Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by NYer
Ooops that should be hearsay. My bad.
Fixed it ...
Yes, really. Jesus gave Simon the name of Peter (Cephas/Rock).
You mean when he followed it with this?
Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get you behind me, Satan: you are an offense unto me: for you consider not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Possibly.
Great ~ thanks.
And thank you for doing so.
I have not attacked anyone...As the post indicates, your religion was built on the idea that the Church is a Roman Church and it's first leader lived and died in Rome among other things...
The bible shows these things not to be true...And as such, your religion will not lead you guys to eternal life with Jesus Christ...You might wonder why I care...
Beats me...I'm thinkin' God layed it on my heart...
Historically, the only significant highly religious person, prophet and 'church' leader that lived in Rome prior to Paul establishing a church there was a Simon Peter Magus
There is church history outside of the Catholic religion...
Simon Peter NOT With Simon Magus in Rome
Later, about the fourth century, a flood of works came out about Peter encountering Simon Magus in Rome and overthrowing him. But these works are clearly fiction. Almost all scholars realize the absurdity of maintaining such a thing. In the first place, it can be Biblically shown that Peter The Apostle was NEVER in Rome when these fictitious writings say he should be.
It was NOT Simon Peter who went to Rome to become Apostle to the Gentiles, but the SIMON in Rome was SIMON MAGUS!
That Peter the Apostle was not with Simon Magus in Rome is made plain by the Encyclopedia Biblica, col. 4554.
"The attempt has been made to meet this by pointing out that church fathers mention the presence of SIMON in Rome while at the same time NOT speaking of controversies between him and PETER. This is indeed true of Justin [one of the earliest witnesses -- 152 A.D.] who knows nothing of any presence of Peter in Rome at all, as also of Irenaeus."
Not only did Justin feel that Peter was NOT in Rome at the time, but his deliberate silence shows he didn't want to perpetrate such fiction. After all, Justin lived very early in the history of the church, and the legend of the Apostle Peter's being in Rome HADN'T GOT STARTED YET! Continuing with the Encyclopedia Biblica about Justin's reference to SIMON MAGUS: "One part of this tradition -- that about Simon's presence in Rome -- he [Justin] found himself able to accept [in fact he held it to be confirmed by the statue, which he brought into connection with Simon]; the other -- that about Peter' s presence in Rome -- he was unable to accept" (col. 4555).
Of course Justin was unable to accept the latter teaching. The fact is, Simon Peter was NOT in Rome. It was another Simon who went there -- SIMON MAGUS, the one bringing "Christianity" to them in the guise of the old Babylonian mystery religions. Simon came to Rome with the grand idea of stablishing a UNIVERSAL RELIGION in the NAME of Christianity! And what is remarkable, he did just that!
Next, we will see how Simon Magus became later confused with Simon Peter and how he cleverly brought "Christianity" the mystery religions of Babylon.
That has easily been proven wrong...You should do a little actual research to keep from looking foolish...
I thought everyone except dedicated anti-Catholics already knew Dave Hunt's Babylon fantasy is based on old lies.
Not only just Catholics disagree with this fantasy based trash. Hislop recognized that there was a large anti-Catholic audience and facts weren't something he cared about. He only cared about increasing sales of his anti-Catholic lies by tying them to the wave of of interest in archeology in Europe at the time.
Regular Christians who are just interested in keeping him honest by calling him on constantly misquoting noted Christians.
A great many people are well aware that Hunt bases his entire book on known lies and fantasies from an earlier era. As such, honest Christians who just want to keep fellow Christians from error work to show how Hunt is catering to the anti-Catholic market by publishing known lies.
And in particular, as the previous link shows, a noted author investigated the primary source of all of Dave Hunt's anti-Catholic lies and propaganda and realized it was all fiction based on Hislop's work, then withdrew his own book from publication because he had taken Hunt at face value and relied on his work.
It was obvious that Hunt was just repeating Hislop's work. After all, if the same lies helped Herbert W Armstrong gain followers, those lies are sure to have an audiance who will pay to read them. Aside from references to archaeological digs and historical sites that don't exist and never have existed, it contradicts known factual connections in the very areas it claims to base conclusions on.
There are more than enough sites where non-Catholics who are only interested in the truth debunk both Hislop's work and Hunt's work that is based on it. Those who haven't decided they don't care about the truth as care their anti-Catholic agneda can clearly see the "Catholics are pagans" lies are based on the same sort of scholarship the Book of Mormon is based on; the market savvy of the the author of the lies and nothing more.
If you find someone defending Hislop's work, either as quoted by Hunt or in the original work, you find someone who is either a dedicated anti-Catholic and doesn't care about the truth, or someone trying to make a quick buck by feeding known lies to an existing audiance who loves the lies, or both.
What was it that Paul was writing and passing around amongst the individual churches??? Copies of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd???
How can you guys be so naive???
Christian faith is like a family tree with its different branches.
Logic??? I try to avoid logic...Logic is for people who don't know something and then have to take a shot at their best guess...I prefer to just believe what Jesus says and teaches thruout the scriptures...
But anyway, your argument fell apart when Martin Luther wrote the bible in the language of those who wanted to know what God really said...And they found out from those very scriptures that your religion was lying to them left and right...No logic at all...
Church on sunday is just a farce.
The sabbath is the Lord’s day. There is nowhere in scripture that changes that etrernal fact.
Easter? fine day of pagan worship. Yeshua’s followers have the Passover. These things are unchallenged in the scriptures.
LOL...I was left speechless...
“One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”
But there's one HUGE problem...Your (plural) faith is in your man made religion, your popes, Mary, your good works, your Saints, etc....Your religion is your faith...
My (our) faith is in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation thru faith, alone...
I can not unite with your religion...You'll have to unite with me in praying ONLY to God thru Jesus Christ if you want unity...
>> “God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.” <<
.
I firmly believe that anyone that fails to repent of celebrating pagan days like christmas and easter will not find eternal life.
But i do not think we are to keep any days except the ones God told us to keep.
I do not have anything against the Nativity scenes but the satan garb and lights on trees and the junk people buy for their kids just to buy their adoration is sickening.
Don,t Jesus tell us to feed the hungry? where does he tell us to fall over backwards to pacify each other?
Easter? i have yet to see a rabbit egg.
Anyone who he had told.
ridiculous, you are being silly.
I'm glad to see you agree with me...Or do you???
NOT to your assumption there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.