Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Never a Pope, Never in Rome, was Apostle Pete

Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Never a Pope, Never in Rome, was Apostle Peter

http://www.controversyextraordinary.com...

Peter was never a pope, more so, in Rome.

Pope means father. Notice what is written for the subject, "The Pope," in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Herberman, Charles G. et al., ed. 1907. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 1: Aachen"Assize. New York: Robert Appleton Company.)

A backgrounder on this encyclopedia says it is "an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church."

The preface explains that the first volume appeared in March 1907 and the last three volumes appeared in 1912. In 1914 a master index volume followed and supplementary volumes later on. It was designed "to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine."

Now, on the subject of "The Pope" is a blatant error in that St. Peter is erroneously involved where he is not mentioned in the Bible as such.

Note: The pencil marks here mean discussions will not include these items on St. Ennodius and the Western Church. On the title, "Pope" and other titles that clericals use, we refer to biblical examples - -Pope-1(The Catholic Encylopedia)
Giving orders and discipline to His apostles said, the Lord Jesus Christ said -

MATTHEW 23:8-10

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

None of the apostles ever affixed the word "Father" to their names. Nowhere in the Bible can we find "Father Paul" or "Father Peter." They were addressed as "brothers" or "brethren" in conformity with the order of the Lord Jesus Christ that "all ye are brethren."

THE ACTS 2:37

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

In this particular verses, the apostles were addressed as "brethren" not "fathers."

A simple equation and analysis will reveal the great lie being propagated by the Catholic Church, saying that Peter was the first pope!

The word "pope" was invented by Catholic authorities only in the 6th century. papas
How can Peter be a pope when the Office of the Pope and the title were created by the Catholic Church five hundred years after the death of Peter! This is laughable stupidity!

The Apostle Paul called Timothy, Titus, and other Christians as his "own sons in faith" but never instructed neither Timothy nor Titus to call him "Father."

I TIMOTHY 1:2

Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

TITUS 1:4

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Let us read again Matthew 23:9.

MATTHEW 23:9

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ are spiritual.

JOHN 6:63

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

When He said, "Call no man your father upon the earth," He refers to spiritual matters of faith. Spiritually speaking, we must call only one person "Father," and that is the Father in heaven. There is a person on earth we can call our father but carnal and not spiritual.

HEBREWS 12:9

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Catholic priests and popes are neither our carnal fathers nor spiritual fathers. They have no right whatsoever to be called "Father" in any angle of truth! But why do Catholic priests love to be called "father" by their constituents? Spiritual Father-MCD Remember, we have only one person to be addressed as "Father" spiritually, and that is the Father in heaven. This honor is being grabbed by the false teaching of Catholic priests and authorities! To prove that they are lying, they use mistranslated scriptures. They justify their Father titles with this one -

I CORINTHIANS 4:15 (English Standard Version)

For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

However, if we consult the interlinear Greek translation of the scriptures, the phrase "I became your father" in the preceding verse is not found.

1Co 4:15 ForG1063 thoughG1437 ye haveG2192 ten thousandG3463 instructorsG3807 inG1722 Christ,G5547 yetG235 have ye notG3756 manyG4183 fathers:G3962 forG1063 inG1722 ChristG5547 JesusG2424 IG1473 have begottenG1080 youG5209 throughG1223 theG3588 gospel.G2098

The word used and translated in English as "begotten" is ^7;^9;_7;_7;^5;L9;`9;, meaning, "be born".

^7;^9;_7;_7;^5;L9;`9;

gennaoM2;

From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

Consider that by using 1 Corinthians 4:15-16, the Catholics in their official website did not use the authorized Roman Catholic Bible which is the Douay-Rheims Version. They used another version that is not a Catholic Version to mislead people so they can cling on to their "Father" tradition.

I CORINTHIANS 4:15 (Douay"Rheims Version)

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

See? "I have begotten you" is worlds apart from "I became your father." It is easily noticeable that in the authorized version of the Catholic Church, the word "father" does not appear in the verse but the phrase " I have begotten you," forcing them to use a version of the Bible which they do not normally use.

What exactly is the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the use of other translation of the Bible? Notice the sanctions mentioned in the following publications "

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Scripture," notes that the Synod of Tarragona (1233/4) issued a prohibition, similar to that of the Synod of Toulouse. It also "ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned." [Source: Antony Stockwell (2014) "A Corrupt Tree, An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit.]

King Ferdinand II of Aragon (called "the Catholic") and Queen Isabella I "prohibited all, under the severest pains, from translating the sacred scripture into the vulgar tongues, or from using it when translated by others" (M"Crie, p. 192). [Source: Thomas M"Crie. History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reformation in Spain in the sixteenth century, page 192.]

In 1408, the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury, demanded: We therefore decree and ordain that no man shall, hereafter, by his own authority, translate any text of the scripture into English, or any other tongue, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part or in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial. [Source: Antony Stockwell (2014) "A Corrupt Tree, An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit," pages 474-475]
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 6:58:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
To escape from the consequence of their invented teaching that Catholic priests are spiritual fathers, they use an unauthorized version of the Bible!

This one is worth considering. Using their invented title "Father," they do not simply use it! To show the height of their stupidity and arrogance they go beyond, affixing several adjective phrases like "Reverend Father," "Most Reverend Father," "Most Holy Father," "The Very Reverend," "Right Reverend," and the like. These are titles that are most blasphemous, because when they invoke the name of the Father in heaven in prayers, they just say "Our Father" not "Reverend Father," not "Very Reverend Father," when it is certainly biblical that only the Father in heaven must be addressed "Reverend."

PSALMS 111:9

He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant forever: holy and reverend is his name.

The word ירא , translated as "reverend" in English, was used in only one instance in the Bible to show the greatness of the name of God. But the Catholic Church, time and again, have used and misused this word for themselves. Truly, the Great Babylon and the Beast in the Bible is full of blasphemous names!

REVELATION 17:3

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Peter could not have been a pope, let alone in Rome! Why? Because he is Apostle to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles!

GALATIANS 2:7-8

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Thinking wisely and justly, will it be possible that the Apostle Paul be renting a place to live for two years and never seeing Peter in Rome? If indeed "Pope Peter" was in Rome, why did he never visit Paul in his rented apartment? Both of them are Apostles with the same commission; if staying in the same area, would their behavior be one of avoiding each other?

THE ACTS 28:16, 30-31

16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

If Peter was in Rome allegedly being the first pope, it will be very unbecoming of a senior apostle not to show any act of compassion to his co-apostle, who is under house arrest, renting a place to live for two years!

What can explain all these injustices done by a senior apostle to a co-apostle? Answer: the lies of the Roman Catholic Church!

More to come. May God bless you.

Brother Eli
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 3:05:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:58:14 PM, Bendido wrote:
To escape from the consequence of their invented teaching that Catholic priests are spiritual fathers, they use an unauthorized version of the Bible!

This one is worth considering. Using their invented title "Father," they do not simply use it! To show the height of their stupidity and arrogance they go beyond, affixing several adjective phrases like "Reverend Father," "Most Reverend Father," "Most Holy Father," "The Very Reverend," "Right Reverend," and the like. These are titles that are most blasphemous, because when they invoke the name of the Father in heaven in prayers, they just say "Our Father" not "Reverend Father," not "Very Reverend Father," when it is certainly biblical that only the Father in heaven must be addressed "Reverend."

PSALMS 111:9

He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant forever: holy and reverend is his name.

The word ירא , translated as "reverend" in English, was used in only one instance in the Bible to show the greatness of the name of God. But the Catholic Church, time and again, have used and misused this word for themselves. Truly, the Great Babylon and the Beast in the Bible is full of blasphemous names!

REVELATION 17:3

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Peter could not have been a pope, let alone in Rome! Why? Because he is Apostle to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles!

GALATIANS 2:7-8

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Thinking wisely and justly, will it be possible that the Apostle Paul be renting a place to live for two years and never seeing Peter in Rome? If indeed "Pope Peter" was in Rome, why did he never visit Paul in his rented apartment? Both of them are Apostles with the same commission; if staying in the same area, would their behavior be one of avoiding each other?

THE ACTS 28:16, 30-31

16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.

30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,

31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

If Peter was in Rome allegedly being the first pope, it will be very unbecoming of a senior apostle not to show any act of compassion to his co-apostle, who is under house arrest, renting a place to live for two years!

What can explain all these injustices done by a senior apostle to a co-apostle? Answer: the lies of the Roman Catholic Church!

More to come. May God bless you.

Brother Eli : :

Good work my friend. Your wisdom comes from the Heavenly Kingdom.

Our Creator knows that St. Peter was never a pope. He was one of God's saints who testified to His knowledge and learned that Christianity was being formed by antichrists who were stealing his written and spoken words that God had him write and speak for Him.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:58:14 PM, Bendido wrote:
To escape from the consequence of their invented teaching that Catholic priests are spiritual fathers, they use an unauthorized version of the Bible!

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2015 11:08:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Peter was never in Rome because "Peter" was another New Testament literary invention of the Church Fathers meant to capture Rome's worship of Janus-Pater, god of gates and doors who the Keys to the Gate of Heaven:

Here's where the NT Peter comes from:

origins of the Peter/rock story

From "The Chief Gods of Rome:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholics Claim the "Keys":

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

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

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

I keep telling Bible thumpers they are resting their religious beliefs upon sand and not rock as they go for these priesthood swindles again and again, unable to lift a leg or finger to take them to the nearest large library where they could validate or invalidate Bible stories for themselves by simply researching the existing religious information.

But blind faith wants to be blind and lead the believer into the ditch of erroneous religious beliefs fabricated and installed by devious Bible writers and editors, first the priesthoods of Judah, then the Church Father/Catholic Church got into fabricating religious tales to capture believers--which they did and still do--because believers are so spiritually lazy and want others, ancient con artist men, to tell them how they are to believe and what to believe. And it works, again, because so many are so lazy about checking where their religious ideas really come from, accepting the fabricators ruses and tall tales as if they were Gospel truth..
Rosco_P_Coletrain
Posts: 143
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 4:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/24/2015 11:08:18 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
Peter was never in Rome because "Peter" was another New Testament literary invention of the Church Fathers meant to capture Rome's worship of Janus-Pater, god of gates and doors who the Keys to the Gate of Heaven:

Here's where the NT Peter comes from:

origins of the Peter/rock story

From "The Chief Gods of Rome:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholics Claim the "Keys":

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

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

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

I keep telling Bible thumpers they are resting their religious beliefs upon sand and not rock as they go for these priesthood swindles again and again, unable to lift a leg or finger to take them to the nearest large library where they could validate or invalidate Bible stories for themselves by simply researching the existing religious information.

But blind faith wants to be blind and lead the believer into the ditch of erroneous religious beliefs fabricated and installed by devious Bible writers and editors, first the priesthoods of Judah, then the Church Father/Catholic Church got into fabricating religious tales to capture believers--which they did and still do--because believers are so spiritually lazy and want others, ancient con artist men, to tell them how they are to believe and what to believe. And it works, again, because so many are so lazy about checking where their religious ideas really come from, accepting the fabricators ruses and tall tales as if they were Gospel truth..

You have it close but not quite there. Your closed mind to the New Testament has betrayed you. For one thing you need to take time to actually understand what Jesus said to Peter whose name is the feminine form meaning a pebble or small stone rather than a rock, and then work from there using the context to help you understand the rest.

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

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

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

The first to claim that Peter was martyred at Rome is Dionysius, bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the second century. Earlier, Clement of Rome, though mentioning Paul and Peter together, makes Paul"s preaching in both the East and the West a distinguishing feature of that apostle, implying that Peter was never in the West. As the vicious persecution of Christians by the Roman government (under Nero) had seemingly not yet begun, there would have been no reason for Peter to veil the identity of Rome by the use of another name. When Paul wrote to the Romans, sending greetings by name to many in Rome, he omitted Peter. Had Peter been a leading overseer there, this would have been an unlikely omission. Also, Peter"s name is not included among those sending greetings in Paul"s letters written from Rome"Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2"Timothy, Philemon, Hebrews.

Bias will always blind. We must learn to take no sides as we search for the answers.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?

I did, I asked a simple question (which I'll repost):

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 3:58:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 3:33:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?

I did, I asked a simple question (which I'll repost):

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?

There is no "authorized version" of the Bible as in "authorized by God". If you mean "authorized" in the sense of the King James Version, it's translation was authorized by King James.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 3:58:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:33:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?

I did, I asked a simple question (which I'll repost):

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?

There is no "authorized version" of the Bible as in "authorized by God". If you mean "authorized" in the sense of the King James Version, it's translation was authorized by King James.

I'm just seeing where this goes. I'm assuming that he is talking about the deuterocanonical/apocrypha.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:34:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 4:19:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:58:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:33:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?

I did, I asked a simple question (which I'll repost):

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?

There is no "authorized version" of the Bible as in "authorized by God". If you mean "authorized" in the sense of the King James Version, it's translation was authorized by King James.

I'm just seeing where this goes. I'm assuming that he is talking about the deuterocanonical/apocrypha.

I figured he was talking about (or referencing) the standard translations such as the KJV and ASV.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:35:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/27/2015 4:34:17 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2015 4:19:53 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:58:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/27/2015 3:33:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/26/2015 5:32:01 PM, Gentorev wrote:
Two excellent posts from Bendido and Celestialtorahteacher, I wonder why the defenders of the Roman church of Constantine have not sought to defend the lies of their holy spiritual earthly fathers?

I did, I asked a simple question (which I'll repost):

Can you show me how you arrived at the authorized version of the bible? Who had the authority authorized it?

There is no "authorized version" of the Bible as in "authorized by God". If you mean "authorized" in the sense of the King James Version, it's translation was authorized by King James.

I'm just seeing where this goes. I'm assuming that he is talking about the deuterocanonical/apocrypha.

I figured he was talking about (or referencing) the standard translations such as the KJV and ASV.

That's why I was asking him to clarify.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 4:39:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:58:04 PM, Bendido wrote:

I CORINTHIANS 4:15 (Douay"Rheims Version)

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers.

So they do have some fathers - just not many.

For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

The act of begetting makes you a father. Like in John 3:16? God's only begotten son make God the Father, the Father?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 6:29:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 6:58:04 PM, Bendido wrote:
Never a Pope, Never in Rome, was Apostle Peter

You posted this verse (below)
MATTHEW 23:8-10
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.


YOUR WORDS: None of the apostles ever affixed the word "Father" to their names. Nowhere in the Bible can we find "Father Paul" or "Father Peter." They were addressed as "brothers" or "brethren" in conformity with the order of the Lord Jesus Christ that "all ye are brethren."

I reply YOU ARE WRONG!!!
Paul calls himself "FATHER"!

1 Corinthians 4
14 I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children.
15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.


Bendido DO YOU SEE IT??! I became your father Paul is calling himself "FATHER"!!!

1 John 2
13 I am writing to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men,
because you have overcome the evil one.
14 I write to you, dear children,
because you know the Father.
I write to you, fathers,
because you know him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men,
because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.


Bendido DO YOU SEE IT??! (above) John addresses them as "FATHERS"!

WAIT IT CONTINUES....
MATTHEW 23:8-10 But be not ye called Rabbi:

DO YOU SEE IT?!!! (above)
Do not call anyone RABBI!
John 1:38 Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means "Teacher"), "where are you staying?"

Bendido do you see it (above) QUESTION "What does the word Rabbi mean"!!?

AGAIN....
Call no one RABBI.. What does Rabbi mean?
John 20:16 Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means "Teacher").

Bendido DO YOU SEE IT.. Call no one TEACHER!!!!!!!

DICTIONARY DOT COM
Word Origin and History for doctor Expand
n.
c.1300, "Church father," from Old French doctour, from Medieval Latin doctor "religious teacher, adviser, scholar," in classical Latin "teacher," agent noun from docere "to show, teach, cause to know," originally "make to appear right," causative of decere "be seemly, fitting" (see decent ). Meaning "holder of highest degree in university" is first found late 14c.; as is that of "medical professional" (replacing native leech (n.2)), though this was not common till late 16c. The transitional stage is exemplified in Chaucer's Doctor of phesike (Latin physica came to be used extensively in Medieval Latin for medicina).


Bendido do you see it?!!!!
Doctor is Latin for "TEACHER"!

Call NO ONE DOCTOR!!!!!
Bendido Address no one as "DOCTOR"!!!!
Hmmm Let me think.... Doctor Billy Graham!!! Do this ring a bell!!? ha-ha
Every single Pastor in all of your thousands and thousands of man made protesting churches call themselves "DOCTOR!"
Bendido Call no one DOCTOR!!!
You address your pastor I am very sure as DOCTOR!!!!

Bendido Call NO ONE DOCTOR!!!!!

Paul addresses himself as Father, Catholics address their Priests as Father thus proving: Paul was Catholic!!
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 6:45:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I could call myself a "rabbi" because I am a teacher of religious knowledge of God and I am Jewish. But I don't use that term because I know where "rabbi" comes from, it's another Hebrew borrowing without attribution of pagan religion, another of the Brahmin terms that ancient Hebrews picked up in their interaction with Brahmin incense and spice merchants centered in the Kingdom of Sheba (the 7th and earthly Realm of Shiva) in Yemen with trade routes into Egypt and Canaan. "Rabbi" comes from "Ravi" "of the Sun" in Brahminism and its a Hindu honorific title originally which Hebrews took and added their meaning of "Master" to "teacher", which is why I follow Jesus' commandment not to call myself a "Master". But I am stuck with the fact that I teach, am a teacher of Celestial Torah Christianity because no one else knows about it like I do. So what am I to call myself? A "presenter" or perhaps "entertainer"?? Some things Jesus is just a tad extreme on you know...