Anonymous
Uploaded on 4 Jul, 2007
Your Name
Send Doc to (one email address per line):
Personal Message (optional):
1. Choose Your Email Provider
2. Sign Into Your Account
Username Password
URL Copied to Clipboard
Submit to:
If you are the copyright owner of this document and want to report it, please follow these directions to submit a copyright infringement notice.
It's no good you quoting Holy Scriptures at me that you do not understand. Everything you say originates from your intellect alone and not from The Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.Every time you write you display your religious credentials and reveal a throat that is an open sepulchre. I have wasted enough of my time on you and it is now time I shook the dust from my shoes.
"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." 1 Pet: 3:15"But prove all things; hold fast that which is good." 1 Thes 5:21"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand the hearing? them that are weaned from the milk, that are drawn away from the breasts." Isaias 28:9"The innocent believeth every word: the discreet man considereth his steps" Prov 14:15"The childish shall possess folly, and the prudent shall look for knowledge" Prov 14:18"And Paul, according to his custom, went in unto them; and for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures:" Acts 17:2There are more, but I feel the point is made. Scripture clearly shows rationality is a good thing. So syllogism is good according to the Bible .When I first answered the question about infallibility I listed the criteria, so your football quote makes little sense. As for the Paul and Peter thing, I did answer your question, but it requires a logical deduction to see that. (Just as an example of how St. Paul showed that St. Peter was to be honored consider their race to the empty tomb of Christ. St. Paul arrived first but waited so that St. Peter would be the one to look in it before him.)I find it interesting that you quote the word Cephas, for it is the Hellenistic form of Kepha (the word Christ actually said), and I know you don't approve of the Hellenists. So the Bible actually says "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church." So St. Peter is the rock. The sentence contains absolutely zero ambiguity. This of course does not diminish Christ being the rock of all and the Catholic Church has never taught that it does.I did not claim the apostles were Roman Catholic, for that denotes specifically the Latin Rite. In Catholicism there is more than one Rite because the early Church was spread geographically far apart with a slow communication system. What I did say is that they were Catholic and this is true (I don't know what Rite they used, I've never looked it up). As far as Simon the Magus goes, the early Church fathers condemned him as a heretic (specifically for trying to buy a spiritual gift), so even if he had been Catholic he would have been excommunicated.Your last paragraph seems to have been cut off and I don't know how to recover the rest of it. You were kind of rambling though so I don't have anything to say about it.
I have no issue with syllogism other than to laugh at them. I don't accept premises or syllogism only men of religion and of the high intellect accept syllogisms and premises. Only the Truth and the simplicity that is Jesus Christ is acceptable to me and The Truth Jesus Christ is not a syllogism nor a premise - He's my brother and a real person.Syllogisms is just an intellectual word for man made fabrications or falsehoods - man made nonsense of puffed up vain little men and not of the Holy Spirit. Syllogisms and premises are of endless debate and never coming to an understanding of The Truth Jesus Christ.Ah it's all down to criteria now is it? I wouldn't want to play a game of football with you, with your mobile goal posts or would they be syllogistic goal posts?That line of the gospel is not clear as interpreted by your counterfeit organisation.The Lord did not name Peter the rock, his name was already Cephas as mentioned in John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. This naming of Peter took place before the events of Matthew 16.A stone is just A stone it is not The Rock. The rock that The Lord was referring to was the revelation that Peter received from The Father God that enabled Peter to identify his master as the Messiah. Peter was the first human being to ever do this and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour is the foundational rock of the True Church - not a puny man.No man could ever be that foundation and to suggest it is a blasphemy. I notice too that you conveniently ignored the point I made about Paul admonishing Peter for his erroneous ideas about the Judaic laws. If Peter were Pope there is no way Paul would have admonished him. Paul's admonishment was severe too, so have you some new criteria for this point as well? Did your Pope Peter not only lose his infallibility but also his rank and authority? Not much of a pope was he, in fact I would put it to you that he was a wimp of a Pope compared to the blood thirsty so and so's who came after him - e.g. Constantine. Mark wrote the first Gospel account and Luke wrote his own along with Acts and neither of these men were Roman Catholics. One of the first Roman Catholics was Simon (Magus) the sorcerer who wanted to buy the Holy Spirit from Peter in Acts 8. Now this is the real spirit of Rome - Salvation for sale - Buy your eternity here folks only £50 in the box and 20 hail Mary's - The love of filthy lucre - Swiss bank accounts - P2 Masonry - Mob money laundered from prostitution, drugs and gambling etc. etc. etc. Roberto Calvi (found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in London) and Banco Ambrosiano. Even the 'mysterious' death of one of your own who was becoming an embarrassment. Actually he was showing signs of being a man of integrity until they murdered him.yes2faith on 4 Aug, 2007
What is your issue with syllogisms? Do you deny that rationality, a God given gift, is good and useful? Premises have implications, that is a fact. If you accept a premise you must accept its implications.I have given you the criteria by which it is decided if a Pope's statements are infallible or not. When they are met the Pope is infallible, when they are not met he is fallible. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, contradictory about that. You have created a false dichotomy by ignoring the standards the Church established and projecting your own.Yes Jesus is the rock, there is no doubt in that. He did name St. Peter the rock of the Church though. You cannot deny that Simon became Peter (and Peter means rock, just check the original aramaic). So St. Peter is the rock of the Church. That line of the Gospel is clear.Actually Church members did write the originals (at least one of which was in aramaic, not Greek). We claim to be the original Church, per St. Peter being the rock, so all the New Testament writers were Catholic. There is nothing perverted about the Latin translation of the Bible. It actually preserves meaning better than English, which can obscure things at times due to English be so far removed from the Greek and Aramaic languages. As far as Church approved translations go, all modern versions must be checked against the original writings to be considered valid.If the Church of God you speak of is the Church founded by Christ it would have had to existed from the beginning and never gone into non existence (the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will be with you always even until the end). Can you show this? Historical records do not seem to show a group of nonreligious people just reading the Bible, throughout much of history. Possibly because many people were illiterate and the Bible wasn't in native language for many many years after the Church compiled it. In early Christianity there wasn't even a Bible, so the people had only the Apostles and later the bishops from which to receive information.While the Holy Spirit gives you grace to know Christ, your knowledge of him comes from outside sources as well. Imagine being stranded on a deserted island having never read the Bible. Could you actually say you knew Christ died for your sins? Nope, you couldn't. So your knowledge of Christ does come from the Bible as put together by the Catholic Church.Is the Church of God you talk about open to all people? If it is then it is universal, in the sense the Catholic Church uses the word. So I believe you are just playing a word game with that one.
Yes you did split hairs and the number of times the name of the real Church is mentioned is not the issue. The issue here is that the Church of God is the only Church that Christ founded and is the only Church mentioned in Holy Scripture, not your blasphemous counterfeit.Here we go, the syllogisms are beginning to kick in now. Let's make it all up as we go. I do not misunderstand infallibility. It's you that misunderstands it if you think you can make it mean something else, not me. Let's introduce a dictionary definition to help you: Infallible = incapable of erring. Now either your Pope's are incapable of erring or they're not, you can't have it both ways or in your deluded state maybe you think you can. Either way you're looking more foolish every time I comment here.There's only two things here that are invalid the illegitimate in Rome and your fallacious beliefs in man made religion. The Rock is The Lord Jesus Christ and there is only one rock not two. Your deluded blindness is complete."Again you avoid the fact that Catholic Church compiled the Bible, so without the Church you would not know Christ as you do."Your people did not write the Greek originals your people hid the Truth in Latin and corrupted The Word of God in doing so through your Helenising Philosophers. Ignatius, Tertullian Jerome etc. etc.I know Christ through the indwelling of The Holy Spirit and nothing else.I also use Holy Scriptures that were translated into English by men that the Roman Catholic Church hunted down and murdered.All the while you persist in defending the indefensible the more hollow you will look.
Splitting hairs? I did not split hairs. You said no other use of Church appears and I gave you an example.You misunderstand Papil infallibility. Popes are not at all times infallible. The Church has never held this. There are only very specific moments in time. The Pop must be speaking from the seat of Peter (that is the head of the Church), he must be speaking about doctrine, and it must not contradict anything in the Bible. If all those conditions are not met what the Pope says, while important, is not infallible. So your example is invalid, because you read infallibility into what no one is claiming is infallible.Your quote from Cor 10:4 was speaking about the Jews. While of course Christ is the ultimate foundation of all, throughout the Bible God works through men and bestows blessings and favors upon them. So that statement does not contradict St. Peter being the rock. And if you read the statement from Mathew in the original aramaic, you see that Peter is actually named rock. Peter as we call him comes from petros, meaning rock. Christ literally named him rock. So yes St. Peter was the rock on which the Church was built. Making him its head. We call the head the Pope. Is the word 'Pope' in the Bible? No, but no one alive on Earth today is specifically mentioned and called by their given name either. So would you say they don't exist because of this?You don't claim to speak the truth, so you don't have authority from Christ. He claimed to speak the truth, "It has been said to you...But I say to you." Jewish people of the time would recognize such a sentence as a claim to being God because it is a claim to truth.Again you avoid the fact that Catholic Church compiled the Bible, so without the Church you would not know Christ as you do.
"Notice 'Church of God' is not in that sentence" Splitting hairs won't help you. What you're saying is just more Papist Roman Catholic lies. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Rock not Peter and to say otherwise is blasphemy.Now you show me where Peter announces he is now Pope in Holy Scriptures. Show me the word 'Pope' in Holy Scriptures. This is just another example of Roman Catholics putting their faith in men. Peter was only a man and a man that Paul admonished for his Judaic legalistic errors. If Peter was Pope there is no way Paul could have corrected him for all Popes including Peter are 'infallible' Now, explain yourself out of that one.1 Cor 10:4 And did all drink the same Spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. There are not two rocks only one. I suggest you read my article "Peter the Pope" and learn something.I am not claiming anything I'm telling you The Truth but you do not believe me as you prefer the lies of men, their vain traditions and the lies of religion. I speak for the Lord Jesus Christ and you do not, you cannot, for The Truth - Jesus Christ is not in you and by your own mouth you condemn yourself.
"And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Notice 'Church of God' is not in that sentence. Also notice, St. Peter is the rock. It is not built on a foundation of people left to interpret scriptures, without authority, it is built upon St. Peter. St. Peter is the head of only one Church, the Catholic Church. And Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. So the Catholic Church is the true and only Church which Christ founded.You say you don't claim to speak the truth. Then you say you speak by Christ's authority. Thus you are claiming that Christ gave you the authority to spread a message that is not the truth. I assure you Christ, the all good all just all merciful God, did no such thing.I would like to know your response to the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. This is a historical fact. So while you may not claim to follow a religion, a religion put together the book you use. Without the Church, you would not know of Christ as you do now. You owe your life and salvation to Christ (who paid the price for you to have it) and the Church (the medium he chose to sends his grace through). I'm not sure what you have against religion, or even what you think this means. I also don't see how Christ gave you authority. Do you claim he stood physically before you and said you have authority to interpret his word? He actually did this to St. Peter. Again I must mention, even the devil tempted Christ with scripture passages. As far as your "exposing" of the Trinity, I shall not read such blasphemy.
As a PS. I am just about to start uploading my documents on exposing the trinity lie. I'm sure you'll be interested in those. You might also enjoy my series on Theology and Theologians or Bible Intellectualism and Bible Intellectuals. These include an expose on those men you people call the 'church fathers' who were just Helenising philosophers and counterfeiters.
Please note I do not claim anything I tell you the Truth. Only theologians, Bible intellectuals and men of religion claim things. Claiming things is a sure sign that a person is Spiritually dead. I have just quoted you two Holy Scriptures with the words Church of God and this is the only Church mentioned is Holy Scripture. Do you not understand this simple fact.There are plenty of organisations calling themselves the Church of God but the real Church of God is not an organisation. The real Church of God is just people - The Ekklesia those called by The Father to His Son, placed here and there on this earth, a small group of people who are not religious in anyway shape or form.I am a member of that Church and as a son of God and brother of The Lord Jesus Christ I speak with The Lord Jesus Christ's authority. You should not be surprised by this.Now you, cannot speak with that authority because you are a man of religion and like the men of religion in the first century i.e. the Pharisees you can only speak for yourself and your religion - a whited sepulchre.In fact your position is worse than the Pharisees because you can only say what the anti-Christ or chief impostor in Rome says.
I guess I need some clarification, for you claim Christ founded the Church of God. According to the Church of God website it was founded in 1886, well after Christ ascended into heaven and after the Gospels were compiled by the Catholic Church (yes it is a fact the Catholic Church put together the Bible). So the Church of God could not have been founded by Jesus. Do you mean some other organization?Also you quote scripture as if you have authority. Remember Christ in the desert? Even the devil was able to take scripture out of context and use it for evil. Christ gave authority to Peter as the head of the Church and from there it passed on to the leaders of the Church that would come later. So if you want to quote scripture, provide your authority like the Catholic Church can.
You're right, The Lord Jesus Christ did found only one church and that church is the Church of God, which I have already stated. What part of my statement did you not understand?(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 1 Tim 3:5 (KJV)For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it: Gal 1:13 (KJV)Your implications, unfortunately for you, are worthless, as they, like your 'church,' are man made. So you can imply all you like but your implications are not supported by Holy Scriptures. Biblically, there is no such thing as the universal 'church' - the catholic 'church' and certainly not the Roman Catholic 'church'.Really, all your organisation represents is a continuation of the Roman Empire and we all know how pagan and evil that was. Your organisation is often known as the 'holy' Roman Empire which tells us all we need to know.Many are called but few are chosen and narrow is the gate or path and few there be that find it. Now how does that stack up with your millions of deluded adherents?Your sandy man made foundations are beginning to move and they're looking very thin so you had better repent and turn away from your meaningless religion.Are you going to defend your organisation's track record on its love of money or shall I bring in other misdemeanors. Lets face it, the list is longer than the Amazon river!! You need to understand that following The Lord Jesus Christ is not religion and the only history we need is in the Holy Scriptures.
Christ only founded one church, the scriptures make that clear. He also told his apostles to spread the Word unto the ends of the Earth. This directly implies that the one church he founded was to be universal. He also prays that Christians will stay united, again implying a universal church. 'Catholic' means universal. The Catholic Church is the oldest church according to history, thus it must be the church founded by Christ and the only true Church.
The Church of God was founded by The Lord Jesus Christ not the Catholic 'Church.' The Roman Catholic Church is a meaningless counterfeit based on the love of filthy lucre or buy your 'salvation' here guys only £50/$100 in the box and 20 Hail Mary's - there you go - have a nice day!! Now how much mafia money shall we launder today?The phrases 'holy' Roman Catholic Church - Universal 'Church' - Catholic 'Church' are not in the Holy Scriptures and they are not there for good reason. The whole organisation is man made and based solely on syllogisms or a system of making it up as you go along. Phony to the core.
Good job spreading the Word. More people need to hear the truth of the Catholic Church, the only Church founded by Jesus.
Thank you for confirming that the '
