Why do the catholics preach a false gospel?

[Composer]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

[S-word]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

On the contrary, we have the writings and witness of those who have learned what was passed down to them from the Apostles:

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

Try reading what the early Church Fathers taught regarding the Holy Trinity.

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

You misunderstand what Newman has written. As Newman points out above and what any historian or student of Christianity would know, is that the Apostles preached and taught orally --- the Bible did not exist. The Church, not the Bible, is the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3: 15).

First of all, you must understand how the universal church of 325 AD, was founded and from what it was founded and upon what foundation it was built: because you are not referring here to the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, but rather, to the universal church of Constantine.
Not only did the apostles not teach the Jesus of the universal church, neither did they teach the false doctrine of the trinity, nor the so-called unbiblical immaculate conceptions, of Jesus and his mother Mary.

A belif system that says, the Holy Spirit was the Father of Mary, who then impregnated his daughter, who then bore to him, (While remaining a virgin forever) his son, who had pre-existed from all eternity and who was the co-creator of the cosmos, who was in fact his grandson, having been born of his daughter, who was taken to heaven before her body began to decompose, where she is now worshiped as the daughter of God, the wife of God, and the mother of God the creator of the cosmos.

Your belief was finally formulated by the universal church of King Constantine after having evolved over 300 years from those who had fallen away from the truth as taught by the apostles.

The universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever “World Council of Churches� where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’� The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.�

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, “I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit 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 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 that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, 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 had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs 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, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, 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, 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.

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--HIGHLY SUSPECT," matey, you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

At this very moment, I'm watching the big commotion in the church of the nativity in Bethlehem, near the supposed Milk Grotto, as was taught by Helena the mother of Constantine, what a heap of rubbish her teaching was, but then, I suppose most of what the universal church of Constantine is founded is just so much rubbish.

[ThatGirlAgain]

First of all, you must understand how the universal church of 325 AD, was founded and from what it was founded and upon what foundation it was built: because you are not referring here to the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, but rather, to the universal church of Constantine.

Sorry, Constantine did not found anything. There was already a network of 1800 bishops in the church. (Ref) Neither did he establish any particular graven in stone doctrine. Rather he flipflopped.

While Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons, he did not force the Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the Homoousian view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... onstantine

In fact, Constantine did not accomplish very that much at Nicaea in terms of doctrine, although some organizational foundations were laid.

The long-term effects of the Council of Nicea were significant. For the first time, representatives of many of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect.

In the short-term, however, the council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded by two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son, Constantius II and Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted St. Basil over the Nicene Creed. Pagan powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the Emperor (see Arbogast and Julian the Apostate). Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arianst bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicea was ended."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Coun ... he_Council

See When Jesus Became God for the detailed background and story of Nicaea and its aftermath.

If you want to know who really empowered the (already existing ) church, read AD 381. It was Theodosius I who made Christianity effectively the official religion of Rome, suppressing others, and lending consistent Imperial authority to the enforcement of orthodoxy.

BTW these books are NOT church friendly. They tell the real stories, not the sanitized versions.

But the urban legend of “King Constantine� dies hard.

Not only did the apostles not teach the Jesus of the universal church, neither did they teach the false doctrine of the trinity, nor the so-called unbiblical immaculate conceptions, of Jesus and his mother Mary.

A belif system that says, the Holy Spirit was the Father of Mary, who then impregnated his daughter, who then bore to him, (While remaining a virgin forever) his son, who had pre-existed from all eternity and who was the co-creator of the cosmos, who was in fact his grandson, having been born of his daughter, who was taken to heaven before her body began to decompose, where she is now worshiped as the daughter of God, the wife of God, and the mother of God the creator of the cosmos.

Your belief was finally formulated by the universal church of King Constantine after having evolved over 300 years from those who had fallen away from the truth as taught by the apostles.

First of all, it is clear that you do not understand the Immaculate Conception. Mary was not the daughter of God. It means that by a special grace of God she was exempted from original sin when she was conceived.

It’s important to understand what the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is and what it is not. Some people think the term refers to Christ’s conception in Mary’s womb without the intervention of a human father; but that is the Virgin Birth. Others think the Immaculate Conception means Mary was conceived "by the power of the Holy Spirit," in the way Jesus was, but that, too, is incorrect. The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immacula ... assumption

Mary was conceived in the ordinary human way but as exempted from original sin. As noted above, Luke 1:28 references this. We may note in passing that a number of Protestant theologians have constructed very elaborate theologies on no more scriptural authority than this. And as I noted several times near the beginning of this thread, the Catholic Church does not hold to sola scriptura, a 16th century Protestant notion. For Catholics, tradition and theological inquiry are also legitimate paths to truth.

The perpetual virginity of Mary is an old tradition dating to the 2nd century non-canonical Protoevangelium of James. (See vv 19-20).

Constantine did not invent any of these doctrines. They were already around at the time.

The universal church of King Constantine was formed from a rag-tag group of quarrelling and insult hurling religious bodies that called themselves Christians. King Constantine, finally sick to the stomach with their constant bickering, called together all the heads of those quarrelling bodies to the first ever “World Council of Churches� where, under the dominating presence of the non-christian and almost certainly theologically illiterate King Constantine, the universal church was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

Constantine was not sick of the bickering, having no real interest in theology and not being baptized until he was dying (if then). He was concerned that the frequent rioting and general civil unrest cold have serious consequences. One special hotbed of often violent bickering was Alexandria. Egypt was a major source of grain and of tax revenues for the Empire. Alexandria was Egypt’s main seaport. Problems there could be felt everywhere. Also similar conditions near the eastern border of the Empire were an open invitation to the newly resurgent Persians. Constantine did not care about church doctrine. He cared about the practical effects on his Empire. See the above referenced books for extensive details

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’� The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.�

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, “I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning spread throughout the world, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit 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 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 that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, 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 had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs 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, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, 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, 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.

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--HIGHLY SUSPECT," matey, you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

At this very moment, I'm watching the big commotion in the church of the nativity in Bethlehem, near the supposed Milk Grotto, as was taught by Helena the mother of Constantine, what a heap of rubbish her teaching was, but then, I suppose most of what the universal church of Constantine is founded is just so much rubbish.

It is not clear what false gospels that Paul was referring to might have been. What would become the canonical Gospels would not be written for several decades yet. He may have been referring to some proto-gnostic movement, the full blown realm of Christian Gnosticism not appearing until late in the 1st century. (See Pagels among others. )The term ‘anti-christ’ would also not be introduced until sometime after Paul, in the epistles of John. It means anyone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah. John notes that they (plural) are already around. This may be what Paul was talking about. In any case the canonical Gospels go to great lengths to make it clear that Jesus IS the Messiah, especially Matthew who first tells us of the virgin birth. Your analysis of the meaning of “anti-christ� does not work.

The perpetual virginity story comes, as I already noted, from the non-canonical Protoevangelium of James, which we have in its entirety (link above), not just the quotes from Clement.

The idea of a docetic/gnostic Jesus is an interesting one but the argument is misplaced here. It is too far from mainstream Christianity to be used as a criticism of Catholicism in particular. I suggest you start a debate topic on the subject in an appropriate forum.

Bottom line: I am an ex-Catholic who can and have leveled many criticisms against Catholicism. But I speak from a position of knowledge. I suggest that you study actual church history and beliefs before offering more criticisms that so seriously miss the mark.

[S-word]

Emperor Constantine killed his son “Crispus,� in 326 AD., eleven years before he became a Christian, and when he was informed that the accusation of his wife ‘Fausta,’ the step-mother and rejected lover of “Crispus,� by which accusation he had executed his son was false, she only escaped the wrath of her husband by committing suicide at Treviri.

Constantine only became a Christian, when, on his deathbed in the spring of 337 AD., He was Baptised by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]……Sorry, Constantine did not found anything. There was already a network of 1800 bishops in the church. (Ref) Neither did he establish any particular graven in stone doctrine. Rather he flipflopped.

Which of the churches that Constantine unified under his one universal church, had 1800 bishops that you are referring too? Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch?

But, I think Constantine and his mother Helena, had more to do the formation of the universal church than you give them credit for. Helena, and her ridiculous false teachings. By the way, did you see the commotion in the church of the Nativity, the other night? But I’ll get around to Helena’s ratbag religious unbiblical teaching of the Milk Grotto, which is one of the so-called truths of the church of Constantine at some later time.

From the book, “Jesus the Evidence� by Ian Wilson. P. 138 and 142.

All bracketed interpolations in BLUE are mine.

If christianity had an unorthodox champion in Constantine, he for his part had aquired an extraordinary assortment of subjects in those who called themselves christians in his time. There were bitter divisions between the traitors, who had betrayed their fellow christians, surrendered christian books, and offered pagan sacrifices during the recent Roman persecutions, and those who had suffered mutilation and hard labour rather than do so.

There were equally deep divisions between christians from Rome and those from Alexandria and those from Antioch. In Alexandria, Docrtism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being had theroretically been stamped out. Nonetheless there persisted the belief that Jesus must have been to much a god, THE GOD, to have the normal bodily needs of Man, 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 had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.)

Constantine, who had just won the eastern half of the Empire, thereby at last achieving his cherished goal of unity, suddenly found himself in the midst of this seething dispute between two rival groups of (So-called), Christians, with epithets such as “maniacs, eels, cuttlefish, atheists and wolves,� being hurled at each other. The extent to which Constantine, of no great education, even understood the theological issues is by no means clear, but he tried to pacify the protagonists by sending an identical letter to both Arius and Alexander, almost unctuously pleading for ‘equal forbearance’ and reconciliation.

“Constantine the victor, Supreme Augustus, to Alexander and Arius….how deep a wound has not only my ears, but my heart received from the report that divisions exist among yourselves….having enquired carefully into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find their cause to be of a truly insignificant nature, quite unworthy of such bitter contention. . . Restore my quite days and untroubled nights to me, so that joy of undimmed light, delight in a tranquil life, may once again be mine.�

Unfortunately, from a distance even Constantine was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred. No one “Pope� as such existed, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch each being recognised as having supreme authority within their geographical regions, but no supremacy over all (The so-called) Christendom.

Accordingly, to resolve this and other issues (Such as the date of Easter, another bitter source of contention), Constantine decided personally to summon all the (So-called) Christian leaders to the first ever ‘World Council’. The appointed date was early summer of 325 AD, the venue the pleasant lakeside town of Nicaea, today Iznik in north-western Turkey, where Constantine had a suitably commodious palace.

From the very circumstances of the time, it was bound to be an extraordinary gathering, With (so-called) Christianity having spread so far as Britain in the West and India in the East, for some of the delegates the journey took several weeks, if not months. When the assembled, it was to set eyes on each other for the first time in many cases, though for several, such as Bishop Pamphnutius, sight was denied because they had been viciously blinded during earlier persecutions. The hermit Jacob of Nisibis arrived in goatskins, accompanied by a persistent horde of gnats. Another delegate was the saintly Nicholas from the city of Myra in Asia Minor, who was the prototype of the Christmas Santa Claus. Also present of course was Arius. Although the Bishop of Rome excused himself as too old to travel, he sent two priests to represent him. Before this bizarre and unprecedented assembly Constantine, dazzlingly robed and dripping with gold and Jewels of a decadence earlier emperors would have abhorred, took his place on a low, wrought gold chair.

It was at this point in history, and before this assembly, that a decision was to be made that would have he most profound consequences for believers in Jesus Christ to this day. In the simplest of terms, the point at issue was whether Jesus was a mere human being (Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of your ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus.) and was now (Incontestably divine) who had been brought into existence to serve God’s purpose-to act as the ‘word’ of God (Deuteronomy 18: 18; YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, says to Moses; "I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name etc.) at a particular time in the early first century AD, or whether he had been God for all eternity, ‘of one substance with the Father (As those in the West expressed it), If the latter, then he was effectively a supraterrestrial entity easily compared with Sol Invictus, but light years removed from the Jesus envisaged by Arius and the Antiochenes.

Although reports of the exact proceedings of the Council of Nicaea have not survived, from those contemporary accounts that do exist it would seem that Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, representing the Antiochene party, forcefully espoused the Arian view, confidently expecting that they would win the day. To try to provide a formula on which the whole gathering would agree, Eusebius of Caesarea read out the statement of belief which he was accustomed to employ at baptisms within his own diocese.

“We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of all that is seen and unseen, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the word of God, god from God, light from light, life from life, only begotten son, firstborn of all creation, before all ages begotten from the Father, who for our salvation was incarnate and lived among man.�

It is important to recognise that while the distinctions implied by capital letters today did not exist in Constantine’s time (As mentioned earlier, only uncials were employed then) as set out above they convey what Eusebius and the Antiochenes essentially intended. To most catholics the words will have a familiar ring because at every mass they recite almost the same formula. For many present day Christians the words more than adequately impart a divinity to Jesus, particularly in quite illogically accrediting him first born of all creation. But to the fourth century Alexandrians, as was made clear by the brilliantly eloquent Arch-deacon Athanasius (Acting as spokesmean for his aged bishop Alexandria), it simply did not go far enough, and was not sufficiently precise. It made Jesus appear less than God himself.

For the judgment of Solomon on the issue, the only appropriate recourse was to Constantine, almost theologically illiterate, but politically a superb man manager. Exactly what swayed Constantine in that crucial moment we shall probably never know. There can be little doubt that for him the deification of a man was nothing particular special. He had his father Constantius deified, and would be accorded the same honour after his own death, and would surely have expected Jesus to be a superior entity in the divine hierarchy. He might well also have taken into account Alexandria’s strategic and commercial advantages. What-ever his motives, Constantine ruled in favour of the Alexandrian. Eusebius’ formula was heavenly edited to accommodate the Alexandrian view, and while affirming that the standpoint of the Antiochenes was entirely reasonable, Constantine urged all council delegates to sign the revised formula as a statement of faith on which all Christians should in the future agree.

For all those who signed, there was the inducement of an invitation to stay on at Nicaea as Constantine’s guests for his twentieth anniversary celebrations. For all who refused there was immediate banishment. Among all concerned, it would appear to have gone entirely unnoticed that the formula they were about to impose on all future christians contained not one jot of the ethical teachings that the human Jesus had once preached. Perhaps not unexpectedly, all but two of the most die-hard Arian Loyalists signed. But from the none too truth face-saving letter Eusebius of Caesarea sent back to his home diocese, it is clear how uneasy he felt about the extent to which he had compromised the fundamental principles of what he had been taught about Jesus.

Other signatories, who were equally swayed into acquiescence by their awe of the forceful Constantine, felt exactly the same. Only on returning home did Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon and Theognis of Nicaea summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicaea formula: “We commited an impious act, O Prince,� wrote Eusebius of Nicomedia, “by subscribing to a blasphemy from fear of you.�

But it was too late. An overwhelming majority of christianity’s highest dignitaries had put pen to parchment, and even though the Arian controversy would rumble on for another two or three centuries, effectively there was no turning back. Although no gospel regarded Jesus as God, and not even Paul had done so, the Jewish teacher had been declared “very God� through all eternity and a whole (False) theology would flow from this.

[S-word]

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]…….First of all, it is clear that you do not understand the Immaculate Conception. Mary was not the daughter of God. It means that by a special grace of God she was exempted from original sin when she was conceived.

Oh, but I think I do. What your church is saying, is that the body of Mary is not the daughter of God, but the soul which is the person that inhabits that body is the daughter of God. And one would have to be more ignorant and naïve to believe that, than even the impossible and unbiblical rubbish that Jesus was born of a virgin.

A virgin who lost her virginity when she conceived the son of her half brother, Joseph the son of Heli, yes, but a virgin while she was pregnant? What unadulterated and unbiblical rubbish.

Some of the genetic traits from which the body of Mary was formed, were selected from the dormant and lifeless cell within the body of Hanna, by the life giving and genetic characteristic contributing human semen, donated by Alexandria Helios, (Heli) the husband of Anna/Hanna, Father of Mary, and grandfather of the human being Jesus, the promised seed of Abraham, who was of the seed of Adam.

There never was such a thing as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, nor of the virgin birth of Jesus, and nor there needs be to explain the salvation of mankind.

The word “Virgin� in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� is with child and will bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.�

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah� which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,� by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament.

It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.� I also have before me The Bible Societies Chain Reference Bible, Good News Edition, now let’s turn to Isaiah 7: 14; I wonder what it says? Hmmm, are yes here it is, and what do you know? “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.�

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, and although an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, Because his step father was a descendant, of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, he had no claim to the throne of David. Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.�

In Luke 3: 23; you will find “the genealogy of Jesus,� Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna, one of three daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the biological son of “Joseph, the son of Heli,� as was supposed by the people of his day who knew the family.

And this Joseph who is the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon, who is the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother, “Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite,� who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom the Levite, not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth.

Presumably he would have met Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth the aged sister of Anna aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young “parthenos� (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, “Almah=Parthenos� was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi.

This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, (Same father “Heli� different mothers) who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed “Son of Thunder,� and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed “Mark,� which means ‘Hammer,’ or “The Hammerer.� After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham. Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers. Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.� Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.�

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�

While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin 3 months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

There is only one man who is recorded in God’s holy word, who was carried to God, where he was anointed by the God of the Most High in the creation, and translated so as to never see death, and this man, plays absolutely no part in your belief, “The Stone that the builder's rejected, has turned out to be the most important stone of all.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote]…….First of all, it is clear that you do not understand the Immaculate Conception. Mary was not the daughter of God. It means that by a special grace of God she was exempted from original sin when she was conceived.

Oh, but I think I do. What your church is saying, is that the body of Mary is not the daughter of God, but the soul which is the person that inhabits that body is the daughter of God. And one would have to be more ignorant and naïve to believe that, than even the impossible and unbiblical rubbish that Jesus was born of a virgin.

A virgin who lost her virginity when she conceived the son of her half brother, Joseph the son of Heli, yes, but a virgin while she was pregnant? What unadulterated and unbiblical rubbish.

Some of the genetic traits from which the body of Mary was formed, were selected from the dormant and lifeless cell within the body of Hanna, by the life giving and genetic characteristic contributing human semen, donated by Alexandria Helios, (Heli) the husband of Anna/Hanna, Father of Mary, and grandfather of the human being Jesus, the promised seed of Abraham, who was of the seed of Adam.

There never was such a thing as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, nor of the virgin birth of Jesus, and nor there needs be to explain the salvation of mankind.

The word “Virgin� in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� is with child and will bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

To translate something from the Hebrew to the Greek, or from any language to another, one must not lose the essence of the original, and the original was, that “An unmarried woman would be with child.�

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (An unmarried woman would be with child etc) while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah� which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to, which is obviously not the case with the unmarried woman/Almah, who is mentioned in Isaiah 7:14.

Go to “A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature,� by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, “Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament.

It follows the modern consensus in translating ‘Almah’ as ‘Young Woman’ in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And what do we read in Isaiah 7: 14; “A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son.� I also have before me The Bible Societies Chain Reference Bible, Good News Edition, now let’s turn to Isaiah 7: 14; I wonder what it says? Hmmm, are yes here it is, and what do you know? “A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc.�

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

In Matthew you will find the genealogy of Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah, this Joseph, is the 24th descendant of Solomon the biological son of King David and Bathsheba, who was the wife of Uriah the Hittite, and this Joseph who married Mary, is not genetically connected to Jesus as he had no sexual relations with Mary until after she had given birth to Jesus, the first of her three biological sons, and although an adopted son inherits the rights of his adopted father, Because his step father was a descendant, of the cursed line of Jehoiachim, he had no claim to the throne of David. Jeremiah 22: 30; Thus saith the Lord. “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.�

In Luke 3: 23; you will find “the genealogy of Jesus,� Mary was the daughter of Heli and Anna, one of three daughters of Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. Anna was given as a bride to Alexander Helios (Heli) and Jesus is the biological son of “Joseph, the son of Heli,� as was supposed by the people of his day who knew the family.

And this Joseph who is the biological Father of Jesus is about the 40th descendant of Nathan the half brother to Solomon, who is the biological son of King David, as they both had the same mother, “Bathsheba the wife of Uriah the Hittite,� who is the biological father of Nathan and a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Obed-Edom the Levite, not of the order of Aaron, but of Moses, who was to be to Aaron, as God on earth.

Presumably he would have met Mary for the first time, at the gathering of the family and friends of Elizabeth the aged sister of Anna aunty of Mary, who were both of the daughters of Levi. This was some months after the young “parthenos� (Unmarried) Mary had told the angel that up until that point in time she had never had any sexual relations with a man. Implying that the unmarried girl, “Almah=Parthenos� was still a virgin, before she met Joseph the Levite from Cyprus. Undoubtedly they did not realise at that time that they had a common father, Heli, from the tribe of Levi.

This Joseph the Levite who is the descendant of Nathan, came from Cyprus and he had a half sister by the name Mary, (Same father “Heli� different mothers) who was the adopted mother of John, who Jesus had surnamed “Son of Thunder,� and who is identified with the young John who was surnamed “Mark,� which means ‘Hammer,’ or “The Hammerer.� After the death of Jesus, this Joseph the Levite, took his half sister and young John up north into the land of Pamphylia, where today, in the town of Ephesus, the grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.

Isaac, the biological son Abraham, the son of Terah, was born according to the workings of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. Isaac is a prototype of Jesus and like Jesus, was born of God’s promise according to the workings of the Holy Spirit. Both are seen as the seed that was promised to Abraham. Both Isaac and Jesus were the sons of parents who were both sired by the one Father. ‘Terah,’ is the father to both Abraham and Sarah by different mothers, while ‘Heli,’ is the father of both Joseph and Mary, by different mothers. Both Mary and Sarah were informed by an angel that they would become Pregnant and bear the son of God’s promise. Isaac was offered up as a sacrifice by his physical father, Jesus was offered up by his spiritual father, who descended upon him in the form of a dove as the voice was heard to say, ‘ you are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, today I have become your Father.� Or rather, “Today I have begotten thee.� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; and Isaac was offered up on the same mountain at the very spot where Jesus was crucified.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine. All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.�

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who IS pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�

While Luke simply reveals that the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin 3 months before she was found to be pregnant. Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the father, chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

There is only one man who is recorded in God’s holy word, who was carried to God, where he was anointed by the God of the Most High in the creation, and translated so as to never see death, and this man, plays absolutely no part in your belief, “The Stone that the builder's rejected, has turned out to be the most important stone of all.

Again you are arguing against Catholicism specifically when the arguments you are using are far from mainstream Christianity in general. If you want to make those arguments, go to a debate forum and start a new thread. But this stuff does not belong in the Catholic sub-forum.

And you most definitely do NOT understand what the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is saying.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Emperor Constantine killed his son “Crispus,� in 326 AD., eleven years before he became a Christian, etc.

Go to a debate forum if you want to talk about this, where you have to present support for your claims. And they also need to be relevant to the discussion, as very little of your post is.

[S-word]

Emperor Constantine killed his son “Crispus,� in 326 AD., eleven years before he became a Christian, etc.

Go to a debate forum if you want to talk about this, where you have to present support for your claims. And they also need to be relevant to the discussion, as very little of your post is.

[WinePusher wrote].......The purpose of this subforum is to discuss and debate topics relating to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. This will not be similar to Holy Huddle, where only Catholics can post here. It will be open to all: Protestants, Atheists, Catholics, anybody from any faith. If you wish to challenge Catholicism, or the Catholic Church as an institution, you may do so here. If you wish to discuss Catholic Theology using the Bible as authoritative, you may do so here.

I feel quite comfortable here thank you.

[ThatGirlAgain wrote].......And you most definitely do NOT understand what the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is saying.

The below in BLUE is from the catholic encyclopedea.

The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

Now, unless you wish to claim that the body of Mary, was some glorified angelic body, born from Hanna the wife of Alexandria Helios (Heli), the biological grandfather of Jesus, then we can accept as fact, the body of Mary was created from the genetic material of the dormant female egg, and the living animating male semen, which are both descended from Adam.

The soul, irrelavent as to the erroneous belief of the Universal church, is the divine animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, the universal life force/soul, into which is imprinted all the information that is taken in through the senses of your body, so that when your body is returned to the universal elements from which it was created, (Which is the first death) a shadow, or rather, a facsimile of you, will remain within the eternal life force, and unless you suffer the second death, and "YOU", the spirit/information that was gathered while in that physical body, is not wiped clean from the eternal evolving soul of God, you will be reborn in the the next manifestation of the universe.

And the living sperm cell from the semen of Heli, was the animating principle/the soul that activated the female egg within Hanna/Anna to begin to multipy, in the creation of Mary, who is of the seed of Adam, as was her son, the biological child of Joseph the son of Heli.

The universal church of Constantine, was allowed by the Lord to be established in order that the world would be blind to God’s word and deaf to the message that is revealed therein, in order that their minds would be so dull as not to turn to God and be healed, while yet in their sin.

Isaiah 6: 8; Then I (The spirit or the heir to God’s throne which develops within the great androgynous expanded and pregnant of Eve, “The Son of man,� who revealed himself through his obedient earthly servant Jesus) heard the Lord say, “Whom shall I send? Who will be our messenger?�

I answered, “I will go! Send me!� So he told me to go and give this people this message: “No matter how much you listen, you will not understand. No matter how much you look, you will never know what is happening.� Then He said to me, Make the minds of these people dull, their ears deaf, and their eyes blind, so that they cannot hear, or see, or understand. If they did, they might turn to me and be healed.�

Jesus the faithful and obedient servant to our Lord God and saviour, through who, the son of Man who IS IN heaven, filled with his spirit and sent him to speak in his name, and to say only that which the spirit of the Son of Man commanded him to say, said in John 12: 40; “He (God)has blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted and I (God) should heal them.

It was the will of God that the universal church of Constantine should be established to rule his stubborn flock (Israel).

Zechariah 13: 7, The Lord Almighty says, “Wake up Sword, and attack the shepherd who works for me! Kill him, etc.

Zechahiah 11: 12; “If you are willing, give me my wages. But if not, keep them.� So they paid me thirty pieces of silver as my wages.

The Lord said to me, “cast it unto the potter: that goodly price that I was priced at by them.� So I took the thirty pieces of silver---and cast it to the potter in the house of the Lord. -------------------

And the Lord said to me, “Now take the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For I will now raise up a shepherd in the world, which shall not visit those that are cut off, neither shall he seek the little ones, nor heal them that are broken, nor feed them that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws to pieces.

Woe to that idol shepherd that leaves the flock! The sword shall be on his arm, and upon his right eye: His arm shall be clean dried, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.�

O! 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 worthless shepherd now I’ll raise to guide this stubborn flock
And he will be a useless 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.

Again, the intent of the Lord is righteous, in raising up the worthless shepherd, and given them over to believe the lie, in order that only those who would endure in the truth of his word, would win the victory, while the intent of the church was to seek out and devour and become bloated on the fat of the lambs of God’s flock.

Zechariah 13: 7, The Lord Almighty says, “Wake up Sword, and attack the shepherd who works for me! Kill him, etc.

All bodies must die then go off into judgment, even the religious bodies that have burned the pagans at the stake, who have murdered, how many thousands of women, who were accused by their husbands as witches, knowing that the church who forbade them to divorce their wives would burn or drown them as witches instead. And how many atrocities were perpetrated during the inquisition? There is not enough room in this entire forum to record the sins of the church of Constantine, which has fulfilled the purpose for which God allowed it to be established.

But now has come the time for her to be judged, and no matter how righteous we become in the twilight of our years, no matter how repentant we are for the sins of our past, and no matter how many tears we shed in the passion of our despair, we must all pay the blood price for the mistakes of our past, even those who are judged while alive and the elements of their physical bodies become so excited they burn up, and disappear. But it is the hope of God, that his children will hear his call and come out of her, and that only the empty shell will be destroyed.

Revelation 18: 4 to 8.

Come out of her my people, do not share in her sin.
You must not share her punishment, her judgment 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 until the day she’s burned
You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done
Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it take as strong
For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
Must be repaid this very day with pain and misery.

[S-word]

When I was a young catholic, I read this scripture and decided to study the scriptures each day to discover whether I was being taught the truth, or if I were being deceived by people who themselves had no understanding of the truth in Gods holy word.

After having been taught by the RCC, that the wise men (Supposedly) went to the stable in Bethlehem of Judea were they paid homage to the baby Jesus, who was laying in the manger, immediately after which, Herod’s henchmen stormed into the town of Bethlehem of Judea and began slaughtering all the boys in that district who were two years and below.

While this was all happening according to the church that was established in 325 AD, Mary was hidding in the milk grotto, which was discovered by Helena the Mother of Constantine, shortly after her son had established the church of the deceivers in 325 AD.

According to the doctrines of that church, Mary spilt some milk while feeding the baby Jesus and that milk turned the stones in that area white, and that today, women who have nursing problems, or couples who are infertile, can go there and pray to their heavenly goddess, who is the mother of their eternal and immortal god, who was the co-creator of the cosmos and who came to earth as their immortal and eternal god, where he entered the womb of a human virgin, where there, he created a body for himself; and if those people buy a small bag of the white powder from those rocks which had magically turned white by the mother’s milk of Mary, that white powder has the magical power to heal those problems.

Are these doctrines/teachings of that church, in Harmony with God’s word which state, Luke 2: 21; A week after Jesus was born he was circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then when the Time came, for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification as the law of Moses commanded (Leviticus 12: 3-4; “On the eighth day the male child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty three days more until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood and then can she enter the tent/temple and perform the ceremony of purification.)

After she had performed everything according to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise would later travel and shower the young child with gifts which included Gold. Leviticus 12: 8; poor families who cannot afford a lamb shall bring two doves or two pigeons one of which, would be used as the burnt offering etc.

According to the belief with which the universal church of Constantine has deceived the world, Mary who was supposedly given the gifts, which included that gold, while still in Bethlehem of Judea, before she presented her offering in the temple at Jerusalem, must have pretended to be too poor to buy a lamb for a burnt offering, which was the offering required from those who could afford it. How deceptive would that have been, but then, that’s what that deceptive church teaches about the mother of Jesus.

How accurate is the word of God? Psalms 118: 8; “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put your faith in (The interpretations of man). I’ll be back when time permits.

[S-word]

Matthew is not concerned as to where the holy family actually lived, only that the child was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, he then skips forward in time, to speak of the wise men, who are believed to have been Astronomer/Astrologers from Mesopotamia, who had seen the star that they believed had heralded the birth of the promised Messianic King of Israel, and even if they had left their own country that very day, to travel to Jerusalem, we know from biblical records that it would have taken them some four months to reach there, and by then, the family, according to Luke, had returned to their home in Nazareth,

Ezra 7: 8-9; “They left Babylonia on the first day of the first month, and with God’s help they arrived in Jerusalem on the first day of the fifth month.�

Luke is more concerned with the approximate 2 month period that the family was in Bethlehem of Judaea. He speaks of the birth of the child in the stable of an Inn, and the visit of the shepherds, who were out in the fields, where they would not have been in the middle of winter of late December, where they saw the baby in the manger wrapped in swaddling cloth etc.

Luke 2: 21; A week after Jesus was born he was circumcised according to the law of Moses. Then came the Time, for Mary to perform the ceremony of purification
as the law of Moses commanded.

(Leviticus 12: 3-4; “On the eighth day the male child shall be circumcised. Then it will be thirty three days more until she is ritually clean from her loss of blood and then can she enter the tent/temple and perform the ceremony of purification.)

After she had performed everything according to the law of Moses some 33 days after the baby was circumcised, they returned to the home of Mary in Nazareth, to where the wise would later travel and shower the young child with gifts, which included Gold. Leviticus 12: 8; poor families who cannot afford a lamb shall bring two doves or two pigeons one of which, would be used as the burnt offering etc.

According to the teachings of the universal church of the non-christian and theoretically illiterate king Constantine, which was established in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ was established in Jerusalem, Mary who was supposedly given these gifts which included gold, Frankincense and the very expensive myrrh, while still in Bethlehem of Judea, before she presented her offering in the temple at Jerusalem, must have pretended to be too poor to buy a lamb for a burnt offering, which was the offering required from those who could afford it. How deceptive would that have been, but then, that’s what the church of Constantine would have you believe, about the mother of Jesus.

In Luke, you will find no mention of Jesus the "young child", or of the wise men, who came to Israel near on a year after his birth. As Luke is concerned only with the time period when Jesus was still a "baby"; then he jumps to the period when he was about 12 years old, where he confounded his parents at that tine, who were Mary, and Cleophas, who is also called Alpheaus, the carpenter, who is the father of James the younger, who is the brother of Jesus who said to his parents, who knew who his biological father was, “Why did you have to search for me, surely you knew that I had to be in My Father’s house?" It went right over the head of Mary, who couldn’t understand what her son was on about, but she stored that memory in her mind.

Matthew 2: 7; So Herod called the wise men to a secret meeting and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. Matthew 2: 16; When Herod realised that the wise men from the East had tricked him, he was furious. He gave orders to kill all the boys in (Northern) Bethlehem and its neighbourhood who were two years old and younger—this was done in accordance with what he had learned from the visitors about the time when the star first appeared.

If the age of the children who were to be slaughtered was two years and below, which age was determined in accordance with what he had learned from the visitors about the time when the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus, first appeared. How long before Herod gave the command to kill the innocents, had the wise men seen the star that had heralded the birth of Jesus?

You do realise that they was another town called Bethlehem in those days, which town today is called “Beitlahm� and it was situated in the district around Nazareth and the beautiful Helenistic city of Sepphorus, that suffered so much damage in the great riots of the peasants in 4 BC, shortly before Herod died after a failed suicide attempt, which I believe was an option given to him by Caesar Augustus.

When one of Herod the Greats heirs, Herod Antipas returned from Rome in the spring of 3 B.C., after the "Will" of his father had been ratified by Augustus, he rebuilt Sepphorus as his chosen city for ruling over Galilee. I very much doubt that the true reason for the uprising of the peasants in the district of Bethlehem of Galilee would have been recorded by the Roman historians of that day.

[WinePusher wrote].......The purpose of this subforum is to discuss and debate topics relating to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. This will not be similar to Holy Huddle, where only Catholics can post here. It will be open to all: Protestants, Atheists, Catholics, anybody from any faith. If you wish to challenge Catholicism, or the Catholic Church as an institution, you may do so here. If you wish to discuss Catholic Theology using the Bible as authoritative, you may do so here.

If you wish to enter into a discussion on this topic, please feel free to do so, if not, I will continue using the Bible as the authoritative source whereby to challenge the false theology of the catholic church and her daughter bodies that were spawned by her false teachings.

[S-word]

Jesus was the Grandson of Alexander Helious, (Heli) a Macedonian Jew, originally from Cyprus, where he had sired a son to a woman, before he married, in the wonderful Hellenistic city of Sepporhus, Hanna the Mother of Mary. Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, the son of Heli, is the half brother to Mary, and the biological father of Jesus.

The great grandfather of the biblical Jesus was Yehoshua/Jesus III, who was the high priest in Jerusalem from 36 to 23 BC. The sonless Yehoshua, had three daughters, Joanna, Elizabeth and Anna/Hanna. Knowing that his Zadokian lineage would become extinct unless his daughters were placed with future husbands according to the Torah, Yehoshua married off his daughters.

Joanna the eldest was married to Joachim, Elizabeth was betrothed to a Levite priest by the name Zacharias of the priestly course of Abijah. And Anna/Hanna was betrothed to Alexander Helios (Heli) of the tribe of Judah/Levi, being a descendant of Nathan the priest who was the biological son of Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, who became a member of the tribe of Levi by his marriage to Bathsheba the daughter of Ammiel, the son of Oded-Edom, from the house of Levi.

The RCC will tell you that Joachim is the Father of Mary, God's word reveals that Heli is her Father. Mary was born in 20 BC, 3 years after the death of her grandfather Jehoahus/Jesus III, in 13 BC, when Mary was only seven years old, Herod the Great had her Father Alexander Helios murdered , seeing him as a threat to his throne, and seven years later, at the age of about 14, Mary conceived in her womb, the biological son of her half brother, "Joseph the son of Heli"

Jesus would have been taught from the Books of Enoch, from where He received the teaching of the ends of the universe that rolls up as a scroll and burns up, to fall as fire into the Great Abyss, and the teachings of the angels being bound and buried in the valley of man, etc, etc, the same books from which Moses established his church with all its laws and regulations, such as ascribing the sins of Israel to Azazal. Which story can only be found in the words of Righteous Enoch our indwelling father.

Up until the fourth century, the Books of Enoch were held in great reverence by such religious authorities as Irenacus, Origen, and Tertullian, and were cherished by the early Christians, until, under the Bann of such authorities of the church of Constantine, as Jerome, Hilary and Augustine, they finally past out of circulation, thereby protecting them from the interpretations and re-translation of men who were not equipped with the data that exists today.

The books of Enoch, the foundation of all truth, and the chosen cornerstone to which the spirits of good people are gathered in the creation of the great heavenly Simulacrum/blue print of the new creation that come from man.

Enoch, the stone that the builders of the universal church rejected, has now turned out to be the most important stone of all. His writings were thought to be lost for millennia, and they remain the oldest extant mystical document. The writings of Enoch are referred to in the Hebrew Zobar, the epistle of Jude, and are considered by some to have been an early draft of the New Testament.

He is the only man to have witnessed the end of all things, when the universal elements burned up and fell as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and dept in the Great Abyss/Black Hole, which Enoch describes as the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, which of course included himself, the Supreme Personality of the Most High in the creation, which is the body of mankind. He was the light and life in the Logos, who cried out, :Let there be Light,: as he observed, the Logos, the pool of invisible information transform itself into the resurrected universal body, in which the Light of Man who was the Omega, become the Alpha, from which the new Omega evolves.

In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and was God. The same was in the beginning with the singularity that is God. All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was Life, (A supreme personality of Godhead) and that life was the light of Man, (All the wisdom, knowledge, and insight gained from the body of mankind, “The Son of Man,� who descended to the beginning of time, when the previous world was condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot infinitesimally small singularity of origin.

Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all the sum and philosophy of Buddhism. And the eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.� Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

The days and nights of Brahma are called Manvantara or the cycle of manifestation, “The Great Day,� which is a period of universal activity, that is preceded, and also followed by ‘Pralaya,’ a dark period, which to our minds seems as an eternity. Manvantara , is a creative day as seen in the six days of creation in genesis, ‘Prayala,’ is the evening the preceeds the next creative day. The six days of Creation and the seventh day of rest are referred to in Genesis 2: 4; as the generations of the universe.

The English word “Generation,� is translated fro the Hebrew “toledoth� which is used in the Old Testament in every instance as births, or descendants, such as, “These are the generations of Adam,� or “These are the generations of Abraham,� and these are the generations of the heavens and earth/universe. And the great day in which the seven generations of the universe are eternally repeated, is the eternal Cosmic period, or the eighth eternal day in which there is neither hours, days, weeks, months, or years, where all time is stuck together in one aeon, and all who are not cast back into the refining fires of the eternal revolving seven cycles, will enter into the eighth eternal generation of Light.

A series of worlds following one upon the other, each world rising a step higher than the previous world, so that every later world brings to ripeness the seeds that were imbedded in the former, and itself then prepares the Cosmic seed for the universe that will follow it.

Every universe from the first to the last, from the smallest to the greatest, that have been created throughout the aeons of eternity, still exist in their independent Space-Time positions within the eternal and boundless Cosmos.

The first day, or rather the first generation of the universe as we know it today, was only Light. Massive first generation stars, and evening descended when those stars imploded in upon themselves and the gravitational holes left by those collapsing stars, swallowed each other and were condensed back into the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of origin, which singularity, would later be spatially separated once again and the second generation of the universe would come into existence etc.

The New international Version, the Scofield Referrence Bible, and the Companion Bible, all note that the phase in Genesis 1: 2; The earth was formless and void (Having neither shape or mass) should be correctly translated, “The earth became without form and void.� The Hebrew word “Hayah� translated “was,� means “To become, occur, come to pass, Be.� (Vines Complete Expository of Old and New Testament Words, 1985. “To Be.�)

The root to the word Brahman originally meant “Speech�, much as the Logos is said to mean ‘word,’ but both are the gathered genetic information of every generation of the universe to have come into existence throughout the eons of eternity. Both should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe, the eternal spirit/gathered information, from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

At the close of each period of universal activity, the Godhead or the compilation of all the minds of the most high species to have evolved in that period of universal manifestation enters into Brahman/Logos, as the supreme personality of godhead (The Light Of Man) the life in Brahman/Logos.

To the Hindu, it is Krishna, the eighth manifestation of Vishnu, who enters into Brahman at the close of this cycle of universal manifestation as the evolved mind in the eternal evolving God. To those who understand the word of God, it is Jesus, the manifestation of Enoch, who is the manifestation of Adam, who is the manifestation of the evolving Godhead (of the giants) who once ruled the earth for 3 million years in the body of the most high to have evolved on earth at that time, the giant upright walking reptile. No species can live for that long without developing intellect, and it was the evolving intellect of the heir to the throne of Godhead in Brahman/Logos, that was the intellect inherited by the evolving homo-sapiens.

Neither the Impersonal God Brahman of the impersonal God “Logos� has ever spoken a universe into existence. But the Godhead of the Most High within the creation, who descended into the seemingly bottomless pit where all matter was reconverted to the electromagnetic energy, that would be spewed out with the next Big Bang in the trillions of degrees, was the observer, who says, “Let there be Light� as he witnessed the invisible Logos/Brahman transform itself over billions of years as the resurrected body in which the Omega of the previous cycle of universal manifestation, becomes the Alpha, who will become the Omega in the new heavens and earth, which God creates after first calling all creation back to himself.