/ Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Thread: Who are Jesus' brothers? /
.
] Subject: Who are Jesus' brothers? / On 8/11/99 SJ wrote:
] I must name Jesus' brothers for Bible study class next week.
.
> Subject: Yeshua's brothers / On 8/11/99 timruah answered: James (who wrote the epistle), Joses,
> Judah and Simon (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3).
.
On 8/16/99 tondaar replies: Dear timruah, how is it that you are so certain that it was Yeshua's brother
Jacob who wrote the Book of James?
/ Subject: Re: Epistle of James (Jacob) / Thread: Who are Jesus' brothers? / Forum: theologyOnLineBiblestudy / 17Aug99 /
.
> On 8/17/99 Fisherman wrote: As regards the identity of the writer
> and the date of the Epistle there has been much controversy ...
.
tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, I see no controversy whatsoever. What I do see is that the scholars and scribes are all but unanimous in their agreement that the Epistle of James is "primitive" and "Jewish" and therefore *must* have been written very early on (eg. c.60-80CE). It is because of this widespread bias against Jm that commentators and exegetes conclude that the author is the Lord's brother Jacob. Certainly there is *nothing* in the epistle itself that could ever lead anyone to even suspect that that's who the author is! Talk about projection! The scholars haven't got the first clue about what Jacob is on about, so they hurriedly latch onto any explanation that will support their absurd fantasies regarding the formation of the canon.
.
> but the evidence timrauh quoted sure makes more sense than the evidence that you "didn't provide."
.
timruah didn't provide any evidence; unless you consider pure B.S. to consitute evidence. As for myself, all the evidence I have is freely available to anyone who cares enough to seek it out.
.
> There are some well qualified people who hold the Epistle of
> James to be, perhaps, the earliest of the New Testament writings.
.
They are biased and ignorant idiots unable to view the evidence objectively and historically; and are, therefore, unworthy of any serious consideration by any True Believer!
.
> If the evidence is "in the Epistle" to suggest that it is a "second century document" why don't you just
> "expose it" for all to see? Or, is it really there?
.
Yes, it is "really" there. Please proceed to my website where you will find the truth exposed in all its
bothersome glory ...
/ Subject > On Trading Insults / Thread: Who are Jesus' brothers? / Forum: theologyOnLineBiblestudy / 17Aug99 /
.
> On 8/17/99 Fisherman replies to tondaar's offensive outburst: My friend,
.
tondaar say: No friend of mine would dare to insult me the way you do!
.
> I am so glad that God didn't give me quite as many brains as He allowed a Goose to have ...
.
You'll get no argument from me on that point!
.
> but when a "self-proclaimed teacher" uses phrases such as "B.S." and "ignorant idiots" in referring to
> "Bible Scholars," of whom I have the upmost respect, and consider to be, "Scholars without equal" in
> modern times.
.
What planet did you say that you are living on? It can't be good ol Mother Earth, because on this planet one would be very hard pressed to any find *any* group of people that are dumber, more ignorant, and more self-serving, than the scribes and scholars who fancy themselves experts on all things related to Scripture ...
.
> Then I humbly decline your invitation to proceed to your church.
.
Your dedication to ignorance and stupidity is most impressive; and it must surely do the scholars proud to know that there are fools such as you to defend them in their hour of need. ... In the same way, I wouldn't want you to visit my site - where truth matters more than all phoney and self-serving 'respect' - because you are doubtless incapable of approaching the scriptures in any rational or faithful manner.
.
> God says: "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing" (Ezekiel 13:3).
.
The Word of the Lord also says: "Rather than offend God, let us offend foolish and stupid men who exalt themselves and boast with their pretensions to fine speech" (1Clem 21:5).
.
FYI: this statement was also written by the author of the Epistle of James. How many of your fine and well-respected scholars and scribes are able to tell you that?
.
Moreover, you've got a helluva nerve calling me a foolish prophet, when it is perfectly obvious that you wouldn't recognize a prophet (true or false) if he fell naked into your lap with a big red letter 'P' tatooed on his forehead!
.
> In His Service
.
You mean, 'in the service of darkness and ignorance' don't you? Yes, I'm quite sure that the Wicked One is very proud of your service; for you are doubtless a fine example of that type of pious evangelical Christian * who is 'stupid and ignorant, AND damn proud of it too'!
.
When Ahab saw Elijah, Ahab said to him, "Is it you, you Troubler of Israel?" And he answered, "I have not troubled Israel. But you have; and your father's house, because you have forsaken the commandments of the LORD and followed the Baals. - 1Kings 18:17-18
/ Subject > a false spirit / Thread: Who are Jesus' brothers? / Forum: theologyOnLineBiblestudy / 18Aug99 /
.
> On 8/17/99 timruah finally decides to get into the act: Tondaar: I was prepared to post a response to
> your baseless claims of the epistle of James being a second century composition.
.
tondaar say: Dear timruah, *sure* you were. [Insert much rolling of eyes ...]
.
> Having read your recent postings against my godly brother Fisherman and myself, I now see that you
> are not interested in objective dialogue but only in hurling insults.
.
You couldn't be more wrong about that if you tried! Objective and rational dialogue is exactly what I am most interested in ... However, I am not shy to insult bible scholars; for most of them surely deserve it (although there *are* some very few who have earned my respect through their honesty and ruthless pursuit of the truth of things).
.
> I admonish you to heed the words of the epsitle you profess to follow: Do not insult one another, brothers.
> He who judges his brother by insulting his brother judges the Torah by insulting the Torah. If you judge the
> Torah, you are not a doer of the Torah but its judge (James 4:11).
.
What are you babbling about? I am not judging the Torah. Indeed, I am perfectly able to make distinctions between scripture and the secondary literature of the scribes and scholars. It is the latter that upsets me; not the former. ... In the same way, you would be well advised to send these sentiments to your "godly brother Fisherman", as it is he who judges me a 'foolish prophet'. I don't take kindly to such offensive behavior; nor am I much impressed by those who attack me for defending myself!
.
> If you wish to learn to speak the truth in love,
.
You want me to emasculate myself first, you say? I think not!
.
> I would be pleased to engage in an intelligent dialogue with you. Until then, goodbye.
.
Oh timruah, who do you think you're kidding? I am well able to control my tongue (when the occasion calls for it). But you are simply using my uncompromising and prophetic manner of speaking as an excuse to avoid engaging in a dialogue with someone who will require you to do some careful and heavy thinking about a matter I consider to be of the utmost importance. But rather than defend your traditional posture on these matters so that our Readers can come to their own conclusions, you righteously run and hide, and so deprive them of the opportunity to learn the truth about these vexing topics . . . Shame on you!
/ Re: Which disciple is Jesus' brother? / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 9Jan2000 /
.
> On 21Dec1999 Dwayne Conyers wrote: Actually, James (author of the epistle) is accepted as
> being another son of Mary. <snip>
.
erasmian replies: Dear Dwayne, how do you know that Jacob (the author of the epistle called 'James') is a son of Mary? Does the author of James identify himself as a son of Mary? No? If not, is there any evidence within the epistle itself that *clearly* identifies him as a son of Mary? No? If not, what then is the basis for this claim of yours? Is it not true that this idea has no basis whatsoever in the scriptures, but is actually the product of extra-biblical theology?
.
In other words, since the author does NOT identify himself as a son of Mary, and likewise offers NO evidence whatsoever for this idea within the text of James, then it ought to be apparent that this idea of yours is *purely* and *solely* the result of pious wishful thinking, and has *NO* connection whatsoever with actual historical realities! It is, to put it another way, pure unadulterated BS!
.
If you (or anyone else) disagrees with this conclusion, then I challenge you to put your money where your foolish Fundy mouth is, and *prove* that the author of James is a son of Mary ...
/ Re: What is your religion / Forum > TheologyOnLine - Religion / NGZ: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 9Feb00 ANTHONY wrote: If you have more then 10 post Please identify yourself with the denomination.
> So that everyone can answer you from a point of view respecting your belief. -- Jehovah Witnesss
+
> On 10Feb00 stainless answered: Disciple of Christ. Not a denomination, simply a description.
+
> On 10Feb00 temple2000 answered: A thinking Roman Catholic - In other words I do not hold with everything
> the Church holds but I do not hold to anything where I could be denied the sacraments or excommunicated.
+
> On 11Feb00 Reverend Graham answerd: I believe in God. That's vague, I know. But the rest is inconsequential.
+
> On 11Feb00 Steven Cason answered: Neopagan priest, with Classical roots and modern intellectual bent.
> Formerly Taoist. Formerly Episcopalian. Raised Nazarene / Lutheran / Methodist.
+
> On 12Feb00 Knight answered: Raised Catholic, then Free Methodist, then Bible Church, then Nazarene, then
> generic Christian with a strong interest in Eastern thought as it applies to the orgination of philosophy and its
> impact upon Biblical Christianity.
+
> On 12Feb00 Ed E answered: Raised Catholic, did the "born again" thing in '74, went Calvary Chapel /
> non-denominational, worship currently at the Catholic church, but consider myself non-denominational Christian.
.
On 13Feb00 erasmian answers the TOL 'cloud of witnesses': Dear sundry and varied cyber-saints, OK, I get the point already! Obviously my shameful attempts to oversimplify all fundies and evangelists by throwing them willy-nilly into the same bag of mixed nuts is unjustified and unwarranted. Obviously there is a wide diversity of beliefs and
theologies shaping the particular way that each and every reader approaches the scriptures. Yes, sometimes I tend to forget all this in my rage against those who "study" the Book of James by doing all they can to ignore and misunderstand the evidence provided by Jm (clearly the best source for info about the prophet/author who wrote the universal epistle of James).
.
It's interesting though that despite all this diversity in mindset, tradition, and theological proclivities, when it comes to the Book of James all particularity vanishes in the rush to conform and uphold the same old tired song about how the author is *of course* the blood-brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Fundies and Evangelicals make much of their supposed independence from Romish theology and Romish thinking, and yet when they jump on the conformist bandwagon regarding the author of James, they show themselves to be loyal and devoted servants of the Great Whore, drinking up the lies and fantasies devised 18 centuries ago, and spewing forth the same worthless crap unchanged and unaltered (as if no progress whatsoever has occurred in the biblical sciences in all that time). Well, there's no fool like an old fool, they say.
.
So I would be very impressed with the above cloud of witnesses if any one of them could kindly step forth and boldly admit that the idea that the Jacob who wrote the Book of James is *in no way* the James who was Jesus' brother. Failing that, perhaps they could explain why they believe such thoughtless rubbish to the contrary; other than that old thought-habits die hard. How about it fellows? You are good at making the cyber-prophet look like a fool, but are you willing to run the same risk yourselves?
/ Subject > Re: What is your religion / 15Feb2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> the same old tired song about how the author is *of course* the blood-
>> brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Fundies and Evangelicals make much of their supposed independence from
>> Romish theology and Romish thinking, and yet when they jump on the conformist bandwagon regarding
>> the author <snip>
.
> On 15Feb2000 meerkat wrote: I thought that there is no Biblical evidence at all that the Gospels
> are even Apostolic
.
textman answers: Dear meerkat, it all depends on what you mean by "apostolic". If you take it in the most *strictest* sense possible, it refers to *only* those writings that came out of the original generation of believers; which is to say, those writings that were written before the Fall of Jerusalem (70CE). If we wish to apply this standard, then only the authentic epistles of Paul, and the original gospel of Mark & Peter, are *purely* apostolic. All the rest of the NT writings were written *after* the Fall of Jerusalem. The importance of making this distinction lies in the fact that Paul and Mark are our most authentic witnesses to the earliest Faith (and history of that Faith), and therefore ought to have more authority (over the hearts and minds of believers) than the other sacred writings.
.
> - that that is simply a Catholic oral tradition ?
.
No. There was no "Catholicism" as such in the first, second, or third centuries.
.
> Similarly, the identity of whatever "James" wrote the epistle of James, is entirely unBiblical - it is simply
> Catholic oral tradition - right ?
.
Wrong. The book of James is NOT Catholic at all (although it *is* universal). Rather, it is pure prophetic literature (ie. not priestly literature). The author of the Book of James was therefore a prophet, and most certainly NOT a Roman Catholic priest.
.
> For that matter, also the potential secret gospel of Mark - that is also Catholic oral tradition isn't it ?
.
Wrong again, meerkat. The so-called 'secret gospel of Mark' is a corrupted and distorted re-presentation of the Gospel of Mark. It was written (probably in the second century CE) by homo-gnostics wishing to make the Lord into a pervert; so as to justify their iniquity. Those 'Ones of Old' (as the prophet Judas calls them) were defeated by the early Christian prophets; but today they are back stronger than ever, and now there are no prophets (save one) to warn the People of God about them. This is why they have literally taken total control of the churches of Canada, and run them to the benefit of their perversity. Not surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church of Canada leads the way in promoting what they call 'mutual-love'.
A LUDICROUS LACK OF LOGIC
/ Re: GOD Versus Roman-Catholics / [ was- Mary's humility exposes roman-catholic Deceitfulness ]
/ NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy / 14March2000 /
.
> On 12Nov99 Ben Mitts wrote: <snip> Jesus did have siblings. If you look at Matt. 13:13-56 it states His
> brothers were James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. His sisters were not named individually. Mark 6:1-3 also
> has an account. James is the author of The Epistle of James.
.
textman sayeth: Like all those who imagine themselves experts on the scriptures, BM makes this last statement with all the confidence born of unshakable ignorance and unmovable arrogance. He presents this last statement as if it were a well-established fact widely-known and uncontested. This is not the case. Most sensible Jamesian scholars
today are well aware that the simple-minded *hypothesis* that 'James' (the Lord's brother) is the author of the book of James is one that is chock full of insurmountable difficulties, and indeed is simply NOT supported by the text of Jm.
.
> The writer of Jude is recognized as the brother of James because he says so,
.
Judas does *NOT* say that he is the blood-brother of James (the Lord's brother)! In the Christian epistle of Jude the word 'brother' has the *Christian* meaning; and this does not require any relationship based on blood, but rather a relationship based on Faith and common traditions. Thus Judas is Jacob's faith-brother (ie. they are brother prophets), *not* his blood-brother. Therefore your so-called reasoning is just so much hogwash!
.
> therefore If he is the brother of James he then is the brother of Jesus Christ.
.
You see how this works? Fundies pile one stupid interpretation upon another until they get the desired results they seek; all the while conveniently ignoring the totality of the evidence offered by the texts of Jm and Jude. The 'Jacob' that Judas refers to is most certainly NOT 'James the Lord's brother', but another Jacob who lived decades after the Lord's brother. But Fundies don't want to hear about that. They would much rather believe that James, Jude, and 2Peter are not written by second generation prophets but by first century apostles and blood-relatives of Jesus! In this way they piously imagine that they are building up the glory and majesty of the scriptures (as all good Christians *ought* to do)!
.
> Only James is named in Acts. See Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18.
.
So the mere fact that Acts makes mention of some James is enough to prove that the Lord's brother is the author of the book of James? Is that right, Ben? No, it's not right. Not by a long shot! You're a methodological imbecile, Ben.
.
> James was the recognized leader of the fledgling Christian Church which began in Jerusalem.
.
That's right. And this James was NOT alive in the second century when the book of James was written, so *obviously* he is neither the author of Jm nor the 'Jacob' mentioned by Judas.
.
Hey, Ben, grow a brain why don't ya?
ON FAITH TO BELIEVE
/ Re: Martin Luther on FAITH / 25Feb99 / Ngz: alt.religion.christianlife, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible /
.
>> On 16Feb99 Jubilee Temple/Bro.Frank wrote: faith is God's work in us
.
> On Feb17 The DataRat replied: Indeed. We are saved NOT because we believe in Christ. We are saved
> because God put faith ~in~ us. Grace is a free gift from the Lord, and so is the faith to believe in it!
.
textman answers: Faith -> (1) complete confidence or trust. (2) belief in God, or the doctrines of religion.
(3) a system of religious belief. (4) loyalty or fidelity (4X: keeping the faith).
.
Belief -> (1) something believed (4X: a belief in transubstantiation). (2) confidence, faith, trust. (3) religious tenets. (4) conviction, opinion, view. / Believe -> (1) to accept the truth or reliability of something without proof. (2) to accept the truth of. (3) to have confidence in. (4) to suppose.
.
Grace -> "God opposes the proud, but to the humble He gives Grace" (Proverbs 3:34 / LXX).
.
Thus we see that while faith and belief are similar, they are not identical. If God grants us a measure of faith, it remains up to us whether we shall cooperate with it or not. In the same way, we deliberately choose whether or not we will believe in the Lord (ie. it is a free and deliberate act of our own human will). Hence we are always able to sin against the Holy Spirit by willfully choosing to disobey the righteous commands of our Lord Jesus Christ.
.
Therefore, God acts and reacts according to what he sees within in our hearts. If we are vain and arrogant, we choose not to believe, and so God leaves us to wallow in our vanity (as we freely desire). But if we humble ourselves before the Lord-God Almighty, and *choose to believe* the Word of God, then God grants us grace, peace, faith, and all the fruits of the Spirit that are suitable to our condition.
.
"... and humbly accept the Implanted Word which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21 / Prophet Version).
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
>> Ann answered: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you
>> will be saved. You and your household." [Acts 16:30-31] Would you care to rephrase your statement
>> that 'We are saved NOT because we believe in Christ,' DataRat?
.
> DataRat replied: No, Ann. Romans 12:3 makes it clear that our faith is not of ourselves, but granted by God.
.
"For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3 / New American Standard Bible / Updated Edition).
.
"sound judgment", sayeth the prophet Paul? Let us see if these Calvinists are capable of sound judgment ...
.
> Your quote from Acts 16:30-31 is correct ... as far as it goes.
.
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Joel 2:32).
.
Oh, yes! BUT only if they do so in faith, humility, and obedience ... for
.
"Not every one who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven (will enter). Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS'" (Matthew 7:21-23 / NASB).
.
> rat: But viewing ALL of Scripture, we can say that we are saved by faith in Christ WHICH FAITH IS GIVEN
> US BY GOD. In other words, we have faith to believe in Christ because the Holy Spirit GAVE us the faith
> to believe in Christ. THAT was the Reformed Rodent's point. A viewpoint which you've seen many times
> before, and continue to insist on mischaracterizing at every opportunity. -- DataRat
.
"ALL of Scripture", sayeth the Reformed Rodent? Really? Then how, pray tell, does the DataRat understand these words of our Lord:
.
"So be Doers of the Word and not just Listeners, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is only a Listener of the Word (and not a Doer), that one is like a Woman who takes a good look in a Mirror at the Face she was born-again with. For she considered herself carefully; and then went away and forgot what she was like! But they who have caught a glimpse of the Perfect Law (the one of Freedom), and stayed with Him - being not a Forgetful Listener, but a Doer of His work - they are blessed in ALL that they do" (The Book of James 1:22-25 / PV).
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
> On 17Feb GoldRush / Ronda answered: Ann, We would put it, that we believe and are saved, because
> of the gift of faith that enables us to believe. A man dead in sin is unable to believe.
.
It is not so much that he is *unable* to believe, but more that he is *unwilling* to believe. Please note the significance of this distinction; for it is the place where I part company with DR & Ronda.
.
> He has a heart of stone; it is as hard as brick and has as much "life and love" within it as such. The heart
> must be quickened and brought to life by the Holy Spirit and made a "heart of flesh" before it can
> respond to God and His Gospel. The man must be born again.
.
I tend to agree (in general); but . . .
.
> This is the work of the Holy Spirit, that precedes any kind of belief or response to God. The heart is made
> capable of believing by the gift of faith (which is a fruit of the Spirit.) [Galatians 5:22].
.
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control ... If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:22,23,25 / NIV). Please note that the cited reference does NOT state that "faith as such" is a fruit of the Spirit. Nor do DataRat and GoldRush provide any references to support their contention that God does not respond to us. The reason for this is not hard to find; for it is the constant testimony of scripture that God *does* respond to us. Check it out!
.
> In the instance above, if the man fell on his knees and confessed Christ at this point, we would say it was
> because the whole scenario was orchestrated by God drawing that man to Himself, and was the
> result of the Holy Spirit working to save. God receives *all* the glory.
.
Yes; God the Cosmic Puppet-Master receives all the glory for doing nothing of any meaning or significance whatsoever.
.
> The Arminian would say, that if the man fell on his knees and confessed Christ as this point, it was
> because there was some capacity in that man to believe,
.
Yes. A God-given and Spirit-inspired capacity (lest we forget that we are the sons and daughters of the Father of Lights).
.
> and when he did, God then saved him.
.
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? ... Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message [ie. the Good News], and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:14,17 / NIV).
.
> It would be the result of that man believing, and not the work of the Spirit until the man made the decision.
> The consequence is, man credits himself at least partially for his salvation and robs God of *all* the glory.
.
"But are you willing to know, O Hollow One, that faith without works is useless and unproductive? ... So you see that by works is one justified, and *not* by faith alone" (James 2:20,24 / PV).
.
> How do you want to witness? Giving God all glory for all things, or only giving God shared glory,
> along with the believers?
.
The Heavenly Father shares His glory with the Eternal Son and the Holy Spirit, as well as with all the angels and celestial beings, as well as with all Creation. Are True Believers therefore unworthy to share in the divine light and life that God has so generously bestowed on all things? But the Reformed Tradition does not see the human race as
the sons and daughters of the Great Creator, but rather as the sons and daughters of the Evil One (being also the god of this World of Darkness and Death).
.
In other words, those who adhere to this tradition do not believe the revelation of Divine Truth in the Torah/Word of God: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness' ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them ... And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:26-28,31 / RSV).
MORE LIES FROM THE LYING WHORE!
/ Re: Non-catholics,BEWARE (was:ARE You Catholic or Christian) / 8March2000 /
/ Ngz: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
> On 22Feb00 Annlouisa Brown) wrote: I know its long ... so if you're not Catholic, better beware!
> For if you read it, you may become a convert
.
Oooo, please stop; you're scaring me!
.
> to the church founded by Christ ... The Roman Catholic Church.
.
erasmian sayeth: Dear Annlouisa, if the RCC was the church founded by Christ, one would naturally suppose that the NT ought to provide some evidence to that end. But I've searched the scriptures high and low, and nowhere does it make mention of any "Roman Catholic Church"; although the book of Revelation *does* speak of the Whore of Babylon.
.
> <snip list of misunderstood and misinterpreted bible-bytes which in no way, shape, or form
> refer to the Roman Catholic Anti-Church>
.
> "... Matt 16:18 <text snipped> [Note to reader: this passage is analyzed elsewhere at length]
.
> John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John?
> You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).
.
Is Peter here supposed to be the personification of the RCC?
.
> Luke 22:31 <snipped> John 21:15-17 <snipped>
.
These passages also speak about Peter. There is no hint, suggestion, *OR* implication anywhere in the texts that Jesus was *really* talking about the lying-whore anti-church of Rome. Only the feeble-minded Romish could fancy that the Word is speaking of them when it *obviously* isn't!
.
> Peter knew what Christ meant when He said "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
> whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be
> loosed in heaven." He knew that Christ was creating the office to govern His church.
.
You're a lying whore, just like the church you worship. In fact, there is nothing at all historical about any of this. These verses are a Matthean addition to the original gospel of Mark & Peter; written well after Peter was dead and gone. It is typical of Romanists to confuse legendary encrustations with historical facts.
.
> Holding the keys was a juridical term which came from the authority given by Davidic Kings
> to the Majordomo who governed the King's household.
.
Who cares? This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Kingdom of God; (which is NOT to be equated with *any* "church").
.
> Look at Isaiah 22:22-24 <snipped due to utter irrelevancy>
.
> The Christians of the post apostolic age recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the
> supreme pontiff just as Christ taught in Matt 16:18-19.
.
This claim is yet another self-serving Romish lie. Moreover, there is no mention of any "supreme pontiff" either in the
scriptures *or* in the early church fathers.
.
> St. Clement, who was ordained by St. Peter
.
Who says that Clement was ordained by Peter? . . . Some lying ho-priest, no doubt!
.
> (and who is mentioned in Phil 4:3)
.
What makes you think that these are the same one person? Given the fact that there is a gap of about 50 years between Philippians and 1Clement, I'd say that the odds of them being the same person are *exactly* nil!
.
> was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome.
.
Peter was never in Rome. Peter was never a bishop. Your line of succession is nothing more than an episcopal-muffinhead fantasy!
.
> He is shown in history to have excercised the authority of his office (cf. Matt 16:19) to end a schism in
> the church at Corinth around the year 80: Pope St. Clement I, c. 80 A.D. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT
> TO THE CORINTHIANS 1:1 THE Church of God which sojourns at Rome <snipsome>
.
Here we see the full magnitude of the self-serving lies spread by the lying whore who deliberately corrupts the original text (by replacing 'Egypt' with 'Rome'), and then claiming that some "pope" (who they conjured up out of thin air) is the author. The truth is that 1Clement was written by a prophet, NOT by some episcopal muffinhead whose ego is as big as the Empire!
.
> 63:2 For ye will give us great joy and gladness, if ye render obedience unto the things written by us
> through the Holy Spirit, and root out the unrighteous anger of your jealousy, according to the entreaty
> which we have made for peace and concord in this letter.
.
This is prophetic language, folks. Straight from the prophets of Egypt. They were the ones who had the authority of the Holy Spirit. They were the ones who fought against those who would toss the Tanakh into the trash bin. And what was Rome doing at this time? Half the Romish church followed after the gnostic-heretic Marcion who deliberately rejected the Jewish roots of the Faith! And then, later on, this very same church *steals* the fruits of the prophets, and calls them her own! Well, what do you expect from a heartless whore like that?
.
> St. Irenaeus bears witness to the primacy and authority of the church at Rome and its apostolic succession
> from Ss. Peter and Paul: St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, c. 189 A.D. AGAINST HERESIES -- BOOK III CHAP. III.
> -- A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL
> SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
.
Yes. It is in Irenaeus that the absurd fantasy of apostolic succession first finds literary expression in a pack of lies whose sole intent is to hand all authority over to the priests. Is it significant that Irenaeus was a bishop? ... DUH!
.
> 1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church <snip> ... the Churches themselves <snip>
> ... all the Churches ... <snip>
.
You see that? Even the idiot-bishop Irenaeus has sense enough to recognize that there is *not* one church (Romish), but many!
.
> [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very
> ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious
> apostles, Peter and Paul;
.
Since neither of these men EVER set foot in Rome, it is *extremely* unlikely that they are responsible for founding and organizing the Romish Whore. Indeed, Irenaeus' pathetic lie is refuted straight out of the NT where we see plain as day that Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome, making it plain that he had never been there. Did Peter & Paul "found" the Romish Whore without the bother of actually being there? No, of course not. The Whore would much rather have us believe that Peter & Paul *were* there, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding! So much so, in fact, that they deliberately *manufactured* "evidence" to that end (such as the endings of Hebrews and Acts, the corruption of 1Clement, and so on and on and on).
.
> as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means
> of the successions of the bishops.
.
Yeah gee, a bishop glorifying the bishops. No bias there, eh?
.
> <snip the rest of Irenaeus' BULLSHIT!> http://www.flash.net/~timothyc/
.
And that's the best that the scum-sucking Cats can do: Spin a web of lies and historical distortions and fabricated "evidence", and then whine about their idiotic "apostolic succession". Boy, you gotta be some kind of retard to fall for all that crap! Anyone who is "converted" by all this smelly stuff is certainly more than worthy to be a member of the Mother of Whores. Indeed, they truly deserve each other! Maybe that's why the RCC is the most popular Satan- inspired anti-church of them all ... ???
P.S. Yes, it's high time that people woke up to the sad fact that the RCC Whore is NOT founded upon Peter (or any other legitimate authority), but rather *solely* upon the lies, deceptions, and delusions of the priests who deliberately corrupted the Faith of the prophets and saints to the end of glorifying themselves above all human creatures!
.
P.P.S. "For Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered Her iniquities" (Revelation 18:5).
/ Re: More Lies From the Lying Whore /14March2000 / Ngz: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> On 11Mar00 Pied Piper replied: We have a documented path directly to Peter and to Christ.
.
erasmian answers: Dear Pied Piper, this point has already been addressed much better than I could manage:
.
] If the above were ever proven to be the case, we would be forced to conclude that the Almighty is the
] sadistic tormentor of the human race who chose to unleash upon us a horrendous evil. That evil is the
] Roman Church and all it's monstrous hypocrisy and ungodly manifestations. -- Judas.
.
> Your ridiculous out of context quotes
.
The quotes in question were given by a staunch Romanist (TimothyC.); so if you think them ridiculous, you can
give all the credit for it to him.
.
> and personal opinion aside, do you really think attacking the Church Christ himself founded is the
> way to justify your beliefs?
.
Wherever did you get that idea? You're wrong twice over. The RCC was NOT founded by Christ, and neither am I justifying my beliefs by attacking "the Church". What I *am* doing is showing the lies and falsehoods of the RCC for what they are. If you choose not to accept the truth of things, then that is entirely your decision.
.
> Is it how Jesus tells us how to act towards others?
.
It's how the Word of God tells us to fight for the integrity of the faith against *all* those who would pollute and corrupt it. So, yes, it *is* how Jesus tells us to act towards the enemies of the Faith.
.
> Does it truly lift your heart in Christ to deliberately hurt others?
.
A little pain is certainly acceptable if it causes even just a few Cats to re-examine the foolish and deceptive claims upon which the RCC bases all Her stolen authority.
.
> Just a few questions for someone professing to be such a superior Christian. -- Pax
.
When have I ever professed to be a "superior" Christian, Pax? I think that maybe you have me confused with your own Romish priests; for they are the ones who claim to be superior to *all* human creatures (whether believer or pagan makes no difference to them).
P.S. But I am a worm and not a man; A reproach of men and despised by the people. -- Psalms 22:6 / NASB
/ Re: More Lies From the Lying Whore / 18March2000 /
/ Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
"We must go out to him, then, outside the camp, bearing the abuse he experienced. For here
we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come." -- Hebrews 13:13-14 / NETbible
.
> On 16Mar00 Pied Piper wrote: Constantine united the early Churches to form the Catholic Church.
.
erasmian sayeth: Dear Pax, actually it would be more correct to say that Constantine united *most* of the early Churches to form the Imperial Church of the Empire. Out of this situation emerged three new trends that would shape the Faith forevermore: (1) The Byzantine churches of the East. (2) The Latin churches of the West. (3) The
monastic movement in Egypt (and elsewhere); which, significantly, was a deliberate rejection of the World *AND* its new Empire-sanctioned church.
.
> Try reading something other than fundie lies and expand to other sources. -- Pax
.
Like, say for example, 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church' by Malachi Martin, 1981:
.
For the first 250 years of the church's existence, there was no doubt in churchmen's minds about the answer to the question that the Ayatollah asked. The power of the church, they knew, was solely and purely spiritual. They remembered the word that had been most frequently on the lips of Jesus in order to describe the new state of affairs he was inaugurating: the "Kingdom of God," the "Kingdom of Heaven." And they drew their understanding of what Jesus had meant from a recorded exchange between him and the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who had condemned him to die. "Are you then a king?" Pilate had asked. "I am. But my kingdom is not of this world. If it were like any other kingdom in this world, my servants would certainly have sought to free me ...". Between the death of Simon Peter the Apostle in A.D. 67, and the year 312, there were thirty-one popes, successors to Peter as bishops of Rome. Not one of the first eighteen popes died in his bed. All perished violently. While he lived, each of the first thirty-one popes wielded the authority of that spiritual kingdom, and taught what his predecessor had taught before him: Abide in the kingdom of God's spirit. Wait for the return of Jesus, the final end of this visible world, and the ultimate triumph of God's rule. In the year 312, the Roman emperor, Constantine, became a Christian and, ten years later, established Christianity as the religion of the empire. For most of the following 1,650 years, Christianity was the most important political and social factor in Europe. During most of that time, the Roman pope was the most important personage in Europe and the Western world. By the early Renaissance, the church that Jesus had started was incarnated in a highly specified institution: a hierarchic church, centralized in its government, absolute in its authority and its claims on all authority, with few elective and mostly appointive offices, and reflecting the traits of a kingdom as men had always known a kingdom to be: "a political and social order anchored in preset ideals and ideas, a hierarchical pattern of structures by which it is sustained, the sublimation of social and other group interests, organic growth, a reliance on tradition in order to safeguard and hallow its symbols, vigorous defense against threats from outside, and protection of peace within, both materially and in terms of ideas." So Eric M. de Saventhem recently defined "kingdom." That is how the Christian church evolved in Rome. [Pages 3-4]
.
Although this is a rather too Romishly biased and erroneous account of real historical events, it is nevertheless essentially correct in describing the basic worldly nature of the RCC. ... Hey Pax, have you got any sources that contradict these alleged "fundie lies"?
.
> On 19Mar00 Pied Piper wrote: <snipsome> Here is a quote for you CB: 2 Peter 1:20 and I quote:
> "But first note this: no one can interpret any prophesy of scripture by himself."
.
erasmian replies: Dear Pax, your quote is not only incomplete but also grossly inadequate! And because of this, it is plain to see that you are twisting the Word of God to your own ends (ie. the glorification of the Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart).
.
Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -- 2Peter 1:20-21/ NETbible
.
Did you catch that, Pax? The inspired author of 2Peter is here saying quite plainly that it is the prophets who are "carried along by the Holy Spirit". For all you Cats out there who make it a point to be biblically illiterate, please note that the Word of God has here neglected to mention that priests, bishops, and popes also 'speak from God'. Now why do you suppose that is? hmmmmm?
.
An unfortunate oversight, perhaps? ...
.
> That is very applicable to you as your translations show a distinct lack of understanding, as do most
> biblical literalists who do not have a learned priesthood to guide them. -- Pax
.
BLESSED are *ALL* those believers "who do not have a learned priesthood to guide them", for the truth and light and life of the Eternal Word are freely and abundantly given unto them!
