The formation of Roman Catholic Church
jane abraham
Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
this findings are.
Arianism Vs. Council of Nicaea" (Church History)
By Brother John Raymond
Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
was even born. It was a pagan church established by
the Roman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by
having them all participate at least to some extent, along with other
Roman citizens in some kind of common worship practices and beliefs.
The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A council was
convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a
leader in the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now
wanted to unite the Christian sects in the empire under his existing
church; the Universal Church of Rome. Many changes to the religion of
Christianity were about to take place at that council, including:
Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias
(description of the formulation is mentioned below)
Changing Verses of Bible
Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (belief in the Unity of God) as heresy
Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast of Ishtar")
Church of Roman "officially" became the "Universal Church of the Holy
Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic' means 'universal'
The Roman Catholic Church took on a new face.
What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It is their
explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea
Council.
There are many more allegation in the following site
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm
All these true?
Azaliah
abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>this findings are.
Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
that claims to be the original church.
--
Azaliah (ats-al-yaw'-hoo) "Jah has reserved"
<((>< <((>< <((><
"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17
.
Liam Too
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >this findings are.
>
> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> that claims to be the original church.
Any other denomination came more than fifteen hundred years later. And
the JW came in 1872.
•R L Measures
<_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
> >I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >this findings are.
>
> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> that claims to be the original church.
** The Roman church's teaching that Jesus is God did not come about until
the 4th century.
"Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the Unknown
Past."
Historian John Acton
H Dickmann
"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>this findings are.
>
> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> that claims to be the original church.
The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they did
not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time. They were known as the
Universal ( Catholic) Church teaching standard Christianity at a time when
all kinds of false doctrines flourished as they do today. They call
themselves Roman Catholics as, since the time of Peter, every Vicar of
Christ was also Bidhop of Rome.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>Xref: sn-us alt.christnet.public:211228 alt.religion.christian.baptist:923739 alt.religion.christian:1852591 alt.bible:1193654 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1376270
>Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-04!sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-01!sn-xt-sjc-10!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-xt-sjc-07!sn-xt-sjc-12!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!ken-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: "H Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>References: <1167318013.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com>
>Subject: Re: The formation of Roman Catholic Church
>Lines: 36
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>Message-ID: <ykSkh.14877$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:32:30 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.166.202.116
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@bigpond.net.au
>X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1167323550 58.166.202.116 (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:32:30 EST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 03:32:30 EST
>Organization: BigPond Internet Services
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0664-0, 12/28/2006), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
>
>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>this findings are.
>>
>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> that claims to be the original church.
>
>
>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they did
>not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time. They were known as the
>Universal ( Catholic) Church teaching standard Christianity at a time when
>all kinds of false doctrines flourished as they do today. They call
>themselves Roman Catholics as, since the time of Peter, every Vicar of
>Christ was also Bidhop of Rome.
>
>
>
Keep your romanist LIES in your romanist group.
Liam Too
> Keep your romanist LIES in your romanist group.
The truth really hurts, but if you accept it, it will set you free.
Azaliah
r...@somis.org (紐 L Measures) shouted thusly:
>In article <es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com>, Azaliah
><_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>> >I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>> >Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>> >teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>> >this findings are.
>>
>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> that claims to be the original church.
>
>** The Roman church's teaching that Jesus is God did not come about until
>the 4th century.
Since it wasn't "the Roman church" that made anything
doctrine then, your statement is irrelevant.
Azaliah
Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> shouted thusly:
>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>this findings are.
>>
>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> that claims to be the original church.
>
>
>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they did
>not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time.
That's a claim, not proof.
H Dickmann
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:32:30 GMT, while bungee jumping, "H
> Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>>this findings are.
>>>
>>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>>> that claims to be the original church.
>>
>>
>>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they
>>did
>>not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time.
>
> That's a claim, not proof.
Matthew 16: 13-19 is proof.
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>Xref: sn-us alt.christnet.public:211233 alt.religion.christian.baptist:923753 alt.religion.christian:1852602 alt.bible:1193667 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1376282
>Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-02!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-xt-sjc-08!sn-xt-sjc-13!supernews.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!ken-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: "H Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>References: <1167318013.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com> <ykSkh.14877$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> <qm98p2dq2r558chfp...@4ax.com>
>Subject: Re: The formation of Roman Catholic Church
>Lines: 43
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>Message-ID: <BhTkh.14880$HU....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:37:37 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.166.202.116
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@bigpond.net.au
>X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1167327457 58.166.202.116 (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:37:37 EST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:37:37 EST
>Organization: BigPond Internet Services
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0664-0, 12/28/2006), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
>
NOWHERE does the BIBLE GOD GAVE US support romanism.
Now kindly keep this romanist trash OUT of the other groups.
Liam Too
> NOWHERE does the BIBLE GOD GAVE US support romanism.
>
> Now kindly keep this romanist trash OUT of the other groups.
Did you even read the verses? Like I said, the truth hurts but it will
set you free.
Liam Too
> Since it wasn't "the Roman church" that made anything
> doctrine then, your statement is irrelevant.
Early Christian writers like Ireaneaus wrote about the early Roman
Catholic Church being founded and organized by Peter and Paul. Then
they gave the 2nd Pope Linus the authority to lead on. The Council of
Nicea would come more than three hundred years later.
Azaliah
Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> shouted thusly:
>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:qm98p2dq2r558chfp...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:32:30 GMT, while bungee jumping,
>> "H Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>>>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>>>this findings are.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>>>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>>>> that claims to be the original church.
>>>
>>>
>>>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they
>>>did
>>>not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time.
>>
>> That's a claim, not proof.
>
>Matthew 16: 13-19 is proof.
Since Matthew 16:13-19 doesn't say one word about
"the Roman Catholic Church", that's a claim, not proof.
Do not waste your time making the standard, stupid
arguments that RCC'ers make, as if you are some
master of knowledge and have great knowledge and
wisdom that no one has ever heard before. You'll
only look like an idiot.
I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I spent
years researching the denomination and their claims,
including tracing this so called line of Popes back.
Guess what? It doesn't wash.
Liam Too
> Since Matthew 16:13-19 doesn't say one word about
> "the Roman Catholic Church", that's a claim, not proof.
>
> Do not waste your time making the standard, stupid
> arguments that RCC'ers make, as if you are some
> master of knowledge and have great knowledge and
> wisdom that no one has ever heard before. You'll
> only look like an idiot.
>
> I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I spent
> years researching the denomination and their claims,
> including tracing this so called line of Popes back.
> Guess what? It doesn't wash.
Let's begin with Linus, did you find out who he was?
duke
>Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
>Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
> was even born.
There may have been a roman church but it wasn't the Christian Chruch founded by
Christ with the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments in the year AD33.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
>On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>this findings are.
>
>Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>that claims to be the original church.
Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
NOs...@no.spam
>Xref: sn-us alt.christnet.public:211240 alt.religion.christian.baptist:923820 alt.religion.christian:1852669 alt.bible:1193725 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1376323
>Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-04!sn-xt-sjc-10!sn-xt-sjc-01!sn-xt-sjc-12!supernews.com!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!newsfe23.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>Subject: Re: The formation of Roman Catholic Church
>Message-ID: <bpb8p2hccq07l91kh...@4ax.com>
>References: <1167318013.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 14
>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:57:07 -0600
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.255.81.198
>X-Complaints-To: ad...@cox.net
>X-Trace: newsfe23.lga 1167339377 24.255.81.198 (Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:56:17 MST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:56:17 MST
>Organization: Cox
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0664-0, 12/28/2006), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
Earl Weber- How many times must U B told 2 stop posting your romanist
trash in the other groups?
SongBookz
>On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, "jane abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
>>Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
>> was even born.
>
>There may have been a roman church but it wasn't the Christian Chruch founded by
>Christ with the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments in the year AD33.
>
and still isn't.
T
Liam Too
> and still isn't.
Can you elaborate on this?
WilSu...@rock.com
duke wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:07:00 -0800, Azaliah <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> >abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
> >
> >
> >>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >>this findings are.
> >
> >Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> >back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> >that claims to be the original church.
>
> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
H Dickmann
No surprise there.
People who have been brainwashed to leave the Catholic church have studied
what their false preachers told them, are always willing to share their
"Knowledge" to quieten their guilty conscience.
Bill M
confusion.
There are thousands of different god beliefs. Why would any REAL god permit
his creations to be so mislead?
If there is a REAL god, why does he not directly identify himself from his
magnificent heaven and show that only he (or it) is the REAL god and all the
others are fakes? Why does he not smite and destroy all the fakes and clear
up the confusion?
Could it be because there is NO REAL god and they are all just the creations
of man's imagination???
"Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167342358.2...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
BAM
> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>
>
>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>this findings are.
>
> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> that claims to be the original church.
You know nothing.
BAM
BAM
<NOs...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:gg28p2pp44itdjs9p...@4ax.com...
Absolutely true doc. Because there's no such thing as romanism. It's a word
you invented and only you use. What gave you the grandiose idea that the
Bible would have anything to do with something you conjured up in a dream?
BAM
BAM
"Bill M" <wm...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:B5_kh.11671$n57....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> If Jesus Christ is the REAL god why does he permit all this disagreement
> and confusion.
Good question - maybe He should just squash all the anti-Catholics in this
Catholic NG like bugs.
BAM
BAM
<NOs...@no.spam> wrote
> Keep your romanist LIES in your romanist group.
For whom do you speak doc? Who are you to represent any other groups? Have
you been elected - like the Pope? Or do you just put yourself in charge?
BAM
Azaliah
Dickmann" <HER...@bigpond.com> shouted thusly:
>>>>>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
>>>>>was founded by Christ, but they did not
>>>>>call themselves Roman Catholics at the time.
>>>>
>>>> That's a claim, not proof.
>>>
>>>Matthew 16: 13-19 is proof.
>>
>> Since Matthew 16:13-19 doesn't say one word about
>> "the Roman Catholic Church", that's a claim, not proof.
>>
>> Do not waste your time making the standard, stupid
>> arguments that RCC'ers make, as if you are some
>> master of knowledge and have great knowledge and
>> wisdom that no one has ever heard before. You'll
>> only look like an idiot.
>>
>> I was born and raised Roman Catholic and I spent
>> years researching the denomination and their claims,
>> including tracing this so called line of Popes back.
>> Guess what? It doesn't wash.
>
>No surprise there.
>People who have been brainwashed to leave the Catholic
>church have studied what their false preachers told them,
>are always willing to share their "Knowledge" to quieten
>their guilty conscience.
Oh, I see. Now you think that insulting me is proof.
Thank you for proving that you have no proof whatsoever
ad that you insult those who won't just take your word
for it. <chuckle>
SongBookz
wrote:
>SongBookz wrote:
>> and still isn't.
>
>Can you elaborate on this?
It's ben expounded on by smarter people than me ad nauseum on these
groups.
Simply, Jesus did not found a church led by the Dope, He founded a
Church headed by Himself. The Catholic Church is a hybred religion
formed by combining Christianity with sun god and goddess worship.
Terrell
duke
>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
doc is deathly afraid of the RCC. She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
sacraments.
Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
Table.
duke
>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
doc is deathly afraid of the RCC. She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
sacraments.
Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
Table.
duke, American-American
duke
>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
doc is deathly afraid of the RCC. She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
sacraments.
Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
Table.
duke, American-American
BAM
"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Oh, I see. Now you think that insulting me is proof.
Very shifty - you've not produced a scrap of evidence to back your claim.
BAM
NOs...@no.spam
wrote:
>
>No surprise there.
>People who have been brainwashed to leave the Catholic church have studied
>what their false preachers told them, are always willing to share their
>"Knowledge" to quieten their guilty conscience.
Anyone who is shown a safe exit from that God-accursed CULT known as
Roman Catholicism has not been brainwashed, but led by God OUT of the
thing.
And if U knew anything about HIS WORD, U would find it impossible to
REMAIN a romanist.
Now kindly refrain from posting your romanist lies in these other
groups.
NOs...@no.spam
>
>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC. She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
>sacraments.
>
>Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
>Table.
>
Poor old Earl Weber strikes out again!!!!!!!!
NOs...@no.spam
>Xref: sn-us alt.christnet.public:211278 alt.religion.christian.baptist:923981 alt.religion.christian:1852856 alt.bible:1193872 alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic:1376427
>Path: sn-us!sn-feed-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-11!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-xt-sjc-14!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.77.MISMATCH!hwmnpeer03.lga!hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!hw-filter.lga!newsfe16.lga.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: duke <duckg...@cox.net>
>Newsgroups: alt.christnet.public,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>Subject: Re: The formation of Roman Catholic Church
>Message-ID: <sl0ap2977ges6hpvi...@4ax.com>
>References: <1167318013.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com> <ftb8p2lo9al6uf60d...@4ax.com> <1167354384.1...@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 22
>Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:57:52 -0600
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.255.81.198
>X-Complaints-To: ad...@cox.net
>X-Trace: newsfe16.lga 1167393353 24.255.81.198 (Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:55:53 MST)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:55:53 MST
>Organization: Cox
>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0664-0, 12/28/2006), Inbound message
>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
>
Liam Too
> It's ben expounded on by smarter people than me ad nauseum on these
> groups.
>
> Simply, Jesus did not found a church led by the Dope, He founded a
> Church headed by Himself. The Catholic Church is a hybred religion
> formed by combining Christianity with sun god and goddess worship.
Do you have any citations?
Dave Oldridge
news:1167318013.5...@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
> I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> this findings are.
>
>
> Arianism Vs. Council of Nicaea" (Church History)
> By Brother John Raymond
>
> Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
> Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
> was even born. It was a pagan church established by
> the Roman government in an effort to control the subjects of Rome by
> having them all participate at least to some extent, along with other
> Roman citizens in some kind of common worship practices and beliefs.
>
>
> The year was 325 A.D. according to the Roman calendar. A council was
> convened by order of Constantine, the Roman emperor. He had been a
> leader in the cult known as Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun) and now
> wanted to unite the Christian sects in the empire under his existing
> church; the Universal Church of Rome. Many changes to the religion of
> Christianity were about to take place at that council, including:
>
>
> Formulation for wording concerning the Trinity based on Anthanias
> (description of the formulation is mentioned below)
>
>
> Changing Verses of Bible
>
>
> Eliminating certain verses and books from the Bible
>
>
> Declaring Arian's "unitarian" (belief in the Unity of God) as heresy
>
>
> Changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday
>
>
> Changing the date of Jesus' birthday to December 25th
>
>
> Introduction of Easter (pagan worship called "Feast of Ishtar")
>
>
> Church of Roman "officially" became the "Universal Church of the Holy
> Roman Empire" (the word 'Catholic' means 'universal'
>
>
> The Roman Catholic Church took on a new face.
>
>
> What follows is a quote from the Roman Catholic Church. It is their
> explanation behind the many changes occurring during the Nicaea
> Council.
>
>
> There are many more allegation in the following site
>
> http://www.islamtomorrow.com/bible/NicaeaCouncil325.htm
>
> All these true?
Much of it is half-truth. In point of fact, Constantine personally
favoured the teachings of Arius to those of the majority of bishops. The
Council had other things on its collective mind than establishing a state
church. For one thing there was the problem of Arius and his heresy. For
another, there was the question of the canon of the New Testament
(canon=list of included works).
There is no evidence that scripture was redacted in any way at that
time...at least not more so than at any other time.
The ascendancy of the bishop of Rome over the other major archdioceses
was not, at that time, a major issue and was not put forward by the
Church as a whole. The Church called herself "catholic" because that's
what she was. The one, universal, apostolic Church.
Protestant (and Mohammed was a kind of Protestant in some ways)
revisionists like to put an entirely different spin on these events. But
in order to do that, they must mangle history. The fact that this is
easy to do shows that religious fanaticism has not only infected the
teaching of science. It has also managed to imbue large populations with
very erroneous and distorted ideas about history. And you know what they
say about people who fail to learn from history...
The fact is, the councils of the 4th century were tasked with the rather
historically important job of defining the core doctrines of the faith.
These ARE summed up in the Nicean creed, though the Orthodox version of
it is probably the older and more original version. Until the Great
Schism, there wasn't a ROMAN Catholic Church, per se, but, as the Creed
so succinctly states, one, holy, universal and apostolic Church.
The fact is, latter-day reformers have substituted the authority of Holy
Scripture (as interpreted privately by their own leaders) for the
authority of Holy Orders (from which Holy Scripture derives its canon and
official interpretations). That's a sensible thing to do if you're
denying the authority of the Church and setting up your own religion, but
it's also a HUGE temptation when it comes to the history of the Church
and few reformers have avoided the temptation to revise history in order
to justify their own self-proclaimed "authority."
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
•R L Measures
<_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:03:56 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) shouted thusly:
• I do not bungee jump and I don't drive drunk.
>
>
> >In article <es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com>, Azaliah
> ><_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> >> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >> >Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >> >teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >> >this findings are.
> >>
> >> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> >> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> >> that claims to be the original church.
> >
> >** The Roman church's teaching that Jesus is God did not come about until
> >the 4th century.
>
> Since it wasn't "the Roman church" that made anything
> doctrine then, your statement is irrelevant.
• It happened at Roman Emper Constantine's vacation villa in Nicaea in AD325.
"The church became the gilded crutch of absolutism."
---- Historian John E. E. Acton
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:07:00 -0800, Azaliah <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
> >abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
> >
> >
> >>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >>this findings are.
> >
> >Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> >back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> >that claims to be the original church.
>
> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>
** ... so why did the Mass not begin until 394 ?, and the doctrine of
seven sacraments.not come about until 1439 ?
>....
Stephen Korsman
> NOs...@no.spam wrote:
> > NOWHERE does the BIBLE GOD GAVE US support romanism.
> >
>
> Did you even read the verses? Like I said, the truth hurts but it will
> set you free.
Apparently the verses are romanist trash.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Liam Too
> Apparently the verses are romanist trash.
And what are you, a silly sabbathist? Even Jesus Christ worked on the
Sabbath, remember?
Stephen Korsman
I meant that it would appear that to Doc the verses are romanist trash.
I'm Catholic.
duke
>>>Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
>>> was even born.
>>There may have been a roman church but it wasn't the Christian Chruch founded by
>>Christ with the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments in the year AD33.
>>
>and still isn't.
Not an intelligent response.
Liam Too
> "Liam Too" <liamt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167416816.3...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Stephen Korsman wrote:
> > > Apparently the verses are romanist trash.
> >
> > And what are you, a silly sabbathist? Even Jesus Christ worked on the
> > Sabbath, remember?
>
> I meant that it would appear that to Doc the verses are romanist trash.
>
> I'm Catholic.
>
> God bless,
Thanks for the clarification. And please accept my sincere apologies.
I'm Catholic too.
Azaliah
r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) shouted thusly:
>> >> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> >> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> >> that claims to be the original church.
>> >
>> >** The Roman church's teaching that Jesus is God did not come about until
>> >the 4th century.
>>
>> Since it wasn't "the Roman church" that made anything
>> doctrine then, your statement is irrelevant.
>
>• It happened at Roman Emper Constantine's vacation villa in Nicaea in AD325.
Now learn the difference between the Roman Empire
and the Roman Catholic Church. Using your logic,
you might as well say that it was the Roman Catholics
that crucified Christ.
NOs...@no.spam
<skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>
>Apparently the verses are romanist trash.
>
>God bless,
>Stephen
I never said the VERSES were--- but the romanist TRASH being touted IS
just that- romanist trash. It is not being posted 2 the proper group,
which is your romanist one.
We're BAPTISTS in case U missed it, posting 2 the BAPTIST group.
The other groups U should not B posting your romanist trash 2 either.
We're not all romanists.
NOs...@no.spam
<skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>
>I'm Catholic.
>
>God bless,
>Stephen
How singularly exciting 4U.
If you're admittedly a romanist, then Y R U posting your cult's
beliefs to all these other groups?
Liam Too
> I never said the VERSES were--- but the romanist TRASH being touted IS
> just that- romanist trash. It is not being posted 2 the proper group,
> which is your romanist one.
We are talking about the formation of the Roman Catholic Church and
those verses are very relevant to the subject matter.
Would you like to discuss the verses and prove us wrong?
SongBookz
wrote:
>SongBookz wrote:
It's been expounded on over and over - but a very dated study on the
matter would be Hislop's "The Two Babylons." It's available to read
online in various places.
Terrell
che...@flipper.net
>On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, "jane abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Many people today, even Catholics, do not know the Holy Roman Catholic
>>Church was already in business several hundred years BEFORE Jesus,
>> was even born.
>
>There may have been a roman church but it wasn't the Christian Chruch founded by
>Christ with the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments in the year AD33.
>
There was no holey mas or 7 sacraments founded by Jesus Christ.
Jesus founded his church, a group of congregations started by
different Apostles and their followers. Those congregations sent out
faithful men who started new congregations and the process was
repeated down to today. The Apostles (all of them, not just peter,
Paul, and Silas) led others to Jesus and taught them, and those led
others to Jesus and taught them, and those led others to Jesus and
taught them, and those led others to Jesus and taught them, right down
to today as well.
The rcc came into being when constantine declared himself head of the
church. It did not exist before then at all, although the rcc tries
to "backdate" its line of popes to pretend it did.
It also had a pope named Joan. (but its adherents don't like to hear
about her).
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker
che...@flipper.net
>On 28 Dec 2006 17:06:24 -0800, WilSu...@rock.com wrote:
>
>>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>
>>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
>
>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC.
Well suzy, you just proved yourself stupid again! You keep claiming
that _I_ am doc, and I have no fear of the rcc at all. I WAS ONE
ONCE, but I left it when I saw it for what it was, nothing more than a
puny cult.
>She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
>sacraments.
Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
constantine.
>
>Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
>Table.
>
Not "ordinances." But the Bible only offers two, so why should we
become heretics like you and invent more?
in the Name of Jesus,
Checker (a member of the body of Christ, but NOT of the rcc cult)
che...@flipper.net
<mcca...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>this findings are.
>>
>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> that claims to be the original church.
>
>You know nothing.
>
Another witless nothing by bammy who has nothing better to offer.
Go figure.
Checker
•R L Measures
<_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 07:07:07 -0800, while bungee jumping,
> r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) shouted thusly:
>
>
> >> >> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
> >> >> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
> >> >> that claims to be the original church.
> >> >
> >> >** The Roman church's teaching that Jesus is God did not come about until
> >> >the 4th century.
> >>
> >> Since it wasn't "the Roman church" that made anything
> >> doctrine then, your statement is irrelevant.
> >
> >• It happened at Roman Emper Constantine's vacation villa in Nicaea in
AD325.
>
> Now learn the difference between the Roman Empire
> and the Roman Catholic Church. Using your logic,
> you might as well say that it was the Roman Catholics
> that crucified Christ.
• "The church became the gilded crutch of absolutism."
torresD
The Other Israel
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6657600254881054584&q=ted+pike&hl=en
Why the ME Bleeds - Ted Pike.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4775750954732344102&q=ted+pike&hl=en
duke
>>>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>>>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>>>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>>>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
>>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC.
>Well suzy, you just proved yourself stupid again! You keep claiming
>that _I_ am doc, and I have no fear of the rcc at all. I WAS ONE
>ONCE, but I left it when I saw it for what it was, nothing more than a
>puny cult.
Well, doc, you come and you go. Very unstable.
>>She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
>>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
>>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
>>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
>>sacraments.
>Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>constantine.
Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
Your church started in 1604 by some Smyth dude.
>>Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
>>Table.
>Not "ordinances." But the Bible only offers two, so why should we
>become heretics like you and invent more?
"Ordinances" is your **direct** quotation from before, doc.
duke
>Jesus founded his church, a group of congregations started by
>different Apostles and their followers. Those congregations sent out
>faithful men who started new congregations and the process was
>repeated down to today.
Right, including the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> The Apostles (all of them, not just peter,
>Paul, and Silas) led others to Jesus and taught them, and those led
>others to Jesus and taught them, and those led others to Jesus and
>taught them, and those led others to Jesus and taught them, right down
>to today as well.
But of course, for an "apostle" knew Christ.
>The rcc came into being when constantine declared himself head of the
>church. It did not exist before then at all, although the rcc tries
>to "backdate" its line of popes to pretend it did.
No, Christ started his church in 33AD. It was named in 325AD. Better luck next
time doc.
>It also had a pope named Joan. (but its adherents don't like to hear
>about her).
She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it. Better luck
next time, doc.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:44:25 -0700, che...@flipper.net wrote:
>
> >>>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics
established by
> >>>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
> >>>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
> >>>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
> >>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC.
>
> >Well suzy, you just proved yourself stupid again! You keep claiming
> >that _I_ am doc, and I have no fear of the rcc at all. I WAS ONE
> >ONCE, but I left it when I saw it for what it was, nothing more than a
> >puny cult.
>
> Well, doc, you come and you go. Very unstable.
>
> >>She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
> >>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning
that Christ
> >>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took
400 years
> >>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
> >>sacraments.
>
> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
> >constantine.
>
> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
"Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the Unknown
Past."
Historian John Acton
> ...
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• Up until 1600 there were two Pope John VIIIs in the organization's
official records. In that year, Pope Sixtus V was apparently inspired by
God to order the Jesuits to toss the bronze statue of the first Pope John
VIII, located on the Via De Corcetti in Rome, into the Tiber and to excise
the pages refering to this pope in the official records.
After the first Pope John VIII was excised from the official history
books, a time gap existed between Pope Leo IV's date of death and Pope
Benedict III's accession to the throne in 855. This minor discrepancy was
patched up by apparently resurrecting Pope Leo IV for a couple of years to
fill the gap. Since no other church has been able to do resurrections,
there should be no doubt that the Roman church has the most clout. . .
If Elaine was smart, she would switch to Roman Catholicism so she could be
with THE WINNER!!.
Stephen Korsman
Not a problem :-) I recognised your name from before when I was here more
often.
NOs...@no.spam
Hi again, Checker!! Long time no see- now watch hapless old Earl Weber
claim you're me again!!!! Hope U had a great Christmas.
Welcome back..
As for pope Joan, yes indeed, she infuriated the Roman Catholic
religionists when she gave birth during a 'mass' ... and the people
stoned both her and the infant to death. Nice bunch- not.
They also wiped out her name, picture and mention from the book
containing piccies of popes, according to the television documentary,
"Behind the Veil' which was aired in 1999.
NOs...@no.spam
>She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it. Better luck
>next time, doc.
>
Oh yes she was, old boy, and I'm not Checker.
>
>duke, American-American
>*****
>"The Mass Mess is the most perfect form of false adoration."
>Poop Paulio VI
>*****
NOs...@no.spam
Oh, certainly - I'll convert at once.!
NOs...@no.spam
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:56:14 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Dec 2006 17:06:24 -0800, WilSu...@rock.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>>>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>>
>>>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>>>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
>>
>>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC.
>
>Well suzy, you just proved yourself stupid again! You keep claiming
>that _I_ am doc, and I have no fear of the rcc at all. I WAS ONE
>ONCE, but I left it when I saw it for what it was, nothing more than a
>puny cult.
Poor Suzy girly- she imagines I'm 'deathly afraid of them' when in
fact, I let none of their lies and false teachings go unchallenged.
I guess it makes her feel like a goody-two-shoes to make such a
foolish claim, though!
>
>>She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
>>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
>>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
>>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
>>sacraments.
>
>Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>constantine.
Idiotic Earl Weber still falsely accuses me of not reading the New
Testament, or knowing of its existence, among numerous other silly
claims he has made.
Little does the moron know, but I've read the Bible in its entirety
most likely more times than he has ever read one Psalm.
>>
>>Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
>>Table.
>>
>Not "ordinances." But the Bible only offers two, so why should we
>become heretics like you and invent more?
We do refer to them as ordinances, though- considering ordinances are
spoken of in the Bible, and the term 'sacrament' is not even mentioned
in it.
>
>in the Name of Jesus,
>Checker (a member of the body of Christ, but NOT of the rcc cult)
:o)
duke
>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>> >constantine.
>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
>• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
If you believe that, I suggest you read 1 Cor 11:17-34.
duke
>> No, Christ started his church in 33AD. It was named in 325AD. Better
>luck next time doc.
>> >It also had a pope named Joan. (but its adherents don't like to hear
>> >about her).
>> She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it. Better luck
>> next time, doc.
>• Up until 1600 there were two Pope John VIIIs in the organization's
>official records.
But only one Pope.
NOs...@no.spam
>
>But only one Pope.
ALL popes are false figureheads.
duke
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html
According to legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people of Rome
tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until
she died.
It is not known whether the story of Pope Joan is true. The first known
reference to her occurs in the thirteenth century, 350 years after her supposed
reign.
Modern scholars have been unable to resolve the historicity of Pope Joan.
Where is she in the 13th century?
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Liam Too
> It's been expounded on over and over - but a very dated study on the
> matter would be Hislop's "The Two Babylons." It's available to read
> online in various places.
Post any citations here for everyone to see, otherwise, you're just
spewing utter nonsense.
SongBookz
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
>>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>>> >constantine.
>
>>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
>
>>• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
>>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
>
>If you believe that, I suggest you read
Hislop's "The Two Babylons"
Terrell
http://www.songbookz.com
SongBookz
wrote:
>SongBookz wrote:
I gave you a source - look it up otherwise, you're just too ignorant
and lazy to Google.
Terrell
http://www.songbookz.com
Stephen Korsman
"SongBookz" <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:4ngdp2pu2h85pts1m...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
> >>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began
with
> >>> >constantine.
> >
> >>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
> >
> >>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
> >
> >If you believe that, I suggest you read
>
> Hislop's "The Two Babylons"
Long discredited. Not taken seriously by any Protestant academic. A few
fundamentalists who love anything anti-Catholic, irrespective of whether it
is true or not.
che...@flipper.net
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:39:04 -0700, che...@flipper.net wrote:
>
>>Jesus founded his church, a group of congregations started by
>>different Apostles and their followers. Those congregations sent out
>>faithful men who started new congregations and the process was
>>repeated down to today.
>
>Right, including the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
Except you cannot verify that in any Biblical manner at all! No
"holey mas" exists in the Bible, and neither do any 7 "sacraments."
You have to pretend that a few verses "kinda look like" those things
when they don't.
>
>> The Apostles (all of them, not just peter,
>>Paul, and Silas) led others to Jesus and taught them, and those led
>>others to Jesus and taught them, and those led others to Jesus and
>>taught them, and those led others to Jesus and taught them, right down
>>to today as well.
>
>But of course, for an "apostle" knew Christ.
I know Christ too, AT LEAST AS WELL as your pope does! Or the popie
before him. Or the one before him.
>
>>The rcc came into being when constantine declared himself head of the
>>church. It did not exist before then at all, although the rcc tries
>>to "backdate" its line of popes to pretend it did.
>
>No, Christ started his church in 33AD. It was named in 325AD. Better luck next
>time doc.
Naah suzy, Jesus DID INDEED start His church in 33 AD, but it was
NEVER named the "roman catholic church."
>
>>It also had a pope named Joan. (but its adherents don't like to hear
>>about her).
>
>She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it. Better luck
>next time, doc.
Nice try suzie, but according to YOUR rcc CHURCH HISTORY, she was
pope. Look it up on the internet! LOL!
In Christ Jesus,
Checker (who really is NOT doc, but suzy duke doesn't know that. poor
pathetic suzy dock is too gullible. perhaps that is why he/she/it
can't bring him/her/itself to question her religion)
che...@flipper.net
Thank you. My wife and I visited our youngest son and his new wife
and our new grandkids in the next state over for Christmas. It was
the first 8 day vacation I have taken in about 30 years! WOW! I'm
gunna have to do that again!
I sure hope you had as good a Christmas as I did.
> As for pope Joan, yes indeed, she infuriated the Roman Catholic
>religionists when she gave birth during a 'mass' ... and the people
>stoned both her and the infant to death. Nice bunch- not.
>They also wiped out her name, picture and mention from the book
>containing piccies of popes, according to the television documentary,
>"Behind the Veil' which was aired in 1999.
I got to see part of it, but was called away for much of it. Perhaps
I will try to find it in some archive and take notes. . .
Have a great New Year! I get to watch one of my alma maters play in a
Bowlgame New Years day!
in Jesus,
Checker
che...@flipper.net
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 16:44:25 -0700, che...@flipper.net wrote:
>
>>>>> Yet we the RCC are the only Church to offer the characteristics established by
>>>>> Christ in the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>>>>Don't forget to tell this master hypocrite (and I believe demonic) that
>>>>if she(it) can post where she wants, so can you!
>>>doc is deathly afraid of the RCC.
>
>>Well suzy, you just proved yourself stupid again! You keep claiming
>>that _I_ am doc, and I have no fear of the rcc at all. I WAS ONE
>>ONCE, but I left it when I saw it for what it was, nothing more than a
>>puny cult.
>
>Well, doc, you come and you go. Very unstable.
>
>>>She's one of those supposed "Christians" that
>>>has spent all of her time in the Old Testament. Now she's learning that Christ
>>>brought us a new covenant, and the left turn her baptist church took 400 years
>>>ago was a rejection of all that Christ gave us, like the Mass and the 7
>>>sacraments.
>
>>Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>>have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>>constantine.
>
>Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
You still have no discernment, suzy duck. I'm not doc (I even went so
far as to swear that I am not doc in a couple of posts to you,
something I would NEVER do if it were not true), and yet you still
claim I am doc. You still cannot show us one single "mass" or any 7
"sacraments" in the whole Bible, but you are gullible enough to
believe that the few partial verses and out-of-context verses "look
sorta kind like the could/might/should be those things."
>
>Your church started in 1604 by some Smyth dude.
No, my congregation (that is what the word means suzy) was started
about 75 years ago by some local fellas who were sent here from
another city's congregation.
Your cult's belief that "church" means "religious organization" is
simply false. The word simply means "congregation" or "a gathering of
people called there for a purpose."
God never made a "succession" of Apostles (not ONE Apostle or TWELVE
Apostles either). That lie was first begun with constantine. If you
had the guts to look for yourself at anything other than your cult's
own rewritten "history" you would know that.
So what are you left with? Nothing but the ability to parrot your
cult's propaganda with no real study ever having been done by you
yourself to see if it is true. BLIND faith, not faith based upon
reality. I pity you and pray for you regularly.
>
>>>Her church only offers 2 symbolic-only "ordinances", baptism and the Lord's
>>>Table.
>
>>Not "ordinances." But the Bible only offers two, so why should we
>>become heretics like you and invent more?
>
>"Ordinances" is your **direct** quotation from before, doc.
>
Well suzy, since I am NOT doc, again you strike out!
LOL!
in the Name of Jesus Christ,
Checker
che...@flipper.net
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
>>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
>>> >constantine.
>
>>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
>
>>• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
>>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
>
>If you believe that, I suggest you read 1 Cor 11:17-34.
1 Cor 11:17-34
Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, since you come
together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For first of all,
when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions
among you, and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be
factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized
among you. 20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not
to eat the Lord's Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own
supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22
What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise
the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say
to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you:
that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took
bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take,
eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance
of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper,
saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often
as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death till He comes.
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and
drink of the cup. 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner
eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But
when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be
condemned with the world.
33 Therefore, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one
another. 34 But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you
come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I
come.
NKJV
Hmm. This describes EXACTLY what we Baptists do, suzyduck! Of course
we know we are not drinking actual rea and white corpustles, and we
know we are not eating meat and bones (UNLIKE you cultists who pretend
otherwise), but what the scripture says. . .we do EXACTLY!
But it is NOT "mass." Your "mass" (I prefer the German, "messe") does
NOT fit what happened that day. No funny clothing that was different
from those folks around Him. No gold cups or challises. No white
little ironed wafers that look like the centers of the loaf bought at
the store, but ironed out and stamped with a cross. No bowing,
kneeling, or any of that dung. They reclined at a table.
Sorry, but no 7 sacraments or mass there, suzy duke.
Keep trying. Maybe you'll notice!
in Jesus Christ,
Checker
NOs...@nospam.spam
I did, thank you. Had my brother & nephew over for dinner- another
good friend came as well :o)
>
>> As for pope Joan, yes indeed, she infuriated the Roman Catholic
>>religionists when she gave birth during a 'mass' ... and the people
>>stoned both her and the infant to death. Nice bunch- not.
>>They also wiped out her name, picture and mention from the book
>>containing piccies of popes, according to the television documentary,
>>"Behind the Veil' which was aired in 1999.
>
>I got to see part of it, but was called away for much of it. Perhaps
>I will try to find it in some archive and take notes. . .
>
>Have a great New Year! I get to watch one of my alma maters play in a
>Bowlgame New Years day!
>
>in Jesus,
>Checker
Thank U so much, Checker, and I also wish U and yours a great 2007 .
May God bless
NOs...@nospam.spam
>
>Well suzy, since I am NOT doc, again you strike out!
>
>LOL!
>
>in the Name of Jesus Christ,
>Checker
hehehhe!!!!!!!!!!! I knew he'd make that silly accusation again!! :o)
NOs...@nospam.spam
It never fails 2 make me laugh at how Earl Weber will blandly insist
that 'transubstantiation' actually occurs. But then again, he also
believes in the use of 'indulgences' too, and in praying to Mary &
other dead people.
Where our Lord strictly forbids praying to dead people, unfortunately,
the religion of Rome imagines it can do whatever it likes and get off
scot-free.
As the Bible so aptly states, "Come ouot of her, my children"----- if
they would only listen.
•R L Measures
• good luck.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
> >> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
> >> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
> >> >constantine.
>
> >> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
>
> >• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
> >century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
>
> If you believe that, I suggest you read 1 Cor 11:17-34.
>
• Jesus said this?
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:34:57 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
> >> No, Christ started his church in 33AD. It was named in 325AD. Better
> >luck next time doc.
>
> >> >It also had a pope named Joan. (but its adherents don't like to hear
> >> >about her).
>
> >> She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it.
Better luck
> >> next time, doc.
>
> >• Up until 1600 there were two Pope John VIIIs in the organization's
> >official records.
>
> But only one Pope.
>
• ___
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
• She isn't. It was in the 9th Century,
SongBookz
<skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote:
>
>"SongBookz" <no...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
>news:4ngdp2pu2h85pts1m...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:57:32 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (.R L Measures) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
>> >>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began
>with
>> >>> >constantine.
>> >
>> >>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
>> >
>> >>. Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
>> >>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
>> >
>> >If you believe that, I suggest you read
>>
>> Hislop's "The Two Babylons"
>
>Long discredited. Not taken seriously by any Protestant academic. A few
>fundamentalists who love anything anti-Catholic, irrespective of whether it
>is true or not.
>
The problem Protestants have is that, since they are daughters of the
Catholic harlot - they have many of the same traditions.
Terrell
Stephen Korsman
That they do, because they share common origins - Christ and the Apostles,
and both believe the Bible is God's word.
Baptism, bread+wine, the Trinity, a dying saviour, God incarnate - they all
can be twisted to make it seem as if Christianity's origins are pagan.
"Another common fault encountered in many discussions of the mystery
religions is the use of careless language. One frequently encounters
scholars who first use Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and
practice, and then marvel at the awesome parallels they think they have
discovered. One can go a long way towards "proving" early Christian
syncretism by describing some mystery belief or practice in Christian
terminology." (Nash, Ronald H., Christianity & the Hellenistic World, Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984, 126.)
old man joe
wrote:
>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>this findings are.
>
>
all too true with more to say on the subject. but the Islamic have
their own false religion of which you quote...
here's my recent post concerning Catholicism but its so hugh a
subject as to take up a whole book...
******************************
it is so well described in Adam Clark's Commentary on 2 Thes.
Chapter 2, as well as other commentaries, that the " man of sin " ...
" man of lawlessness " could be no other than the someone out of the
popehood yet to come, that hardly any other individual could be a
possibility.
the commentary is too large to post and would raise little interest,
even for casual reading, since the Apostasy has already begun
centuries ago. the interested reader is already aware of these
things.
just a few highlights here will be noted :
in papist writings posted on the Web it is in view of the public,
and not made a secret, that they very first apparition of the Virgin
Mary took place even while she was yet alive.
this apparition could be none other than that of Satan himself
disguising himself as an angel of light for his time tested purpose of
deception.
through the centuries his many appearances as Mary brought to the
great Apostasy the Rosary, the forgiveness of sins through her
intercession, even to the point of her being called " Co-Redeemer ",
" Queen of Heaven ," " Mother of God ."
in the popehood, as with no other in all of Christendom, is there
someone who has exalted himself above God so as to make superficial
and subordinate, the Holy Scripture to their own word.
in the popehood, as with no other in all of Christendom, is there a
system of dogma so perverse as to sell forgiveness of sin, even future
sins, for money.
in the popehood, as with no other in all of Christendom, is decree
given to worship idols or dead people or Mary, with the hope of
attaining worldly favors or protection; the release of loved ones and
unknowns from limbo and purgatory... an open declaration that Christ
can not forgive sin.
only in the popehood have ancient governments and church been untied
into one sovereign entity governing every aspect of civil and church
life from kings down to peasants... with expulsion and forfeiture of
property and death decreed to any and all who oppose, in those former
times.
the cryptic passages which state " And you know what restrains
him now... " and " only he who now restrains will do so until he is
taken out of the way. " ( 2 Thes. 2 :6a, 7b ) of Paul's time could
mean the government of Rome, which, ruled it's empire by the hand of
paganism...
once this power was removed by the conversion of Constantine, the
door was gradually opened for papal takeover of civil government and
changing it's rule to papal government in the world already conquered
by pagan Rome.
******************************************************
the " number of his name " being 666, being derived as meaning
" The Latin Kingdom " by the methodology of assigning the
corresponding number to each letter of the Greek alphabet, as the
ancients have commonly done so in those times, can not refer to any
other in all of Christendom than the Church of Rome... everything
important is done there in Latin.
all that remains is for a Charismatic miracle performing pope to
arise who speaks publicly in tongues, or better still... to be an
interpreter of tongues, so as to draw in all the rest who whole
heartedly devote themselves to signs and wonder gospels, as well as
will worshipers who have long since developed a gospel of works as the
means to salvation.
today, we keep hearing of these various faiths coming together as
one, all in the name of ' unity ', overlooking the barriers which once
kept them apart, as fruit ripening for the picking by Antichrist.
duke
No, try 1Cor11:17-34. I also suggest the writings of the early church fathers.
The new Christians gathered to read scripture, to discuss, to consecrated the
Holy Eucharist and to be dismissed (missa, mass, Mass) to love and serve the
Lord.
duke
>>If you believe that, I suggest you read 1 Cor 11:17-34.
>Hmm. This describes EXACTLY what we Baptists do, suzyduck!
Well, great. I'm happy to see that you finally accept that the Eucharist has
truly become the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus.
> Of course
>we know we are not drinking actual rea and white corpustles, and we
>know we are not eating meat and bones (UNLIKE you cultists who pretend
>otherwise), but what the scripture says. . .we do EXACTLY!
No you go an blow it. If you deny that the substance of bread and wine become
the substance of the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus as he clearly stated, then
you are rejecting his words.
>But it is NOT "mass." Your "mass" (I prefer the German, "messe") does
>NOT fit what happened that day.
You clearly show that you don't even understand what the Mass is, doc.
> No funny clothing that was different from those folks around Him.
That's not the Mass. I told you that you didn't know what the Mass is.
> No gold cups or challises.
I'm sure you use paper cups.
> No white
>little ironed wafers that look like the centers of the loaf bought at
>the store, but ironed out and stamped with a cross. No bowing,
>kneeling, or any of that dung. They reclined at a table.
Unleavened wheat only, doc. Just like Christ had. Do you do the same?
>Sorry, but no 7 sacraments or mass there, suzy duke.
A new one. A protest_ant denying that one can find favor with God.
>Keep trying. Maybe you'll notice!
I notice that you turned from the Church that Christ founded to follow a life of
rejection of God's love and instructions.
duke
>It never fails 2 make me laugh at how Earl Weber will blandly insist
>that 'transubstantiation' actually occurs.
It's directly from the lips of the Lord Jesus, doc.
Do you also deny God come in the flesh?
duke
Yes, but he may not have said the part about admonishing those that ate to fill
their bellies rather than their souls.
duke
>You still have no discernment, suzy duck. I'm not doc (I even went so
>far as to swear that I am not doc in a couple of posts to you,
>something I would NEVER do if it were not true), and yet you still
>claim I am doc.
Hey doc, you gave yourself away by the way "checker" worded some things.
I don't care who you are, but you are who you are.
> You still cannot show us one single "mass" or any 7
>"sacraments" in the whole Bible, but you are gullible enough to
>believe that the few partial verses and out-of-context verses "look
>sorta kind like the could/might/should be those things."
I've done that over and over for you, doc. This "out of context" statement that
you know better what Christ said and meant than he does is going to buy you a
ticket to eternal torment.
MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1Cor 11.
SACRAMENTS:
Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19
Holy Eucharist - Mat 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Cor 11.
Confession - John 20:22-23, Mat 9:2-8
Matrimony - Ephesians 5:31
Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13, Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6,
Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14
PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-20, Acts 15:7
>>Your church started in 1604 by some Smyth dude.
>No, my congregation (that is what the word means suzy) was started
>about 75 years ago by some local fellas who were sent here from
>another city's congregation.
Oh, not even Baptist?
>God never made a "succession" of Apostles (not ONE Apostle or TWELVE
>Apostles either). That lie was first begun with constantine. If you
>had the guts to look for yourself at anything other than your cult's
>own rewritten "history" you would know that.
No thanks, doc. I'll go with Christ on that one.
>So what are you left with?
A blithering idiot trying to tell others that his 75 year old structure knows
better than Christ.
>Well suzy, since I am NOT doc, again you strike out!
Hey, doc, for all I know, you might even tune pianos.
duke
>>Well suzy, since I am NOT doc, again you strike out!
>hehehhe!!!!!!!!!!! I knew he'd make that silly accusation again!! :o)
You revealed, I accused.
duke
>> http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html
>> According to legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people
>of Rome
>> tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning her, until
>> she died.
>> It is not known whether the story of Pope Joan is true. The first known
>> reference to her occurs in the thirteenth century, 350 years after her
>supposed
>> reign.
>> Modern scholars have been unable to resolve the historicity of Pope Joan.
>> Where is she in the 13th century?
>• She isn't. It was in the 9th Century,
ok, the 9th century.
St. Leo III (795-816)
Stephen V (816-17)
St. Paschal I (817-24)
Eugene II (824-27)
Valentine (827)
Gregory IV (827-44)
Sergius II (844-47)
St. Leo IV (847-55)
Benedict III (855-58)
St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
Adrian II (867-72)
John VIII (872-82)
Marinus I (882-84)
St. Adrian III (884-85)
Stephen VI (885-91)
Formosus (891-96)
Boniface VI (896)
Stephen VII (896-97)
Romanus (897)
Theodore II (897)
John IX (898-900)
duke
>>Right, including the Holy Mass, the 7 sacraments, and the Papacy.
>Except you cannot verify that in any Biblical manner at all! No
>"holey mas" exists in the Bible, and neither do any 7 "sacraments."
>You have to pretend that a few verses "kinda look like" those things
>when they don't.
doc, doc, doc. Use some intelligence for a change and believe in the Lord
Jesus.
>>But of course, for an "apostle" knew Christ.
>I know Christ too, AT LEAST AS WELL as your pope does! Or the popie
>before him. Or the one before him.
But not as the apostles knew him, in person. I'll leave it to the Lord Jesus as
to how well he thinks you "know" him. Even I can see how much you deny of him.
>>No, Christ started his church in 33AD. It was named in 325AD. Better luck next
>>time doc.
>Naah suzy, Jesus DID INDEED start His church in 33 AD, but it was
>NEVER named the "roman catholic church."
That's just what I said, stupid.
>>She wasn't pope. There can only be one Pope, and she wasn't it. Better luck
>>next time, doc.
>Nice try suzie, but according to YOUR rcc CHURCH HISTORY, she was
>pope. Look it up on the internet! LOL!
Ok, here it is.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:50:20 -0600, SongBookz <no...@nothanks.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:57:32 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >>>> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
> >>>> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
> >>>> >constantine.
> >>
> >>>> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
> >>
> >>>• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
> >>>century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
> >>
> >>If you believe that, I suggest you read
> >
> >Hislop's "The Two Babylons"
>
> No, try 1Cor11:17-34. I also suggest the writings of the early church
fathers.
> The new Christians gathered to read scripture, to discuss, to consecrated the
> Holy Eucharist ...
• It was more like they voted on it in 325.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:54:15 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <fh6dp21p1m5qmgjrt...@4ax.com>, duke
> ><duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 06:01:59 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Sorry, but I didn't know she was a Baptist too. And we CHRISTIANS
> >> >> >have been around 325 years longer than you rcc cultists who began with
> >> >> >constantine.
> >>
> >> >> Christ himself gave us the Holy Mass and the 7 sacraments, doc.
> >>
> >> >• Jesus was executed in the 1st Century. The Mass began in the 4th
> >> >century. The Blessed Seven Sacraments came to be in the 15th century,
> >>
> >> If you believe that, I suggest you read 1 Cor 11:17-34.
> >>
> >• Jesus said this?
>
> Yes, but he may not have said the part about admonishing those that ate
to fill
> their bellies rather than their souls.
• I was under the impression that Saul-Paul wrote this letter to some
friends in Corinth.
•R L Measures
<duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:57:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R L Measures) wrote:
>
> >> http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/popeJoan.html
> >> According to legend, upon discovering the Pope's true gender, the people
> >of Rome
> >> tied her feet together and dragged her behind a horse while stoning
her, until
> >> she died.
> >> It is not known whether the story of Pope Joan is true. The first known
> >> reference to her occurs in the thirteenth century, 350 years after her
> >supposed
> >> reign.
> >> Modern scholars have been unable to resolve the historicity of Pope Joan.
>
> >> Where is she in the 13th century?
> >• She isn't. It was in the 9th Century,
>
> ok, the 9th century.
>
> St. Leo III (795-816)
> Stephen V (816-17)
> St. Paschal I (817-24)
> Eugene II (824-27)
> Valentine (827)
> Gregory IV (827-44)
> Sergius II (844-47)
> St. Leo IV (847-55)
• According to the Canadian nuns that assisted the National Film Board
of Canada in researching the Studio D mini-series "Behind The Veil,
Nuns", Pope Leo IV originally died c. 853, however, in 1600 Pope Sixtus V
extended Leo IV's reign until 855 in order to fill the two year gap left
by the excision of the pages about the first Pope John VIII.
end
jane abraham
old man joe wrote:
> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, "jane abraham" <arah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
> >Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
> >teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
> >this findings are.
> >
> >
> all too true with more to say on the subject. but the Islamic have
> their own false religion of which you quote...
Dear Oldman joe
KIndly, please explain what you mean by "but the Islamic have
their own false religion"
che...@flipper.net
wrote:
>
>"Azaliah" <_giantw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:es18p2hi504lk00ac...@4ax.com...
>> On 28 Dec 2006 07:00:13 -0800, while bungee jumping, "jane
>> abraham" <arah...@gmail.com> shouted thusly:
>>
>>
>>>I come across an article which claimed that the Holy Roman Catholic
>>>Church was not founded by Jesus and the teachings are against the
>>>teachings of Jesus. Can someone please comment how true and realible
>>>this findings are.
>>
>> Of course it was not founded by Christ. It didn't even exist
>> back then. And FYI, the RCC is not the only denomination
>> that claims to be the original church.
>
>
>The Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church was founded by Christ, but they did
>not call themselves Roman Catholics at the time. They were known as the
>Universal ( Catholic) Church teaching standard Christianity at a time when
>all kinds of false doctrines flourished as they do today. They call
>themselves Roman Catholics as, since the time of Peter, every Vicar of
>Christ was also Bidhop of Rome.
>
Except it was not roman and it was not catholic and it did not
resemble the mostrosity that the rcc has become today. Rome was never
the "head" over Christ's church, Peter was not a pope, and their
religious organization didn't exist until Constantine named himself
the head of the church and the rcc rewriting of history before that
began.
If you would do some honest homework yourself instead of relying on
their propaganda, you would know that.
in Christ Jesus,
Checker