P
phatcatholic
Guest
cj said:
but, these posts do little to vindicate hislop's logic and scholarship, which i addressed in my last post. can you respond to those points that i made? i would appreciate it.cj said:
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Are you taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
-
Wearing the right shoes, and properly clothed spiritually?
Join Elected By Him for a devotional on Ephesians 6:14-15
https://christianforums.net/threads/devotional-selecting-the-proper-shoes.109094/
D
D46
Guest
How about a little history of Semiramis and Tammuz?
http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/worsemi.html
I found that in the Amplified, New American Standard, Living and King James Bibles, it is spelled Tammuz, and that Ferrar Fenton spells it Thamuz. I also noted that I found no comments about Tammuz in any of the references or concordances, except in the Dake Bible, (page 812) and the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1970 edition, (page 827). Halley’s Handbook, (page 327), tells us that part of the worship of Tammuz was wild sex orgies held at the temple itself.
I went to Clarke’s Commentary, Volume 4, Pages 443 and 444, where I also found comments coinciding with Dake. I then got out the Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Volume 4, Page 795, and found it similar to the others. I then checked the International Bible Commentary and found three additional secular books listed as references, so, decided to see what the encyclopedias had to say. I then got out the Britannica, Volume 21, page 776, 1947 edition, and to my surprise found an entire page on the history of Tammuz, including ten reference books on the subject, Also, my attention was called to the calendar and when I looked I was astonished. On my calendar, July the 5th was set apart as a feast day to this Babylonian God. Worship of Tammuz is traced back to Ur and Umma in the days of Abraham. I found that Tammuz’s mother was known as, and called herself, the Queen of Heaven and Roman Catholicism picked up this abominable name and applied it to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
December the 25th is the day celebrated for Tammuz’s birthday and that Roman Catholicism took this day and called it Jesus’ birthday. I found that Tammuz was called the messiah. All of this was found in secular history about one word, TAMMUZ, found only one time in the Bible, where God is showing Ezekiel the abominations that are in HIS HOUSE.
The word, Christmas, is of Roman Catholic origin, meaning a mass as said for Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ does not need anyone saying a mass for Him.
God tells us through Ezekiel in Chapter 20:39, "Pollute ye My Holy Name no more." The very word Christmas is a pollution of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe Jesus was born on the Day of Atonement, that great day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Christmas, although it includes the name of Christ, also mentions the "mass." Now the mass, with its rituals, elaborate ceremony, pagan prayers for the dead, etc. is most assuredly a continuation of paganism. Considering then that the name of these pagan rites in the mass is connected with the name of Christ with the word, "Mass," a pagan and heathenistic ritual carried down from Babylon, is but to pollute the holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since Christ was not born on December 25th, how did this particular day become part of the church calendar? History has the answer.
Nimrod was the third generation from Noah. Noah begat Ham, who begat Cush, who begat Nimrod, and Nimrod was the builder and founder of Babylon. Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis. (He was the king and she was the queen of Babylon). After Nimrod died, she said he was to be worshipped as the sun-god, and she gave birth to an illegitimate son and claimed he was Nimrod, reborn by supernatural conception, who she named Tammuz. She set herself up before the people as "queen of heaven," and Tammuz as a ‘god-child," and December 25th has been worshipped as his birthday ever since. This celebration began hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the true GOD CHILD. Christmas is a mixture, and a mixture is an abomination to God!!!
Semiramis has had quite a few names throughout history. Today in most of the world, she is simply called Mary, via the Romish community.
You can attempt to water down facts and historical evidence by refuting everything said or published but the fact remains...Roman Catholicism is pagan in origin, always was and always will be.
I'd like some answeres as to what Catholics think of the links below as I've posted them before but oddly, there's been no rebuttal or excuses given for this "bleeding cracker" How about it? Is this satanically orchestrated or what!! Give me a break, crying statues, bleeding palms or eyes and now, a bloody cracker. :roll: Refute that...comes from a Catholic site-not a "fundy" site.
http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/jan15.htm
http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/dec30.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/worsemi.html
I found that in the Amplified, New American Standard, Living and King James Bibles, it is spelled Tammuz, and that Ferrar Fenton spells it Thamuz. I also noted that I found no comments about Tammuz in any of the references or concordances, except in the Dake Bible, (page 812) and the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, 1970 edition, (page 827). Halley’s Handbook, (page 327), tells us that part of the worship of Tammuz was wild sex orgies held at the temple itself.
I went to Clarke’s Commentary, Volume 4, Pages 443 and 444, where I also found comments coinciding with Dake. I then got out the Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Volume 4, Page 795, and found it similar to the others. I then checked the International Bible Commentary and found three additional secular books listed as references, so, decided to see what the encyclopedias had to say. I then got out the Britannica, Volume 21, page 776, 1947 edition, and to my surprise found an entire page on the history of Tammuz, including ten reference books on the subject, Also, my attention was called to the calendar and when I looked I was astonished. On my calendar, July the 5th was set apart as a feast day to this Babylonian God. Worship of Tammuz is traced back to Ur and Umma in the days of Abraham. I found that Tammuz’s mother was known as, and called herself, the Queen of Heaven and Roman Catholicism picked up this abominable name and applied it to Mary, the mother of Jesus.
December the 25th is the day celebrated for Tammuz’s birthday and that Roman Catholicism took this day and called it Jesus’ birthday. I found that Tammuz was called the messiah. All of this was found in secular history about one word, TAMMUZ, found only one time in the Bible, where God is showing Ezekiel the abominations that are in HIS HOUSE.
The word, Christmas, is of Roman Catholic origin, meaning a mass as said for Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ does not need anyone saying a mass for Him.
God tells us through Ezekiel in Chapter 20:39, "Pollute ye My Holy Name no more." The very word Christmas is a pollution of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I believe Jesus was born on the Day of Atonement, that great day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Christmas, although it includes the name of Christ, also mentions the "mass." Now the mass, with its rituals, elaborate ceremony, pagan prayers for the dead, etc. is most assuredly a continuation of paganism. Considering then that the name of these pagan rites in the mass is connected with the name of Christ with the word, "Mass," a pagan and heathenistic ritual carried down from Babylon, is but to pollute the holy Name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since Christ was not born on December 25th, how did this particular day become part of the church calendar? History has the answer.
Nimrod was the third generation from Noah. Noah begat Ham, who begat Cush, who begat Nimrod, and Nimrod was the builder and founder of Babylon. Nimrod’s wife was Semiramis. (He was the king and she was the queen of Babylon). After Nimrod died, she said he was to be worshipped as the sun-god, and she gave birth to an illegitimate son and claimed he was Nimrod, reborn by supernatural conception, who she named Tammuz. She set herself up before the people as "queen of heaven," and Tammuz as a ‘god-child," and December 25th has been worshipped as his birthday ever since. This celebration began hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, the true GOD CHILD. Christmas is a mixture, and a mixture is an abomination to God!!!
Semiramis has had quite a few names throughout history. Today in most of the world, she is simply called Mary, via the Romish community.
You can attempt to water down facts and historical evidence by refuting everything said or published but the fact remains...Roman Catholicism is pagan in origin, always was and always will be.
I'd like some answeres as to what Catholics think of the links below as I've posted them before but oddly, there's been no rebuttal or excuses given for this "bleeding cracker" How about it? Is this satanically orchestrated or what!! Give me a break, crying statues, bleeding palms or eyes and now, a bloody cracker. :roll: Refute that...comes from a Catholic site-not a "fundy" site.
http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/jan15.htm
http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/dec30.htm
P
phatcatholic
Guest
lets look at these links. the first one, which is entitled "SEMIRAMIS, QUEEN OF BABYLON" says in the very first sentence that Semiramis was married to Nimrod. i checked the resources used for this article to see how people keep coming up w/ this absurd notion. the first resource, ninevah.com, doesn't even have the article that was cited anymore, so i searched ninevah.com for "semiramis." only one result was provided, this one, and in it we read: "Ninus was the man who founded Ninus, in Aturia (Assyria) and his wife, Semiramis, was the woman who succeeded her husband...". Ninus was her husband, not Nimrod. again, Nimrod was of a completely different century. substituting "Nimrod" for "Ninus" is utterly arbitrary.D46 said:
since we have already found dishonest scholarship in the very first sentence of this article, i can only wonder how many other mistakes there are.
proof please? just b/c some pagans have a "Queen of Heaven" and Catholics call Mary the "Queen of Heaven" that doesn't mean that our beliefs about Mary come from pagan origin. again -- and this is very important -- similarity does not prove causality. like i said in my earlier post (did u even read it?), pagans also have gods who become man, are born of a virgin, and die for mankind. maybe then we should discredit Jesus? no one has yet to respond to this argument. please do so.
should we quit worshipping Jesus then? afterall, Tammuz and Jesus are both called the "messiah." do you see now the implications of hislop's logic on all of christianity? we would have to dismiss the worship of Christ altogether if we ran with hislop. afterall:
- "If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness†(Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star†(Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4). [ from this article ]
firstly, there is simply no connection to Tammuz. secondly, even the connection w/ this other pagan holiday should give us no cause for concern. that is b/c there is simply nothing wrong with taking something pagan and transforming it with Christian beliefs, rendering it no longer pagan. in a sense, that is the duty of every Christian: to transform this pagan world that we live in. before you set about a rebuttal, don't forget Isaiah, who called one of the five cities that swears allegiance to the Lord the "City of the Sun" (Isa 19:18) and Malachai, who refers to the Lord as "the Sun of righteousness." solar imagery is often used in the bible as a way to describe the Lord. it simply makes sense that early Christians would build on this biblical precedent when determining the date to celebrate Christ's birth.
actually, this begs the question b/c you have to prove that the mass is pagan before you can use it as evidence that Catholicism came from paganism. at any rate, this thread isn't about doctrine, its about hislop's dishonest scholarship (mis-quoting sources, using second and third-hand information, using biased sources, making things up) and his absurd logic (mamely, the "similarity equals causality" fallacy). quit trying to shift the focus to doctrine so that u can avoid responding to the actual points i am making.
....and its nothing like what you go on to provide. the history of celebrating Christmas on Dec. 25 is laid out rather plainly, pagan festivals and all, in the New Advent article i provided above. the Church has nothing to hide.
so let me get this straight, you refuse to celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior on Dec 25th b/c some pagans a long time ago celebrated the birth of their god on the same day? don't u see how ridiculous that is? i could care less what a bunch of pagans did a long time ago. they are of no consequence to me! Christmas is solely concerned with Jesus Christ. he is the reason for the season, not some pagan compromise. but, if you wish to not honor the birth of our Lord, so be it.....
so two people have the same name.............big deal :roll: it proves nothing.
it should be obvious by now, if u will only bother to look at the evidence i have been providing, who is watering down history and who is not....
nice diversion tactic :smt023 . start a new thread and i'll respond to it. when are you going to directly address the arguments i have made in this thread? [you can start with this post, and then this one]
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
D
D46
Guest
Coverups, distortions and smokescreens seem to be quite noted in the RCC and it doesn't go unnoticed here. This sort of dialogue could go on indefinitely with no winning side. It doesn't matter the source of information Catholicism always has an answer around it and I think some are more well trained from within than others seem obvious. I don't allocate my weekends to attempting to answer known facts and rebuttals from those who are blinded by the truth. It's merely an exercise in futility.
Let's suppose that Nimrod and Semiramis never existed...forget about them as you won't believe what you've read anyway. That still doesn't deride the fact of the idolatrous practices of the RCC are pagan and STILL have their roots in paganism. You can try to shoot it down all you want but; the facts are there and those with an ounce of discernment can see it for what it is.
I have posted that link and question about the bloody eucharist on other forums here before and not just here-still, no response so, I can only surmise there is no explaination for it other than what I've already stated. Designed by satan to further put in bondage the so called "pilgrims" to the lies of their father.
RC is an abomination in the eyes of God regardless of the name of the god or godess one bows before. Is this not idolatry in it's most simplistic form when one bows and prays before a man made idol? A crown for a skull?
Let's suppose that Nimrod and Semiramis never existed...forget about them as you won't believe what you've read anyway. That still doesn't deride the fact of the idolatrous practices of the RCC are pagan and STILL have their roots in paganism. You can try to shoot it down all you want but; the facts are there and those with an ounce of discernment can see it for what it is.
I have posted that link and question about the bloody eucharist on other forums here before and not just here-still, no response so, I can only surmise there is no explaination for it other than what I've already stated. Designed by satan to further put in bondage the so called "pilgrims" to the lies of their father.
RC is an abomination in the eyes of God regardless of the name of the god or godess one bows before. Is this not idolatry in it's most simplistic form when one bows and prays before a man made idol? A crown for a skull?
Come now D - we know you made those pictures up :-?D46 said:
Just kidding you know - Rome will counter with, "Just mroe Protestand lies from Hollywood - we don't really bow down down and worship these we just reverence these!!!"
Blah...blah... and more blahs...
Nice post D46 -
God bless 8-)
D
D46
Guest
It's like the old song from about 35 years ago..."Every Picture Tells a Story" :wink:
C
CatholicXian
Guest
Still no actual rebuttals to the OP, however, just a bunch of the same old unfounded accusations against the Catholic Church. :roll:
Hislop's book is inaccurate, unresearched, and far from scholarly. That is the point of this thread. And thus far no one has been able to substantiate its claims legitimately, so, as usual, this turns into a "complain-about-the-Catholic-Church-and-her-what-we-think-are-"false"-teachings"
Hislop's book is inaccurate, unresearched, and far from scholarly. That is the point of this thread. And thus far no one has been able to substantiate its claims legitimately, so, as usual, this turns into a "complain-about-the-Catholic-Church-and-her-what-we-think-are-"false"-teachings"
T
thessalonian
Guest
AVBunyan said:
More rhetoric by those who can't look at the Bible even with honesty. Who try to prove that Mary had other children even though the Bible never says such a thing and those whom they claim are her children can easily be shown to be very unlikely to be her children. Bowing down is always worship for them. They will of course also not acknowledge that when I post scriptural evidence that it is not always worship and that worship is a matter of the heart they will stubbornly ignore the Bible. Issac propheside BY THE HOLY SPIRIT that all of Israel would bow down before him. Was this the Holy Spirit telling Issac that Israel was going to worship Jacob? Did God make a mistake in granting the Jews victory over the Cannanites I believe it was in Joshua seven the very next day after Joshua and the Elders BOWED DOWN before the Ark of the Covenant? A graven image even. David bowed down before Bethsheba. That pagan worshipper. I am sure this bowing down before her was remant of his desire to worship Isis. They don't really care what the Bible says on these matters and choose to use it as a club rather than give it an honest assesment for the truth. Whatever those littler nuerons in their mind decide is truth is truth for them, no matter what the bias that brings it about. They believe they can judge hearts yet accuse us of making men gods. They believe they have the truth on Catholicism and will call Catholics liars about what they believe. Very sad.
Sorry if this comes accross as harsh but I am truly fed up with this nonsense. Pride is the source.
Blessings
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
To support both Hislop & the Bible...
CHRIST is the Rock on which "I will build My church"
He pointed to HIMSELF when He said that bit!!
PetrOS - (Peter's name) - means a pebble, a mere PIECE of rock
How do I know Jesus pointed to Himself next?
Because Jesus then said, 'upon this petRA - the very substance rock - I will build.."
The Bible says, 'GOD is our Rock" - as in the 1st verse of Word for Today from http://www.arcamax.com:-
I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:3,4 NIV
Psalm says also that, God is my Rock..my Fortress..my Strong Tower..my Mighty Deliverer - google it, OK?
Jesus is God in human form - John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1
Must go
God bless all who take Him at His Word!
Ian
CHRIST is the Rock on which "I will build My church"
He pointed to HIMSELF when He said that bit!!
PetrOS - (Peter's name) - means a pebble, a mere PIECE of rock
How do I know Jesus pointed to Himself next?
Because Jesus then said, 'upon this petRA - the very substance rock - I will build.."
The Bible says, 'GOD is our Rock" - as in the 1st verse of Word for Today from http://www.arcamax.com:-
I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:3,4 NIV
Psalm says also that, God is my Rock..my Fortress..my Strong Tower..my Mighty Deliverer - google it, OK?
Jesus is God in human form - John 1, Colossians 1 & Hebrews 1
Must go
God bless all who take Him at His Word!
Ian
T
thessalonian
Guest
MrVersatile48 said:
Not to derail the thread again Mr. V but you are quite right. Jesus is the rock. Your butchering of the english, greek, and aaramic language with regard to Matt 16:18 is duly noted however. Aaramic, the language Jesus spoke quite clearly identified Peter as Kepha, rock. We know this from John 1:42 and Paul in Corinthians where Peter is called Cephas, a form of the word Kepha. Kepha only means rock. Sorry dude. Now answer this, who is the foundation of the Church? Who is the light of the world? Your direct answers in the interest of meaningful dialogue are appreciated in advance. Thank you.
Thess
T
thessalonian
Guest
duplicate post 
T
thessalonian
Guest
I did some work for AV on Hislop's work that belongs over here. It shows that Hislop is very good at straw mand arguements and distortions. In the end these clearly invalidate his work because he argues against a Catholicism that does not exist.
"Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the "Heart," when it became an emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, once a year celebrate their festival of "burning lamps," that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun."
You don't know how ridiculous this is to a Catholic. Egyptians used wax candles as a part of pagan worship. Catholics use wax candles as a part of their worship. Therefore Catholicism originates from paganism. AV, every heard of "the light of the world". Candles represent Christ, the light of the world. The true light of the world. Where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not use wax candles"? It doesn't bother me a bit that pagans used them any more than it does that pagans sacrificed animals to God and the Jews sacrifice animals to the one true God. Christ was an animal sacrifice as well, represented by the Jewish sacrifices. So does that make Christianity pagan, because you can tie it to animal sacrifice by pagans in the same handwavy manner that hislop does. Do I doudt Hislop's information about Egyptians using Candles? No. Can I refute it? Why should I want to? Who cares if pagans used wax candles. It is his connecting it to Catholicism in a ridiculous handwaving sort of way that hits my funny bone, except for the fact that people like you believe such nonsense. Pagans used bread so does that mean that Christian Lord's Supper practices (let's forget about the Eucharist discussion for just a moment) are pagan as well. It's stupid logic AV. But it appeals to those who want to believe something.
AV, there are tons of theories about Catholicism and how it came about among protestantism. There must be or they cannot justify their existance. Your theory that this one is all but infallibly correct rufutes them all of course and we are left with this one for you. Or are you really sure that you are right? No, in truth you are not. Not if you did some real soul searching. This theory of Hislop's sounds good to you and so does the mormon theories about Joseph smith and indians being descendants of the Jews who came accross the ocean on a boat 600 years before Christ. They use the same handwavy way of "proving" it that Hislop does. Very sad.
Blessings
"Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers to grace the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of the Papal superstition. That which caused the "Heart," when it became an emblem of the incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. When every Egyptian on the same night was required to light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, once a year celebrate their festival of "burning lamps," that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun."
You don't know how ridiculous this is to a Catholic. Egyptians used wax candles as a part of pagan worship. Catholics use wax candles as a part of their worship. Therefore Catholicism originates from paganism. AV, every heard of "the light of the world". Candles represent Christ, the light of the world. The true light of the world. Where in the Bible does it say "thou shalt not use wax candles"? It doesn't bother me a bit that pagans used them any more than it does that pagans sacrificed animals to God and the Jews sacrifice animals to the one true God. Christ was an animal sacrifice as well, represented by the Jewish sacrifices. So does that make Christianity pagan, because you can tie it to animal sacrifice by pagans in the same handwavy manner that hislop does. Do I doudt Hislop's information about Egyptians using Candles? No. Can I refute it? Why should I want to? Who cares if pagans used wax candles. It is his connecting it to Catholicism in a ridiculous handwaving sort of way that hits my funny bone, except for the fact that people like you believe such nonsense. Pagans used bread so does that mean that Christian Lord's Supper practices (let's forget about the Eucharist discussion for just a moment) are pagan as well. It's stupid logic AV. But it appeals to those who want to believe something.
AV, there are tons of theories about Catholicism and how it came about among protestantism. There must be or they cannot justify their existance. Your theory that this one is all but infallibly correct rufutes them all of course and we are left with this one for you. Or are you really sure that you are right? No, in truth you are not. Not if you did some real soul searching. This theory of Hislop's sounds good to you and so does the mormon theories about Joseph smith and indians being descendants of the Jews who came accross the ocean on a boat 600 years before Christ. They use the same handwavy way of "proving" it that Hislop does. Very sad.
Blessings
T
thessalonian
Guest
More hislop refuted:
On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:
1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."
2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." (DR. MAITLAND'S Church in the Catacombs) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working,--that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to 'marry.'" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. At its commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system.
Hmmm. This of course betrays ignorance of Catholicism. There are married preists in the Catholic Church today. The Eastern and Marionite rites have many married priests. There are also married latin rite priests. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It is not a problem at all that there were married preists back then. And your author ignores much evidence of early celibacy of his time. His denial that there was celibacy denies Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 where it is said that "to some this has been given for the kingdom". So what we have here is evidence from the catacombs that there was a married priest. Oddly enough you guys deny that there was a Christian priesthood back then. But the logical leap your author makes in deciding that there was no celibacy practiced or that this proves anything about the catholic church today is but foolishness to a Catholic. Is his quote irrefutable? No doudt. I have no doudt there were married priests back then JUST AS THERE IS TODAY. He has proven NOTHING! The council of Trulo indicates that there was a long standing practice of celibacy established in the church by the 6th century. I can see why Rome has not wasted it's time refuting this silly book. I'll keep going. Still looking for a smoking gun. By the way did you know there is stong evidence from the Catacombs that these people prayed to Peter and Paul and that they believed in the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist? Fancy that.
On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:
1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."
2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." (DR. MAITLAND'S Church in the Catacombs) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working,--that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to 'marry.'" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. At its commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system.
Hmmm. This of course betrays ignorance of Catholicism. There are married preists in the Catholic Church today. The Eastern and Marionite rites have many married priests. There are also married latin rite priests. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. It is not a problem at all that there were married preists back then. And your author ignores much evidence of early celibacy of his time. His denial that there was celibacy denies Matt 19 and 1 Cor 7 where it is said that "to some this has been given for the kingdom". So what we have here is evidence from the catacombs that there was a married priest. Oddly enough you guys deny that there was a Christian priesthood back then. But the logical leap your author makes in deciding that there was no celibacy practiced or that this proves anything about the catholic church today is but foolishness to a Catholic. Is his quote irrefutable? No doudt. I have no doudt there were married priests back then JUST AS THERE IS TODAY. He has proven NOTHING! The council of Trulo indicates that there was a long standing practice of celibacy established in the church by the 6th century. I can see why Rome has not wasted it's time refuting this silly book. I'll keep going. Still looking for a smoking gun. By the way did you know there is stong evidence from the Catacombs that these people prayed to Peter and Paul and that they believed in the real prescence of Christ in the Eucharist? Fancy that.
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
I can see I'll have to bring in my copy of Hislop & share some more mind-blowing highlights 4 y'all out there!
I just have time now to explain what Revelation 17 clearly calls, 'Mystery Babylon'
My 1st post in this thread - top of its page 2 - showed the many details if Revelation 17 can only apply to Rome
What I forgot to add then is that, at the time, 'a man of the 7 hills' meant a Roman citizen
Anyway, the religion of Babylon was the occult 'mysteries'
The word occult means secret/hidden
Paul refuted the gnostics who falsely taught that some special kind of wisdom, known only to them, was vital for salvation
Like the oft-printed quotes from mad popes in this thread
I mean..
just think @ it..
papal infallibility???
All popes approved RC catachlysmically catastrophic catechism's many errors
How wrong can they be, eh, readers?
Again - as in the book of Esther, featured in the new musical at Preston Guild Hall last Fri night, they are 'hoist with their own petard/hung on the gallows of their own words at RC-HQ website catechism click
Don't be a Haman or a Hamas - see Zechariah 12 & realise that its fulfilment is near
Son, God will miraculously demolish the blasphemous abomination of the Dome on the Rock mosque, which falsely declares - as does the Koran - that 'God has no Son'
The temple will be rebuilt on Temple Mount, as Jesus re-enters Jerusalem thru its East Gate in Zech 14, to rule Earth personally from Zion in his MIllenial reign of Isaiah 65:18 to the end of Isaiah 66 (& Revelation 20)
Jesus forecast many false christs/messiahs/prophets/teachers etc in Matt 24's multiplying birthpains that bring on the Great Delivery of Matt 24:30-31 etc
Revelation 17's 'Great Whore' was prophesied to persecute the true Bride of Christ - trafficking in human bodies & souls & getting drunk on the martyrs' blood, just as it says there
Again, see the fall of that spiritual Babylon in Revelation 18
John Paul 2 hosted conferences of witches, shamen, spiritualists, muslims, etc, etc, in La Paz & elsewhere, precisely to set up the abominable endtimes occult-dominated fasle 'supefchurch' of Revelation 17
He also called evangelicals, 'wolves in sheep's clothing, out to ravage the flock'
Bible-believing, born-again, Spirit-led Christians ARE the flock of God
Popes are false shepherds, as in Ezekiel 34, etc
Revelation 18 urges God's true, believing, following people to, 'Come out from among them, so that you will not share their punishment'
Which includes worldwide financial collapse, as God judges ill-gotten gains
Any who trust in money, worship/serve money best 'lay up treasures in Heven where moths & rust don't ruin & thieves don't break in & steal' - as Jesus also said
'Also' is because Revelation 1 introduces itself as the revelation of Jesus Christ, who appeared to John in exile on Patmos island & gave him all those visions of these endtimes that so rapidly approach Armageddon
It prophesies the classic pattern of escalation leading up to & past Armageddon
So we know that Hell is worse than Armageddon, as it's eternal, conscious torment - see Rev 20 & Matthew 13, etc
In Revelation 6:8, 25% of mankind die thru the notorious '4 horsemen of the Apocalypse' - war, famine, pestilence & the wild beasts of the Earth (most likely driven wild enough to attack men by the deliberate use of biochems on them
In Revelation 9:13-18, 33% of mankind (survivors) die in a war begun at R Euphrates
Total Armageddon is in Rev 16-19, Joel 3, Zechariah 14 etc
These things merit most serious consideration by all readers
& passing onto your networks, to make sure that none who you love & care about are left behind after that instant airlift Rapture rescue of all who love Jesus, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:11
Come out of spiritual darkness into the Light of the World
Come out of death into life eternal
As Hebrews so succinctly asks, "How shall we escape if we neglect such great salvation?"
I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:3,4 NIV
See my post at the top of page 2 if you need the way of salvation
Must go
God bless!
Ian
I just have time now to explain what Revelation 17 clearly calls, 'Mystery Babylon'
My 1st post in this thread - top of its page 2 - showed the many details if Revelation 17 can only apply to Rome
What I forgot to add then is that, at the time, 'a man of the 7 hills' meant a Roman citizen
Anyway, the religion of Babylon was the occult 'mysteries'
The word occult means secret/hidden
Paul refuted the gnostics who falsely taught that some special kind of wisdom, known only to them, was vital for salvation
Like the oft-printed quotes from mad popes in this thread
I mean..
just think @ it..
papal infallibility???
All popes approved RC catachlysmically catastrophic catechism's many errors
How wrong can they be, eh, readers?
Again - as in the book of Esther, featured in the new musical at Preston Guild Hall last Fri night, they are 'hoist with their own petard/hung on the gallows of their own words at RC-HQ website catechism click
Don't be a Haman or a Hamas - see Zechariah 12 & realise that its fulfilment is near
Son, God will miraculously demolish the blasphemous abomination of the Dome on the Rock mosque, which falsely declares - as does the Koran - that 'God has no Son'
The temple will be rebuilt on Temple Mount, as Jesus re-enters Jerusalem thru its East Gate in Zech 14, to rule Earth personally from Zion in his MIllenial reign of Isaiah 65:18 to the end of Isaiah 66 (& Revelation 20)
Jesus forecast many false christs/messiahs/prophets/teachers etc in Matt 24's multiplying birthpains that bring on the Great Delivery of Matt 24:30-31 etc
Revelation 17's 'Great Whore' was prophesied to persecute the true Bride of Christ - trafficking in human bodies & souls & getting drunk on the martyrs' blood, just as it says there
Again, see the fall of that spiritual Babylon in Revelation 18
John Paul 2 hosted conferences of witches, shamen, spiritualists, muslims, etc, etc, in La Paz & elsewhere, precisely to set up the abominable endtimes occult-dominated fasle 'supefchurch' of Revelation 17
He also called evangelicals, 'wolves in sheep's clothing, out to ravage the flock'
Bible-believing, born-again, Spirit-led Christians ARE the flock of God
Popes are false shepherds, as in Ezekiel 34, etc
Revelation 18 urges God's true, believing, following people to, 'Come out from among them, so that you will not share their punishment'
Which includes worldwide financial collapse, as God judges ill-gotten gains
Any who trust in money, worship/serve money best 'lay up treasures in Heven where moths & rust don't ruin & thieves don't break in & steal' - as Jesus also said
'Also' is because Revelation 1 introduces itself as the revelation of Jesus Christ, who appeared to John in exile on Patmos island & gave him all those visions of these endtimes that so rapidly approach Armageddon
It prophesies the classic pattern of escalation leading up to & past Armageddon
So we know that Hell is worse than Armageddon, as it's eternal, conscious torment - see Rev 20 & Matthew 13, etc
In Revelation 6:8, 25% of mankind die thru the notorious '4 horsemen of the Apocalypse' - war, famine, pestilence & the wild beasts of the Earth (most likely driven wild enough to attack men by the deliberate use of biochems on them
In Revelation 9:13-18, 33% of mankind (survivors) die in a war begun at R Euphrates
Total Armageddon is in Rev 16-19, Joel 3, Zechariah 14 etc
These things merit most serious consideration by all readers
& passing onto your networks, to make sure that none who you love & care about are left behind after that instant airlift Rapture rescue of all who love Jesus, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:14-5:11
Come out of spiritual darkness into the Light of the World
Come out of death into life eternal
As Hebrews so succinctly asks, "How shall we escape if we neglect such great salvation?"
I will proclaim the name of the LORD.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.
Deuteronomy 32:3,4 NIV
See my post at the top of page 2 if you need the way of salvation
Must go
God bless!
Ian
T
thessalonian
Guest
Catholicism is not gnosticism. There is nothing hidden about it as evidenced by our Catechism which quite clearly explains our beliefs. Our councils are not hidden. Our papal writings are available online. I guess it's the arguement of the day approach, shotgun blast.
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
End of Rev 9 says survivors still refuse to repent of their.....
T
thessalonian
Guest
MrVersatile48 said:
Yes you will won't you. :-D
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
& sure, Patrick, there's me thinkin' 'twas me that's half Irish... :-?
I guess ya don't do nothin' by halves, eh? :roll:
I guess ya don't do nothin' by halves, eh? :roll:
T
thessalonian
Guest
I've got to tell you that this hislop thing is a gas. I've been reading it online as I have time. The sad thing that withholds my laughter is that some of you actually believe it. Makes Peters come to life about the unstable distroting come to life. This guy was unstable. Mr. V. I would think a pentecostal type like yourself would have problems with his statement in the chapter on Extreme Unction about miracles being over with the Apostles. But of course the book fits your agenda so you ignore this minor problem
Then he goes on to say:
"The "extreme unction" of Rome, as the very expression itself declares, is not intended for any such purpose. It is not intended for healing the sick, or "raising them up"; for it is not on any account to be administered till all hope of recovery is gone, and death is visibly at the very doors. "
Ah ignorance is bliss. He only shows his boorish ingorance of the sacrament and that it is given to aide the sick and many times does in fact raise them to health. Though not always or noone would ever die. The Catholic Church believes in miracles. Statements like this one of Hislops are total nonense but he uses them to "prove" paganism of Catholicism. He then goes on to conjure up some wild conspiracy about the pagan roots of extreme unction. The guy was definitely one step out of the looney bin.
Another good one is that he tries to prove that priests and nuns are all out of paganism. He makes the logical leap that if the top of the leadership is corrupted then everyone below is as well. :o . I guess then he has just shown that the Jewish faith of the Old Testament was a lie and that when the scriptures say that Joseph for instance was a righteous man in Luke's Gospel they are false. For clearly the scriptures tell us the scribes and pharasees, i.e. the religous leaders of the time were corrupt. Therefore by Hislop's thinking everyone underneath is corrupt. Jesus tells us there will be tares among the wheat, wolves among the sheep, corrupt leaders. This does not invalidate the who Church. But by Hislops way of thinking it does. Not all Popes were corrupt. Some were. This proves nothing about the teachings of the church any more than when Hophni and Phineas were having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting or when David had bethsheba's husband killed so he could have her proves that the Jewish faith was false. Do these things automatically mean the Jewish priesthood came from ancient Babylon. Nonsense. :o
Blessings
Then he goes on to say:
"The "extreme unction" of Rome, as the very expression itself declares, is not intended for any such purpose. It is not intended for healing the sick, or "raising them up"; for it is not on any account to be administered till all hope of recovery is gone, and death is visibly at the very doors. "
Ah ignorance is bliss. He only shows his boorish ingorance of the sacrament and that it is given to aide the sick and many times does in fact raise them to health. Though not always or noone would ever die. The Catholic Church believes in miracles. Statements like this one of Hislops are total nonense but he uses them to "prove" paganism of Catholicism. He then goes on to conjure up some wild conspiracy about the pagan roots of extreme unction. The guy was definitely one step out of the looney bin.
Another good one is that he tries to prove that priests and nuns are all out of paganism. He makes the logical leap that if the top of the leadership is corrupted then everyone below is as well. :o . I guess then he has just shown that the Jewish faith of the Old Testament was a lie and that when the scriptures say that Joseph for instance was a righteous man in Luke's Gospel they are false. For clearly the scriptures tell us the scribes and pharasees, i.e. the religous leaders of the time were corrupt. Therefore by Hislop's thinking everyone underneath is corrupt. Jesus tells us there will be tares among the wheat, wolves among the sheep, corrupt leaders. This does not invalidate the who Church. But by Hislops way of thinking it does. Not all Popes were corrupt. Some were. This proves nothing about the teachings of the church any more than when Hophni and Phineas were having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting or when David had bethsheba's husband killed so he could have her proves that the Jewish faith was false. Do these things automatically mean the Jewish priesthood came from ancient Babylon. Nonsense. :o
Blessings
M
MrVersatile48
Guest
"The joy of the LOrd is your strength" - Nehemiah 8:10
Rejoice in the Lord always" - Phil 4:4
Paul wrote that while chained to the walls of a Roman dungeon
He & Silas sang their hearts out in hymns of praise that won their fellow-prisoners & jailer to the Lord
& God sent a mighty warrior angel to get them out of jail by sheer miracle power of God
Nicky Gumbel said last night that over 90% of UK jails now run Alpha courses
Another even more famous preacher - Jim Bakker - testified how he & ex-Richard Nixon hatchet man wre won to Christ in prison
Charles Colson then founded Prisons Christian Fellowship
I was in Moorlands Bible College with Hell's Angel author Brian Greenaway, who has worked in UK prison minstry ever since & seen many saved, healed, delivered & anointed to serve God & free others
& don't you dare to call God's Word puerile/infantile/deceiving
Timely Word for Today from http://www.arcamax.com
Today's Scripture
Faithful He Remains!
In thy steadfast love spare my life,
that I may keep the testimonies of thy mouth.
For ever, O LORD, thy word
is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Thy faithfulness endures to all generations;
thou hast established the earth,
and it stands fast.
Psalm 119:88-90 RSV
__________________
Now you have every spiritual gift you need as you eagerly wait for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will keep you strong right up to the end, and he will keep you free from all blame on the great day when our Lord Jesus Christ returns.
God will surely do this for you, for he always does just what he says, and he is the one who invited you into this wonderful friendship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 1:7-9 NLT
__________________
Thanks be unto God for His wonderful gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God
is the object of our faith; the only faith
that saves is faith in Him.
Back to Top
Read Through the Bible in a Year
February 28: Matthew 8:1-13, Exodus 39-40, Proverbs 18
Click Here for the complete schedule
Or Copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.arcamax.com/ttb-yr.html
Back to Top
Weekly Meditation
My Soul Thirsts for Thee
O God, You are my God;
I shall seek You earnestly;
My soul thirsts for You,
my flesh yearns for You,
In a dry and weary land
where there is no water.
Thus I have seen You in the sanctuary,
To see Your power and Your glory.
Because Your lovingkindness is better than life,
My lips will praise You.
So I will bless You as long as I live;
I will lift up my hands in Your name.
Psalm 63:1-4 NASB
Rejoice in the Lord always" - Phil 4:4
Paul wrote that while chained to the walls of a Roman dungeon
He & Silas sang their hearts out in hymns of praise that won their fellow-prisoners & jailer to the Lord
& God sent a mighty warrior angel to get them out of jail by sheer miracle power of God
Nicky Gumbel said last night that over 90% of UK jails now run Alpha courses
Another even more famous preacher - Jim Bakker - testified how he & ex-Richard Nixon hatchet man wre won to Christ in prison
Charles Colson then founded Prisons Christian Fellowship
I was in Moorlands Bible College with Hell's Angel author Brian Greenaway, who has worked in UK prison minstry ever since & seen many saved, healed, delivered & anointed to serve God & free others
& don't you dare to call God's Word puerile/infantile/deceiving
Timely Word for Today from http://www.arcamax.com
Today's Scripture
Faithful He Remains!
In thy steadfast love spare my life,
that I may keep the testimonies of thy mouth.
For ever, O LORD, thy word
is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Thy faithfulness endures to all generations;
thou hast established the earth,
and it stands fast.
Psalm 119:88-90 RSV
__________________
Now you have every spiritual gift you need as you eagerly wait for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. He will keep you strong right up to the end, and he will keep you free from all blame on the great day when our Lord Jesus Christ returns.
God will surely do this for you, for he always does just what he says, and he is the one who invited you into this wonderful friendship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
1 Corinthians 1:7-9 NLT
__________________
Thanks be unto God for His wonderful gift:
Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God
is the object of our faith; the only faith
that saves is faith in Him.
Back to Top
Read Through the Bible in a Year
February 28: Matthew 8:1-13, Exodus 39-40, Proverbs 18
Click Here for the complete schedule
Or Copy and paste this link into your browser:
http://www.arcamax.com/ttb-yr.html
Back to Top
Weekly Meditation
My Soul Thirsts for Thee
O God, You are my God;
I shall seek You earnestly;
My soul thirsts for You,
my flesh yearns for You,
In a dry and weary land
where there is no water.
Thus I have seen You in the sanctuary,
To see Your power and Your glory.
Because Your lovingkindness is better than life,
My lips will praise You.
So I will bless You as long as I live;
I will lift up my hands in Your name.
Psalm 63:1-4 NASB