>Become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox if you want to find the truth.

/*

*/

[Ryan]

When: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:12:37 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
<tar...@my-deja.com> > What:

>> So I should join a church, even if they are full of false teachings?

>
>You have made a church, whether you want to or not. It is based on your
>own understanding of the Bible, but of course you already know (since
>you quoted it in another post) about St. Peter's injunction against
>private interpretation.

I have not created a church, regardless of what you would like to
believe. It is not based entirely on my own understanding of
Scripture, regardless of what you are going to state. Read the
passage again.

>You should also note that Jesus did indeed
>found a Church and Acts shows that the Church was not a bunch of
>individuals each coming to their own conclusions about what the Bible
>meant. The NT clearly shows that there were people who had authority to
>correct errors in the local branches of the Church.

Did I ever state that I did not listen to those in authority? No. I
didn't. Creation of falsehoods from the thin of air will have me
ignoring your posts before too long.

Just because a person exists within a building, given a title such as
"Elder of the Church," and preaches a few sermons from the Bible does
not mean that what they say is infallible.

>All this is from the Bible you are using as a basis for your faith.

The Bible also says to prove all things, and hold fast to that which
is true. Pardon me for obeying.

>I put it to you, that yes, you should join a church. However, I think
>you are too egotistical, too individualistic - in other words too
>American - to actually do that, and thus you will flounder alone and I
>pray God that in that state you do not lose your Faith.

I am not a member of a church, but no one has stated that I do not
have fellowship with Christians.

>I will not tell you which church to join, only that in my examination of
>the evidence I believe that the Holy Catholic Church is the Church Jesus
>founded. You obviously do not. One of the tennets of the Catholic
>Church is that an informed conscience takes presidence over any outside
>agency. So I say to you, go - inform your conscience. Go in humility
>and go in peace, for a Christian is to be humble and at peace with all
>as far as possible. Go prayerfully, since with God all things are
>possible, and without Him we are lost. Go with the desire and goal to
>learn, because without that, your quest is doomed before it starts. Go
>with charity and respect, for you would like those who question you to
>afford you respect and charity. Seek for God's Church truthfully, and
>He will lead you there, for whoever seeks, finds.

I think you have assumed too much about me from my statement that I
have not signed my name onto a roster at some particular building.

Christ's church is made up of His followers. It is not made up from
the Catholic congregation. It is not made up of the Baptist
congregation. It is not made up of the Lutheran, Calvanist,
Presbyterian, Episcopalean, Eastern Orthodox, Charismatic, or whatever
other congregation you would care to add.

Individuals in any of the above congregations could be true followers
of Christ. I don't know who the true followers are, but I do know
that when Congregation A states Doctrine Z, but Doctrine Z contradicts
the Bible, then Doctrine Z is wrong and Congregation A has issues that
need to be addressed.

The church of Christ in scripture is comprized of believers; it is not
comprized of people who attend a particularly labeled building and
have their name signed on to the membership there. The visitor's book
is not the book of life.

>God made man a social being. That is why He created a Church. It is
>not good that man should be alone. And that doesn't just mean marriage,
>because Paul describes the Church as the Bride of Christ. We are also
>described as the Body of Christ, a community of members, each with
>different gifts.

I have already stated that I do attend sermons. I stated in this
letter that you assume I am alone because I have not signed membership
to a particular congregation.

Truly, you assume too much.

>Even God Himself is in community.
>
>
>I'll keep you in my prayers.
>
>In His Faith, Hope, and Love,
>--
>Tom A.
>Doctor:"What will you be when you're older?"
>"Six" - John, 5 year old lawyer

/*

*/

[Ryan]

When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:54:52 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
<qui...@msei-co.com> > What:

>> Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the church at

>> Rome?
>>
>There could be any number of reasons. First off, no one I know
>says that Peter journeyed to Rome directly after the Ascension.
>In fact, we know he spent time in Antioch. Perhaps Peter was
>not in Rome when Paul wrote to the Roman community. Maybe
>Peter was there and Paul had not heard the news. Maybe Paul
>knew Peter did not need instruction, and so did not address the
>letter to him. Maybe Peter and Paul did not get along.... There
>can be any number of reasons. To argue that Peter was not in
>Rome because Paul did not mention him in Romans is to argue
>from a pretty slender foundation. At best you can say that Paul
>provides no evidence that Peter was in Rome. You cannot, logically,
>extend this to be evidence that Peter was not in Rome.

But how did the church get there? If Peter established it, why was
Paul writing to it with doctrine?? Paul had his own churches to tend
to, surely Peter could tend to his.

>> 2 Peter 1:
>> 19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well
>> that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
>> until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
>> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
>> private interpretation.
>> 21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
>> holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
>>
>Yes, and what do you make of this passage?

Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I think your focus
aligned upon verse 20?

20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.

prophecy - an inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation
of divine will; prediction of the future, made under divine
inspiration; such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally
or in writing; the vocation or condition of a prophet; a prediction

Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
interpretation?

>> >>
>> >Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
>> >of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
>> >where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
>> >the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
>> >to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
>> >the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.
>>
>> As for the keys, they were not given solely to Peter. Read Matthew
>> 18, pay close attention to who Christ is speaking to throughout the
>> chapter.
>>
>Matthew 18 is a different story:
>15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault
>between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your
>brother.
>16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so
>that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three
>witnesses.'
>17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to
>listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax
>collector.
>18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
>heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16:
19) And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 18:
1) At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying...
18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.

Christ was speaking to all of the disciples, all of His followers.
Not just the apostles. Not just Peter.

>Jesus was clearly talking directly to Peter, not the rest of the
>Apostles.

Matthew 18:
1) At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying...
18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.

Read the entire chapter. The audience does not change between verse 1
and verse 18.

>Fascinating.
>Still Jesus told him "Feed my lambs." and "Tend my sheep." and
>"Feed my sheep."
>
>What else can that be but that Peter was made a shepherd
>to the followers of Jesus?

"The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his
Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him
shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which
was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united
to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles
belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the
bishops under the primacy of the Pope." [2]

2. "Catechism of the Catholic Church" p 254 Catechism #881
Doubleday (a division of Batnam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.)
April 1995

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28 (spoken
to the elders of the church at Ephesus by Paul)

Catholic catechism states that Peter is the only shepherd of the whole
flock. Acts 20:28 states that the elders of the church are the
shepherds of the flock. Which one do you believe?

Catholic catechism states that the office of binding and loosing was
given to Peter and the apostles. According to Matthew 18:1-18 that
office was given to the disciples. Which one do you believe?

And finally...
Catholic catechism states that the pastoral office of Peter and the
apotles belongs to the church's very foundation, and is continued in
bishops through primacy of the papal office. Ephesians 2:19-22
includes prophets and Christ as the foundation, and Christ being the
most important part of that foundation, yet the catechism cited above
does not recognize Christ as any part of the foundation. Which do you
believe?

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together
groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
Ephesians 2:19-22

...Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone; in whom all the
building fitly framed together...

>> And no, I disagree. The content of the Bible existed before the
>> Catholic church did. The Catholics did nothing to give those
>> scriptures to the world, they just put them all into one volume.
>> The scriptures existed without the involvement of the Catholic church,
>> and in some cases, even in spite of the catholic church.
>>
>No, the Catholic Church predates the Bible. The Church started
>at the first Pentecost mentioned in Acts. The first of the New
>Testament writings did not happen until approximately 20 years later. Of course,
>a large part of the Bible, the Old Testament, predates the Church!

Christ's church predates the Bible. I do not accept the idea that
Christ's church is the present day Catholic church. Perhaps at one
point in time the Catholic church was correct and in line with that
church which would not be overcome by the gates of hell, but as stated
before; Christ's church is not identified by a label above your door.
The Catholic Church as a whole, in doctrine, tradition, and practice,
fell to the wayside a long time ago, assuming it was ever truly
righteous.

Please provide a historical reference to the first identification of
"the Catholic church."

>>>Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?
>>
>> No, I do not belong to any earthly listing of membership which uses
>> the word "church."
>>
>> Why not? I am more interested in being identified with Christ than
>> I am about being identified with Such-and-Such Church of Christ, or
>> the Catholic church, or the Lutheran church, or whatever else you want
>> to note. I do attend the sermons, and listen to the message, and test
>> them against the scriptures. I have learned, and I have had to
>> dismiss. I have attended both protestant and catholic sermons, I
>> have attended but not participated in mass.
>>
>> Why am I treating Christianity like a buffet bar? I'm not.
>>
>I disagree, you are doing just that by rejecting the
>legitimate authority of the Church.
>Hebrews 13:17
>Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch
>over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their
>task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no
>advantage to you.

I do not and will not recognize the authority of any who try to usurp
Christ and try to replace Him with their own earthly version. Nor
will I recognize the authority of those who are in the business of
spreading false doctrine.

You likewise have assumed too much from what I stated above. I stated
that I am not a member of any earthly church. I did not say that I
would not listen to someone who wanted to share Scripture with me.

Do not assume that because I reject a false teaching I am also
rejecting someone's authority. Do not assume that because I am not a
member of some earthly church that I am rejecting the authority of
everyone else who carries a Bible. I am not perfect, and I still need
instruction and help, edification, correction, and the like. But I
will not accept something if it is not true.

You snipped the verses which I included to this effect.

>> I beg to differ; Catholic doctrine does condone Marian worship.
>>
>In what sense are you using the word "worship"?

Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices
(offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,
devotion, and thanks to.

>> What is and what is not canon is not in question at this point in
>> time. What is in question is the Catholic church's authority and
>> position on contradicting what God has set forth in scripture.
>>
>The Church does not and cannot teach authoritatively anything
>that is in Scripture.

This is the root of the Catholic problem.

>The fact that you do not realize this has more
>to do with your interpretation of Scripture than with the true
>teachings contained therein.

No, I do realize this. They are more concerned with their tradition
and their doctrine to waste their time teaching from Scripture.

And again, you assume that because I am not a member of some earthly
organization that all of what I have brought before you are simply
crackpot ideas and interpretations that I have come up with.

/*

*/

[T. Lewis]

In article <39b98b70....@news.hiwaay.net>, po...@newsgroup.plz (Ryan)
writes:

>Christ's church is made up of His followers. It is not made up from
>the Catholic congregation. It is not made up of the Baptist
>congregation. It is not made up of the Lutheran, Calvanist,
>Presbyterian, Episcopalean, Eastern Orthodox, Charismatic, or whatever
>other congregation you would care to add.
>

Amen.
In fact very few people who love the Lord can go to one of these places without
geting nauseated. Our bodies are the temple of God, not some expensive cave
with a phallic symbol on the roof. We are to get together in fellowship with
other believers but fellowship is not a 100 people watching some guy spit at a
microphone every Saturday or Sunday. In the book of Acts, believers got
together from house to house every day. When ever two or more are gathered in
my name, I am in their midst, said Jesus (rough from memory). So if I get
together with even one other believer, to fellowship with each other and with
Christ Jesus, church is happening.

The closest thing to church you'll find in a typical "church" is the ocassional
potluck after "services."
Adopted son of God
http://www.dreamwater.com/matt1078
email:BreakFree...@hotmail.com

[stsga]

That was why I advised you to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. You will
find Christ, and will abide in Him.
--
S.T. Stevenson
1st...@email.msn.com
(omit numerals to use)

"Ryan" <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message

news:39b98b47.2185680015@news.hiwaay.net...

[Dolf Boek]

Yes, a good choice of Natural Religion if Ryan didn't want to have an
immanent relationship with Christ and was satisfied with the superficiality
of ritual. But is there such a thing as Natural Religion--Only time will
tell?

- dolf

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
>
> When: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:12:37 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
> <tar...@my-deja.com> > What:
>
> >> So I should join a church, even if they are full of false teachings?
> >
> >You have made a church, whether you want to or not. It is based on your
> >own understanding of the Bible, but of course you already know (since
> >you quoted it in another post) about St. Peter's injunction against
> >private interpretation.
>
> I have not created a church, regardless of what you would like to
> believe. It is not based entirely on my own understanding of
> Scripture, regardless of what you are going to state. Read the
> passage again.

You have created another Protestant church, based on your understanding
and interpretation of the Bible. What else can I conclude from that
statement, and the previous one where you said you belong to no church?
You have made yourself Pope, and follow your own interpretation of the
Bible.

> >You should also note that Jesus did indeed
> >found a Church and Acts shows that the Church was not a bunch of
> >individuals each coming to their own conclusions about what the Bible
> >meant. The NT clearly shows that there were people who had authority to
> >correct errors in the local branches of the Church.
>
> Did I ever state that I did not listen to those in authority? No. I
> didn't. Creation of falsehoods from the thin of air will have me
> ignoring your posts before too long.

Then explain what you mean by "authority"? Who, to you, has authority?
How did they get it? What responsibilities go with that authority? If
you disagree with those who you consider to have authority, do you
accept that you have a responsibility to follow them? Or do you go your
own way? (If the latter, then they don't really have authority.)

> Just because a person exists within a building, given a title such as
> "Elder of the Church," and preaches a few sermons from the Bible does
> not mean that what they say is infallible.

I never said they were. But I believe Jesus when He said He would send
the Holy Spirit to lead the Church to all truth, and to remind the
Church of all that He had taught.

> >All this is from the Bible you are using as a basis for your faith.
>
> The Bible also says to prove all things, and hold fast to that which
> is true. Pardon me for obeying.

No pardon necessary. But if two Christians, steeped in the Scripture,
disagree over an important point, what do you do? How do you determine
between them? They both can't be right. The Holy Spirit isn't leading
them in two different directions. How is the problem resolved?

> >I put it to you, that yes, you should join a church. However, I think
> >you are too egotistical, too individualistic - in other words too
> >American - to actually do that, and thus you will flounder alone and I
> >pray God that in that state you do not lose your Faith.
>
> I am not a member of a church, but no one has stated that I do not
> have fellowship with Christians.

OK, but from your earlier remarks this point wasn't apparent. Sorry, if
I "read too much into" your earlier statements.

<snip>

> Christ's church is made up of His followers.

But the Church described in Acts and the Epistles had a structure. It
had definite beliefs. It impacted the world, and Christ's words "A city
on a hill" and "A light not hidden" apply to it.

> It is not made up from
> the Catholic congregation.

Here, we disagree. The Church described by the NT and the early
Christians has the same beliefs as the Catholic Church (and Orthodox).

> It is not made up of the Baptist
> congregation. It is not made up of the Lutheran, Calvanist,
> Presbyterian, Episcopalean, Eastern Orthodox, Charismatic, or whatever
> other congregation you would care to add.
>
> Individuals in any of the above congregations could be true followers
> of Christ.

I agree.

> I don't know who the true followers are, but I do know
> that when Congregation A states Doctrine Z, but Doctrine Z contradicts
> the Bible, then Doctrine Z is wrong and Congregation A has issues that
> need to be addressed.

But no one has ever shown me a doctrine that the Catholic Church has
that contradicts Scripture. For the simple reason that the books
selected to be the Bible had to agree with Catholic doctrine to be
selected in the first place.
(Many people have presented me with statements of the form "The Bible
says x, Catholics do y which contradicts x!" But most of the time
Catholics _don't_ do y, or specifically teach against y, but those
people who fall under the "anti_Catholic" group never seem to understand
that _what they believe about the Catholic Church isn't true_. So they
keep saying the same thing over and over etc.)

> The church of Christ in scripture is comprized of believers; it is not
> comprized of people who attend a particularly labeled building and
> have their name signed on to the membership there.

Don't be silly. They did meet in Synagogues when they could. And most
Christians at the time couldn't read (because they were mostly made up
of the poorer classes). And while they didn't sign a membership, they
definitely were known.

However, you are assuming too much, too. AFAIK you do not need to sign
anything to be a member of a church (well, maybe you do for Protestant
churches, I don't know). Being part of a church is a decision. Signing
something (AFAIK) just get's you the mailings.
But YMMV.

> I have already stated that I do attend sermons. I stated in this
> letter that you assume I am alone because I have not signed membership
> to a particular congregation.
>
> Truly, you assume too much.

If I do, I apologize.

> >Even God Himself is in community.

> >Tom A.

[Dolf Boek]

"stsga" <st...@email.msn.com> wrote:
That was why I advised you to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. You will
find Christ, and will abide in Him.

DOLF BOEK RESPONDS AGAIN:
Everywhere within the Christian Era, and seemingly in contradiction of
[Romans 5:6-11] as the gospel's priority emphasis to representation of
'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Colossians 1:27] as instance of
individual 'belief' or 'value system' as worldview (kosmos) [Hebrews 8:7-13;
10:11-39], the Spirit became considered God-given, not immanent, and
therefore was viewed as not readily apprehensible in psychological or
sociological terms.

Protestant Christians, in their frequent calls to repentance (theo--urgia)
exhibit the same Catholic difficulty with their Gospel: A denial of the
personal and immanent experience of the Holy Spirit, in favour of the
adoption of an Institutional and Corporate penate image, which is made real
and personal through theurgic ritual: "Many, I suspect, have trodden this
same path through the mind...The concept of Yahweh as remote, all-powerful,
all-seeing is either frightening or unapproachable. Even the sense of
presence of a more contemporary God, as a still, small voice within, may not
be enough for those who need to communicate with someone outside. Mary is
close and can be talked to. She is believable and manageable. It could be
that the importance of the Virgin Mary in faith is something of this kind,
but there may be more to it." [James Lovelock, © 1988 The Ages of Gaia: A
Biography of Our Living Earth, p 206]

What if Mary as the vesica piscus, symbolically replaces the Sabbath
chronological principles as another name for Gaia and the tellus or
cosmological plan for Earth? Michael Allaby in his book, 'A Guide to Gaia: A
Survey of the New Science of Our Living Earth' postulates that "...the Gaian
concept has no moral dimension unless you make the false assumption that
Gaia is an intelligence, and in that case it is far from benign. This Gaia
has no concern for human welfare, moral or even physical...For us to cast
ourselves in the role of the planet's conscience is rather like criminals
appointing themselves judges, and only judges at that." [Michael Allaby, ©
1988 A Guide to Gaia: A Survey of the New Science of Our Living Earth, p
147]

The religion of early Christianity was claimed to represent the first
pneumatic of the risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth, yet today remains strangely
Institutionally detached from representations given by the Apostle's living
testimony as recipients of the Holy Spirit and evinced by their reflections
of the historical Jesus . [KITTEL 1995 I:675] Therefore, it is only to the
extent that heterodox actions do not meet perceived orthodox cultural
'value' requirements on expectations of conduct, that one may be considered
unorthodox: "There is no man who rules over the breath of the spirit to
restrain the breath of life so that it will not depart from the human body.
And there is no power on the day of death for a man to save his fellow, and
weapons do not help in the battle and sin will not save its master on the
great judgment day. All this I saw which happened in the world, and I set my
mind to know every deed which was done in this world under the sun, when a
man has the power over another man to do him harm. And truly, I saw the
wicked buried and blotted out of the world and from a holy place where the
righteous dwell, they went to be burned in Gehenna and were forgotten by the
inhabitants of the city. And as they had done so was done to them." [© 1991
The Order of Saint Benedict, Aramaic Targum of Ecclesiastes 8:8-10]

Immanent
1. remaining within; indwelling; inherent.
2. (of a mental act) taking place within the mind of the subject, and having
no effect outside it.
3. Theological
a. pertaining to the continuing presence of God among His people and in each
individual believer.
b. (of the deity) seen as indwelling in the Church

Penates [L from penus innermost part of the temple]
Tutelary dieties (such as Thoth, Mercury, Athena) of the ancient Roman
household and of the state, worshipped in close association with the lares.

Theurgy [L theurgia, from Gk. theourgia sorcery]
1. a system of magic practicsed by the Egyptian Platonists and others
professing to have communication with and aid from beneficent dieties.
2. the working of some divine or supernatural agency in human affairs; the
effects brought about among men by such agency.

Ref: Australian Macquarie English Dictionary

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
>
> When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:54:52 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:

> >Yes, and what do you make of this passage?

>
> Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I think your focus
> aligned upon verse 20?
>
> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
> private interpretation.
>
> prophecy - an inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation
> of divine will; prediction of the future, made under divine
> inspiration; such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally
> or in writing; the vocation or condition of a prophet; a prediction
>
> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
> interpretation?

The opposite of private interpretation is public interpretation, by the
Church directed by the Holy Spirit. We see that taking place when Peter
uses a new interpretation of scripture to replace Judas (Act 1, 20 For
it is written in the Book of Psalms: ... And: 'May another take his
office.' It is a new interpretation to use it this way, since in Psalm
109 it is used as a curse against a wicked man. From the very begining,
the leader of the Church had the authority to interpret scripture. Of
course, this isn't the only interpretation (-: Datarat has stated that
Peter was flat out wrong to replace Judas with Mattias, but I feel that
the Bible's comment that they prayed before the choice had some baring
on the final outcome, but YMMV.)

> "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his
> Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him
> shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which
> was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united
> to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles
> belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the
> bishops under the primacy of the Pope." [2]
>
> 2. "Catechism of the Catholic Church" p 254 Catechism #881
> Doubleday (a division of Batnam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.)
> April 1995
>
> "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
> which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
> God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28 (spoken
> to the elders of the church at Ephesus by Paul)
>
> Catholic catechism states that Peter is the only shepherd of the whole
> flock. Acts 20:28 states that the elders of the church are the
> shepherds of the flock. Which one do you believe?

The part of the Catechism you quoted above doesn't say that. "This

pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's
very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the

Pope." Doesn't say he's the only shepherd. It explicitly says "Peter
and the other apostles" and "bishops". So your question has no
meaning, since there isn't an either/or situation.

>
> And finally...
> Catholic catechism states that the pastoral office of Peter and the
> apotles belongs to the church's very foundation, and is continued in
> bishops through primacy of the papal office. Ephesians 2:19-22
> includes prophets and Christ as the foundation, and Christ being the
> most important part of that foundation, yet the catechism cited above
> does not recognize Christ as any part of the foundation. Which do you
> believe?

Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
for me.

> "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-
> citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built
> upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
> being the cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together
> groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded
> together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
> Ephesians 2:19-22
>
> ...Jesus Christ Himself being the cornerstone; in whom all the
> building fitly framed together...

Does not change the fact that Jesus called Simon Rock and built the
Church on him.

But it does lead to another question - why would Jesus give Simon a new
name, one that was reserved for God alone, for this isn't the only place
in the Bible where God is referred to as the Rock.

> >> And no, I disagree. The content of the Bible existed before the
> >> Catholic church did. The Catholics did nothing to give those
> >> scriptures to the world, they just put them all into one volume.
> >> The scriptures existed without the involvement of the Catholic church,
> >> and in some cases, even in spite of the catholic church.
> >>
> >No, the Catholic Church predates the Bible. The Church started
> >at the first Pentecost mentioned in Acts. The first of the New
> >Testament writings did not happen until approximately 20 years later. Of course,
> >a large part of the Bible, the Old Testament, predates the Church!
>
> Christ's church predates the Bible. I do not accept the idea that
> Christ's church is the present day Catholic church.

Your acceptance has no effect on the facts. Look at the writings of the
early Christians. You will find that they believe what Catholics
believe. And that is because the Catholic Church today still believes
what the Apostles taught their followers 1900 years ago.

> Perhaps at one
> point in time the Catholic church was correct and in line with that
> church which would not be overcome by the gates of hell, but as stated
> before; Christ's church is not identified by a label above your door.

That's because it didn't need to be. You were either in the Church
Jesus founded or you were a heretic. There were debates in the early
Church about what Jesus taught, but I don't think you want to say one of
the losing groups was the real church do you? Arianism, Montanism,
Gnosticism - all were declared heresies because _they did not agree with
what the Apostles taught_. So please, look into what the early
Christians wrote. You will find that they were Catholics. The word
Catholic itself was used starting around 107 to distinguish the
Apostolic church from the new comers.

> The Catholic Church as a whole, in doctrine, tradition, and practice,
> fell to the wayside a long time ago, assuming it was ever truly
> righteous.

Your opinion, not born out by any facts presented here.

> Please provide a historical reference to the first identification of
> "the Catholic church."

Ante-Nicene Fathers, translations of The Writings of the Fathers down to
a.d. 325, Edited by The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James
Donaldson, LL.D.
Vol I.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (c.107 AD)

Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father,
and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons,
as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with
the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
which is [administered] either by the
bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall
appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as,
wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful
without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but
whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to
God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

> >> I beg to differ; Catholic doctrine does condone Marian worship.
> >>
> >In what sense are you using the word "worship"?
>
> Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices
> (offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,
> devotion, and thanks to.

So if you say thank you to someone, you are worshipping them?

You avoid weddings, baptisms, and other celebrations because they are
focused on someone/something?

You have no reverence for the law, or the armed forces, or the elderly?

You do not have any devotion to your wife?

You never asked anyone to do something for you because that's worship?

I have to disagree with your definition of worship.

> >> What is and what is not canon is not in question at this point in
> >> time. What is in question is the Catholic church's authority and
> >> position on contradicting what God has set forth in scripture.
> >>
> >The Church does not and cannot teach authoritatively anything
> >that is in Scripture.
>
> This is the root of the Catholic problem.

He made a typo. If you never have, count yourself lucky.

> And again, you assume that because I am not a member of some earthly
> organization that all of what I have brought before you are simply
> crackpot ideas and interpretations that I have come up with.

Well, I think your definition of worship is crackpot, but ymmv.

In His Faith, Hope, and Love,

PS. alt.religion.christian.last-days removed. I don't see any reason to
keep it here.
Are all these group needed? I'm in t.r.c, so I'd appreciate it if you
didn't cut that one :-)

[Dolf Boek]

"Tom A." <tar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
The opposite of private interpretation is public interpretation, by the
Church directed by the Holy Spirit. We see that taking place when Peter
uses a new interpretation of scripture to replace Judas (Act 1, 20 For it is
written in the Book of Psalms: ... And: 'May another take his office.' It is
a new interpretation to use it this way, since in Psalm 109 it is used as a
curse against a wicked man. From the very begining, the leader of the
Church had the authority to interpret scripture. Of course, this isn't the
only interpretation (-: Datarat has stated that Peter was flat out wrong to
replace Judas with Mattias, but I feel that the Bible's comment that they
prayed before the choice had some baring on the final outcome, but YMMV.)

DOFL BOEK RESPONDS:

Everywhere within the Christian Era, and seemingly in contradiction of
[Romans 5:6-11] as the gospel's priority emphasis to representation of
'Christ in you, the hope of glory' [Colossians 1:27] as instance of
individual 'belief'

http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/octahedron.html#BEGIN or 'value
system' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/two.html#SDA as worldview
(kosmos) http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/babble.html#HOUSE [Hebrews

8:7-13; 10:11-39], the Spirit became considered God-given, not immanent

http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/two.html#MODERATE , and therefore was

viewed as not readily apprehensible in psychological or sociological terms

http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek/info/review27042000.html . Protestant

Christians, in their frequent calls to repentance (theo--urgia) exhibit the
same Catholic difficulty with their Gospel: A denial of the personal and
immanent experience of the Holy Spirit, in favour of the adoption of an
Institutional and Corporate penate image, which is made real and personal
through theurgic ritual: "Many, I suspect, have trodden this same path
through the mind...The concept of Yahweh as remote, all-powerful, all-seeing
is either frightening or unapproachable. Even the sense of presence of a
more contemporary God, as a still, small voice within, may not be enough for
those who need to communicate with someone outside. Mary is close and can be
talked to. She is believable and manageable. It could be that the importance
of the Virgin Mary in faith is something of this kind, but there may be more

to it." [James Lovelock, Š 1988 The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living

Earth, p 206] What if Mary as the vesica piscus, symbolically replaces the
Sabbath chronological principles as another name for Gaia and the tellus or
cosmological plan for Earth? Michael Allaby in his book, 'A Guide to Gaia: A
Survey of the New Science of Our Living Earth' postulates that "...the Gaian
concept has no moral dimension unless you make the false assumption that
Gaia is an intelligence, and in that case it is far from benign. This Gaia
has no concern for human welfare, moral or even physical...For us to cast
ourselves in the role of the planet's conscience is rather like criminals

appointing themselves judges, and only judges at that." [Michael Allaby, Š

1988 A Guide to Gaia: A Survey of the New Science of Our Living Earth, p
147]

The religion of early Christianity was claimed to represent the first
pneumatic of the risen Jesus Christ of Nazareth, yet today remains strangely
Institutionally detached from representations given by the Apostle's living
testimony as recipients of the Holy Spirit and evinced by their reflections
of the historical Jesus . [KITTEL 1995 I:675]

- dolf

[Ryan]

When: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:15:04 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
<tar...@my-deja.com> > What:

>
>

>Ryan wrote:
>>
>> When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:54:52 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
>> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:
>
>> >Yes, and what do you make of this passage?
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I think your focus
>> aligned upon verse 20?
>>
>> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
>> private interpretation.
>>
>> prophecy - an inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation
>> of divine will; prediction of the future, made under divine
>> inspiration; such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally
>> or in writing; the vocation or condition of a prophet; a prediction
>>
>> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
>> interpretation?

<snip first paragraph of "reply">

Once again, emphasis where needed this time, and a reiteration of my
question:

20) Knowing this first, that no PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE is of any
private interpretation.

Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
interpretation?

>
>

>> "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his
>> Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him
>> shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which
>> was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united
>> to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles
>> belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the
>> bishops under the primacy of the Pope." [2]
>>
>> 2. "Catechism of the Catholic Church" p 254 Catechism #881
>> Doubleday (a division of Batnam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.)
>> April 1995
>>
>> "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the
>> which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of
>> God, which He hath purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28 (spoken
>> to the elders of the church at Ephesus by Paul)
>>
>> Catholic catechism states that Peter is the only shepherd of the whole
>> flock. Acts 20:28 states that the elders of the church are the
>> shepherds of the flock. Which one do you believe?
>
>The part of the Catechism you quoted above doesn't say that. "This
>pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's
>very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the
>Pope." Doesn't say he's the only shepherd. It explicitly says "Peter
>and the other apostles" and "bishops". So your question has no
>meaning, since there isn't an either/or situation.

"The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his

Church. He gave HIM the keys of his Church and instituted HIM
shepherd of the whole flock...."

Yes, it most certainly does say that Peter was supposedly made

shepherd of the whole flock.

What you are referring to, with the other apostles and bishops is:

"...The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was
also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head..."

It's all right there in the quote. Read it again.

>Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
>build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
>Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
>for me.

Christ did no such thing.

"You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church..."

Throughout scripture, Peter is translated from petros, meaning a small
pebble or stone. Throughout scripture, when Christ is referred to as
a rock, Christ is referred to as petra, a huge boulder or bedrock

>But it does lead to another question - why would Jesus give Simon a new
>name, one that was reserved for God alone, for this isn't the only place
>in the Bible where God is referred to as the Rock.

Because Christ did not give Peter the name petra, He gave him the name
petros. Two entirely different things.

<snip>

>> The Catholic Church as a whole, in doctrine, tradition, and practice,
>> fell to the wayside a long time ago, assuming it was ever truly
>> righteous.
>
>Your opinion, not born out by any facts presented here.

The Inquisition
The Waldenses
The Lollards

In the Council of Toulouse, the church leaders ruled: "We prohibit
laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament ... We forbid
them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular."
"'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in
dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats
shall be entirely wiped out." Council Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX,
Anno. Chr. 1229.

>The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (c.107 AD)
>
>Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
>
>See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father,
>and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons,
>as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with
>the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
>which is [administered] either by the
>bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall
>appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as,
>wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful
>without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but
>whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to
>God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
>

>> Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices

>> (offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,
>> devotion, and thanks to.
>
>So if you say thank you to someone, you are worshipping them?

What dungheap of steaming mendacity did you emerge from? I did not
say this!

AND AND AND

Do you COMPREHEND the word AND??

>> Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices
>> (offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,

>> devotion, AND thanks to.

<snip>

>> And again, you assume that because I am not a member of some earthly
>> organization that all of what I have brought before you are simply
>> crackpot ideas and interpretations that I have come up with.
>
>Well, I think your definition of worship is crackpot, but ymmv.

Then please enlighten us with ~ your ~ definition of "worship."

/*

*/

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Ryan wrote:

> When: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:15:04 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
> <tar...@my-deja.com> > What:
>
> >
> >
> >Ryan wrote:
> >>
> >> When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:54:52 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
> >> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:
> >
> >> >Yes, and what do you make of this passage?
> >>
> >> Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I think your focus
> >> aligned upon verse 20?
> >>
> >> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
> >> private interpretation.
> >>
> >> prophecy - an inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation
> >> of divine will; prediction of the future, made under divine
> >> inspiration; such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally
> >> or in writing; the vocation or condition of a prophet; a prediction
> >>
> >> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
> >> interpretation?
>
> <snip first paragraph of "reply">
>
> Once again, emphasis where needed this time, and a reiteration of my
> question:
>
> 20) Knowing this first, that no PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE is of any
> private interpretation.
>
> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
> interpretation?

Any Prophecy of Scripture. That is, any teaching of scripture that is
true.

> >The part of the Catechism you quoted above doesn't say that. "This
> >pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's
> >very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the
> >Pope." Doesn't say he's the only shepherd. It explicitly says "Peter
> >and the other apostles" and "bishops". So your question has no
> >meaning, since there isn't an either/or situation.
>
> "The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the 'rock' of his
> Church. He gave HIM the keys of his Church and instituted HIM
> shepherd of the whole flock...."
>
> Yes, it most certainly does say that Peter was supposedly made
> shepherd of the whole flock.
>
> What you are referring to, with the other apostles and bishops is:
>
> "...The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was
> also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head..."
>
> It's all right there in the quote. Read it again.

Yep. The office of Peter is also assigned to the college of apostles
united to the head of the apostles.

> >Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
> >build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
> >Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
> >for me.
>
> Christ did no such thing.
>
> "You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church..."

Of course, you already know the greek to be a lie, you just choose to
persist in the lie.

snip rest
Ted
--
On this day, the Feast of St. John Chrysostom (Bishop and Doctor)

http://www.e3mil.com/church_today/message.asp?section_id=4
Theodore Michael Seeber
Coo! he's the remedial beer.
mailto:see...@aracnet.com

Check out the <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert>IDIC Home Page!</A>

Try our new Biblical Knowledge Quiz, found <A
HREF="http://www.aracnet.com/~seebert/rpv.html>here!</A>

[Al Norris]

In message <39bfe438....@news.hiwaay.net>,
it appeared that po...@newsgroup.plz (Ryan) enlightened us with:

When: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:15:04 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
<tar...@my-deja.com> > What:
>

>>Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
>>build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
>>Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
>>for me.
>
>Christ did no such thing.
>
>"You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church..."
>
>Throughout scripture, Peter is translated from petros, meaning a small
>pebble or stone. Throughout scripture, when Christ is referred to as
>a rock, Christ is referred to as petra, a huge boulder or bedrock
>
>>But it does lead to another question - why would Jesus give Simon a new
>>name, one that was reserved for God alone, for this isn't the only place
>>in the Bible where God is referred to as the Rock.
>
>Because Christ did not give Peter the name petra, He gave him the name
>petros. Two entirely different things.

This is utter fallacy. The word spoken by Christ Jesus was Kephas (or
Cephas), which is aramic for "rock." Historically the Israelites used
the word only in refernece to God, the Almighty. It was never ever used
as a name for a person, until Jesus named Simon bar Jonah.

Further, the aramic word had no male/female connotation. It was only
when transliterated into the greek that such was done. Petra, was male
while petros was female/neuter. In the greek, it would not have been
grammatically correct to assign the name petros to a man.

There is even more here. In the time of Christ Jesus, names had an
effect. Those who choose to name someone said in essense, "I have power
over you." If you declined the name changed, you were saying, "You have
no authority over me."

So Jesus named Simon. This meant that Jesus had power and authority
over him. Simon agreed to the name change, which meant he agreed that
Jesus had such authority. Add in the fact that the name chosen for
Simon was a name never before used by a mere mortal man, and one can
only wonder what Jesus meant.

Who was this Jesus, who claimed the authority to not only name a man,
but give him a name reserved to God alone?

16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God. (Gospel of Matthew)

Fundamentalism breaks down when one actually studies Holy Scripture in
the context of the times of the writer. What was common knowledge then,
is not common today.

--
Al.

It is no wonder that grown men, either perplexed in the
necessary affairs of life, or hot in the pursuit of pleasures,
should not seriously sit down to examine their own tenets;
especially when one of their principles is, that principles
ought not to be questioned. --John Locke

[JBB]

Al Norris <al...@pmt.org> wrote in message
news:pii1ss0blajspbn28...@news-east.usenetserver.com...

> In message <39bfe438....@news.hiwaay.net>,
> it appeared that po...@newsgroup.plz (Ryan) enlightened us with:
>

> When: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:15:04 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
> <tar...@my-deja.com> > What:
> >

> >>Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
> >>build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
> >>Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
> >>for me.
> >
> >Christ did no such thing.
> >
> >"You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church..."
> >
> >Throughout scripture, Peter is translated from petros, meaning a small
> >pebble or stone. Throughout scripture, when Christ is referred to as
> >a rock, Christ is referred to as petra, a huge boulder or bedrock
> >
> >>But it does lead to another question - why would Jesus give Simon a new
> >>name, one that was reserved for God alone, for this isn't the only place
> >>in the Bible where God is referred to as the Rock.
> >
> >Because Christ did not give Peter the name petra, He gave him the name
> >petros. Two entirely different things.
>

> This is utter fallacy. The word spoken by Christ Jesus was Kephas (or
> Cephas), which is aramic for "rock." Historically the Israelites used
> the word only in refernece to God, the Almighty. It was never ever used
> as a name for a person, until Jesus named Simon bar Jonah.
>
> Further, the aramic word had no male/female connotation. It was only
> when transliterated into the greek that such was done. Petra, was male
> while petros was female/neuter. In the greek, it would not have been
> grammatically correct to assign the name petros to a man.
>
> There is even more here. In the time of Christ Jesus, names had an
> effect. Those who choose to name someone said in essense, "I have power
> over you." If you declined the name changed, you were saying, "You have
> no authority over me."
>
> So Jesus named Simon. This meant that Jesus had power and authority
> over him. Simon agreed to the name change, which meant he agreed that
> Jesus had such authority. Add in the fact that the name chosen for
> Simon was a name never before used by a mere mortal man, and one can
> only wonder what Jesus meant.
>
> Who was this Jesus, who claimed the authority to not only name a man,
> but give him a name reserved to God alone?
>
> 16:16. Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the Christ, the
> Son of the living God. (Gospel of Matthew)
>
> Fundamentalism breaks down when one actually studies Holy Scripture in
> the context of the times of the writer. What was common knowledge then,
> is not common today.

Well said Al Norris, I'd like to make only one correction for the records,
Petros is a male form and Petra is the female form.

[Al Norris]

In message <8pqn7s$fev$1...@venus.telepac.pt>,
it appeared that "JBB" <joe.br...@mail.cast.pt> enlightened us with:

>> Fundamentalism breaks down when one actually studies Holy Scripture in
>> the context of the times of the writer. What was common knowledge then,
>> is not common today.
>
>Well said Al Norris, I'd like to make only one correction for the records,
>Petros is a male form and Petra is the female form.

Hmmm, you're right of course. Forgive me for mixing genders. [abashed
look on face]

--
Al.

For as much as you think,
Therefore so shall you be.

[Tom A.]

Ryan wrote:
>
> When: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:15:04 -0500 > Who: "Tom A."
> <tar...@my-deja.com> > What:
>
> >
> >
> >Ryan wrote:
> >>
> >> When: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 10:54:52 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
> >> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:
> >
> >> >Yes, and what do you make of this passage?
> >>
> >> Correct me if I am wrong in this assumption, but I think your focus
> >> aligned upon verse 20?
> >>
> >> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
> >> private interpretation.
> >>
> >> prophecy - an inspired utterance of a prophet, viewed as a revelation
> >> of divine will; prediction of the future, made under divine
> >> inspiration; such an inspired message or prediction transmitted orally
> >> or in writing; the vocation or condition of a prophet; a prediction
> >>
> >> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
> >> interpretation?
>
> <snip first paragraph of "reply">
>
> Once again, emphasis where needed this time, and a reiteration of my
> question:
>
> 20) Knowing this first, that no PROPHECY OF THE SCRIPTURE is of any
> private interpretation.
>
> Tell me, according to this verse, what is not of any private
> interpretation?

Any prophecy of the scripture is not of any private interpretation.

If I misunderstood what you said the first time, I'm sorry, but I don't
find the repeat of the question any clearer.

OK, I read it again. And your quote from Paul. I will accept that
Jesus did make Peter shepherd over all the flock. He refers to Himself
as the Good Shepherd, but still tells Peter (and only Peter) to feed His
sheep and lambs. There is no one else that Jesus gives this command
to.

Paul, later, writes with the Church's understanding that all the bishops
are shepherds. The Church still believes this. But the Pope is the
only one who has the whole Church Militant as his flock. And in this, I
see, and you have presented, no contradiction with the Bible.

> >Christ, because Christ said "Thou art Rock, and apon this rock I will
> >build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."
> >Jesus calls Peter the foundation of the Church, and that's good enough
> >for me.
>
> Christ did no such thing.
>
> "You are petros, and upon this petra I will build my church..."

Christ did no such thing. He said
"You are Cephas, and upon this cephas I will build my church, and the

gates of hell will not prevail against it."

The wordplay works best in the original Aramaic language He used, and is
preserved in Paul's use of the Aramaic name for Peter.

"As Greek scholars--even non-Catholic ones-- admit, the words petros and
petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They had at one time meant
"small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries
before the time of Christ, but that distinction was long gone by the
time Matthew's Gospel was rendered in Greek. The ... didn't work, and
showed a faulty knowledge of Greek as well as a lack of understanding of
the etymologies of petros and petra. (For an Evangelical Protestant
Greek scholar's admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor's
Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein,
ed., vol. 8, 368.)"

"Besides, if Matthew wanted to say that Simon was a small stone, he
would have used the common Greek word for small stone, lithos. We would
expect Matthew 16:18 to read, 'You are Lithos, and on this petra I will
build my church.' But it doesn't read that way precisely because Matthew
was trying to convey the play on words shown so clearly in the Aramaic."

(both quotes from Who Is the Rock,
http://www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/who_rock.htm)

> >But it does lead to another question - why would Jesus give Simon a new
> >name, one that was reserved for God alone, for this isn't the only place
> >in the Bible where God is referred to as the Rock.
>
> Because Christ did not give Peter the name petra, He gave him the name
> petros. Two entirely different things.

Not in first century Greek, but also, not in Aramaic, for Kepha doesn't
mean pebble.

> <snip>
> >> The Catholic Church as a whole, in doctrine, tradition, and practice,
> >> fell to the wayside a long time ago, assuming it was ever truly
> >> righteous.
> >
> >Your opinion, not born out by any facts presented here.
>
> The Inquisition
> The Waldenses
> The Lollards

(The excesses of the Inquisition and Waldenses were mainly secular, I
don't know about the Lollards) So? Where is the perfect Church you
propose that never sinned? Is it invisible? Doesn't match with a City
on a Hill or a Light for the World. Will you show me a sinnless
Christian from this church?

Or maybe you can't. The Church is composed of men. Sinful men. Jesus
came to call sinners. The Church acknowledges that it is filled with
sinful men. Some of the popes were terrible despots. But Jesus never
guaranteed that they wouldn't be. He promised His Spirit to lead the
Church to all Truth, and remind it of all He taught, not that evil men
will not inhabit any office, nor that the people in it would reach
perfection in this life. He commissioned it to go and teach, and
baptize. Where is the Church besides the Catholic Church, that has
taught the Gospel and baptized the world for 1900+ years? He commanded
the Apostles to repeat His actions of the Last Supper, and make present
His sacrifice. All this has been done by the Holy Catholic Church for
1900+ years. What other church can claim that? And if they cannot,
then they make Jesus a liar since He said "The gates of hell will not
prevail against it."

> In the Council of Toulouse, the church leaders ruled: "We prohibit

> laymen possessing copies of the Old and New Testament ... We forbid
> them most severely to have the above books in the popular vernacular."
> "'The lords of the districts shall carefully seek out the heretics in
> dwellings, hovels, and forests, and even their underground retreats
> shall be entirely wiped out." Council Tolosanum, Pope Gregory IX,
> Anno. Chr. 1229.

The council in Toulouse, France in 1229 was organized in reaction to the
Albigensian or Catharist heresy, which held that there are two Gods and
that marriage is evil because all matter and thus physical the flesh is
evil. From this the heretics concluded that fornication could be no sin,
and they even encouraged suicide among their members. In order to
promulgate their sect, the Albigensians published the Bible in the
vernacular language.
Had it been a mere translation, the Church would not have been
concerned. Vernacular versions had been appearing for centuries. (The
most famous of which was the "Vulgate" version of Jerome, from the 5th
century. If the Church truely wanted to keep Bibles out of the hands of
men, the Pope never would have ordered Jerome to create a Latin version
of the Bible.)

But what came from the hands of the Albigensians was an adulterated
Bible. The bishops at Toulouse forbade the reading of it because it was
inaccurate. In this they were caring for their flocks, in much the same
way that any Christian parent would forbid the Bible to his children if
someone had pasted in it scurrilous pictures or had scribbled obscene
comments along the margins.

Similar problems occurred during the Protestant rebellion. They
produced bibles without all the Scriptures in them, they mistranslated,
and added very anti-Catholic footnotes and introductions. Why wouldn't
the Church condemn them?

Since the fourth century the teaching of the Church concerning the
nature of the Bible is practically summed up in the dogmatic formula
that God is the author of Sacred Scripture. According to the first
chapter of the Council of Carthage (A.D. 398), bishops before being
consecrated must express their belief in this formula, and this
profession of faith is exacted of them even today. In the thirteenth
century, Innocent III imposed this formula on the Waldensians; Clement
IV exacted its acceptance from Michael Palaeologus, and the emperor
actually accepted it in his letter to the Second Council of Lyons
(1272). The same formula was repeated in the fifteenth century by
Eugenius IV in his Decree for the Jacobites, in the sixteenth century by
the Council of Trent (Sess. IV, decr. de can. Script.), and in the
nineteenth century by the Vatican Council. - Catholic Encyclopedia,
online.

> >The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (c.107 AD)
> >
> >Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.
> >
> >See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father,
> >and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons,
> >as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with
> >the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist,
> >which is [administered] either by the
> >bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall
> >appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as,
> >wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful
> >without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but
> >whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to
> >God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
> >
>
> >> Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices
> >> (offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,
> >> devotion, and thanks to.
> >
> >So if you say thank you to someone, you are worshipping them?
>
> What dungheap of steaming mendacity did you emerge from? I did not
> say this!

No, I did. And it was a question, I was trying to get you to clarify
your statement, or acknowledge that it is not a sufficient one.

> AND AND AND
>
> Do you COMPREHEND the word AND??

Yes.

But do you understand my questions about you definition?

> Then please enlighten us with ~ your ~ definition of "worship."

In many ways I like your definition:

> >> Offering prayers and supplication, kneeling before, sacrifices
> >> (offerings), celebrations focused upon something/someone, reverence,
> >> devotion, and thanks to.

But it leads to a problem. I have done all that to my wife. Does that
mean I worship her?
In a sense, it does. I have also done all that in relation to my
country. Do I worship it? Again, in a sense I do. I may have done all
those things (AND AND AND) to my children, also. Does that mean I
worship them? Yes, in a sense I do. (I cannot think of anything else I
have done all those things to). So while I like your definition in one
sense, in another it fails, because it doesn't distinguish between what
happens between my wife, children, country, and God.

When we do those things to creatures (wife, children, country, nature,
other people) even if we do not do all those, then we honor or worship
them (because both those words in English have the same root, as can be
seen in the term of address we use for judges - in America "your honor"
in England "your worship".) I prefer to use the word "honor" for this
activity, but from a dictionary point of view, either word is valid.
(There is a Latin word, but it escapes me at the moment. Duria? I
think.)

When we do those things to God, and in a qualitative way give Him our
greatest, deepest, highest requests, intercessions, praise, and self
offering; when we Love Him with our whole hearts, minds, strength; when
we sit quiet and open ourselves to listen to Him; when we try to follow
His commandments out of Love for Him, and for His creation; when we
reject sin and the glamor of sin; when we acknowledge His Kingship and
our total dependence on Him; when we spend precious time with Him alone
or in community; when we do these things not because He needs it, but
because He and those He has given authority have requested it - that is
Worship of God, and in Latin is called Latria. No external agency - be
it ritual, song, body position, image - changes the goal of my latria,
which is God the uncreated Creator. No conversation - no matter how
respectful, emotional, or awe-filled - to someone else, be they living
or Living, can be called latria, for I know that any one else only
reflects the face of my Savior.

In His Faith, Hope, and Love,

[Stephen Quist]

"Ryan" <po...@newsgroup.plz> wrote in message

news:39b915c3.2156200550@news.hiwaay.net...

> When: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 12:31:24 -0600 > Who: "Stephen Quist"
> <qui...@msei-co.com> > What:
>

> >> Is it not claimed by Catholics that Peter journied to Rome after

> >> Christ's ascention?
> >>
> >Yes, IIRC its based on the writings of Eusebius.
>
> Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the church at
> Rome?
>

There could be any number of reasons. First off, no one I know
says that Peter journeyed to Rome directly after the Ascension.
In fact, we know he spent time in Antioch. Perhaps Peter was
not in Rome when Paul wrote to the Roman community. Maybe
Peter was there and Paul had not heard the news. Maybe Paul
knew Peter did not need instruction, and so did not address the
letter to him. Maybe Peter and Paul did not get along.... There
can be any number of reasons. To argue that Peter was not in
Rome because Paul did not mention him in Romans is to argue
from a pretty slender foundation. At best you can say that Paul
provides no evidence that Peter was in Rome. You cannot, logically,
extend this to be evidence that Peter was not in Rome.

There is further evidence in the Bible that Peter was in Rome.
In 1 Peter 5:12-14 we find:
12 With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother,
I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that
this
is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.
13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you
her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who
are in Christ.

"She who is in Babylon" hints that Peter is talking about the
Christian
community in Rome. Of course Babylon is a code word for Rome.

> >> And I am a believer in Christ as set forth in Scripture.
> >>
> >As *you* interpret the Scripture. Didn't Peter have a few
> >words to say about private interpretation?
>
> I believe so, but I don't think in the context which you are
> suggesting.
>
> 2 Peter 1:
> 19) We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well
> that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place,
until
> the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
> 20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
> private interpretation.
> 21) For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but
holy
> men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
>

Yes, and what do you make of this passage?

> >>

> >Yes and no. Peter took his place as the "first among equals"
> >of the Apostles. This is based in Scripture, not only in Matthew
> >where Peter is given the keys, but in John where he is made
> >the shepherd. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would continue
> >to guide the Church. The Holy Spirit does this, in part through
> >the agency of the Pope and all the bishops.
>
> As for the keys, they were not given solely to Peter. Read Matthew
> 18, pay close attention to who Christ is speaking to throughout the
> chapter.
>

Matthew 18 is a different story:
15 "If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault
between
you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your
brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so
that
'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three
witnesses.'
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to
listen
even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax
collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven,
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This passage correlates with the passage in John where the Apostles

were given the authority to forgive and retain sins.

The delegation of the keys is in Matthew 16:
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on

earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus was clearly talking directly to Peter, not the rest of the
Apostles.

> And unfortunately, John was incorrect.

>
> No, not the John you are speaking of, but John Lennon. Love is not
> all you need.
>
> A close look at the dialect shows Peter repeating that he loves
Christ
> three times. What a statement of love!
>
> Unfortunately, that's not ~ exactly ~ what Peter was trying to say.
> Did you ever wonder why Peter grieved at that last "I love you,
Jesus"
> bit? Look at the Greek text.
>
> Jesus: Do you agape me? (agape = love in action; love in works)
> Peter: I phileo you (phileo = friendship love; lacking works)
>
> Jesus: Do you agape me?
> Peter: I phileo you
>
> Jesus: Do you phileo me?
> Peter (grieved): You know I phileo you!
>
> Peter didn't want to work for Jesus.
>

Fascinating.
Still Jesus told him "Feed my lambs." and "Tend my sheep." and
"Feed my sheep."

What else can that be but that Peter was made a shepherd
to the followers of Jesus?

> John 21:

> 18) Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou
> girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou
> shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall
> gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.
>
> >At the highest level God did and does have authority over
> >Scripture. But the point is, He used His Church as the agent
> >through which he gave the world the Bible. There were over
> >a hundred different writings circulating through the early
> >Church. It took a Council, several actually, to determine
> >which were truly inspired and which were not. God used the

> >Catholic Church to convey his judgment on the scriptures.

>
> Please explain the fact that God has authority over what He inspired
> to Theodore. He won't listen to the evil non-Catholic.
>
> And no, I disagree. The content of the Bible existed before the
> Catholic church did. The Catholics did nothing to give those
> scriptures to the world, they just put them all into one volume.
The
> scriptures existed without the involvement of the Catholic church,
and
> in some cases, even in spite of the catholic church.
>

No, the Catholic Church predates the Bible. The Church started
at the first Pentecost mentioned in Acts. The first of the New
Testament writings did not happen until approximately 20 years
later. Of course, a large part of the Bible, the Old Testament,
predates the Church!

> >Do you belong to any church? If so, which one?

>
> No, I do not belong to any earthly listing of membership which uses
> the word "church."
>
> Why not? I am more interested in being identified with Christ than
I
> am about being identified with Such-and-Such Church of Christ, or
the
> Catholic church, or the Lutheran church, or whatever else you want
to
> note. I do attend the sermons, and listen to the message, and test
> them against the scriptures. I have learned, and I have had to
> dismiss. I have attended both protestant and catholic sermons, I
have
> attended but not participated in mass.
>
> Why am I treating Christianity like a buffet bar? I'm not.
>

I disagree, you are doing just that by rejecting the
legitimate authority of the Church.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch
over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their
task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no
advantage to you.

>

> >It neither condones nor condemns.
> >The worship of Mary is of a different nature than the
> >worship of God. Please learn the difference before

> >you make judgments.

>
> I beg to differ; Catholic doctrine does condone Marian worship.
>

In what sense are you using the word "worship"?

> >>In Matthew 16 Christ stated that He was the rock upon which the

> >>church would be built. He did not establish Catholicism. The
Catholic
> >>church did not exist at any time during Scripturally recorded
> >>history.
> >
> >Not right. The Church takes as her founding the coming of the
> >Holy Spirit to the Apostles and disciples at Pentecost, as recorded
> >in Acts.
>
> The catholic church can claim all it wants, but their claims
> concerning the papacy are simply not supported in Scripture.
>

They are fully supported in Scripture and in history. If you
care to judge the evidence objectively.

> >Let me tell you. God's inspiration is given to the Church. As such
> >the Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.
>
> What is and what is not canon is not in question at this point in
> time. What is in question is the Catholic church's authority and
> position on contradicting what God has set forth in scripture.
>

The Church does not and cannot teach authoritatively anything

that is opposed to Scripture. The fact that you do not realize this
has more to do with your interpretation of Scripture than with

the true teachings contained therein.

Steve

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> The question "Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the
> church at Rome?"

And then proceeds to write a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the
idea of Peter in Rome.

That's the real problem with these so-called Protestants: They can't
stick to the subject, instead they invent a bunch of unrelated information
to hide the subject.
Ted

> However in [2 Peter 3:14-16] we find the Apostle Peter acquiescing to the
> Apostle Paul's spiritual authority as an Apostle called according to the
> dispensation and religious economy of God (ie according to the Torah) and
> who's reputation, unlike that of Peter's clearly reached across Asia:--"He
> called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: 'Men,
> you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. Moreover you see and
> hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has
> persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which
> are made with hands. So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling
> into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be
> despised and her magnificence destroyed, whom all Asia and the world
> worship.' [Acts 19:25-27]
>
> So too do we find a direct commission for the Apostle Paul to witness
> against apostasy in Rome as in Jerusalem: "But the following night the Lord
> stood by him and said, 'Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified
> for me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome.' And when it was
> day, some of the Jews banded together and bound themselves under an oath,
> saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. Now
> there were more that forty who had formed this conspiracy. They came to the
> chief priests and elders [Sanhedrin], and said: 'We have bound ourselves
> under a great oath that we will eat nothing until we have killed Paul. Now
> you, therefore, together with the council, suggest to the commander that he
> be brought down to you tomorrow, as though you were going to make further
> inquiries concerning him; but we are ready to kill him before he comes
> near.'" [Acts 23:11-15]
>
> Given the transitioning of the Jews to Hermetic first principles as the
> basis for Torah interpretation and their false accusations of apostasy
> against the Apostle Paul [Acts 21:21], his disourse to the brotherhood
> (Hetairos) on the agnostos theos in Athens and the early churches adoption
> of Nicolatian dogma, that you will find any evidence...it lays in the dust:
> The modern world seems to have forgotten the existence of those unwritten
> teachings which explained satisfactorily the apparent contradictions of the
> written Scriptures, nor does it remember that the pagans appointed their
> two-faced Janus as custodian of the key to the Temple of Wisdom. Janus has
> been metamorphosed into Saint Peter, so often symbolised as holding in his
> hand the key to the gate of heaven. The gold and silver keys of 'God's Vicar
> on Earth,' the Pope, symbolizes this 'secret doctrine' which when properly
> understood, unlocks the treasure chest of the [Hellenised] Christian and
> Jewish Qabbalah.
>
> Beyond the example of Damascus Document (and I think some writings from
> Jesus ben Sira) and their initial find in Geniza document depository, for a
> cicumstantial example of systemmatic elimination of sacred writings in the
> 2-3rd century, see the 'Scribal Note' (VI, 7a) in the Nag Hammadi Library
> which says, "I have copied this one discourse of his. Indeed, very many
> have come to me. I have not copied them because I thought that they had
> come to you (pl.). Also I hesitate to copy these for you because, perhaps
> they have (already) come to you, and the matter may burden you. Since the
> discourses of that one, which have come to me, are numerous..."
>
>
> - dolf

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Quist" <qui...@msei-co.com>
> There could be any number of reasons. First off, no one I know says that
> Peter journeyed to Rome directly after the Ascension. In fact, we know he
> spent time in Antioch. Perhaps Peter was not in Rome when Paul wrote to the
> Roman community. Maybe Peter was there and Paul had not heard the news.
> Maybe Paul knew Peter did not need instruction, and so did not address the
> letter to him. Maybe Peter and Paul did not get along.... There can be any
> number of reasons. To argue that Peter was not in Rome because Paul did not
> mention him in Romans is to argue from a pretty slender foundation. At best
> you can say that Paul provides no evidence that Peter was in Rome. You
> cannot, logically, extend this to be evidence that Peter was not in Rome.
>
>
>

--
On this day, the Feast of St. Januarius (Bishop and Martyr)

[Theodore M. Seeber]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Dolf Boek wrote:

> Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and ignorance can only beget
> ignorance.

And irrelevant things simply muddy the waters and avoid the question to
begin with. It's a neat trick, putting for irrelevant or even inaccurate
data to avoid the discussion. But it's merely information overload, and
doesn't help if the person you're discussing things with reads at 1500
wpm.

Nothing that you posted had any value spiritually whatsoever. In fact,
nothing that you CAN post will have any value spiritually, because you're
HUMAN and not even endowed with the charism of teaching infallibly.
Ted

> "Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:

> And then proceeds to write a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the
> idea of Peter in Rome.
>
> That's the real problem with these so-called Protestants: They can't stick
> to the subject, instead they invent a bunch of unrelated information to hide
> the subject.

--

[Dolf Boek]

The question "Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the
church at Rome?"

However in [2 Peter 3:14-16] we find the Apostle Peter acquiescing to the

- dolf

[Dolf Boek]

The question "Then why didn't Paul mention Peter in his writings to the
church at Rome?"

However in [2 Peter 3:14-16] we find the Apostle Peter acquiescing to the

of Nicolatian dogma, I doubt that you will find any evidence which sustains
the Apostle Peter's superiority over the church...it is the figment of
imagination.

The modern world seems to have forgotten the existence of those unwritten
teachings which explained satisfactorily the apparent contradictions of the
written Scriptures, nor does it remember that the pagans appointed their
two-faced Janus as custodian of the key to the Temple of Wisdom. Janus has
been metamorphosed into Saint Peter, so often symbolised as holding in his
hand the key to the gate of heaven. The gold and silver keys of 'God's Vicar
on Earth,' the Pope, symbolizes this 'secret doctrine' which when properly
understood, unlocks the treasure chest of the [Hellenised] Christian and
Jewish Qabbalah.

Beyond the example of Damascus Document (and I think some writings from
Jesus ben Sira) and their initial find in Geniza document depository, for a
cicumstantial example of systemmatic elimination of sacred writings in the
2-3rd century, see the 'Scribal Note' (VI, 7a) in the Nag Hammadi Library
which says, "I have copied this one discourse of his. Indeed, very many
have come to me. I have not copied them because I thought that they had
come to you (pl.). Also I hesitate to copy these for you because, perhaps
they have (already) come to you, and the matter may burden you. Since the
discourses of that one, which have come to me, are numerous..."

- dolf

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Quist" <qui...@msei-co.com>

[Dolf Boek]

Spiritual things are spiritually discerned and ignorance can only beget
ignorance.

If the evidence already tendered in our various discourses is insufficient
for you because it requires you to think, no further facts can be advanced
that will statisfy you. "And the Lord shall smite you with stupidity and
blindness and dullness of heart; and you shall grope about at noonday, as a
blind man gropes about in the darkness, and your ways shall not prosper; and
you shall be oppressed and robbed all days, and there shall be no one to
save (you)." [Targum Deuteronomy 28:28-29; © 1997 The Order of Saint
Benedict]

- dolf

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote:

[Dolf Boek]

It is only within the christless cult of fascism, that one needs to swallow
a superficially soggy trinitarian biscuit before one is considered
spiritually endowed.

- dolf

"Theodore M. Seeber" <see...@aracnet.com> wrote: