Rejecting Catholicism???

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher

Rejecting Catholicism???

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

new friend
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:28 am

Post #51

Post by new friend »

It is very interesting to see "De Maria" posting here. I assume this is the same person who frequently contributes on other tradititional Catholic forums. We "crossed swords" many times before I was banned for telling the truth. Something which I thought Catholics were particularly keen on. Except, of course, they claim to be the sole key holders to that which comprises truth.

Like so many Catholics the argument raised brooks no challenge. If it is written in the Bible it is the word of God and how they, the Catholics, determine what that means is always correct. If you disagree you are simply wrong.

I am not a Catholic and never have been. I reject it because I witness it's effect on a daily basis because I live in a Catholic country, where the Church dominates every aspect of life. There is no divorce, no contraception, no abortion, very poor sex education, a growth rate in excess of 2% per annum which means the population has gone from 20 million to 100 million in 50 years. Unemployment is a way of life for a substantial number of people. People are very poor and often hungry. Healthcare is unaffordable. STDs and HIV are rampant.

Not ALL of this is the fault of the Church but a LOT of it is. Catholicism recommends their approach as the solution to the crisis in the western world. I know it isn't because I have seen it in practice, and not theorised about it in cozy forum debates.

Catholicism knows everything, so has nothing left to learn. It is a religion with feet of clay which fights the inevitable effects of evolution, but is doomed to die and be replaced by other creeds more suited to today's environment.

I believe, in it's own way, fundamentalist tradititional Catholicism is as dangerous as fundamentalist Islam, with which it shares many attitudes.

I give great credit to those from the liberal, reforming wing of the Church who realise that change is long overdue. I wish them every sucess but fear that their progress is being stymied by a very backward looking Pope and the self interests of the hierarchy around him.

TomD
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:21 am

Post #52

Post by TomD »

S-word wrote: You are correct in stating that the doctrine of the virgin conception and virgin birth are of great antiquity, going back to at least the 5th century.
Way before that. It's there in Scripture, dating from c70AD.
S-word wrote: Because it was in 405 AD, that Jerome, who was of the body of the church of Constantine that was established in 325 AD...
Oh, not that old chestnut again. The idea that Constantine founded or invented the Church is silly, as the Church, indeed the Catholic Church, was in existence long before Constantine.

The only influence Constantine had was in the request to clarify the Creed against the Arians. This request was accepted as it didn't change its meaning, but emphasised it. Even then, it still didn't work!

So the only contribution Constantine made to Christian doctrine was wasted.
S-word wrote: ... some three hundred years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established, completed, with other translators who remain unknown, the translation of the bible into latin, "The Vulgat." ... It was then that the Greek word "parthenos" for the very first time (in any bible,) was interpreted to mean "Virgin."
Absolutely wrong.
The word 'parthenos' was used by the Jewish fathers who translated the Hebrew texts into Greek — The Septuagint — 300 years before the birth of Christ.
S-word wrote: Although "parthenos" carries the basic meaning of young girl or unmarried youth, it only denotes 'Virgin' by implication
No, that's incorrect. 'parthenos' can be used of both men and women, and means one who has not had sexual relations.
S-word wrote: We all now that a good translation must carry the true meaning of the original from which it is translated, and the true meaning of Isaiah 7: 14; is that a young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc.
Yes. Richard of St Victor discussed this at length in the 12th century (as did Origen in the 2nd).

The point is, a young woman having a baby is hardly a 'sign', is it? I mean, young women do it all the time ...

God bless,

Thomas

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #53

Post by Goat »

TomD wrote:
S-word wrote: You are correct in stating that the doctrine of the virgin conception and virgin birth are of great antiquity, going back to at least the 5th century.
Way before that. It's there in Scripture, dating from c70AD.
S-word wrote: Because it was in 405 AD, that Jerome, who was of the body of the church of Constantine that was established in 325 AD...
Oh, not that old chestnut again. The idea that Constantine founded or invented the Church is silly, as the Church, indeed the Catholic Church, was in existence long before Constantine.

The only influence Constantine had was in the request to clarify the Creed against the Arians. This request was accepted as it didn't change its meaning, but emphasised it. Even then, it still didn't work!

So the only contribution Constantine made to Christian doctrine was wasted.
S-word wrote: ... some three hundred years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established, completed, with other translators who remain unknown, the translation of the bible into latin, "The Vulgat." ... It was then that the Greek word "parthenos" for the very first time (in any bible,) was interpreted to mean "Virgin."
Absolutely wrong.
The word 'parthenos' was used by the Jewish fathers who translated the Hebrew texts into Greek — The Septuagint — 300 years before the birth of Christ.
S-word wrote: Although "parthenos" carries the basic meaning of young girl or unmarried youth, it only denotes 'Virgin' by implication
No, that's incorrect. 'parthenos' can be used of both men and women, and means one who has not had sexual relations.
S-word wrote: We all now that a good translation must carry the true meaning of the original from which it is translated, and the true meaning of Isaiah 7: 14; is that a young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc.
Yes. Richard of St Victor discussed this at length in the 12th century (as did Origen in the 2nd).

The point is, a young woman having a baby is hardly a 'sign', is it? I mean, young women do it all the time ...

God bless,

Thomas

Well, just a few things. You do realize that 'parthenos' does not mean exclusively virgin. At the time the original part of the Septuagint was written, there are many examples of parthenos being used for women who were not virgins. For example, in Genesis, a woman was referred as 'parthenos' after she was raped, and another Greek author talked about a parthenos exposing her child on the mountain.

And, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, the sign is not the woman getting pregnant, but the child's conception to the time period of being about 2 or so being a 'timer' for certain things to happen. The 'child' and 'mother' is specifically identified as Isaiah's wife and son.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

TomD
Student
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:21 am

Post #54

Post by TomD »

Goat wrote: Well, just a few things. You do realize that 'parthenos' does not mean exclusively virgin.
I do. As you yourself mentioned, there is not a word in Hebrew that means virgin exclusively, so the idea is implied by context. Parthenos has been likened to the English term 'maiden', which does not explicitly imply virgin, but that is usually assumed of the term.
(The passage was originally understood and taught as a messianic prophecy during the days of the Second Temple and the time of Christ.)
Goat wrote: And, if you read Isaiah 7:14 in context, the sign is not the woman getting pregnant, but the child's conception to the time period of being about 2 or so being a 'timer' for certain things to happen. The 'child' and 'mother' is specifically identified as Isaiah's wife and son.
Specifically identified where?

+++

Let me, for a moment, play devil's advocate.

Supposing the text does not and never did mean 'virgin', but simply that a woman shall conceive a child.

Then why would the author of Matthew, an educated Rabbi steeped in the Hebrew tradition, claim a virgin birth at all, if it means nothing in the context of Hebrew history?

And why does Luke, an educated Greek, make the same claim?

Whether your audience in Jew or Gentile, the claim to Virgin Birth would be contentious, so why make it? If you were going to fabricate a story to boost your popular appeal, virgin birth isn't it.

God bless

Thomas

saundthorp

Post #55

Post by saundthorp »

S Word,
Constantine, who was the unorthodox champion of that extraordinary assortment of differing bodies that called themselves christians, finally became sick to the stomach of their constant bickering, and the insults that were being hurled at each other, so he summoned all the leaders of those bichering bodies that had evolved from the teaching of the anti-christ, which teaching refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam.

They were commanded to attend the first ever, "World Council" at Nicaea in 325 AD, and it was there, where under the dominating presence and unspoken threats of Constantine, your universal church was established, which universal church that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, has spread her deceptive teachings throughout the entire world.
You are correct that Constantine convened Nicaea because of the dissension in the Church.
The Council was convened by Constantine in an attempt to bring religious peace to Christianity, which was being disturbed by Arius. Arius denied the divinity of Christ by teaching that the Son of God was not eternal with the Father and was therefore a creature, though greater than men and angels. A few years before Nicaea, a council at Alexandria had condemned Arius for teaching such a belief.
For the peace of Christianity to be disturbed in 320 A.D. by someone denying the divinity of Christ, clearly shows that the belief in Christ’s divinity was well established before Nicaea. It is clear from early Christian writers they also believed in Christ’s divinity.
To suggest that Constantine "established" the Catholic Church is beyond belief.
By the time of Constantine the Catholic Church had had some 33 popes!
Apart from making the opening address, Constantine had very little influence or input in the proceedings.
I would argue that Nicaea only confirmed the belief in the Divinity of Christ because of the assault on that belief by Arius. If the belief had not been so firmly established Arius’ teaching would not have caused such controversy.

The Tongue
Under Probation
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
Location: Townsville Queensland Australia

Post #56

Post by The Tongue »

[saundthorp wrote]........By the time of Constantine the Catholic Church had had some 33 popes!

The reason that Constantine called together the heads of all the diverse quarrelling denominations of the so called Christians, was because he was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred, because 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.

There was no catholic=universal church, until it was established under the dominating presence of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. The church of Rome may have had 33 bishops before Constantine established the universal=catholic church in 325 AD, but until then, there was no such thing as a pope who held supremacy over all christendom.

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.

We know that 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, Way back in the days of Paul, 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 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 which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being, which has been spread throughout the entire 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 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, love 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, 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. But by then the false teaching of the virgin birth was firmly established.

Clement, who lived between 150—211 AD was expressing a belief that was already firmly established by those who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #57

Post by jedicri »

The Tongue wrote: [saundthorp wrote]........By the time of Constantine the Catholic Church had had some 33 popes!

The reason that Constantine called together the heads of all the diverse quarrelling denominations of the so called Christians, was because he was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred, because 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.

There was no catholic=universal church, until it was established under the dominating presence of Emperor Constantine in 325 AD. The church of Rome may have had 33 bishops before Constantine established the universal=catholic church in 325 AD, but until then, there was no such thing as a pope who held supremacy over all christendom.

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.

We know that 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, Way back in the days of Paul, 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 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 which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being, which has been spread throughout the entire 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 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, love 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, 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. But by then the false teaching of the virgin birth was firmly established.

Clement, who lived between 150—211 AD was expressing a belief that was already firmly established by those who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles
Re: the bolded paragraph: Incorrect and as such, the rest of your post is erroneous as well.

St. Augustine writes of the popes that have succeeded St Peter up to his time:
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).

The Tongue
Under Probation
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
Location: Townsville Queensland Australia

Post #58

Post by The Tongue »

[jedicri wrote]............Re: the bolded paragraph: Incorrect

Sorry there yougen, but Clement who was once a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, before he got kicked out on his ear, did write “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.� He also told the ridiculous story which has nothing to do with the scripture, but just another fairy tale in support of the great lie, of the supposed none biblical yarn of some supposed virgin birth, where he speaks of a time in fairy land, where some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some imaginary 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.

You can cry foul all you like, but anyone with a search machine can verify it, but there are those who would rather remain in the darkness and keep their heads stuck in the sand, those who love the lie, and shy away from the light of God's truth.

[jedicri wrote].........The rest of your post is erroneous as well. St. Augustine writes of the popes that have succeeded St Peter up to his time: "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).[/b][/color]

This was the very reason that Constantine called together the heads of all the diverse quarrelling denominations of the so called Christians, because he was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred, because 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.

I could go on about the two headed beast, one in Constantinople and the other in Rome, but as long as you choose to wear those dark glasses, you will never see the light of truth. And there are none so blind as they who refuse to see the glaring truth that is before them.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #59

Post by jedicri »

The Tongue wrote: [jedicri wrote]............Re: the bolded paragraph: Incorrect

Sorry there yougen, but Clement who was once a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, before he got kicked out on his ear, did write “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.� He also told the ridiculous story which has nothing to do with the scripture, but just another fairy tale in support of the great lie, of the supposed none biblical yarn of some supposed virgin birth, where he speaks of a time in fairy land, where some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some imaginary 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.

You can cry foul all you like, but anyone with a search machine can verify it, but there are those who would rather remain in the darkness and keep their heads stuck in the sand, those who love the lie, and shy away from the light of God's truth.

[jedicri wrote].........The rest of your post is erroneous as well. St. Augustine writes of the popes that have succeeded St Peter up to his time: "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).[/b][/color]

This was the very reason that Constantine called together the heads of all the diverse quarrelling denominations of the so called Christians, because he was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred, because 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.

I could go on about the two headed beast, one in Constantinople and the other in Rome, but as long as you choose to wear those dark glasses, you will never see the light of truth. And there are none so blind as they who refuse to see the glaring truth that is before them.
Oh please. You keep harping on Clement as if that nullifies the historical fact regarding the names of the popes that succeeded Peter. Sorry but that's argumentum ad nauseam

It is a historical fact. Deal with it! Like I said before, you go against 2000 years of belief and tradition. Where do you come off to claim otherwise?

Ya you could go on about your false beliefs to counter the listings of popes by St. Augustine but that would be an argument in logical fallacy. How about directly debunking what St. Augustine wrote on the persons that have succeeded Peter, and maybe, and I mean maybe, you may have something, but until then, all you have is an erroneous view of history to support your claims.

The Tongue
Under Probation
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 12:08 am
Location: Townsville Queensland Australia

Post #60

Post by The Tongue »

jedicri wrote:
The Tongue wrote: [jedicri wrote]............Re: the bolded paragraph: Incorrect

Sorry there yougen, but Clement who was once a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, before he got kicked out on his ear, did write “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.� He also told the ridiculous story which has nothing to do with the scripture, but just another fairy tale in support of the great lie, of the supposed none biblical yarn of some supposed virgin birth, where he speaks of a time in fairy land, where some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some imaginary 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.

You can cry foul all you like, but anyone with a search machine can verify it, but there are those who would rather remain in the darkness and keep their heads stuck in the sand, those who love the lie, and shy away from the light of God's truth.

[jedicri wrote].........The rest of your post is erroneous as well. St. Augustine writes of the popes that have succeeded St Peter up to his time: "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of "mountain men," or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400).[/b][/color]

This was the very reason that Constantine called together the heads of all the diverse quarrelling denominations of the so called Christians, because he was unable to smooth such troubled waters. Nor was there any supreme ecclesiastical authority to whom the matter could be referred, because 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.

I could go on about the two headed beast, one in Constantinople and the other in Rome, but as long as you choose to wear those dark glasses, you will never see the light of truth. And there are none so blind as they who refuse to see the glaring truth that is before them.
Oh please. You keep harping on Clement as if that nullifies the historical fact regarding the names of the popes that succeeded Peter. Sorry but that's argumentum ad nauseam

It is a historical fact. Deal with it! Like I said before, you go against 2000 years of belief and tradition. Where do you come off to claim otherwise?

Ya you could go on about your false beliefs to counter the listings of popes by St. Augustine but that would be an argument in logical fallacy. How about directly debunking what St. Augustine wrote on the persons that have succeeded Peter, and maybe, and I mean maybe, you may have something, but until then, all you have is an erroneous view of history to support your claims.
Knowing that the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were recognised as having supreme authority within their geographical regions, and that no one “Pope� as such existed before Constantine unified all the different quarrelling factions of those bodies of belief, which in the main (Apart from the Greeks who still clung to the total humanity of Jesus) had rejected the Jesus as taught by the apostles, the main point of contention being the nature of Jesus, with opinions that ranged from him being totally human to almost totally divine, those quarrels went so far as to reach the point of rioting and assassinations. Bishops were excommunicating each other all over the place, often enforced with mobs or hired thugs.

It was you, who said in your post, in the thread titled: “Jesus’ love for his Mother,� that the Letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch of 107 AD, (who IMO, had rejected the Jesus as taught by the apostles, and had been deceived by the lie of the virgin birth,) was a rare surviving letter, and your were absolutely correct in that observation.

Emperor Diocletian, at whose feet, the young Constantine learned all the tricks of human management, reigned from 284 to 305 and began the last great persecution in which most of the history of early Christianity was destroyed, and with the near total destruction of Christian history, it was easy for your mob to associate the Papacy with St. Peter, of which there is no recorded manuscripts, and knowing the track record of the universal church of Constantine, I wouldn’t believe too much of what they say.

[jedicri wrote].........It is a historical fact. Deal with it! Like I said before, you go against 2000 years of belief and tradition. Where do you come off to claim otherwise?

Incorrect on both counts, it is not an historical fact and I am only going against 1,600 years of the “BELIEFS AND TRADITIONS,� of the Church of Constantine, which was founded in the fourth century of the Christian Era, which “BELIEFS AND TRADITIONS,� such as those that originated from Hellena the mother of Constantine and others, which includes your once, before he was kicked out on his ear, "saint Clement of Alexandria," whose ridiculous beliefs are supported in part by all the professed saints that you have mentioned, which beliefs cannot be verified by the "Word of God,� in fact, they are conclusively disproved by the holy scriptures.

If it were up to people such as yourself who hate the protestants, who refuse to accept your Pappa, as their spiritual father, they would be eliminated, as were the earlier bodies of belief, who refused to bow to the first Pope, "Pope Constantine"

Here is an excerpt From the book, “Jesus The Evidence,� by Ian Wilson. P. 144.

The Middle Ages, for the Jews at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great. He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla in 212 AD. As (The professed Christianity of Constantine’s church) grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.

But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new official (professed) Christian line.

"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who are called Cataphrygians. . . . with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning . . . .Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet . . . . and that these houses should be handed over immediately to the catholic/ i.e. universal church."

Within a generation, hardly leaving a trace of their existence for posterity, the great majority of these groups simply died away as successive Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued.

Who do you believe was the Shepherd that the Lord God our saviour, who revealed himself to us through his obedient servant "Jesus" who he had filled with his spirit and in which body, he was sold for thirty pieces of silver, which were cast into the temple and sent to the potter's house?

I AWAIT YOUR ANSWER.

Post Reply