False Christs

[Yeshua1]

DHK, you wrote: Quote:
"It is worth noting that only hours after his election, Pope Francis sent a message to Rome's Chief Rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni inviting him to the inauguration Mass and telling him: “I very much hope to be able to contribute to the progress that relations between Jews and Catholics have experienced since the Second Vatican Council, in a spirit of renewed collaboration and at the service of a world that can be ever more harmonious with the will of the Creator."

These reports give reason for hope that the new pope may find ways to revitalize both the ecumenical movement and interfaith dialogue."

I found this article about another Chief Rabbi;
On April 26 2004 the autobiography of Eugene Zoli, Chief Rabbi that converted to the Catholic Church in the 20 TH Century.
When the good rabbi was asked why he had given up the Synagogue for the Church, he gave an answer that showed he had a keen understanding of his present position: "But I have not given it up. Christianity is the integration of the Synagogue. The Synagogue was a promise, and Christianity is the fulfillment of that promise. The Synagogue pointed to Christianity: Christianity presupposes the Synagogue. So you see, one cannot exist without the other. What I converted to was the living Christianity."

"Then you believe that the Messiah has come?" the interviewer asked.

"Yes, positively," replied Zolli. "I have believed it many years. And now I am so firmly convinced of the truth of it that I can face the whole world and defend my faith with the certainty and solidity of the mountains."

"But why didn’t you join one of the Protestant denominations, which are also Christian?"

"Because protesting is not attesting. I do not intend to embarrass anyone by asking: ‘Why wait 1,500 years to protest?’ The Catholic Church was recognized by the whole Christian world as the true Church of God for 15 consecutive centuries. No man can halt at the end of those 1,500 years and say that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ without embarrassing himself seriously. I can accept only that Church which was preached to all creatures by my own forefathers, the Twelve who, like me, issued from the Synagogue.

Judaism/Isalm/RCC etc are ALL false religions, as ALL deny the true Gospel of Jesus, and NNE would sau that historically ther RCC was seen as being the true of Jesus, as His church was alive and well from Pentacost forward, and that was NOT the Church of rome!

 

[DHK]

Judaism/Isalm/RCC etc are ALL false religions, as ALL deny the true Gospel of Jesus, and NNE would sau that historically ther RCC was seen as being the true of Jesus, as His church was alive and well from Pentacost forward, and that was NOT the Church of rome!

And yet one false leader (the pope) extends his hand to another false leader (a rabbi) in a wonderful spirit of "ecumenism." One day that ecumenism will turn into the one world church of the antichrist which true believers have been talking about from time immemorial--the one described in Revelation 17:

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

 

[DHK]

I think he just came as close to proof as you can come without copying and posting original documents (almost all of which are in a foreign language), and which is something you never do. So why do you get to tell lies (which you probably think are true) without being called out but someone who disagrees with you must present proof? McGoldrick is a recognized expert in his field and this is something no one in an accredited university or seminary would dispute. At this point the burden is on you to come up with proof--proof of the kind that would not be thought ridiculous by anyone other than a Baptist fundamentalist.

I often give extensive explanations with many references--not just a one-liner, an opinion with one name at the end of it. I tire of the RCC propaganda that it full of falsehoods. Back up what you say.

 

[Yeshua1]

And yet one false leader (the pope) extends his hand to another false leader (a rabbi) in a wonderful spirit of "ecumenism." One day that ecumenism will turn into the one world church of the antichrist which true believers have been talking about from time immemorial--the one described in Revelation 17:

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

I never have seen the RCC/Papacy as being the Antichrist, but can really see it as being the False prophet in end times!

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua says: "I never have seen the RCC/Papacy as being the Antichrist, but can really see it as being the False prophet in end times! "

Matt Slick is the Antichrist of end times.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua says: "I never have seen the RCC/Papacy as being the Antichrist, but can really see it as being the False prophet in end times! "

Matt Slick is the Antichrist of end times.

The Church of rome has a false Gospel and is NOT the so called "true church of Christ" though!

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua, so please tell me which church of Matt.16 15-19 when Jesus said 'my church ' which church do you believe Jesus was speaking about when the language was " present tense' ? Please don't try and alter history, please. If you can not resist altering early Christian history then please give competent documentation

 

[Rippon]

I don't have that book by Dr. McGoldrick, but he would have affimed the evangelical beliefs of the Waldensians (who began in the 12th century). They met with William Farel in 1531 because they were sympathetic to the Protestant Reformation. Yet they cannot possibly be considered Baptistic in any way.

The other groups you cited also were not evangelical or Baptistic. So I agree with you there.

If, by the term Baptistic, immersion is key, then true Baptists started in early 17th century England.

By the way, James E. McGoldrick is on the faculty of Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He, by no means, has any affinity with Roman Catholicism.

I tire of DHK's completely unwarranted charge that Dr. McGoldrick is propagating RCC falsehood.

 

[Protestant]

And yet one false leader (the pope) extends his hand to another false leader (a rabbi) in a wonderful spirit of "ecumenism." One day that ecumenism will turn into the one world church of the antichrist which true believers have been talking about from time immemorial--the one described in Revelation 17:

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

With the advent of numerous English language Bibles published by the Protestants in the 16th century, many of them annotated, as well as the proliferation of Protestant commentaries on the Revelation denoting the Pope Antichrist, his church Mystery Babylon, the French Jesuits took up the challenge to issue their responses by publishing the first authorized annotated Roman Catholic edition of the New Testament in English: The Rheims New Testament, published in 1582.

By examining the commentary of the Jesuits’ summation of the Protestant interpretation of Revelation 17 it will be obvious to all that:

1. The Protestants were united in their interpretation.

2. Wolves in sheep’s clothing have infiltrated the modern evangelical church perverting the truth, all of which throws the spotlight of guilt away from the Pope and his false church, to the delight of the Devil, and to the shame of their deceived disciples.

In the end of St. Peter’s first epistle, where the Apostle dateth it at Babylon, which the ancient writers (as we there noted) to be meant of Rome: the Protestants will not in any wise have it so, because they would not be driven to confess that Peter was at Rome.

[n.b. Detailed explanations as to why Protestants did not believe Peter in Rome, or Bishop of Rome or first Pope can easily be found online.]

But here for that they maketh for their opinion, that the Pope is Antichrist, and Rome the seat and city of Antichrist, they will needs have Rome to be this Babylon, this great whore, this purple harlot. For such fellows, in the exposition of holy Scripture, be led only by their prejudicate opinions and heresies, to which they draw all things without all indifferency and sincerity.

The commentary then goes on to argue that pagan Rome was meant Mystery Babylon, not the Church of Rome.

In addition, the Jesuits admit that some in their Church view Mystery Babylon as Jerusalem:

The Church in Rome was one thing, and Babylon in Rome another. Peter sat in Rome, and Nero sat in Rome. But Peter in the Church of Rome: Nero, as in the Babylon of Rome……Whereby it is plain that, whether Babylon or the great whore do here signify Rome or no, yet it cannot signify the Church of Rome…..And if, as in the beginning of the Church, Nero and rest of the persecuting Emperors (which were figures of Antichrist) did principally sit in Rome, so also the great Antichrist shall have his seat there as it may well be (though others think that Jerusalem rather shall be his principal city)…..” (The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582. Prepared and Edited by Dr. William von Peters, Ph.D.; © 1998)

Here we have the Jesuit-inspired Preterist and Futurist views combined.

Preterist in that Babylon is identified with pagan Rome or Jerusalem.

Futurist in that the Antichrist is yet future and not the Pope.

Yet hundreds of years before the Reformation Christian dissenters were neither Preterists nor Futurists.

They were Historicists, as were the Protestant Reformers, the Puritans, and Reformed Baptists, who understood the historic fulfillment of the Papacy and Roman Catholic Church as the prophesied Antichrist and Mystery Babylon the Great.

1689 London Baptist Confession:

The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeshua, so please tell me which church of Matt.16 15-19 when Jesus said 'my church ' which church do you believe Jesus was speaking about when the language was " present tense' ? Please don't try and alter history, please. If you can not resist altering early Christian history then please give competent documentation

Jesus church was founded at day of pentacost, and there were NO Papacy in effect, No non inspired books being accepted and passed around as authentic, and the form foundation was jesus, and the teaching of the Apostles, and that teaching was closed down with death of John, and ther Church was local assemblies meeting to hear jesus preached and taught, by elders and pastors...

Church of rome was NOT there, not until much later, so whose has the revisionist history here now?

 

[lakeside]

Yeshua, but Peter was there wasn't he. Why don't you read the NT and count the number of times Peter's name is mentioned as compared to anybody else with the exception of our Lord, then count the number of any Protestant [ ie Baptist, Methodist. Lutherans, Evangelicals etc. ] founder of any of those Protestant churches then as soon as you get that count out of your bible get back to me.

 

[Rippon]

Why don't you read the NT and count the number of times Peter's name is mentioned as compared to anybody else with the exception of our Lord,

Well, according to Bible Gateway, Peter is mentioned 178 times. Paul is cited 238 times. time to abandon your theory.

 

[lakeside]

Rippon, don't get all puffy just yet,oh no, the Paul is mentioned more than any Peter argument. Let me diffuse this now.

Paul vs Peter in Scripture


First of all let’s us exclude those verses where the Author refers to himself by his name.

First Let us do a search on verses that contain all of Peter’s names. Those being:
Peter, Simon, Cephas, and Kephas.

I get 200 verses: Now Lets break it down:

Matthew = 30 verses ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
Mark = 27 ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
Luke = 31 ( 1 of these denotes Simon the Cyrenian )
John = 38
Acts = 62 ( 5 of these refer to another Simon )
1st Corinthians = 4
Galations = 6
1st and 2nd Peter = 2 ( will exclude these two from the total count )

Total verses using Peter in some form or another = 190 from 7 different books.


Now let us do a search on Paul and Saul:

I get 180 verses : Peter beats him out on this count by using the 190 count alone.

Acts = 151
Romans = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1st Corithians = 7 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2nd Corithians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Galatians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Ephesians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Phillipians = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Colossians = 3 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1 Thessalonians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2 Thessalonians = 2 ( will exclude these from the total count )
1 Timothy = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2 Timothy = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Titus = 1 ( will exclude these from the total count )
Philemon = 3 ( will exclude these from the total count )
2nd Peter = 1

So the numbers are

Peter = 190
Paul = 152

Paul is mentioned 152 times by an outsider in only two books and 151 of those are in the book of Acts written by Luke who was his disciple, and Luke only lists Pauls name to clarify who is talking and likewise for Peter in the same book.

Discounting the Book of Acts since it is primarily about Peter and Paul then the numbers are:

Peter = 128
Paul = 1

 

[lakeside]

Peter, it is often argued, dictated much of his sermons to Mark, and Mark then wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Gospels of Matthew and of Luke at th every least parts of the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, one can say that Peter had a much larger hand in the writing of the NT.

 

[DHK]

Peter, it is often argued, dictated much of his sermons to Mark, and Mark then wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Gospels of Matthew and of Luke at th every least parts of the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, one can say that Peter had a much larger hand in the writing of the NT.

Perhaps you should look at it this way. The Book of the 'Acts' of the Apostles is divided into two parts. Chapters 1-12 center around Peter, and chapters 13-28, around the Apostle Paul.
Peter's ministry was very limited. Even by chapter 12 he had still not left Jerusalem.

However in chapter 9 we have the conversion of Saul. In chapter 13 he sets off on his first missionary journey. He followed that up with two others. On the three missionary journeys he established more than 100 local independent churches.
In addition he wrote 13 epistles, not to "The Church," NO--but to either independent churches or pastors of independent churches.
Paul wrote 13 epistles; Peter wrote just 2.
Paul traveled extensively; Peter's travels were limited.
Paul's authority as an Apostle was not questioned by the apostles.
However, Peter was rebuked by Paul for leading others astray.

Galatians 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

History doesn't record Peter ever being in Rome, except that tradition has him dying there. The Roman authorities dragged him there to have him put to death. There is no evidence that he was ever any kind of religious authority in Rome. That doesn't have to be proved from history. It can be demonstrated from Biblical evidence, and I have done it for you already. But like many others you probably disregarded that post.

 

[Rippon]

Peter, it is often argued, dictated much of his sermons to Mark, and Mark then wrote the Gospel of Mark. The Gospels of Matthew and of Luke at th every least parts of the Gospel of Mark. Therefore, one can say that Peter had a much larger hand in the writing of the NT.

Paul wrote 87 chapters of the New Testament directly (not counting Hebrews). Peter wrote 8.

There are a total of 68 chapters in Matthew, Mark and Luke. How much credit do you want to give Peter?

Paul withstood Peter to his face. Peter did not do the same thing to Paul.

Peter called himself a fellow-elder. Peter did not have the superiority that you wish to ascribe to him. Peter would be mortified to find that he has been placed on such an ungodly pedestal by Roman Catholicism.

 

[Rebel]

Letter from Eastern Orthodox to the Pope:


"From the outset we must clarify that we Orthodox, not taking part in the politically correct spirit of western and especially ecumenist “Christianity,” do not refer to those religious communities who have, sadly, been separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church as “Churches.” But, following the example of our Holy Fathers throughout the ages, refer to them as heretics, and you, Your Excellency, and your followers, we denominate as “Papists” and your heresy as “Papism.”…

That the Apostle Peter did not travel to Rome after the composition of his first epistle is witnessed to in his second catholic epistle, understanding , of course, that this epistle was obviously written for the Gentile Christians, whereas the first was written for the Jewish Christians. In this epistle there is also no mention of city of Rome.

Finally, the fact that, near the end of his life, the Apostle Peter did not journey to Rome is verified by the Apostle Paul’s second epistle to Timothy, in which he writes: “At my first defense no one took my part; all deserted me. May it not be charged against them! But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it.” From this epistle of the Apostle Paul, which was written near the end of his life, it is clearly verified, that during its writing, the Apostle Peter was not in Rome, otherwise the Apostle Paul would out of necessity have mentioned it.

Moreover, it is clear that before the composition of this epistle, the Apostle Peter had not traveled to Rome. If he had already preached there it would not be possible for the Apostle Paul to write that “also in Rome the Gentiles were taught and heard the preaching by him.”

When we add to these Biblical witnesses all that is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles regarding the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome, something that we will expand upon shortly, along with his epistle to the Romans, we come to the indubitable conclusion that, before the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome and also before the composition of his second epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Peter had not traveled to Rome…

Regardless, however, of the time and place of the death of the Chiefs of the Apostles, in our opinion, the most significant witness to the fact that the Apostle Peter did not travel to Rome before the Apostle Paul, and therefore that he did not found the Church in Rome, is concluded from the juxtaposition of the epistle to the Romans with the Acts of the Apostles regarding the Apostle Paul’s first journey to Rome…

Consequently, the Apostle Peter had not journeyed to Rome before the composition of this epistle, that is, before 58 A.D. Perhaps he made the journey during the two – year period that intervened between the writing of the epistle and the Apostle Paul’s first visit to Rome? For us, that which is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles regarding the Apostle Paul’s first visit to Rome, and his subsequent two – year stay, rules this out completely…

As for the fifth detail, that Peter and Paul meet their end at the same time (in Rome), we find no witnesses save apocryphal sources, which are bereft of validity…The witness of Origen regarding the death of Paul in Rome under Nero is refuted by Clement of Rome, who wrote “and come to the extreme limit of the West, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects.”…

And so, it is nowhere proved that the Apostle Peter traveled to Rome, nor that he preached and died there. Rather the opposite is witnessed to by the Holy Scriptures and Ecclesiastical History…

After reading the above, your recent presentation of the alleged Holy Relics of the Apostle Peter, unknown for two centuries, strikingly presents the tragic character of your religious system…

With respect,

+ Andrew of Dryinoupolis, Pogoniani and Konitsa

+ Seraphim of Piraeus and Faliro"

(Letter to Francis. HOLY AUTOCEPHALOUS ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH OF GREECE. April 10, 2014, pp. 1, 37, 41, 45-56, 89. http://cdn.romfea.gr/images/stories/photos/2014/4/romfea1/spiti/Epistle to Pope Francis I.pdf viewed 04/21/2014)

 

[Rebel]

Written by F. Paul Peterson in 1960, edited by James Tabor:

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…

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…

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, 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 Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives…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”…

Then I asked, “Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?” “Yes, he does,” was the reply. Then I asked, “But what does the Pope think of all this?” That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. “Well,” he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, “Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’.” In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, “So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?” “Yes,” was his answer. “The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe.” …

I did not have the opportunity to see priest Bagatti while in Jerusalem. I wrote to him, however, on March 15, 1960, as follows: “I have spoken with a number of Franciscan priests and monks and they have told me about you and the book of which you are a co-writer. I had hoped to see you and to compliment you on such a great discovery, but time would not permit. Having heard so much about you and that you are an archaeologist (with the evidence in hand), I was convinced, with you, concerning the ancient burial ground that the remains found in the ossuary with the name on it, ‘Simon Bar Jona’, written in Aramaic, were those of St. Peter.” It is remarkable that in his reply he did not contradict my statement, which he certainly would have done if he honestly could have done so. “I was very much convinced with you – … that the remains found in the ossuary … were those of St. Peter.” This confirms the talk I had with the Franciscan monk in Bethlehem and the story he told me of Priest Bagatti’s going to the Pope with the evidence concerning the bones of St. Peter in Jerusalem. In his letter one can see that he is careful because of the Pope’s admonition to keep this discovery quiet."(Peterson F. Paul. Saint Peter’s Tomb: The Discovery of Peter’s Tomb in Jerusalem in 1953. http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/20...mon-peter-aka-simeon-son-of-jonah-been-found/ viewed 02/17/11)

 

[Rebel]

About this Bellarmino Bagatti: He was a 20th century archaeologist and Catholic Franciscan priest. Among his discoveries: That Saint Peter was buried in the necropolis under the modern Dominus Flevit Church, in Jerusalem; this conclusion was based on an ossuary found there, which proclaims the occupant to be Simon bar Jonah (corresponding to the Biblical Simon Barjonas, and which statistically is an extremely rare combination of names).This was at a similar time as the Pope claiming to have found evidence for Saint Peter's burial under the Vatican.

This, among much other historical evidence, shows just what a sham the RCC and the papacy are.

 

[Rippon]

Paul wrote 13 epistles; Peter wrote 3.

You're confusing Peter with John. John wrote three epistles. Peter wrote two.