User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 97

Thread: NICENE CREED

  1. #76
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    6,295
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 625 Times in 554 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    142540
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings jsanford,I believe that the advent of Constantine on the scene enabled the establishment of the Apostate Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and this Church has sometimes persecuted the faithful whenever and wherever they were able to wield their power.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    I'd say the apostasy was already established. Becoming the official religion of Rome was the manifestation that confirmed it.
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  2. #77
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    775
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 175 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    31333
    Quote Originally Posted by TrevorL View Post
    Greetings jsanford,I believe that the advent of Constantine on the scene enabled the establishment of the Apostate Church as the official religion of the Roman Empire and this Church has sometimes persecuted the faithful whenever and wherever they were able to wield their power.

    Kind regards
    Trevor
    While Constantine legalized Christianity, it wasn't until several decades later that it became the official religion of the empire.

    I would say that when it became official, corrupt politicians used this to their advantage, claiming a "God-given" authority. It was at this time that the offices within the Church became positions of power and control. This is when corruption entered.

    However, with the fall of the Roman Empire, and subsequently, the loss of power with such positions (pope, bishop, Cardinal, etc), positions within the church reverted back to their original natures. Granted, there were still those who used their church positions for corruption/sin/pride (which can still exist today in extremely small numbers). However, persecutions of non-Catholics, by the Catholic Church has been extinct for some time. Rather, the inverse is most evident.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  3. #78
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 34 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    So sly with the "Roman Church of Emperor Constantine." You surely know this is historically false and inaccurate, right?

    I do not know how you have derived "he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews." What do you mean by this?

    If you mean, do I believe, as demonstrated historically, that Peter was the first pope (post Resurrection), then yes. If you mean that the church rose up sometime before the Crucifixion, then no.
    Peter was never in Rome my friend, and the Roman so-called Christian church, did not exist until after the Jews had rejected the Lord, who had filled the man Jesus with his spirit.

    So let me ask you again; " Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"

  4. #79
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 60 Times in 41 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    6788
    The following is a few extracts from a book “History of the Dogma of the Deity of Christ” by A Reville, a French Professor of the History of Religion, written in 1904 and translated into English in 1905. I thought this might be of interest showing the development from a belief that Jesus was a man, the Son of God to the belief that Jesus was God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. These extracts also show some of the principal influences that enabled and caused this development. There are other more modern resources on this subject, but the following brief survey of some of the trends may be sufficient to give some insight to the gradual development of the wrong doctrines that ended up in the Nicene Creed:
    Page 4: The maxim of Vincent de Leyrins, more boastful than true, ‘the Church, when it employs new terms, never says anything new’, influenced the entire history of Christianity; philosophers and submissive believers were equally satisfied with it.

    After a brief summary of the doctrine of the Trinity he says:
    Page 9: Such is the doctrine which, having been slowly elaborated, arrived at supremacy in the Christian Church towards the end of the fifth century, and which, after continuing undisputed, excepting in connection with some obscure heresies, for eleven centuries, has been gradually from the sixteenth century losing its prestige, although it is still the professed belief of the majority of Christians.

    Page 10: the religious sentiment is not in the least alarmed at contradictions; on the contrary, there are times when it might be said that it seeks and delights in them. They seem to strengthen the impression of mystery, an attitude which belongs to every object of adoration.

    Speaking of the developments in the second century:
    Page 54: the celestial being increasingly supplanted the human being, except among the Jewish-Christians of the primitive type. These firmly maintained the opinion that Jesus was a man, fully inspired by God and they admitted his miraculous conception.

    Page 59: The Platonists began to furnish brilliant recruits to the churches of Asia and Greece, and introduced among them their love of system and their idealism. To state the facts in a few words, Hellenism insensibly supplanted Judaism as the form of Christian thought, and to this is mainly owing the orthodox dogma of the deity of Jesus Christ.

    Page 60: Hence the rapidity with which a philosophical doctrine of much earlier origin than Christianity, and at first foreign to the Church, was brought into it, and adapted itself so completely to the prevailing Christology as to become identical therewith, and to pass for the belief which had been professed by the disciples from the beginning.

    Page 96: There were some Jewish-Christians who admitted without difficulty the miraculous birth of Jesus, but would not hear of his pre-existence.

    Page 105: It is curious to read the incredible subtleties by which Athanasius and the orthodox theologians strove to remove the stumbling-block from the history of a dogma which they desired to represent as having been invariable and complete since the earliest days.

    Page 108-109: the minds of men either inclined to lay great stress upon the subordination of the Son, in order to keep as close as possible to the facts of Gospel history, or they dwelt strongly upon his divinity, in order to satisfy an ardent piety, which felt as if it could not exalt Christ too highly. From this sprang two doctrines, that of Arius and of Athanasius. In reality, though under other forms, it was a renewal of the struggle between rationalism and mysticism.

    Page 115: In reality, Arius, whose character and doctrine have been unjustly vilified by orthodox historians, was stating the ecclesiastical doctrine that had been in common acceptance.

    Speaking of the Nicene Creed:
    Page 121: the majority of the council would have preferred a middle course, maintaining the traditional idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father, while ascribing to the Son as much divine attributes as they could without openly passing this limit.
    Page 124: Arianism, which had been overcome by the imperial will more than by the free judgement of the bishops, retained its power in the churches.
    Page 126: People did not believe at that period in the infallibility of councils. The West alone remained firm in adhesion to the faith of Nicea.

    Page 136: The Arian party, representing as it did the opposition to ecclesiastical authority and dogmatising mysticism, was the party generally preferred by the freer minds. It was consequently the least united. For the same reason was it the most opposed to the ascetic, monkish, and superstitious customs which more and more pervaded the church.
    Kind regards
    Trevor

  5. #80
    Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 39 Times in 31 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    7694
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!

    Today, on the way to Church I was talking to my son about the different Christian Churches or denominations. I asserted that they all accepted the Nicene creed as true. Was I correct? Do any of you belong to a recognized denomination that does not affirm the Nicene creed?

    For point of reference I am a Catholic of the Maronite Rite.
    God exists or He doesn't. This is the first assumption which has to be made before such a discussion. All left are human speculations basing on one of this assumptions.

    By the assumption that God doesn't exist, all kinds of human speculations become meaningless. What's the point of discussing Nicene Creed by the assumption that God doesn't exist?

    By the assumption that God exists. Then it's reasonable to assume that He drives. Or else it's pointless to assume His existence, as the existence of a god who doesn't drive basically has nothing to do with humans.

    So under the assumption that God exists and He drives behind the message of salvation, it can be speculated that the contents of our Bible don't change along with time. The OT remains the same OT all the times and the NT remains the same NT all the times, theologically speaking (i.e., after their canonization). This lies a difference between Christianity and any other religions. It follows the speculation that it is so because it is driven by God to convey the same salvation message yesterday, today and tomorrow.

    This is cannot be done without the early Catholic Church with its effort in canonizing the Bible. Canonization has the effect of preventing adding or subtracting contents from the Bible. In order for a Canon to be authenticated, God has to assign a human authority to do the canonization. The Jews is the authority for the canonization of the OT Bible, because it's their witnessing and it's their history. However this authority (the Jews) no longer qualify when the New Covenant came. God thus re-assign this human authority from the hands of the Jews to the hands of the Catholics. As a result, the Catholics are the legitimate authority for the canonization of the NT Bible (but not the OT Bible).

    At the point when the Catholics went corrupted (as the previous Jews did), this authority thus was shifted from the hands of the Catholics to the hands of the Protestants. As a result, today only the Protestants are keeping a set of correct NT and OT Canon. That is, the Jews have only the legitimate OT Canon, the Catholics have only the NT Canon. While only the Protestants have both the legitimate OT and NT Canons.

    The problem now is that we can easily identify what the Jews are and what a Catholic church is. However, how can humans identify a legitimate Protestant church? As driven by God, a basic guideline is the Apostle's Creed. It tells whether an earthly church can have the power to save. So Apostle's Creed basically means "this church still has the power to save".

    One can thus join a church complying to Apostle's Creed to be saved. However it by no means says that his salvation is best secured. It remains an individual Christian's own responsibility to seek for a church with long reputation and no controversy to join in order to best secure his own salvation. For example, a church reckoning His Trinity can be more secure than a church which does not, though both may uphold the Apostle's Creed.

    Without such a Creed we are lost about which Protestant church can be regarded as the Apostle's Church (which still has the power to save).

  6. #81
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    775
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 175 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    31333
    Quote Originally Posted by S-word View Post
    Peter was never in Rome my friend, and the Roman so-called Christian church, did not exist until after the Jews had rejected the Lord, who had filled the man Jesus with his spirit.

    So let me ask you again; " Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"
    What evidence do you have Peter was never in Rome? If it is "the Bible never says he was," then a logical dissolution of that point is "it never says he wasn't."


    Tertullian, ( as written in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics"; A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." Biblical scholars all agree (even Protestants and Fundamentalists) Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s A.D.

    So allow me to prove again, it is not the Church of Constantine. It is the Church of Christ, founded upon Peter the Apostle.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  7. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 34 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    What evidence do you have Peter was never in Rome? If it is "the Bible never says he was," then a logical dissolution of that point is "it never says he wasn't."


    Tertullian, ( as written in "The Demurrer Against the Heretics"; A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s (referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded)." Biblical scholars all agree (even Protestants and Fundamentalists) Paul died in Rome, so the implication from Tertullian is that Peter also must have been there. It was commonly accepted, from the very first, that both Peter and Paul were martyred at Rome, probably in the Neronian persecution in the 60s A.D.

    So allow me to prove again, it is not the Church of Constantine. It is the Church of Christ, founded upon Peter the Apostle.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL
    The best evidence is that the Apostle Peter died in the Babylonian territory where also his first letter and likely his second were written from. 1 Peter 5:13 "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son." Available evidence clearly shows that "Babylon" refers to the city on the Euphrates and not to Rome, as some have claimed.

    Having been entrusted with "the good news for those who are circumcised," Peter could be expected to serve in a centre of Judaism, such as Babylon. Galatians 2:8-9 "(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision."

    There was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971, Vol. 15, col. 755), when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers to Judaism's "great academies of Babylon" during the Common Era. Since Peter wrote to "the temporary residents scattered about in [literal] Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (1Peter 1:1)

    The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul's preaching in both the East and the West a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the West. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name.

    When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter's name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul's letters written from Rome, "Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2"Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

    Someone sent the following to me some years ago; WHO? I can't remember, but I found it interesting enough to store in 'My Documents.'

    From "The Chief Gods of Rome:”

    "There were two gods of ancient Rome which were pre-eminently worshipped as PETER-gods. One was JU-PETER (Zeus-Peter). The other, says the Classical Manual, was JANUS, called PATER or PETER (see page 389). Sometimes these two gods are confused. But they are to be reckoned as distinct -- relative to Roman paganism of the First Century. The latter god, JANUS-PETER, had some interesting roles to play in the pagan religion at Rome. These roles answer the question: Who was the original Peter of Rome? Notice a brief history and some of the activities of this god.

    Plutarch in his life of Numa, gives us the identity of JANUS. Originally, according to Plutarch, Janus was an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of the world. He brought men from a rude and savage life to a mild and rational system. HE was the first to build cities and the first to establish government over men. After his death he was deified. There can be no mistaking who this JANUS was! This title was just another of the many names of Nimrod. This ancient prince who was violently killed, was later deified by the pagan religions. Because of his high authority, he was called a PATOR or PETER.

    Here are some of the religious activities of which JANUS-PETER was in charge.

    It was JANUS-PETER who was pre-eminent in interpreting the times -- especially prophecy. "The past and the future was always present in his mind" (Classical Manual, pages 388 and 389). He was pictured as being double-faced. Plutarch said this was a symbol of his endeavor to change men from barbarism to civilization -- that is, bring them to the civilization of NIMROD. One of JANUS' roles, after his deification as a god, was the continuation of his sacred task of "civilizing" men.

    Janus-Peter Had "Keys": The PETER-god JANUS was to the ancient Romans the "KEEPER OF THE GATES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." "HE IS REPRESENTED WITH A KEY IN ONE HAND . . . as emblematic of his presiding over GATES and highways." The pagan Romans were calling their JANUS a PETER hundreds of years before the birth of the Apostle Peter. It was this JANUS who was in charge of the "pearly gates"! The very word JANUS means "gates," that is, the one in charge of the GATES.

    The Classical Manual continues: "Ovid speaks of him [Janus] in the first book of his Fasti; his face is double to denote his equal empire over the heavens and the earth -- [does not the Pope claim the same power today?] -- and that all things are open and shut to him AT HIS WILL -- [he was infallible and answered to no one for his actions, so the Pope] -- that he governs the universe [Catholicum], and alone possesses the power of making the world revolve on its axis; THAT HE PRESIDES OVER THE GATES OF HEAVEN."

    Catholics Claim the "Keys":

    The Catholic Church claims Peter gave to it the keys of the gates of heaven and that no one will enter into God's presence unless that church opens the gates. The very word "Cardinal" means "hinge." The Cardinals of the Roman Church are the HINGES upon which the GATE -- the Pope -- is able to turn.

    The Classical Manual continues: "the successions of day and night are regulated by his influence; and that the east and the west is at one moment open to his view." It was JANUS-PETER who also controlled the calendar by his priests. The first month of the year was named after him to show his control over the years. So, today, we still have JANU-ary as the first month. The Catholic Church, like the priests of Janus, feels it has this same authority over the calendar today."

    Petra was a counterpart of Hades in Greek mythology. Petra held the Key to the Pearly Gates of Celestial Aphrodite who deposited semen in rocks as gemstones. The "Petras" stones were very much like the phallic Asherah stone pillars. And that is why "Peter" is a nickname for penis, for Pete's sake.

    Why do you avoid answering my question? " Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"

  8. #83
    Black Rifles Matter Nick M's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    16,729
    Thanks
    637
    Thanked 8,572 Times in 5,847 Posts

    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147787
    Somebody likely from the 12 proselytized Romans to Israel. Paul's letter shows this. Peter, Simon bar Jonah is buried at the mount of Olives, exactly where he should be.

  9. #84
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    775
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 175 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    31333
    Quote Originally Posted by S-word View Post
    The best evidence is that the Apostle Peter died in the Babylonian territory where also his first letter and likely his second were written from.

    The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul's preaching in both the East and the West a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the West. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name.

    When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter's name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul's letters written from Rome, "Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2"Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

    Someone sent the following to me some years ago; WHO? I can't remember, but I found it interesting enough to store in 'My Documents.'

    Petra was a counterpart of Hades in Greek mythology. Petra held the Key to the Pearly Gates of Celestial Aphrodite who deposited semen in rocks as gemstones. The "Petras" stones were very much like the phallic Asherah stone pillars. And that is why "Peter" is a nickname for penis, for Pete's sake.

    Why do you avoid answering my question? " Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"
    First, I will answer your question (again). Yes. I do hold to all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. (It is not "the Church of Constantine;" I can demonstrate this with historical evidence if need be)

    Second, I like that you have at least educated yourself on theories put forth regarding "Babylon" as a code for Rome. I agree that it is most likely not a code word. I do find it interesting how many anti-Catholics dismiss the quotes of Peter saying "Babylon is not a code word," but then say that Babylon is a code for Rome in Revelation. (That is contradictory and hypocritical)

    Third, Peter is said to have been martyred in Rome, as demonstrated by Tertullian, Dionysius, etc. Why would these early writers, who are within a single generation of Peter just make such a thing up? Would not those around correct them? This goes against logic and history.

    Fourth, the reason you claim Peter did not die in Rome goes back to "it isn't in the Bible." Which is just as baseless as the argument of "well doesn't say he didn't."

    Fifth, how do you defend the letters that speak of Peter "who went before me to Rome," by various early Christians (such as Polycarp), and found in some Epistles?

    Sixth, (I am almost done) the whole connection between mythology and Peter is quite flimsy, at best. The arguments are set up (I hate the term, bust Straw man does apply) solely to make their own inferences make sense. The whole Petra and Aphrodite (who was a goddess, not a location) info is just so haphazardly connected and set up as illusory that it falters under the slightest scrutinies. Plus, the idea that "Peter" was applied in reference to a Roman figure/deity: come on. This is completely ignoring Aramic, Greek, and Latin languages and the ancient Scripture texts. Thus, losing all scholarly, academic, and historical credibility.

    Finally, this theory provided, as the many others out there, trying to show Peter was never in Rome are all kind of pointless. Really, what did it matter? It is all a smoke and mirrors attempt to paint The RCC as a fake authority. But really, it doesn't event succeed in that due to gaps of logic and reason. Peter never had to be in Rome to be Pope. This is a misapplication that many Protestants utilize as a means of saying "see, the RCC is illegitimate." I could go on on that subject all day, but I have exhausted the subject enough now.

    If you don't mind, would you send me the document via PM? Or at least the source material from which you have quoted? I know you said you didn't recall who sent it (surely no one is so ridiculous as to care about such a trivial detail), but I would like the source (I couldn't find anything on "Chief Gods of Rome," or "Classical Manual"). I just enjoy growing in knowledge of all things, even those opposed to my faith or those who I obviously disagree with. It keeps one educated.

    Thank you though for this post.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  10. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 34 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    First, I will answer your question (again). Yes. I do hold to all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. (It is not "the Church of Constantine;" I can demonstrate this with historical evidence if need be)

    Second, I like that you have at least educated yourself on theories put forth regarding "Babylon" as a code for Rome. I agree that it is most likely not a code word. I do find it interesting how many anti-Catholics dismiss the quotes of Peter saying "Babylon is not a code word," but then say that Babylon is a code for Rome in Revelation. (That is contradictory and hypocritical)

    Third, Peter is said to have been martyred in Rome, as demonstrated by Tertullian, Dionysius, etc. Why would these early writers, who are within a single generation of Peter just make such a thing up? Would not those around correct them? This goes against logic and history.

    Fourth, the reason you claim Peter did not die in Rome goes back to "it isn't in the Bible." Which is just as baseless as the argument of "well doesn't say he didn't."

    Fifth, how do you defend the letters that speak of Peter "who went before me to Rome," by various early Christians (such as Polycarp), and found in some Epistles?

    Sixth, (I am almost done) the whole connection between mythology and Peter is quite flimsy, at best. The arguments are set up (I hate the term, bust Straw man does apply) solely to make their own inferences make sense. The whole Petra and Aphrodite (who was a goddess, not a location) info is just so haphazardly connected and set up as illusory that it falters under the slightest scrutinies. Plus, the idea that "Peter" was applied in reference to a Roman figure/deity: come on. This is completely ignoring Aramic, Greek, and Latin languages and the ancient Scripture texts. Thus, losing all scholarly, academic, and historical credibility.

    Finally, this theory provided, as the many others out there, trying to show Peter was never in Rome are all kind of pointless. Really, what did it matter? It is all a smoke and mirrors attempt to paint The RCC as a fake authority. But really, it doesn't event succeed in that due to gaps of logic and reason. Peter never had to be in Rome to be Pope. This is a misapplication that many Protestants utilize as a means of saying "see, the RCC is illegitimate." I could go on on that subject all day, but I have exhausted the subject enough now.

    If you don't mind, would you send me the document via PM? Or at least the source material from which you have quoted? I know you said you didn't recall who sent it (surely no one is so ridiculous as to care about such a trivial detail), but I would like the source (I couldn't find anything on "Chief Gods of Rome," or "Classical Manual"). I just enjoy growing in knowledge of all things, even those opposed to my faith or those who I obviously disagree with. It keeps one educated.

    Thank you though for this post.


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL
    Why do you avoid answering my question, are you afraid to do so? That question being; "Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"

  11. #86
    Over 2000 post club Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,050
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 295 Times in 268 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    129552
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Nicene Creed:
    We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made, consubstantial
    of one Being with the Father.

    Through him all things were made.

    For us men and for our salvation
    he came down from heaven:
    and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
    he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
    and was made man.

    For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
    he suffered death and was buried.

    On the third day he rose again
    in accordance with the Scriptures;
    he ascended into heaven
    and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

    He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
    and his kingdom will have no end.

    We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
    who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

    With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

    He has spoken through the Prophets.

    We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

    We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

    We look for the resurrection of the dead,
    and the life of the world to come. Amen
    No all that is allegory and happens in man. The rulers of the roman corporation know that yet lie to the indoctrinated servants that it's secular history.

    Sent from my A462C using TheologyOnline mobile app
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

  12. #87
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    775
    Thanks
    487
    Thanked 175 Times in 149 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    31333
    Quote Originally Posted by S-word View Post
    Why do you avoid answering my question, are you afraid to do so? That question being; "Do you, as do so many other members of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that the head of the Roman church is the Shepherd of God's people, whom he raised up in the land after he had been rejected by the Jews?"
    You realize that you literally provided a quote of mine (#84), in your response (#85) where the first thing I did was answer? Or do you just keep getting discouraged by my constant disproving of your misapplied falsehoods to Catholicism?

    For the fourth time; I believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. It is not the Church of Constantine (by a continual stating of the RCC in such a manner, it demonstrates a gross lack of historical understanding and research; an ignorance or rejection of historical accuracy and evidence).


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL

  13. #88
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 34 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jsanford108 View Post
    You realize that you literally provided a quote of mine (#84), in your response (#85) where the first thing I did was answer? Or do you just keep getting discouraged by my constant disproving of your misapplied falsehoods to Catholicism?

    For the fourth time; I believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. It is not the Church of Constantine (by a continual stating of the RCC in such a manner, it demonstrates a gross lack of historical understanding and research; an ignorance or rejection of historical accuracy and evidence).


    Sent from my iPhone using TOL
    No! You have never once answered my question directly, "Do you believe that the pope who is the head of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that he is the shepherd of God's people who was raised up after he was rejected by the Jews."

    Nevertheless, you have agreed that you believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. And we all know that the Roman church teaches that the head of that church, claims to be the shepherd of God's people.

    Do you believe the words of the Lord as spoken through his prophets?

    If so, do you believe this prophecy given by the Lord through his prophet Zechariah 11: 12-17;

    "Zechariah 11:12-17English Standard Version (ESV)

    12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

    15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.

    17
    “Woe to my worthless shepherd,
    who deserts the flock!
    May the sword strike his arm
    and his right eye!
    Let his arm be wholly withered,
    his right eye utterly blinded!”


    The Catholic church, claims that their head is the new shepherd that God raised up to guide his people after the Jews had rejected him, is that worthless shepherd.

    Oh! You shepherd of the darkness who claim God sent you out
    And even though we know that's true that fact I wouldn't flout
    For God commanded Zechariah, "Throw my wages cross the floor
    Those thirty bits of silver, for I'll guide this flock no more.
    A useless shepherd now I'll raise to guide that stubborn flock
    And he will be a worthless one of him I'll take no stock
    For he'll not feed my little ones, nor search for them that's lost
    But he eats the meat of the fattest sheep, and their hoofs? He tears them off.
    That worthless shepherd he is doomed for abandoning my flock
    His power will I destroy by war, his arm will wither dry then drop
    And his right eye will I turn blind, that's why he's never seen
    The passage where I speak of him, Zechariah eleven: twelve to seventeen.

    The church of Rome claims that she is the bride of Christ, when the Lord tells us that it not Rome, but Jerusalem, who is the bride of Christ.

    From the catholic Study Edition of the bible: 1st letter of John 4:1-3; "My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit/teaching, (My words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus) but test them to find out if the spirit/teaching they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit/teaching, who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc."

    2nd letter of John verses 7-10;."Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ."

    If you would care to open your eyes, I'm sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being born of the seed of Adam, and descended through the genetic line of David, which lie has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

    Rome who denies that Jesus came as a human being is the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has been brought down by Christ, and yet she claims that she is no widow and will never see the grave.

    Come out of her my people, do not share in her sins
    You must not share her punishment, her judgement day has come.
    Her sins are piled to heaven and God recalls her evil ways
    She says "I am no widow and I'll never see the grave,"
    Because of that in just one day disease will strike her down
    Plagues and famine she'll receive, til finally she'll be burned.
    You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done
    Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it twice as strong
    For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
    Must be repaid this very day, with pain and misery.

    Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

    But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.
    " Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.

    Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, loved to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

    Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, (Which is not supported by scripture) who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, (Which is not supported by scripture) and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.(What utter unadulterated crap)

    Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

    Erroneous and highly suspect, you can say that again, but by then the great lie had become so entrenched in the minds of the gullible that their heads were so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to shatter that conglomerat and allow the light of truth to shine in.

  14. #89
    TOL Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Carmarthenshire
    Posts
    6,295
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 625 Times in 554 Posts

    Blog Entries
    6
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    142540
    Quote Originally Posted by S-word View Post
    No! You have never once answered my question directly, "Do you believe that the pope who is the head of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, believe that he is the shepherd of God's people who was raised up after he was rejected by the Jews."

    Nevertheless, you have agreed that you believe and hold true all that the Roman Catholic Church teaches and believes. And we all know that the Roman church teaches that the head of that church, claims to be the shepherd of God's people.

    Do you believe the words of the Lord as spoken through his prophets?

    If so, do you believe this prophecy given by the Lord through his prophet Zechariah 11: 12-17;

    "Zechariah 11:12-17English Standard Version (ESV)

    12 Then I said to them, “If it seems good to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them.” And they weighed out as my wages thirty pieces of silver. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the lordly price at which I was priced by them. So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord, to the potter. 14 Then I broke my second staff Union, annulling the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

    15 Then the Lord said to me, “Take once more the equipment of a foolish shepherd. 16 For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young or heal the maimed or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs.

    17
    “Woe to my worthless shepherd,
    who deserts the flock!
    May the sword strike his arm
    and his right eye!
    Let his arm be wholly withered,
    his right eye utterly blinded!”


    The Catholic church, claims that their head is the new shepherd that God raised up to guide his people after the Jews had rejected him, is that worthless shepherd.

    Oh! You shepherd of the darkness who claim God sent you out
    And even though we know that's true that fact I wouldn't flout
    For God commanded Zechariah, "Throw my wages cross the floor
    Those thirty bits of silver, for I'll guide this flock no more.
    A useless shepherd now I'll raise to guide that stubborn flock
    And he will be a worthless one of him I'll take no stock
    For he'll not feed my little ones, nor search for them that's lost
    But he eats the meat of the fattest sheep, and their hoofs? He tears them off.
    That worthless shepherd he is doomed for abandoning my flock
    His power will I destroy by war, his arm will wither dry then drop
    And his right eye will I turn blind, that's why he's never seen
    The passage where I speak of him, Zechariah eleven: twelve to seventeen.

    The church of Rome claims that she is the bride of Christ, when the Lord tells us that it not Rome, but Jerusalem, who is the bride of Christ.

    From the catholic Study Edition of the bible: 1st letter of John 4:1-3; "My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit/teaching, (My words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus) but test them to find out if the spirit/teaching they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit/teaching, who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc."

    2nd letter of John verses 7-10;."Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ."

    If you would care to open your eyes, I'm sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being born of the seed of Adam, and descended through the genetic line of David, which lie has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

    Rome who denies that Jesus came as a human being is the bride of the Anti-Christ, who has been brought down by Christ, and yet she claims that she is no widow and will never see the grave.

    Come out of her my people, do not share in her sins
    You must not share her punishment, her judgement day has come.
    Her sins are piled to heaven and God recalls her evil ways
    She says "I am no widow and I'll never see the grave,"
    Because of that in just one day disease will strike her down
    Plagues and famine she'll receive, til finally she'll be burned.
    You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done
    Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it twice as strong
    For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
    Must be repaid this very day, with pain and misery.

    Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

    But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.
    " Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.

    Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, loved to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.

    Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, (Which is not supported by scripture) who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, (Which is not supported by scripture) and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.(What utter unadulterated crap)

    Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

    Erroneous and highly suspect, you can say that again, but by then the great lie had become so entrenched in the minds of the gullible that their heads were so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to shatter that conglomerat and allow the light of truth to shine in.
    The Roman Catholic cult is an instrument of judgement. Those that hold not the love of the truth are deluded therein. What, on the surface, you see as a negative evil. I see as a cause to rejoice in saying, "just art thou and upright are Thy judgements".
    I know Him, correctly, as Messiah whom you call Christ. Yah Shua whom you call Jesus. Messianists who you call Christians.

    "Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm".

    I refuse, point blank, to speak peace to the unregenerate, hypocrites, religious dogma lovers and those that oppose the following statement:
    A regenerate man trusts in the evangelism of salvation conditioned on the atoning blood and imputed justness of Messiah alone.
    If you are fully persuaded, by experience, of this delightful, beautiful and life giving doctrine then I love you as a brother.

    Anyone who thinks that salvation is conditioned on anything a man thinks, does or says is atheist. I cannot and will not speak peace to him or her.

    I don't make statements online that I wouldn't repeat in front of my Maker, my grandmother or a judge.

  15. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    540
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 36 Times in 34 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Truster View Post
    The Roman Catholic cult is an instrument of judgement. Those that hold not the love of the truth are deluded therein. What, on the surface, you see as a negative evil. I see as a cause to rejoice in saying, "just art thou and upright are Thy judgements".
    How could I see the Roman church of Emperor Constantine as an negative evil, when I prove from the scriptures that God raised it up after he was paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of Silver.

    God raised the worthless shepherd for a purpose and that purpose was for Good and not for evil.

    But you, who have proven yourself ignorant to the Holy Scriptures and tried to Justify the untruths spoken by Stephen against the word of God, have not a clue as to why the Lord raised it up and is soon to destroy it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us