Pope Joan
Ken
POPE JOAN ruled the Roman Catholic Church from 853 to 855.
Pope Joan had a private chamberlain named Florus.
One day, while On Procession down one of the streets of Rome, she gave
birth prematurely to their son.
Ken
Heaven or Hell,
Check it out, you will be glad you did.
Gabby
"Ken" <ken...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:itjmb1hkqlh8h7sli...@4ax.com...
Pope Leo IV headed the Church from 847-855.
Gabby
brachypodium
>
> POPE JOAN ruled the Roman Catholic Church from 853 to 855.
> Pope Joan had a private chamberlain named Florus.
> One day, while On Procession down one of the streets of Rome, she gave
> birth prematurely to their son. <
That story, like Roman 'theology', is entirely invented. The irony is that,
unlike Roman theology, it is entirely credible!!!!
Pasta Dave
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:5vKue.2967$BD2....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
So credible it might be very much the truth.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html
JTEM
"Ken" <ken...@primus.com.au> wrote
> What about this pope, or have the catholics denied her
It appears less "History" than "Wishful thinking."
For one thing, all the alleged "records" date to well
past the time she supposed served as Pope.
Kind of funny that not one human being thought to write
down a word about this "Joan" at the time events
supposedly took place.
You'd think that a female Pope giving birth in public
would be newsworthy...
brachypodium
news:-ZednVkVSu1...@comcast.com...
How many newspapers were there in Rome in 855? How many Vatican scribes
would have recorded the event? Who else could have, who would have?
brachypodium
news:beOue.1534$iT1...@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
Mebbe. Thanks.
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> How many newspapers were there in Rome in 855?
> How many Vatican scribes would have recorded
> the event? Who else could have, who would have?
So you're saying nobody recorded the event at the time,
or would record the even at the time, yet it was accurately
recorded some 400 later for the very first time?
And this makes sense to you?
brachypodium
Why not? It's like the claim of the RCC to be the one true church, too
little, much too late. But no, I am not saying that. I don't think that one
can discount it, though; very much in the Dark and Middle Ages was
transmitted orally, and considered reliable. Before the invention of
printing (and calculators, and computers) people had much greater capacities
to commit detail to memory. I don't think it really matters what actually
happened. There are two points to be made. One is that the RCC has the level
of credibility that allows this purported event to gain currency. The second
is that you did not answer my questions.
I don't think that any more need be said.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
• The Pope John VIII #1 story could well be true or why else would Pope
Sixtus V have ordered the Jesuits to toss the publicly-financed bronze
statue to John VIII, at the shrine on the Via De Corcetti, into the river
? (AD1600) Another clue that there was some funny business going on is
that there have apparently been two Pope John VIIIs -- the second being
needed to plug the hole left by the excision of the first from the Roman
church's official history.
- As I see it, the Roman church invites comparison to a boys' tree fort
run by a guy named God and his little pals.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
ۥ R. L. Measures
<brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
• epilogue - - - A friend checked this story out for me by asking the
head librarian at a Jesuit university about John VIII. She said that
there were two Pope John VIIIs, both in the 9th century, and that the
first one reportedly gave birth during a walk on the Via De Corcetti near
the Coliseum.
cheers, B.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Why not? It's like the claim of the RCC to be the
> one true church, too little, much too late.
So either you're saying that the RCC is the one true church,
or you're telling us that you're intentionally clinging to what
you believe is a lie.
You're fucked.
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> . The Pope John VIII #1 story could well be true or why else
> would Pope Sixtus V have ordered the Jesuits to toss the
> publicly-financed bronze statue to John VIII, at the shrine
> on the Via De Corcetti, into the river? (AD1600)
So now the claims mount, and we find that nearly 800 years
after-the-fact there's an accurate understanding of events
that were never recorded by anyone who ever met anyone
who ever met anyone who who ever met anyone who was
present...
Perhaps the answer to this mystery lies in something as
simple as asking yourself what the story means to you.
If you're honest with yourself (and bigots rarely are), you'll
find out why you've surrendered your intellect so willingly.
brachypodium
Why don't you grunt? You would make far more sense.
> You're fucked. <
You're yellow, to the core.
brachypodium
news:_r-250605...@192.168.1.100...
Thanks, RL.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > . The Pope John VIII #1 story could well be true or why else
> > would Pope Sixtus V have ordered the Jesuits to toss the
> > publicly-financed bronze statue to John VIII, at the shrine
> > on the Via De Corcetti, into the river? (AD1600)
>
> So now the claims mount, and we find that nearly 800 years
> after-the-fact there's an accurate understanding of events
> that were never recorded by anyone who ever met anyone
> who ever met anyone who who ever met anyone who was
> present...
>
> Perhaps the answer to this mystery lies in something as
> simple as asking yourself what the story means to you.
** To me it means that some women are qualified to manage the Roman
church, and that guys hate like hell to have a history of being fooled by
a woman -- even if she was brilliant and she was greatly loved by the
common people. On second hought, being loved by the common people may
have been the sticky wicket for the boys.
.
> If you're honest with yourself (and bigots rarely are), you'll
> find out why you've surrendered your intellect so willingly.
** Because:
1. A group of nuns in Canada researched the Pope John VIII conroversy for
the Studio D production that was made for the National Film Board of
Canada series "Behind the Veil". I believe them because they are
reportedly very tight with the Blessed Virgin Mary.
2. The head librarian at a Jesuit university in the San Francisco area
confirmed that there were two Pope John VIIIs.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
ۥ R. L. Measures
<brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
• You are welcome, B. There's also an oil painting of the scene on the
Via De Corcetti in a London art museum.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> You're yellow, to the core.
If you pulled your face out of my ass crack you wouldn't
be able to see my core.
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> ** To me it means that some women are qualified to manage
> the Roman church,
So that's one reason you want the story to be true.
> and that guys hate like hell to have a history of being fooled
> by a woman --
So there's another reason.
So you do have reasons for wanting the story to be true.
That's good, admitting that much, that's really excellent.
You've already gone much further than I expected.
> ** Because:
> 1. A group of nuns in Canada researched the Pope John VIII
> conroversy for the Studio D production that was made for
> the National Film Board of Canada series "Behind the Veil".
> I believe them because they are reportedly very tight with
> the Blessed Virgin Mary.
It's too bad you couldn't have taken things a bit further.
There was nothing to research. That's the point. The myth has
it that not one person thought events were unusual enough
to note them in any way. Not a single individual thought to
themselves, "Say, now that's something you don't see every
day, a Pope giving birth like that. I think I'll write this one
down, maybe inform someone who isn't here and lives too
far away for me to conviently walk over and tell them."
> 2. The head librarian at a Jesuit university in the San
> Francisco area confirmed that there were two Pope
> John VIIIs.
The Vatican keeps all the good stuff in San Francisco, do they?
And this makes sense to you? Or are you banking that your
kind will just lick it up without question?
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> . You are welcome, B. There's also an oil painting of
> the scene on the Via De Corcetti in a London art museum.
And there's another oil painting that shows dragons, so
you know that they're for real.
And unicorns. They're real. They're in oil paintings. And, um,
and a librarian saw one just last week. Honest.
Oil painting don't lie, especially when they date to hundreds
of years after the events they supposedly depict. They're
"eye witnesses" to history, because you can see them with
your eyes.
Unless you're blind. Or an ant. If you were an ant you'd be
really small & stuff. You couldn't see the oil painting. They'd
be, like, *Way* up high on the wall & stuff, so you couldn't
see them.
It would be even worse if you were a blind ant.
brachypodium
Ok, you're spineless, as well as disgusting. What's new, for Catholicism?
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > ** To me it means that some women are qualified to manage
> > the Roman church,
>
> So that's one reason you want the story to be true.
** Since I have never been a Roman Catholicit matters not who runs the
juggernaut.
>
> > and that guys hate like hell to have a history of being fooled
> > by a woman --
>
> So there's another reason.
** A desire for unadjusted history is a reason.
>
> So you do have reasons for wanting the story to be true.
> That's good, admitting that much, that's really excellent.
** You managed to sell yourself on your own conclusion. When I first
heard the story about the two John VIIIs, I was skeptical, so I asked my
friend to find out what he could. He asked the head librarian at a Jesuit
University in the SF Bay area, she said it was true, and that this was the
most frequently asked question from incoming freshmen.
>
> You've already gone much further than I expected.
>
> > ** Because:
> > 1. A group of nuns in Canada researched the Pope John VIII
> > conroversy for the Studio D production that was made for
> > the National Film Board of Canada series "Behind the Veil".
> > I believe them because they are reportedly very tight with
> > the Blessed Virgin Mary.
>
> It's too bad you couldn't have taken things a bit further.
** Indeed. Unfortunately, the Blessed Virgin apparently cut me loose
after I made the stupid mistake of giving my rather exquisite Virgin Mary
statue away. Oh well, what the hell.
>
> There was nothing to research. That's the point. The myth has
> it that not one person thought events were unusual enough
> to note them in any way. Not a single individual thought to
> themselves, "Say, now that's something you don't see every
> day, a Pope giving birth like that.
** In the 9th century, things were apparently a bit different. J. The
700-year history of a publicly-financed bronze statue of John VIII #1 on
the Via De Corcetti in Rome is pretty damned hard to erase -- even for
God's Holy Church.
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie becane truth".
-- George Orwell, *1984*
>I think I'll write this one
> down, maybe inform someone who isn't here and lives too
> far away for me to conviently walk over and tell them."
>
> > 2. The head librarian at a Jesuit university in the San
> > Francisco area confirmed that there were two Pope
> > John VIIIs.
>
> The Vatican keeps all the good stuff in San Francisco, do they?
** What does this have to do with receptive altar-boys?
>
> And this makes sense to you? Or are you banking that your
> kind will just lick it up without question?
** 'Your kind'? I belong to no group other than the Republican party --
but I think G. W. pretty obviously turned out to be bad news. "You can
fool some of the people some of the time ..."
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > . You are welcome, B. There's also an oil painting of
> > the scene on the Via De Corcetti in a London art museum.
>
> And there's another oil painting that shows dragons, so
> you know that they're for real.
** chortle. On Komodo Island, it's not a real good idea to sleep in a tent.
>
> And unicorns. They're real.
** http://www.somis.org/horned-w.jpeg
>They're in oil paintings. And, um,
> and a librarian saw one just last week. Honest.
>
> Oil painting don't lie, especially when they date to hundreds
> of years after the events they supposedly depict. They're
> "eye witnesses" to history, because you can see them with
> your eyes.
>
> Unless you're blind. Or an ant. If you were an ant you'd be
> really small & stuff. You couldn't see the oil painting. They'd
> be, like, *Way* up high on the wall & stuff, so you couldn't
> see them.
>
> It would be even worse if you were a blind ant.
** "The lady doeth protest too much me thinks". Hamlet, Act VIII.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Ok, you're spineless,
And you apparently enjoy typing random words!
Congratulations.
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> ** Since I have never been a Roman Catholicit matters
> not who runs the juggernaut.
Well, so much for honesty...
> ** A desire for unadjusted history is a reason.
You desire "Historical revisionism" for what reason?
> ** You managed to sell yourself on your own conclusion.
If you mean that I mistakenly believed you were being honest
with yourself, I agree.
brachypodium
>
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Ok, you're spineless,
>
> And you apparently enjoy typing random words! <
Put back all that you snipped, and they won't appear very random at all.
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Put back all that you snipped,
Still working out those castration issues, I see.
brachypodium
>
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Put back all that you snipped,
>
> Still working out those castration issues, I see. <
Not a problem for Catholics, of course.
JTEM
"brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> Not a problem for Catholics,
What, finding babysitters for your boys?
brachypodium
>
> "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
>
>> Not a problem for Catholics,
>
> What, finding babysitters for your boys? <
I wouldn't want a priest, anyway.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > ** Since I have never been a Roman Catholicit matters
> > not who runs the juggernaut.
>
> Well, so much for honesty...
>
> > ** A desire for unadjusted history is a reason.
>
> You desire "Historical revisionism" for what reason?
>
** Adjusting history is revisionism.
> > ** You managed to sell yourself on your own conclusion.
>
> If you mean that I mistakenly believed you were being honest
> with yourself, I agree.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
WilSu...@rock.com
The Donation of Constantine appears in paintings, too. That makes it
true.
ۥ R. L. Measures
WilSu...@rock.com wrote:
> =80=B7 R. L. Measures wrote:
> > In article <A_jve.4626$%O1....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, "brachypodium"
> > <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "=80=B7 R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote in message
> > > news:_r-250605...@192.168.1.100...
> > > > In article <L8cve.9308$BD2....@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>, "brachypodium"
> > > > <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:5JCdnQEgMY6...@comcast.com...
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "brachypodium" <brachy...@ntlworld.com> wrote
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> How many newspapers were there in Rome in 855?
> > > >> >> How many Vatican scribes would have recorded
> > > >> >> the event? Who else could have, who would have?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > So you're saying nobody recorded the event at the time,
> > > >> > or would record the even at the time, yet it was accurately
> > > >> > recorded some 400 later for the very first time? <
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not? It's like the claim of the RCC to be the one true church, t=
> oo
> > > >> little, much too late. But no, I am not saying that. I don't think t=
> hat
> > > >> one
> > > >> can discount it, though; very much in the Dark and Middle Ages was
> > > >> transmitted orally, and considered reliable. Before the invention of
> > > >> printing (and calculators, and computers) people had much greater
> > > >> capacities
> > > >> to commit detail to memory. I don't think it really matters what
actually
> > > >> happened. There are two points to be made. One is that the RCC has the
> > > >>level of credibility that allows this purported event to gain
currency. The
> > > >> second
> > > >> is that you did not answer my questions.
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't think that any more need be said.
> > > >
> > > > =B7 epilogue - - - A friend checked this story out for me by asking =
> the
> > > > head librarian at a Jesuit university about John VIII. She said that
> > > > there were two Pope John VIIIs, both in the 9th century, and that the
> > > > first one reportedly gave birth during a walk on the Via De
Corcetti near
> > > > the Coliseum.
> > > >
> > > > cheers, B. <
> > >
> > > Thanks, RL.
> >
> > =B7 You are welcome, B. There's also an oil painting of the scene on the
> > Via De Corcetti in a London art museum.
>
> The Donation of Constantine appears in paintings, too. That makes it
> true.
** The 700-year existance of a statue to a Pope John VIII who is not the
person that is in the Roman church's official history suggests that God's
Holy Church is not wholly truthful.
cheers, Will
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> ** The 700-year existance of a statue to a Pope John VIII
You've certainly got a lot of faith. Too bad it's all focused on
mindless bigotry instead of anything useful.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
** The bronze statue was there until AD1600 when it was stolen, hauled to
the river, and tossed in. Today, there is a pizzacheria on the site.
cheers, J.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> ** The bronze statue was there until AD1600 when it
> was stolen, hauled to the river, and tossed in. Today,
> there is a pizzacheria on the site.
Two points. The first is that I liked the original story better.
In that version it wasn't made of bronze, and it was most
definitely that of a woman. Well, not a "woman" but a
"female." A female god, that is. It was a pre-Christian
work of art that was removed by some overly pious art
critic.
The second point is that your story requires that the
statue is still there. I mean, you're not seriously
suggesting that a bronze statue completely vaporized in
the time since 1600, are you?
They're still fishing Celtic bronzes out of lakes &
such -- in both Ireland and England -- that date back
much earlier than the 1600s.
But, as usual, we will soon discover that reality is
no match to how you feel about the Catholic church.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > ** The bronze statue was there until AD1600 when it
> > was stolen, hauled to the river, and tossed in. Today,
> > there is a pizzacheria on the site.
>
> Two points. The first is that I liked the original story better.
> In that version it wasn't made of bronze,
** What was it made of in the original version?
>and it was most
> definitely that of a woman. Well, not a "woman" but a
> "female." A female god, that is. It was a pre-Christian
> work of art that was removed by some overly pious art
> critic.
** incredible
>
> The second point is that your story requires that the
> statue is still there. I mean, you're not seriously
> suggesting that a bronze statue completely vaporized in
> the time since 1600, are you?
** odds are that it's buried in silt on the bottom of the river.
>
> They're still fishing Celtic bronzes out of lakes &
> such -- in both Ireland and England -- that date back
> much earlier than the 1600s.
>
> But, as usual, we will soon discover that reality is
> no match to how you feel about the Catholic church.
** Paying hush-money to altar-boys is undoubtedly part of the reality of
the Roman church.
--
Rich. 805.386.3734
JTEM
"?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
> ** Paying hush-money to altar-boys is undoubtedly
> part of the reality of the Roman church.
Given your feelings towards the church, absolutely *Anything*
you say is justified, in your own eyes, because you hate them
just as much as you would if it were all true.
ۥ R. L. Measures
<gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "?. R. L. Measures" <_r...@somis.org> wrote
>
> > ** Paying hush-money to altar-boys is undoubtedly
> > part of the reality of the Roman church.
>
> Given your feelings towards the church, absolutely *Anything*
> you say is justified in your own eyes,
** In my eyes, reality is that the only weapon that works.
>, because you hate them
> just as much as you would if it were all true.
** Is it true that the RCC has paid hush money to altar boys? Is it true
that Archbishop of L. A., Roger Mahony, is still stonewalling the L. A.
County D. A. on turning over the names of the archdiocese's remaining
pedophile priests? Is it true that the RCC teaches its priests that
children simply outgrow experiences of having had sex with adults?
--
Rich. 805.386.3734