Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Roman Catholic Church Has A Pagan Roots
- Thread starter PetriFB
- Start date
turzovka
Gold Member
- Nov 20, 2012
- 5,195
- 1,039
- 265
Yep. The Jesus figure in the bible could even had been modeled on Dionysus.Note to the OP: EVERYTHING is rooted in prechristianity Paganism to at least some extent.
Jesus in the bible is not taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian and has denied Jesus Christ as the only way to Salvation. They preach another gospel - a false gospel which the bible describes as a Doctrine of Demons. The teachings of the RCC are not found in the bible. They made up their own religion. The Mary demon god they worship the demon in bible known as queen of heaven - it has no part in the teachings of Jesus Christ or his mother Mary who was born a sinner and believed on Christ for her salvation as all born again Christians have done throughout the ages.
The RCC has no part in Christian teachings. It is a doctrine of devils based on pagan teachings and satanism.
Why do the frightening words of Matthew 12 come to my mind after reading your comments? Your charge against the Catholic Church is a grave matter.
Matthew 12 ----
22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought toJesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, “This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “This man casts out demons only byBeelzebul the ruler of the demons.”
25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
The Unpardonable Sin
30 He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31 “Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Words Reveal Character
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. 36 But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
- Thread starter
- #43
Codex Vaticanus written in Egypt (Alexandria) at the 4th century. The text of Codex Vaticanus collected from one region of Alexandria's Egypt.
Codex Sinaiticus written in Egypt (Alexandria) at the 4th century. Constantin Tischendorf discovered 1844 the Codex Sinaiticus from Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's monastery.
Manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are not as reliable as the Byzantine text. The Byzantine text had been assembled in Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Africa, Alexandria, Gaul, southern Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland.
The Bible tells us that the apostles traveled in Israel, Syria, Greece, Turkey, Italy and Asia Minor. These churches were certainly kept the original letters of the apostles Peter and Paul and the Gospels in the original form when they copied them forward. Discoveries of the Byzantine texts from the many same places where the Early Church preached the gospel is the evidence that Byzantine text corresponds in the best way the message of the New Testament original texts.
Codex Sinaiticus written in Egypt (Alexandria) at the 4th century. Constantin Tischendorf discovered 1844 the Codex Sinaiticus from Mount Sinai, St. Catherine's monastery.
Manuscripts of Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are not as reliable as the Byzantine text. The Byzantine text had been assembled in Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor, Africa, Alexandria, Gaul, southern Italy, Sicily, England and Ireland.
The Bible tells us that the apostles traveled in Israel, Syria, Greece, Turkey, Italy and Asia Minor. These churches were certainly kept the original letters of the apostles Peter and Paul and the Gospels in the original form when they copied them forward. Discoveries of the Byzantine texts from the many same places where the Early Church preached the gospel is the evidence that Byzantine text corresponds in the best way the message of the New Testament original texts.
- Thread starter
- #44
There is controversy from the origin of the Byzantine text, some say that it is written in the 4th century and some in the 5th century. The Byzantine text is written in the majority of the surviving original New Testament Greek texts. This also refers that it is the most accurate and original. Some say that the Byzantine text is even older than the Alexandrian texts. The Byzantine text is a copy of the original New Testament texts.
Although the Byzantine text would be written later than the texts of Alexandria (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus), so it does not prove that it is not the original text. All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on papyrus and parchment. Older or younger age is not important, but rather how faithfully the manuscripts had been copied from the original Greek New Testament fragments.
Many make a mistake thinking that the Greek New Testament editions, or the manuscripts always correspond with original ones. There is strong evidence that the Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus) are not authentic original texts, but differ from them greatly.
One important note is that the Early Church spread the gospel in the early years of the gospel to those countries from which the Byzantine texts were assembled. This is important evidence that the Byzantine text is the original text. escendants of the Early Church read these original texts, which based on the Byzantine text, even before had not assembled any Greek New Testament editions. This also means that the earliest assembled manuscript is not always the most original, especially when it is not based on almost all the original texts of Greek fragments. The age of the manuscript doesn't define its authenticity, but it that is had been assembled almost all existing original text fragments. For example, text of Textus Receptus based on 95% to all the Byzantine texts and comparably translations that based on Alexandrian texts have 5%.
In this light, of course is clear that the translation of the Bible based on the Byzantine text corresponds superior with the original texts than the translations, which based on texts of Alexandria.
The Byzantine text is the original, although the Byzantine text would be assembled later than the Alexandrian texts.
I illustrate an example that proves the authenticity of the Byzantine text. Imagine that some ancient author would have written 100 books, which should have been copied over and over again, because the time destroys them, and they should have been preserved for posterity. There are two groups, which would have a different view on what those one hundred books contain. The first group would be this writer's family, which I call the A-team. The second group would be called B-team. A- team would like to remain the message of books and production of author as unchanged, and therefore, they make a precise copy of his 95 books. B-team is not so interested about the message of the book, and they interpret the message in a different way than the A-Team. B-team doesn't want to transmit the message exactly as genuine, but according to their own interpretation. For this reason, B-team selects from 100 books only five books.
B-team makes the work faster, and A-team will publish their work several decades after than B-team. In the course of history, many scholars would say that the work of B-team corresponds better with original texts, because it is older and earlier than the work of A-team. However, the fact is that the work of A-team corresponds much better with the original texts than the work of B-team. Although, the work of A-team is published later, so the text corresponds with the genuine one, because its text based on 95% to the original texts.
The example above tells us why the Byzantine text is the original and much more reliable than the Alexandrian text.
Although the Byzantine text would be written later than the texts of Alexandria (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus), so it does not prove that it is not the original text. All the New Testament manuscripts are compiled from the original 5366's writings, which are written on papyrus and parchment. Older or younger age is not important, but rather how faithfully the manuscripts had been copied from the original Greek New Testament fragments.
Many make a mistake thinking that the Greek New Testament editions, or the manuscripts always correspond with original ones. There is strong evidence that the Alexandrian texts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus) are not authentic original texts, but differ from them greatly.
One important note is that the Early Church spread the gospel in the early years of the gospel to those countries from which the Byzantine texts were assembled. This is important evidence that the Byzantine text is the original text. escendants of the Early Church read these original texts, which based on the Byzantine text, even before had not assembled any Greek New Testament editions. This also means that the earliest assembled manuscript is not always the most original, especially when it is not based on almost all the original texts of Greek fragments. The age of the manuscript doesn't define its authenticity, but it that is had been assembled almost all existing original text fragments. For example, text of Textus Receptus based on 95% to all the Byzantine texts and comparably translations that based on Alexandrian texts have 5%.
In this light, of course is clear that the translation of the Bible based on the Byzantine text corresponds superior with the original texts than the translations, which based on texts of Alexandria.
The Byzantine text is the original, although the Byzantine text would be assembled later than the Alexandrian texts.
I illustrate an example that proves the authenticity of the Byzantine text. Imagine that some ancient author would have written 100 books, which should have been copied over and over again, because the time destroys them, and they should have been preserved for posterity. There are two groups, which would have a different view on what those one hundred books contain. The first group would be this writer's family, which I call the A-team. The second group would be called B-team. A- team would like to remain the message of books and production of author as unchanged, and therefore, they make a precise copy of his 95 books. B-team is not so interested about the message of the book, and they interpret the message in a different way than the A-Team. B-team doesn't want to transmit the message exactly as genuine, but according to their own interpretation. For this reason, B-team selects from 100 books only five books.
B-team makes the work faster, and A-team will publish their work several decades after than B-team. In the course of history, many scholars would say that the work of B-team corresponds better with original texts, because it is older and earlier than the work of A-team. However, the fact is that the work of A-team corresponds much better with the original texts than the work of B-team. Although, the work of A-team is published later, so the text corresponds with the genuine one, because its text based on 95% to the original texts.
The example above tells us why the Byzantine text is the original and much more reliable than the Alexandrian text.
- Thread starter
- #45
Dutchman Erasmus of Rotterdam was a Catholic monk and priest. Erasmus translated first the Latin New Testament directly from the Greek. Erasmus' Latin New Testament diverged very much from the Catholic Church's official Vulgate translation. Catholic theologians opposed to Erasmus' Latin New Testament. Therefore, he 1516 published new edition of the Greek New Testament (Novum Instrumentum) and also new Latin translation. Erasmus' New Testament Greek text, and its significant difference compared to the Catholic Church's official Vulgate translation proves that Vulgate has not been faithful to the original Greek texts. Vulgate has been translated from Alexandrain texts (the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus). This means that texts of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are very different from the Byzantine text. Byzantine texts are consistent with each other in almost 95%. This evidence proves beyond doubt that the Alexandrian texts are not reliable texts.
Erasmus withdrew from the church politics and didn't participate bashing of Luther, because he respected and appreciated him. The Greek New Testament which Erasmus made is called Textus Receptus.
Erasmus used mainly the Byzantine text, as the text source of Textus Receptus, but also other sources. It's really unusual that the Catholic Erasmus did his Greek New Testament based on the Byzantine text. Catholics still today oppose the text of Textus Repetus, because it is very different than the text of Vulgate, which based on the Alexandrian texts. Roman Catholic Church's gospel based on, for the most part, to pagan doctrines. It is thus clear that also by the texts of Alexandria are supported of false doctrines. This also proves that the Byzantine text is the original New Testament's manuscripts.
Erasmus's Greek Bible is called Textus Receptus. There are many who used Erasmus's text, for example, Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek (Textus Receptus) into Germany. The text of Textus Receptus based on the Byzantibe text, which is also named the Majority Text. The name the Majority Text has been given because Byzantine texts had been written from the most existing original texts of the New Testament. This makes the Byzantine text superior in relation to other manuscripts.
Comma Johanneum. 1 John 5:7 Erasmus added words: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. For example, for this reason many oppose Textus Receptus and say that it is unreliable. First time spanish writer Priscillianus wrote 1 John 5:7 in the same way than Textus Receptus. There is none place in original Greek texts where would be in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. The undisputed fact is that it is an addition not the original text. Why Erasmus put those words to Textus Receptus? Catholics pressured Erasmus that he would have put those words to his text. Erasmus had said that if you can find even one Greek manuscript, in which would be those words, so he will add them in his text. They tricked Erasmus and showed to him as "proof" Greek text, which had been translated from Latin, in which was this addition. Thus Erasmus was forced to keep his promise.
The Bible teaches in OT and NT about one God, and even NT teaches that one God is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible doesn't ever say that God is three. In the light of the teaching of the Bible, we understand that Comma Johanneum place is the addition, which doesn't belong to the original text.
This doesn't in any way dim the value of Textus Repectus's text, because texts that are based on Alexandrian texts have more and worse mistakes than text of Textus Receptus.
For the sake of the pressure of Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus added extra words to his text (1 Joh 5:7). Roman Catholic Church has attacked against Textus Receptus accusing that it contains errors. They have used 1 Joh 5:7 place to show mistakes of Textus Receptus. In this we can see in a nasty way the treacherous character of Roman Catholic Church. First, it offers a bad fruit and demand that you must receive it, and when you receive it, so Roman Church accuses you and tries to defile your reputation.
This was carefully planned plot against text of Textus Receptus, because added text wasn't even on the Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD), yet the Catholics insisted that this addition must put into the text. June 2, 1927, Roman Catholic Church decreed that Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.
Jerome's Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD) became the official and approved Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome 405 AD didn't include Textus Receptus's addition of 1 John 5:7, because it didn't occur in sources that Catholics trusted and kept as the original. It is noteworthy that the Jerome 405 AD is the first Roman Catholic Church's official translation, which it recognized and accepted. Catholics have later added Comma Johanneum to Vulgata version of the Clementine 1590 and 1592. Clementine Vulgate was not published until 1590, and the second version 1592, so this Catholic Vulgate published for several decades after the Textus Receptus was published. In this light, clearly the Catholics wanted to Textus Receptus part of the text, which did not represent their own original text tradition. Contrary to their own official text, they wanted addition to the text of Textus Receptus, which was not Vulgate's sources and Byzantine's texts. Clearly Roman Catholic Church wanted to defile Textus Receptus and RCC wanted addition according to their own theology.
Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept Textus Receptus and don't hold is as well written text of the New Testament. Roman Catholic Church's influence is minimal concerning to Textus Receptus. Some try to say that Roman Catholic Church has poisoned Textus Receptus, but that is not true, and evidence from it is that text of Textus Receptus differs very much from Vulgate. Majority of Textus Receptus's text is based on the Byzantine text, which the Roman Church doesn't consider as the original text, and for this reason they are attacking against the Byzantine text. Therefore, Hort said: "Our (Westcott and Hort) object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions". In fact, the truth is that Westcott and Hort Greek text based on Alexandrian corrupted texts.
Erasmus of Rotterdam is considered to be the man who was completely on the leash of the Catholic Church. However, this is not true. The Roman Catholic Church strongly criticized Erasmus because he refused for translating his text compatible with the Vulgate text. Erasmus kept translations based on Alexrandian texts as Vulgate corrupted that he doesn't want to use it. Erasmus translated the text of Textus Receptus to differ from the texts of the Roman Church. This means that the text of Textus Receptus diverges very much from teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the reason why Catholics have attacked fiercely against the Textus Receptus. Text of Textus Receptus destroys prestige and authority of Alexandrian texts and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, Catholics are bashing Textus Receptus.
Erasmus wasn't on the leash of the Roman Catholic Church completely. His works of Textus Receptus proves this, which fully diverged from Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.), because Textus Receptus has been translated much more according to Byzantine text. If Erasmus was been completely on the leash of Roman Catholic Church, so text of Textus Receptus would resemble Vulgate's text, but it doesn't resemble, but fully diverge from it. We should always remember that the text of Textus Receptus resemble much more the Byzantine text than text of Vulgate. Vulgate's text has been made from the ground of Alexandrian texts and thus not resemble the text of Byzantine.
I don't defend 1 John 5:7 of Textus Receptus, which wasn't in the Byzantine text. I don't say that Textus Receptus hasn't got any errors, but Textus Receptus is much purer than Vulgate's text and texts of Alexandrian (Westcott and Hort). It is obvious that Textus Receptus is a much better manuscript as volumes based on Alexandrian texts.
Textus Receptus diverges from the Byzantine text in Rev 22:19. Byzantine text speaks about tree of life and Textus Receptus about the book of life. Few errors of Textus Receptus don't make it unreliable, because its text based on to Byzantine text. Alexandrian texts have many thousands errors, additions, omits and omits of verses. Textus Receptus' text used the majority since the 19th centuries. King James version 1611 and Martin Luther's German translation based on Byzantine text.
Erasmus withdrew from the church politics and didn't participate bashing of Luther, because he respected and appreciated him. The Greek New Testament which Erasmus made is called Textus Receptus.
Erasmus used mainly the Byzantine text, as the text source of Textus Receptus, but also other sources. It's really unusual that the Catholic Erasmus did his Greek New Testament based on the Byzantine text. Catholics still today oppose the text of Textus Repetus, because it is very different than the text of Vulgate, which based on the Alexandrian texts. Roman Catholic Church's gospel based on, for the most part, to pagan doctrines. It is thus clear that also by the texts of Alexandria are supported of false doctrines. This also proves that the Byzantine text is the original New Testament's manuscripts.
Erasmus's Greek Bible is called Textus Receptus. There are many who used Erasmus's text, for example, Martin Luther translated the Bible from Greek (Textus Receptus) into Germany. The text of Textus Receptus based on the Byzantibe text, which is also named the Majority Text. The name the Majority Text has been given because Byzantine texts had been written from the most existing original texts of the New Testament. This makes the Byzantine text superior in relation to other manuscripts.
Comma Johanneum. 1 John 5:7 Erasmus added words: in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. For example, for this reason many oppose Textus Receptus and say that it is unreliable. First time spanish writer Priscillianus wrote 1 John 5:7 in the same way than Textus Receptus. There is none place in original Greek texts where would be in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. The undisputed fact is that it is an addition not the original text. Why Erasmus put those words to Textus Receptus? Catholics pressured Erasmus that he would have put those words to his text. Erasmus had said that if you can find even one Greek manuscript, in which would be those words, so he will add them in his text. They tricked Erasmus and showed to him as "proof" Greek text, which had been translated from Latin, in which was this addition. Thus Erasmus was forced to keep his promise.
The Bible teaches in OT and NT about one God, and even NT teaches that one God is in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible doesn't ever say that God is three. In the light of the teaching of the Bible, we understand that Comma Johanneum place is the addition, which doesn't belong to the original text.
This doesn't in any way dim the value of Textus Repectus's text, because texts that are based on Alexandrian texts have more and worse mistakes than text of Textus Receptus.
For the sake of the pressure of Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus added extra words to his text (1 Joh 5:7). Roman Catholic Church has attacked against Textus Receptus accusing that it contains errors. They have used 1 Joh 5:7 place to show mistakes of Textus Receptus. In this we can see in a nasty way the treacherous character of Roman Catholic Church. First, it offers a bad fruit and demand that you must receive it, and when you receive it, so Roman Church accuses you and tries to defile your reputation.
This was carefully planned plot against text of Textus Receptus, because added text wasn't even on the Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD), yet the Catholics insisted that this addition must put into the text. June 2, 1927, Roman Catholic Church decreed that Comma Johanneum was open to dispute.
Jerome's Vulgate (Jerome 405 AD) became the official and approved Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome 405 AD didn't include Textus Receptus's addition of 1 John 5:7, because it didn't occur in sources that Catholics trusted and kept as the original. It is noteworthy that the Jerome 405 AD is the first Roman Catholic Church's official translation, which it recognized and accepted. Catholics have later added Comma Johanneum to Vulgata version of the Clementine 1590 and 1592. Clementine Vulgate was not published until 1590, and the second version 1592, so this Catholic Vulgate published for several decades after the Textus Receptus was published. In this light, clearly the Catholics wanted to Textus Receptus part of the text, which did not represent their own original text tradition. Contrary to their own official text, they wanted addition to the text of Textus Receptus, which was not Vulgate's sources and Byzantine's texts. Clearly Roman Catholic Church wanted to defile Textus Receptus and RCC wanted addition according to their own theology.
Roman Catholic Church doesn't accept Textus Receptus and don't hold is as well written text of the New Testament. Roman Catholic Church's influence is minimal concerning to Textus Receptus. Some try to say that Roman Catholic Church has poisoned Textus Receptus, but that is not true, and evidence from it is that text of Textus Receptus differs very much from Vulgate. Majority of Textus Receptus's text is based on the Byzantine text, which the Roman Church doesn't consider as the original text, and for this reason they are attacking against the Byzantine text. Therefore, Hort said: "Our (Westcott and Hort) object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek Text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions". In fact, the truth is that Westcott and Hort Greek text based on Alexandrian corrupted texts.
Erasmus of Rotterdam is considered to be the man who was completely on the leash of the Catholic Church. However, this is not true. The Roman Catholic Church strongly criticized Erasmus because he refused for translating his text compatible with the Vulgate text. Erasmus kept translations based on Alexrandian texts as Vulgate corrupted that he doesn't want to use it. Erasmus translated the text of Textus Receptus to differ from the texts of the Roman Church. This means that the text of Textus Receptus diverges very much from teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the reason why Catholics have attacked fiercely against the Textus Receptus. Text of Textus Receptus destroys prestige and authority of Alexandrian texts and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, Catholics are bashing Textus Receptus.
Erasmus wasn't on the leash of the Roman Catholic Church completely. His works of Textus Receptus proves this, which fully diverged from Vulgate (Jerome 405 A.D.), because Textus Receptus has been translated much more according to Byzantine text. If Erasmus was been completely on the leash of Roman Catholic Church, so text of Textus Receptus would resemble Vulgate's text, but it doesn't resemble, but fully diverge from it. We should always remember that the text of Textus Receptus resemble much more the Byzantine text than text of Vulgate. Vulgate's text has been made from the ground of Alexandrian texts and thus not resemble the text of Byzantine.
I don't defend 1 John 5:7 of Textus Receptus, which wasn't in the Byzantine text. I don't say that Textus Receptus hasn't got any errors, but Textus Receptus is much purer than Vulgate's text and texts of Alexandrian (Westcott and Hort). It is obvious that Textus Receptus is a much better manuscript as volumes based on Alexandrian texts.
Textus Receptus diverges from the Byzantine text in Rev 22:19. Byzantine text speaks about tree of life and Textus Receptus about the book of life. Few errors of Textus Receptus don't make it unreliable, because its text based on to Byzantine text. Alexandrian texts have many thousands errors, additions, omits and omits of verses. Textus Receptus' text used the majority since the 19th centuries. King James version 1611 and Martin Luther's German translation based on Byzantine text.
You've ''been had'' on this Jeremiah....the group that you claim is some sort of international tribunal court, is no such thing...it's a created BLOG website, owned by 1 guy.... All created fabrications by him!!!Here's a fact for you. These are official documents - examine them carefully, blackrook, as they call for the arrest of Pope Francis and name him by name. Are these court documents authentic or no? Look at them.
Common Law Court Documents Welcome to ITCCS.ORG and The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
snopes.com Pope Benedict Resignation
Origins: The announcement in February 2013 that Pope Benedict XVI would be resigning took the world by surprise, as it marked the first papal resignation in nearly 600 years. Pope Benedict (the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who became Pope in 2005 after John Paul II's death) stated that he was stepping down because he was too old to continue in the position at the age of 85.
Shortly after Pope Benedict's resignation announcement rumors like the one cited above began circulating, claiming that the resignation was prompted by a pending arrest warrant over the Pope's "complicity in concealing child trafficking in his church and other crimes against humanity." The source of these rumors was uncorroborated material posted to the web site of International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS), which as far as we have been able to ascertain is not actually an international tribunal at all but simply a blog maintained maintained by a single person (Kevin D. Annett).
Shortly after Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio succeeded Joseph Ratzinger as Pope
Francis I in March 2013, the ITCCS posted a similar article claiming that an arrest warrant had been issued against Pope Francis for "crimes against humanity and child trafficking." That "warrant" was a creation produced by the ITCCS and issued in the name of the "The International Common Law Court of Justice" (another invention of the ITCCS); it was not issued by any recognized international legal agency and has no legal standing.
ninja007
Gold Member
if the rcc is pagan in nature so is every protestant sect
Anyone who believes in the Trinity is succumbing to pagan beliefs. Arius was right. Jesus is a lesser created being.
You are clueless. Jesus taught He and the Father are one. There is one God, three equal co-existing "persons" or "persona's".
ninja007
Gold Member
Terms
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]
| True Christianity | CATHOLICISM |
| The Old and New Testaments are the only sources of Christian doctrine. (Messianic Judaism refers to these by their Hebrew names, Tanakh and B'rit Hadasha ["New Covenant"]) | Sources of doctrine include:
|
| We are justified (saved) by faith alone, not by good works. Good works will result in greater rewards in the afterlife but have no effect on getting saved. | When a person gets baptized his "original sin" is forgiven and God gives him some grace. This grace enables him to do good works. God appreciates the good works and rewards them with more grace. Because the Christian has more grace, he can now do even better works. This pleases God even more, so He gives even more grace, etc. |
| Purgatory is totally unscriptural. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was the only offering necessary and the only offering sufficient to provide salvation. | There are two types of punishment after death: temporal (temporary) and eternal. If a person dies with just one "mortal" sin on his soul he will be condemned to Hell for eternity. If he dies with only "venial" sins on his soul he will be sent to Purgatory, perhaps for millions of years. Purgatory is exactly like Hell except that it doesn't last forever. Eventually, the person will be released and enter heaven. |
| "Mortal" sin is an extent of sin, a pervasiveness of sin, sinning as a way of life, sinning as a regular practice, not a single sin, regardless of how serious that sin might be, e.g., murder. | There are two types of sin: mortal and venial. A particular sin is either mortal or venial, depending on the severity. (For instance, stealing one dollar from a rich man would probably be a venial sin.) See the box above for the consequences of Catholic mortal sin |
| Only God can forgive sins. | Catholic priests have been given the power to forgive sins, acting as representatives of the Holy Spirit. |
| The Holy Spirit is Jesus' representative. | The pope is Jesus' representative on Earth. |
| The pope speaks for no one. | The pope speaks for all Christians. |
| It is clear from scripture that there was no "head" apostle in the New Testament churches. Paul expressly and publicly rebuked Peter, the alleged first pope, on one occasion. There is no biblical or historical evidence that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome. | Anyone who denies the authority of the pope despises the one who (allegedly) appointed him (i.e., Christ) and therefore despises the one who sent Christ, (i.e., God the Father). |
| Mary had children by Joseph. Jesus' brothers are expressly named: Joseph,. James, Simon, and Jude. | Mary remained a virgin her entire life. The Greek word can mean either "brother" or "close relative." The Bible is talking about Jesus' cousins, not brothers. |
| This is totally unscriptural. | Mary was bodily assumed into heaven, like Elijah and Enoch. |
| This is totally unscriptural. | Mary is the "spiritual mother" of all men. |
ninja007
Gold Member
"Roman Catholic Church Has A Pagan Roots"
As does Christianity overall.
As does Judaism.
As does Islam.
As does all religion.
As does Christianity overall.
As does Judaism.
As does Islam.
As does all religion.
ninja007
Gold Member
http://www.buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Sacramentalism.pdf
talks about the sacraments, legalism and the dangers of trusting in works.
talks about the sacraments, legalism and the dangers of trusting in works.
ninja007
Gold Member
the BEST website on Roman Catholicism to date-
Understanding Roman Catholicism
goes into detail on the following-
Table of Contents
Who is The Final Authority?
Roman Catholic Doctrines Examined Through Scripture
01 Salvation Through The Catholic Church?
02 Salvation Through Good Works (Merits)
03 Can the Catholic Church Forgives Sins?
04 The One True Church?
05 Water Baptism Saves?
06 The Pope: The Vicar of Christ?
07 The Office of Pope is Infallible?
08 Can The Catholic Sacraments Save?
09 The Sin of Presumption
10 Infant Water Baptism
11 Degrees of Sin?
12 Transubstantiation
13 The Eucharist: Preserves from Sin?
14 The Eucharist: Helps the Dead?
15 The Virgin Mary Saves?
16 The Virgin Mary was Saved from Birth?
17 The Virgin Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
18 The Virgin Mary a Source of Holiness?
19 The Virgin Mary is Our Intercessor?
20 The Virgin Mary is our Recipient of Prayers?
21 The Virgin Mary is Queen of All ?
22 The Catholic Mass
23 Purgatory
24 Praying to Saints
25 Praying for the Dead
26 Statues and Idols
27 Confirmation
28 Confessing Sins to a Priest?
29 Indulgences
30 Interpreting God' s Word for Yourself
31 Catholic Prayers
32 Penance
33 Are Catholics Little Christs?
34 Can Millions of Catholics be Wrong?
35 Reconciliation to Church?
36 Celibacy?
37 The Last Rites
38 The Confusion of Catholicism
39 An Invitation to Free Salvation
40 God' s Plea to Leave Rome
41 Choose Liberty over Bondage
Understanding Roman Catholicism
goes into detail on the following-
Table of Contents
Who is The Final Authority?
Roman Catholic Doctrines Examined Through Scripture
01 Salvation Through The Catholic Church?
02 Salvation Through Good Works (Merits)
03 Can the Catholic Church Forgives Sins?
04 The One True Church?
05 Water Baptism Saves?
06 The Pope: The Vicar of Christ?
07 The Office of Pope is Infallible?
08 Can The Catholic Sacraments Save?
09 The Sin of Presumption
10 Infant Water Baptism
11 Degrees of Sin?
12 Transubstantiation
13 The Eucharist: Preserves from Sin?
14 The Eucharist: Helps the Dead?
15 The Virgin Mary Saves?
16 The Virgin Mary was Saved from Birth?
17 The Virgin Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
18 The Virgin Mary a Source of Holiness?
19 The Virgin Mary is Our Intercessor?
20 The Virgin Mary is our Recipient of Prayers?
21 The Virgin Mary is Queen of All ?
22 The Catholic Mass
23 Purgatory
24 Praying to Saints
25 Praying for the Dead
26 Statues and Idols
27 Confirmation
28 Confessing Sins to a Priest?
29 Indulgences
30 Interpreting God' s Word for Yourself
31 Catholic Prayers
32 Penance
33 Are Catholics Little Christs?
34 Can Millions of Catholics be Wrong?
35 Reconciliation to Church?
36 Celibacy?
37 The Last Rites
38 The Confusion of Catholicism
39 An Invitation to Free Salvation
40 God' s Plea to Leave Rome
41 Choose Liberty over Bondage
turzovka
Gold Member
- Nov 20, 2012
- 5,195
- 1,039
- 265
the BEST website on Roman Catholicism to date-
Understanding Roman Catholicism
goes into detail on the following-
Table of Contents
Who is The Final Authority?
Roman Catholic Doctrines Examined Through Scripture
01 Salvation Through The Catholic Church?
02 Salvation Through Good Works (Merits)
03 Can the Catholic Church Forgives Sins?
04 The One True Church?
05 Water Baptism Saves?
06 The Pope: The Vicar of Christ?
07 The Office of Pope is Infallible?
08 Can The Catholic Sacraments Save?
09 The Sin of Presumption
10 Infant Water Baptism
11 Degrees of Sin?
12 Transubstantiation
13 The Eucharist: Preserves from Sin?
14 The Eucharist: Helps the Dead?
15 The Virgin Mary Saves?
16 The Virgin Mary was Saved from Birth?
17 The Virgin Mary a Perpetual Virgin?
18 The Virgin Mary a Source of Holiness?
19 The Virgin Mary is Our Intercessor?
20 The Virgin Mary is our Recipient of Prayers?
21 The Virgin Mary is Queen of All ?
22 The Catholic Mass
23 Purgatory
24 Praying to Saints
25 Praying for the Dead
26 Statues and Idols
27 Confirmation
28 Confessing Sins to a Priest?
29 Indulgences
30 Interpreting God' s Word for Yourself
31 Catholic Prayers
32 Penance
33 Are Catholics Little Christs?
34 Can Millions of Catholics be Wrong?
35 Reconciliation to Church?
36 Celibacy?
37 The Last Rites
38 The Confusion of Catholicism
39 An Invitation to Free Salvation
40 God' s Plea to Leave Rome
41 Choose Liberty over Bondage
"'Tis a shorter thing and sooner done to write heresies, than to answer them." St. Thomas More
St. Thomas More lost his head to Henry VIII for standing up for Christian and Church teaching. Meanwhile, Henry went on to have several wives, gave up his Catholicism and started his own church. What a lovely founder.
I am hardly impressed with the amount of mud you can heave all at once thinking if something sticks you have won the war. Perhaps in more civil times we can discuss some of your charges, but only one at a time.
PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
lol....no....why is there a never ending crop of folks stupid enough to believe the AtheistsRUs websites......there is NOTHING similar between Dionysus and Jesus.....Yep. The Jesus figure in the bible could even had been modeled on Dionysus.Note to the OP: EVERYTHING is rooted in prechristianity Paganism to at least some extent.
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,019
- 2,290
Yep. The Jesus figure in the bible could even had been modeled on Dionysus.Note to the OP: EVERYTHING is rooted in prechristianity Paganism to at least some extent.
Jesus in the bible is not taught by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is not Christian and has denied Jesus Christ as the only way to Salvation. They preach another gospel - a false gospel which the bible describes as a Doctrine of Demons. The teachings of the RCC are not found in the bible. They made up their own religion. The Mary demon god they worship the demon in bible known as queen of heaven - it has no part in the teachings of Jesus Christ or his mother Mary who was born a sinner and believed on Christ for her salvation as all born again Christians have done throughout the ages.
The RCC has no part in Christian teachings. It is a doctrine of devils based on pagan teachings and satanism.
I don't think you know very much about Catholicism. Having been raised Catholic, we didn't worship a Mary Demon.
lol....no....why is there a never ending crop of folks stupid enough to believe the AtheistsRUs websites......there is NOTHING similar between Dionysus and Jesus.....Yep. The Jesus figure in the bible could even had been modeled on Dionysus.Note to the OP: EVERYTHING is rooted in prechristianity Paganism to at least some extent.
Only to the historically ignorant...
Last edited:
PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
atheists are dumber than a pile of rocks.....do I have to prove the same thing over and over again?.....The pagan roots can't be more obvious. Jesus (Horus and others), Mary (any number of Goddesses);
PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
his mother had been married for quite a while....are you disparaging her husband's virility?....Yep. The Jesus figure in the bible could even had been modeled on Dionysus.Note to the OP: EVERYTHING is rooted in prechristianity Paganism to at least some extent.
Jesus wasn't the first religious figure with the same backstory as previous ones. Buddha was supposedly born to a virgin as well as one of the big deities in the Egyptian pantheon.
PostmodernProph
....fully immersed....
The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David /QUOTE]
why not the mother's side.....she was also a descendant of David.....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 458
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 56
- Views
- 920
- Replies
- 258
- Views
- 3K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 215
- Views
- 672
- Replies
- 357
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 711
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 84
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 386
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-