Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Jackson123 · Apr 25, 2015

Saint Peter's Jerusalem Tomb

www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Base on this article above, Peter die in Jerusalem.

I never read a single verse said Peter die as a martyr in Rome.

valiant · Apr 25, 2015

Saint Peter's Tomb

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome. The source of this rumor, written in Italian, was not clear; it left considerable room for doubt or rather wonder. Rome was the place where I could investigate the matter, and if such proved encouraging, a trip to Jerusalem might be necessary in order to gather valuable first hand information on the subject. I therefore went to Rome. After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, "Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit", printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests. The story of the discovery was there, but it seemed to be purposely hidden for much was lacking. I consequently determined to go to Jerusalem to see for myself, if possible, that which appeared to be almost unbelievable, especially since it came from priests, who naturally because of the existing tradition that Peter was buried in Rome, would be the last ones to welcome such a discovery or to bring it to the attention of the world.
In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all said, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over [pg. 4] Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. The pictures show the story. The first show an excavation where the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, "Simon Bar Jona".

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 46%"]

[/TD]
[TD="width: 54%"] The charcoal inscription reads: "Shimon Bar Yonah" which means "Simon [Peter] son of Jonah".
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter.

But what makes the possibility of error more remote is that the remains were found in a Christian burial ground, and more yet, of the first century, the very time in which Peter lived. In fact, I have a letter from a noted scientist stating that he can tell by the writing that it was written just before the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D.
I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome. I have spoken on the subject to many Franciscan priests who either were or had been in Jerusalem, and they all agree that the tomb and remains of St. Peter are in Jerusalem.

Deliver · Apr 26, 2015

mattp0625 said:

I thought my post was overlooked.. Was going to shout in bold, "hello?? Anyone hear me??"
Thanks for your response.
No, I mean, baptising in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ, as Peter did. Catholics sprinkle and baptise in Father, Son, Holy Ghost, don't they?
It would seem to me, if you put a great deal of emphasis on someone as being part of a foundation, or having the key to the whole thing, you would want to follow what he first said to do, that is to repent and be baptised in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ.
If not, are you aware when it changed?

mattp0625 · Apr 26, 2015

Deliver said:

Well, in the gospel, John the Baptist said that Jesus would come and baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Also, I once read the Holy Spirit is not in competition with Jesus. This is logical if you believe in the Trinity.

Lastly, we do lots of things in the name of Jesus

mattp0625 · Apr 26, 2015

Catholics recite the following at mass:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only son of God, born of the father before all ages, God from God, light from light, from true God to true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father

....I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord to giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets...

mattp0625 · Apr 26, 2015

One more thing- priests emulate what Jesus did first, as He is the High Priest. The apostles were the Forefathers of the church, and I am not familiar with how Peter baptized, but Jesus still comes first.

Jeff_56 · Apr 26, 2015

mattp0625 said:

if you had read through the NT, you would know how all the apostles immersed in yahshua's(jesus)name.

none of the rcc priests are allowed to follow jesus. if they do, the pope does away with them. period. they are
required to follow the pope, to utter destruction, if they want to remain in the rcc.

Cloud9 · Apr 26, 2015

KenAllan said:

The fire is spiritual not literal.

Brimstone was used by the ancient Greeks for purification.

Read Creation's Jubilee. It will only take you a day or two to read it.

Hannah Whitall Smith also had a revelation on hell. She wrote about it in her famous book The Christian's Secret to a Happy Life and her publishers later censored her and removed her chapter explaining this revelation she says God gave her from her very own book.

The false hell doctrine crept into Christianity with Jerome and Augustine. Augustine was part of Manicheanism, a pagan sect of Rome, at one time.

KenAllan · Apr 26, 2015

This is what people say about Hannah Whitall Smith.

"A husband-wife team in the early 1870s immediately preceded the early Keswick movement: Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–98) and Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911).

Hannah is most famous for her book The Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life. Her book’s essential message is Keswick theology: “entire surrender” or “entire abandonment” (i.e., “let go”) and “absolute faith” (i.e., “let God”).
But what most people don’t know is that she and her husband had anything but “happy” lives. The Smith family experienced a series of sad events, including the following:

At the height of his success as a higher life revivalist, Robert fell doctrinally and morally, nearly destroying the entire Keswick movement.
Robert and Hannah’s deteriorating marriage declined even further. Hannah’s intense feminism and independence, Robert’s manic-depressive nature, and Robert’s persistence in unrepentant adultery all contributed to a very unhappy marriage.
Robert apostatized and became an agnostic.
Hannah apostatized. She lost interest in the higher life, rejoined the Quakers in 1886, and embraced universalism and religious pluralism."

Why Cloud9 are you listening to people who are not True Christians? At least I listen to what the Holy Spirit says in the Bible, can you say the same thing Cloud9? No you cannot. Not while teaching lies and deceiving people into following Satan instead of God.

Repent Cloud9 and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before its too late.

KenAllan · Apr 26, 2015

The Lake of Fire is True Cloud9. What God says is the Truth. Just because you have been deceived into rejecting what God says does not make it so.

Only the Truth is to be found in the Word of God. There is NO Truth in the World because Satan controls this World. You Cloud9 are what we True Christians call a Tare. A Tare is a person who does know the Truth but rejects the Truth for the lies of the World.

Look at the Parable of the Sower and look at the Tares in the Parable in Matthew chapter 13.

KenAllan · Apr 26, 2015

Its a shame the Catholics and Cloud9 reject the very Truth God has in His Book for them. Remember not everybody who says "Lord, Lord" has accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior!

Not everyone who claims to be a Christian has received Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and everyone who does not do the Will of the Father will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

Matthew 7:21-23
[SUP]21 [/SUP] "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
[SUP]22 [/SUP] Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
[SUP]23 [/SUP] And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Cloud9, just because you say you are a Christian means nothing. Its those who have accepted Jesus Christ AND does the Will of the Father who are the True Christians. In fact Jesus warns us of false people like you and the Catholics!

Matthew 7:15-20
[SUP]15 [/SUP] "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
[SUP]16 [/SUP] You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
[SUP]17 [/SUP] Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[SUP]20 [/SUP] Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

You Cloud9 and the Catholics need to find and enter by the narrow gate before its too late.

Matthew 7:13-14
[SUP]13 [/SUP] "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Jeff_56 · Apr 26, 2015

[SUP]14 [/SUP] Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

sometimes there's been 8000 or so people / bots(yes a lot of bots, memorizing everything -- especially the chinese bots - very abundant.. recording everything AND analyzing it all, connecting the dots - so they can use it against anyone anytime they chose.... religiously, medically, legally, ILLegally, politically.... with no conscience at all)

and the WAY TO LIFE remains true, forever, and narrow, and most people on earth NEVER FIND IT.

and the RCC almost NEVER FIND IT.

and few americans ever , if ever , find it.

that's an important detail from yahweh's WORD that 'most people' forget or ignore, on purpose.

it was planned. but it won't be an excuse that will help anyone.

those in the RCC who remain deceived, do so WILLINGLY serving demons, instead of repenting.

it was planned. the destruction of their souls was planned ... ... ... and executed by the rcc...

MikeHenderson · Apr 26, 2015

So very True Jeff_56!

There are MANY people today who want their ears tickled by false doctrines from Demons instead of the Truth from God!

They really do not want the Truth, instead their Pride demands that they and only they have the truth that no one else has!

This is the problem with the Catholics. Their PRIDE demands that only they have the Truth. When shown that they have no Truths they feel you are attacking them personally.

Look at Judas. He walked and talked and ate with Jesus Christ every day but yet his PRIDE demanded that he reject Jesus because he thought he had more truth in him than Jesus had. This is the same with the Catholics. Their Pride means more to them then Eternity in Heaven with God!

mikeuk · Apr 26, 2015

valiant said:

They may require scholarship, they cannot prevent such as you superimposing your opinions on what is simply not there.That is the problem valiant. You have no regard for history or the meaning of scripture, you twist it all to your apriori beliefs so all that study was wasted on you.
We DO know what language was spoken, because for the common man such as Peter aramaic was the working language.
And if history is not enough for you, scripture says it clearly in acts 1-19 "the people of jerusalem called in in their language akeldama, fields of blood" which is ARAMAIC
And the ONLY reason you contest it is you do not like the obvious meaning.
Petra and petros are the same. Peter is the rock of the church.

Even the phrase "thou art peter, and upon this rock" is a protestant way of writing what is there.
It should read

either Simon....thou art (I will call you) peter and upon this (large) peter I build my church.
or Simon.... thou art (I will call you) rock and upon this (large) rock I will build my church

Same word. So either peter or rock should be used.

Your translation makes no historic sense - it was aramaic,
but neither does it make grammatical or idiomatic sense

Because if Jesus were trying to distinguish ordinary idiom would say "but" or "other"
Peter thou are a rock, but on this other rock... He did not say it, because that is not what he meant or said.

NOTHING IN YOUR VERSION MAKES SENSE OTHER THAN YOUR DETERMINATION TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS.
I could ask 100 kids and they would say it was Peter. "revealed to children, hidden from wise men" spring to mind, except everything you say does not point at wisdom.

Then take sola scriptura. " all truth is in the bible " or "all necessary truth is in the bible" (protestants cannot even agree on it)_

But you make the classic logical error of assuming A AND B is the same as NOT A and NOT B ie that which is not in the bible is not necessary for salvation.

Nor is your view logically possible. Because "IF all necessary truth were in the bible" that very statement IS in your view a necessary truth so has to be in the bible to be logically possible. It is not. So logically false.

Jesus never said it either. Because the scripture on which you rely was not written then.
Sola scriptura is logicall, biblically and historically false.

It leads to all sorts of stupidity. For example Paul said "hold true to tradition passed on by word of mouth and letter" - why ? because the gospels were not in circulation yet. But taking sola scriptura "your way" - I can use it to say that the gospels are not to be used, because only word of mouth and letter?

Sola scriptura is provably silly. Not historical. Not biblical. Not logical

So Valiant study logic and history , this time without twisting what it says, so the obvious translation of "peter the rock" prevails. So learn something before you comment again.

valiant · Apr 26, 2015

mikeuk said:

They may require scholarship, they cannot prevent such as you superimposing your opinions on what is simply not there.That is the problem valiant. You have no regard for history or the meaning of scripture, you twist it all to your apriori beliefs so all that study was wasted on you.
We DO know what language was spoken, because for the common man such as Peter aramaic was the working language.
And if history is not enough for you, scripture says it clearly in acts 1-19 "the people of jerusalem called in in their language akeldama, fields of blood" which is ARAMAIC
And the ONLY reason you contest it is you do not like the obvious meaning.
Petra and petros are the same. Peter is the rock of the church.

Even the phrase "thou art peter, and upon this rock" is a protestant way of writing what is there.
It should read

either Simon....thou art (I will call you) peter and upon this (large) peter I build my church.
or Simon.... thou art (I will call you) rock and upon this (large) rock I will build my church

Same word. So either peter or rock should be used.

Your translation makes no historic sense - it was aramaic,
but neither does it make grammatical or idiomatic sense

Because if Jesus were trying to distinguish ordinary idiom would say "but" or "other"
Peter thou are a rock, but on this other rock... He did not say it, because that is not what he meant or said.

NOTHING IN YOUR VERSION MAKES SENSE OTHER THAN YOUR DETERMINATION TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS.
I could ask 100 kids and they would say it was Peter. "revealed to children, hidden from wise men" spring to mind, except everything you say does not point at wisdom.

Then take sola scriptura. " all truth is in the bible " or "all necessary truth is in the bible" (protestants cannot even agree on it)_

But you make the classic logical error of assuming A AND B is the same as NOT A and NOT B ie that which is not in the bible is not necessary for salvation.

Nor is your view logically possible. Because "IF all necessary truth were in the bible" that very statement IS in your view a necessary truth so has to be in the bible to be logically possible. It is not. So logically false.

Jesus never said it either. Because the scripture on which you rely was not written then.
Sola scriptura is logicall, biblically and historically false.

It leads to all sorts of stupidity. For example Paul said "hold true to tradition passed on by word of mouth and letter" - why ? because the gospels were not in circulation yet. But taking sola scriptura "your way" - I can use it to say that the gospels are not to be used, because only word of mouth and letter?

Sola scriptura is provably silly. Not historical. Not biblical. Not logical

So Valiant study logic and history , this time without twisting what it says, so the obvious translation of "peter the rock" prevails. So learn something before you comment again.

you are pathetic

valiant · Apr 26, 2015

mikeuk said:

Augustine of Hippo in Retractations 20.1 says: In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable

I prefer to go with Augustine !!! Seemingly he shared my prejudices.

Jeff_56 · Apr 26, 2015

MikeHenderson said:

amen. yahweh is true and faithful. the rcc is heresy and deadly to those who trust in it.

if mike or fred or thomas want to be saved, who is to stop them? THEMSELVES! they won't be able to

blame the damed priests or the pope for their condemnation in the resurrection -- they've been dually and over often warned
of their error and abominable sin(s). it's up to them to turn to do what is right, if GOD permits(which we can pray for IF GOD PERMITS (HIS WORD says not to pray for those who sin the sin unto death - they , one or all, might have already done this, and even led others to the destruction of their souls also) )

valiant · Apr 26, 2015

mikeuk said:

They may require scholarship, they cannot prevent such as you superimposing your opinions on what is simply not there.That is the problem valiant. You have no regard for history or the meaning of scripture, you twist it all to your apriori beliefs so all that study was wasted on you.
We DO know what language was spoken, because for the common man such as Peter aramaic was the working language.
And if history is not enough for you, scripture says it clearly in acts 1-19 "the people of jerusalem called in in their language akeldama, fields of blood" which is ARAMAIC
And the ONLY reason you contest it is you do not like the obvious meaning.
Petra and petros are the same. Peter is the rock of the church.

Even the phrase "thou art peter, and upon this rock" is a protestant way of writing what is there.
It should read

either Simon....thou art (I will call you) peter and upon this (large) peter I build my church.
or Simon.... thou art (I will call you) rock and upon this (large) rock I will build my church

Same word. So either peter or rock should be used.

Your translation makes no historic sense - it was aramaic,
but neither does it make grammatical or idiomatic sense

Because if Jesus were trying to distinguish ordinary idiom would say "but" or "other"
Peter thou are a rock, but on this other rock... He did not say it, because that is not what he meant or said.

NOTHING IN YOUR VERSION MAKES SENSE OTHER THAN YOUR DETERMINATION TO IGNORE THE OBVIOUS.
I could ask 100 kids and they would say it was Peter. "revealed to children, hidden from wise men" spring to mind, except everything you say does not point at wisdom.

Then take sola scriptura. " all truth is in the bible " or "all necessary truth is in the bible" (protestants cannot even agree on it)_

But you make the classic logical error of assuming A AND B is the same as NOT A and NOT B ie that which is not in the bible is not necessary for salvation.

Nor is your view logically possible. Because "IF all necessary truth were in the bible" that very statement IS in your view a necessary truth so has to be in the bible to be logically possible. It is not. So logically false.

Jesus never said it either. Because the scripture on which you rely was not written then.
Sola scriptura is logicall, biblically and historically false.

It leads to all sorts of stupidity. For example Paul said "hold true to tradition passed on by word of mouth and letter" - why ? because the gospels were not in circulation yet. But taking sola scriptura "your way" - I can use it to say that the gospels are not to be used, because only word of mouth and letter?

Sola scriptura is provably silly. Not historical. Not biblical. Not logical

So Valiant study logic and history , this time without twisting what it says, so the obvious translation of "peter the rock" prevails. So learn something before you comment again.

Just in case you found what Augustine said a little hard to follow here is another of his statements which I think you can cope with

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

mwc68 · Apr 26, 2015

Jeff_56 said:

if you had read through the NT, you would know how all the apostles immersed in yahshua's(jesus)name.
none of the rcc priests are allowed to follow jesus. if they do, the pope does away with them. period. they are
required to follow the pope, to utter destruction, if they want to remain in the rcc.

What a ridiculous. statement

Jeff_56 · Apr 26, 2015

mwc68 said:

you're right. unless the father in heaven grants it, no man can receive anything(understanding or other),

so reading the NT wouldn't help. sorry.

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Senior Member

Senior Member

Deliver

Guest

mattp0625

Guest

mattp0625

Guest

mattp0625

Guest

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned