I'd like to know about this Pope fella.

[Michael Christ]

What is his association with Peter? I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?





Michael Christ

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Sun, 7 May 2017 22:32:56 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter? I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Of course, except that Peter died 2000 years ago.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Rome, not Christ nor Peter.

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Correction below Michael:

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.

So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.

And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?




Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.
And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?

I don't believe that he is equivalent to Peter. False teachings have
been in the church since Christians first began meeting in one
another's homes. Marduk and Ishtar cults were all trying to gain
hold on the church and penetrated it but failed to gain the heart
of the church. That queen of heaven worship is still present in the
catholic church, and some of those people post in this group.

Courtesy of www.stgregorioschurchdc.org/:

During the period from AD 200-323 the Church underwent three major
persecutions in three decades. The first decade of persecution began by
the dawn of the third century and ended in 210 AD The second decade of
persecution was from AD 250-260. And the third decade of persecution was
brought to a close in AD 313.

By the beginning of the third century the Christian church was a reality
to be reckoned with the Roman Empire. The Roman authorities began to
persecute Christians due to their increasing prominence. They became
prominent in three ways: (1) Many people were converted into
Christianity and they increased in number. (2) The conversions took
place in different parts of Roman Empire and thus the Christians were
present in almost every part of the Empire. (3) Though comparatively
small in number they were a group of people zealous for their faith and
the Church was a close-knit organization. The Roman authorities feared
the Christian Church that its power would be a source of danger to the
State.

Septimius Severus ruled Rome from AD 193 to 211. He wanted to check the
progress of the Christians. He issued an edict and it was the first
official persecution by edict. It aimed exclusively at converts. It made
conversions illegal. The persecution was sharpest in Egypt and Africa.
In Alexandria in Egypt, Leonides, Origen's father was beheaded and
several of Origen's pupils were destroyed. In Carthage of Africa many
Christians especially the newly baptized died under tortures. Many were
burned at stake and many others were thrown to wild animals.

After the death of Severus in 211, till the accession of Decius in 249
the Christian church was in peace. The second decade of persecution
began with the edict of Emperor Decius in AD.250. It was ordered that
all might make their profession of faith within a fixed date. All who
failed to declare paganism were liable to persecution. People were asked
to make offering in the temple and partake in the sacrificial meal.
Those who made the offering were given a certificate. If anyone denied
he was to be induced in every way to change his mind and if he remained
obstinate was to be tortured and imprisoned until he apostatized. Decius
did not want to make martyrs but apostates because he knew the martyrdom
strengthened the Church whereas apostasy weakened it. Even then there
were martyrs. In Rome Bishop Fabian had been martyred. Decius died in AD
251.

After Decius, Gallus became the Emperor (251-253). He resumed the
persecution in milder form. Emperor Valerian who was next to occupy the
throne (253-260) revived the Decian persecution. In the first half of
his reign, he favored Christians. But in 257 he started persecuting the
Church. He did not try to destroy Christian religion. But he planned to
deprive the Church of all its strength. For that he aimed at its
hierarchy, worship and property. He issued an edict in 257 which deposed
bishops from their sees, forbade assemblies for worship and all access
to cemeteries and confiscated properties. In Africa St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage was beheaded. Many great leaders lost their lives during his
reign.

The Church had peace for another forty years. Then the last an greatest
of persecutions broke out in the region of Emperor Diocletian in AD 303.
It continued under Galerius and Maximian for a decade till it finally
ended in AD 313. Diocletian forbade meetings of worship commanded
Churches to be leveled to the ground and Scriptures to be destroyed in
fire, and ordered the Church officials to be deprived of their rank.
More than his predecessors he succeeded in abstaining from bloodshed. He
forced Christians to hand over the Scriptures an apostatize their faith
through long imprisonment and torture. In 30 Diocletian resigned
Galerius and Maximian who occupied the throne successively continued the
persecution. Galerius died in AD 311 and Maximian in AD 313. By the
initiative of Constantine the Christians were declared free through the
Edict in AD 313. There ended the era of persecution.


I hope this is a help Mikey..

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.
And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?

I don't believe that he is equivalent to Peter. False teachings have
been in the church since Christians first began meeting in one
another's homes. Marduk and Ishtar cults were all trying to gain
hold on the church and penetrated it but failed to gain the heart
of the church. That queen of heaven worship is still present in the
catholic church, and some of those people post in this group.
During the period from AD 200-323 the Church underwent three major
persecutions in three decades. The first decade of persecution began by
the dawn of the third century and ended in 210 AD The second decade of
persecution was from AD 250-260. And the third decade of persecution was
brought to a close in AD 313.
By the beginning of the third century the Christian church was a reality
to be reckoned with the Roman Empire. The Roman authorities began to
persecute Christians due to their increasing prominence. They became
prominent in three ways: (1) Many people were converted into
Christianity and they increased in number. (2) The conversions took
place in different parts of Roman Empire and thus the Christians were
present in almost every part of the Empire. (3) Though comparatively
small in number they were a group of people zealous for their faith and
the Church was a close-knit organization. The Roman authorities feared
the Christian Church that its power would be a source of danger to the
State.
Septimius Severus ruled Rome from AD 193 to 211. He wanted to check the
progress of the Christians. He issued an edict and it was the first
official persecution by edict. It aimed exclusively at converts. It made
conversions illegal. The persecution was sharpest in Egypt and Africa.
In Alexandria in Egypt, Leonides, Origen's father was beheaded and
several of Origen's pupils were destroyed. In Carthage of Africa many
Christians especially the newly baptized died under tortures. Many were
burned at stake and many others were thrown to wild animals.
After the death of Severus in 211, till the accession of Decius in 249
the Christian church was in peace. The second decade of persecution
began with the edict of Emperor Decius in AD.250. It was ordered that
all might make their profession of faith within a fixed date. All who
failed to declare paganism were liable to persecution. People were asked
to make offering in the temple and partake in the sacrificial meal.
Those who made the offering were given a certificate. If anyone denied
he was to be induced in every way to change his mind and if he remained
obstinate was to be tortured and imprisoned until he apostatized. Decius
did not want to make martyrs but apostates because he knew the martyrdom
strengthened the Church whereas apostasy weakened it. Even then there
were martyrs. In Rome Bishop Fabian had been martyred. Decius died in AD
251.
After Decius, Gallus became the Emperor (251-253). He resumed the
persecution in milder form. Emperor Valerian who was next to occupy the
throne (253-260) revived the Decian persecution. In the first half of
his reign, he favored Christians. But in 257 he started persecuting the
Church. He did not try to destroy Christian religion. But he planned to
deprive the Church of all its strength. For that he aimed at its
hierarchy, worship and property. He issued an edict in 257 which deposed
bishops from their sees, forbade assemblies for worship and all access
to cemeteries and confiscated properties. In Africa St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage was beheaded. Many great leaders lost their lives during his
reign.
The Church had peace for another forty years. Then the last an greatest
of persecutions broke out in the region of Emperor Diocletian in AD 303.
It continued under Galerius and Maximian for a decade till it finally
ended in AD 313. Diocletian forbade meetings of worship commanded
Churches to be leveled to the ground and Scriptures to be destroyed in
fire, and ordered the Church officials to be deprived of their rank.
More than his predecessors he succeeded in abstaining from bloodshed. He
forced Christians to hand over the Scriptures an apostatize their faith
through long imprisonment and torture. In 30 Diocletian resigned
Galerius and Maximian who occupied the throne successively continued the
persecution. Galerius died in AD 311 and Maximian in AD 313. By the
initiative of Constantine the Christians were declared free through the
Edict in AD 313. There ended the era of persecution.
I hope this is a help Mikey..

I chose this site because of the comprehensive history
that they kept on the early church.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.
And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?

I don't believe that he is equivalent to Peter. False teachings have
been in the church since Christians first began meeting in one
another's homes. Marduk and Ishtar cults were all trying to gain
hold on the church and penetrated it but failed to gain the heart
of the church. That queen of heaven worship is still present in the
catholic church, and some of those people post in this group.
During the period from AD 200-323 the Church underwent three major
persecutions in three decades. The first decade of persecution began by
the dawn of the third century and ended in 210 AD The second decade of
persecution was from AD 250-260. And the third decade of persecution was
brought to a close in AD 313.
By the beginning of the third century the Christian church was a reality
to be reckoned with the Roman Empire. The Roman authorities began to
persecute Christians due to their increasing prominence. They became
prominent in three ways: (1) Many people were converted into
Christianity and they increased in number. (2) The conversions took
place in different parts of Roman Empire and thus the Christians were
present in almost every part of the Empire. (3) Though comparatively
small in number they were a group of people zealous for their faith and
the Church was a close-knit organization. The Roman authorities feared
the Christian Church that its power would be a source of danger to the
State.
Septimius Severus ruled Rome from AD 193 to 211. He wanted to check the
progress of the Christians. He issued an edict and it was the first
official persecution by edict. It aimed exclusively at converts. It made
conversions illegal. The persecution was sharpest in Egypt and Africa.
In Alexandria in Egypt, Leonides, Origen's father was beheaded and
several of Origen's pupils were destroyed. In Carthage of Africa many
Christians especially the newly baptized died under tortures. Many were
burned at stake and many others were thrown to wild animals.
After the death of Severus in 211, till the accession of Decius in 249
the Christian church was in peace. The second decade of persecution
began with the edict of Emperor Decius in AD.250. It was ordered that
all might make their profession of faith within a fixed date. All who
failed to declare paganism were liable to persecution. People were asked
to make offering in the temple and partake in the sacrificial meal.
Those who made the offering were given a certificate. If anyone denied
he was to be induced in every way to change his mind and if he remained
obstinate was to be tortured and imprisoned until he apostatized. Decius
did not want to make martyrs but apostates because he knew the martyrdom
strengthened the Church whereas apostasy weakened it. Even then there
were martyrs. In Rome Bishop Fabian had been martyred. Decius died in AD
251.
After Decius, Gallus became the Emperor (251-253). He resumed the
persecution in milder form. Emperor Valerian who was next to occupy the
throne (253-260) revived the Decian persecution. In the first half of
his reign, he favored Christians. But in 257 he started persecuting the
Church. He did not try to destroy Christian religion. But he planned to
deprive the Church of all its strength. For that he aimed at its
hierarchy, worship and property. He issued an edict in 257 which deposed
bishops from their sees, forbade assemblies for worship and all access
to cemeteries and confiscated properties. In Africa St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage was beheaded. Many great leaders lost their lives during his
reign.
The Church had peace for another forty years. Then the last an greatest
of persecutions broke out in the region of Emperor Diocletian in AD 303.
It continued under Galerius and Maximian for a decade till it finally
ended in AD 313. Diocletian forbade meetings of worship commanded
Churches to be leveled to the ground and Scriptures to be destroyed in
fire, and ordered the Church officials to be deprived of their rank.
More than his predecessors he succeeded in abstaining from bloodshed. He
forced Christians to hand over the Scriptures an apostatize their faith
through long imprisonment and torture. In 30 Diocletian resigned
Galerius and Maximian who occupied the throne successively continued the
persecution. Galerius died in AD 311 and Maximian in AD 313. By the
initiative of Constantine the Christians were declared free through the
Edict in AD 313. There ended the era of persecution.
I hope this is a help Mikey..

I chose this site because of the comprehensive history
that they kept on the early church.

Cheers. Heady days indeed!

Let's say that all was as it should be back then, and the Church you
described was exactly as it should be, I wonder how different it would
stack up against what we see today?





Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.
And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?

I don't believe that he is equivalent to Peter. False teachings have
been in the church since Christians first began meeting in one
another's homes. Marduk and Ishtar cults were all trying to gain
hold on the church and penetrated it but failed to gain the heart
of the church. That queen of heaven worship is still present in the
catholic church, and some of those people post in this group.
During the period from AD 200-323 the Church underwent three major
persecutions in three decades. The first decade of persecution began by
the dawn of the third century and ended in 210 AD The second decade of
persecution was from AD 250-260. And the third decade of persecution was
brought to a close in AD 313.
By the beginning of the third century the Christian church was a reality
to be reckoned with the Roman Empire. The Roman authorities began to
persecute Christians due to their increasing prominence. They became
prominent in three ways: (1) Many people were converted into
Christianity and they increased in number. (2) The conversions took
place in different parts of Roman Empire and thus the Christians were
present in almost every part of the Empire. (3) Though comparatively
small in number they were a group of people zealous for their faith and
the Church was a close-knit organization. The Roman authorities feared
the Christian Church that its power would be a source of danger to the
State.
Septimius Severus ruled Rome from AD 193 to 211. He wanted to check the
progress of the Christians. He issued an edict and it was the first
official persecution by edict. It aimed exclusively at converts. It made
conversions illegal. The persecution was sharpest in Egypt and Africa.
In Alexandria in Egypt, Leonides, Origen's father was beheaded and
several of Origen's pupils were destroyed. In Carthage of Africa many
Christians especially the newly baptized died under tortures. Many were
burned at stake and many others were thrown to wild animals.
After the death of Severus in 211, till the accession of Decius in 249
the Christian church was in peace. The second decade of persecution
began with the edict of Emperor Decius in AD.250. It was ordered that
all might make their profession of faith within a fixed date. All who
failed to declare paganism were liable to persecution. People were asked
to make offering in the temple and partake in the sacrificial meal.
Those who made the offering were given a certificate. If anyone denied
he was to be induced in every way to change his mind and if he remained
obstinate was to be tortured and imprisoned until he apostatized. Decius
did not want to make martyrs but apostates because he knew the martyrdom
strengthened the Church whereas apostasy weakened it. Even then there
were martyrs. In Rome Bishop Fabian had been martyred. Decius died in AD
251.
After Decius, Gallus became the Emperor (251-253). He resumed the
persecution in milder form. Emperor Valerian who was next to occupy the
throne (253-260) revived the Decian persecution. In the first half of
his reign, he favored Christians. But in 257 he started persecuting the
Church. He did not try to destroy Christian religion. But he planned to
deprive the Church of all its strength. For that he aimed at its
hierarchy, worship and property. He issued an edict in 257 which deposed
bishops from their sees, forbade assemblies for worship and all access
to cemeteries and confiscated properties. In Africa St. Cyprian, bishop
of Carthage was beheaded. Many great leaders lost their lives during his
reign.
The Church had peace for another forty years. Then the last an greatest
of persecutions broke out in the region of Emperor Diocletian in AD 303.
It continued under Galerius and Maximian for a decade till it finally
ended in AD 313. Diocletian forbade meetings of worship commanded
Churches to be leveled to the ground and Scriptures to be destroyed in
fire, and ordered the Church officials to be deprived of their rank.
More than his predecessors he succeeded in abstaining from bloodshed. He
forced Christians to hand over the Scriptures an apostatize their faith
through long imprisonment and torture. In 30 Diocletian resigned
Galerius and Maximian who occupied the throne successively continued the
persecution. Galerius died in AD 311 and Maximian in AD 313. By the
initiative of Constantine the Christians were declared free through the
Edict in AD 313. There ended the era of persecution.
I hope this is a help Mikey..

I chose this site because of the comprehensive history
that they kept on the early church.

Cheers. Heady days indeed!
Let's say that all was as it should be back then, and the Church you
described was exactly as it should be, I wonder how different it would
stack up against what we see today?

In favor with God, Mikey. Many more blessed people around. it would be
a much better life. Something to look forward too.

[Michael Christ]

By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day. I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.

They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.

Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.

Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.



Michael Christ












---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day.

I am. I went thru catechism at Sacred Heart church in Emporia
Kansas USA. I walked out of the church a few months ago after
finding that they had a jesus idol tucked away in the basement
of the school next to the secretaries office. I left and did
not go back, but instead I have been fellowshipping with God
outside the confines of priestly influence and authority.

Post by Michael Christ
I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.

I have a few of those myself. Old persistent native beliefs
that were passed down from my tribe.

Post by Michael Christ
They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.

Me too Mikey..

Post by Michael Christ
Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried
to kill God when He was on earth? Yeppers! Nimrod claimed
he was going to Cedar Mountian where God was residing to
sacrifice to Him. Instead Nimrod sent servants up the mountain
to find and kill God. They did not find him and they left,
all that time God had been setting there upon a rock watching
them. Nimmrod and clowns left the area and were returning home
when the earth shook like the foundation of heaven was coming apart,
and the earth swallowed a 3rd of Nimrods army. Nimrod returned
to sinar badly frightened and died 3 years to the second later.

This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

Post by Michael Christ
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.

Many church goers will present being outside the church
as a problem when it isn't. Fellowship with other believers
in Christ's name is always available. As long as a person
conscious is clear he can take communion at any church or
among other believers.

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day.

I am. I went thru catechism at Sacred Heart church in Emporia
Kansas USA. I walked out of the church a few months ago after
finding that they had a jesus idol tucked away in the basement
of the school next to the secretaries office. I left and did
not go back, but instead I have been fellowshipping with God
outside the confines of priestly influence and authority.

Post by Michael Christ
I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.

I have a few of those myself. Old persistent native beliefs
that were passed down from my tribe.

Post by Michael Christ
They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.

Me too Mikey..

Post by Michael Christ
Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried
to kill God when He was on earth? Yeppers! Nimrod claimed
he was going to Cedar Mountian where God was residing to
sacrifice to Him. Instead Nimrod sent servants up the mountain
to find and kill God. They did not find him and they left,
all that time God had been setting there upon a rock watching
them. Nimmrod and clowns left the area and were returning home
when the earth shook like the foundation of heaven was coming apart,
and the earth swallowed a 3rd of Nimrods army. Nimrod returned
to sinar badly frightened and died 3 years to the second later.
This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

He was a bad bad boy.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.

Many church goers will present being outside the church
as a problem when it isn't. Fellowship with other believers
in Christ's name is always available. As long as a person
conscious is clear he can take communion at any church or
among other believers.

Stay true of heart and you can dance naked down the street as far as God
is concerned.






Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day.

I am. I went thru catechism at Sacred Heart church in Emporia
Kansas USA. I walked out of the church a few months ago after
finding that they had a jesus idol tucked away in the basement
of the school next to the secretaries office. I left and did
not go back, but instead I have been fellowshipping with God
outside the confines of priestly influence and authority.

Post by Michael Christ
I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.

I have a few of those myself. Old persistent native beliefs
that were passed down from my tribe.

Post by Michael Christ
They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.

Me too Mikey..

Post by Michael Christ
Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried
to kill God when He was on earth? Yeppers! Nimrod claimed
he was going to Cedar Mountian where God was residing to
sacrifice to Him. Instead Nimrod sent servants up the mountain
to find and kill God. They did not find him and they left,
all that time God had been setting there upon a rock watching
them. Nimmrod and clowns left the area and were returning home
when the earth shook like the foundation of heaven was coming apart,
and the earth swallowed a 3rd of Nimrods army. Nimrod returned
to sinar badly frightened and died 3 years to the second later.
This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

He was a bad bad boy.

Yes he was. The population was terrified of him. Some of the scholars
that have studied Nimrod and the epic of Gilgamesh are of the
opinion that Nimrod wrote it. In the epic gilgamesh claims that
he killed God...so I have to wonder just who the poor slob was that
he did kill. The writing styles in Nimrods written edics and the
epic are very close and come from the same period.

3 years to the day after Nimrod journeyed to the Cedar Mountian
he was killed by his uncle on the plains of mamre. His uncle took
him for some kind of an animal and put an arrow through his ticker.

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.

Many church goers will present being outside the church
as a problem when it isn't. Fellowship with other believers
in Christ's name is always available. As long as a person
conscious is clear he can take communion at any church or
among other believers.

Stay true of heart and you can dance naked down the street as far as God
is concerned.
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[astarte]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 07:03:22 -0500, Rod wrote:

snip
Follow up set

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried

No, I didn't. Nor does history. Surprisingly, the only references to him
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.

snip

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod
This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

Can you remember the site &/or article title. I suspect it is apologetic,
such as biblical archaeology. But in case it is a real find, I would like
to verify it & read it.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
He was a bad bad boy.

Yes he was. The population was terrified of him. Some of the scholars
that have studied Nimrod and the epic of Gilgamesh are of the

Scholars, or apologetics. There is a major difference. I've never
encountered his name outside religious writings so I am interested.

Post by Rod
opinion that Nimrod wrote it. In the epic gilgamesh claims that

Gilgamesh was written by gilgamesh. He existed. Is some of it fiction,
beyond a doubt. What remains to be seen, is why did he write it. An
autobiography that early on is unique.

Post by Rod
he killed God...so I have to wonder just who the poor slob was that
he did kill. The writing styles in Nimrods written edics and the
epic are very close and come from the same period.

Given how few could write, that surprises you? Scribes went to school back
then.

Post by Rod
3 years to the day after Nimrod journeyed to the Cedar Mountian
he was killed by his uncle on the plains of mamre. His uncle took
him for some kind of an animal and put an arrow through his ticker.

I suspect you are thinking of ham. Rumor has it that is how he died. &
yet, he was to live forever.

snip
--
Deu 12:32 All the things that I command you, take heed to do them and
you shall not add to it, nor take away from it.

Pro 30:5 Every Word of God is refined, He is a shield to those who seek
refuge in Him.
Pro 30:6 Do not add to His Words, that He not reprove you, and you be
found a liar.

Isa 8:20 To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak
according to this Word, it is because there is no dawn to them!

[dolf]

-- EITHER ANSWER THE ACCUSATIONS OF BLASPHEMY AND TREASON REASONABLY
BROUGHT AGAINST YOUR RELIGIOUS SOULS FOR ETERNITY OR BE SILENT IN MY
PRESENCE YOU FASCIST LYING GODLESS DOGS AS OTHERWISE THERE WONT BE FROM
HENCEFORTH ANY PEACE BETWEEN US

THE RAPE IS RIGHT (DOLF IS JUSTICE)

Grow up Kernel...

They preferred adult toys and not boys.

As a young lieutenant, the girls were most appreciative of a man of my
stature.

Say Kernel,

What think ye of getting your fanny poked by COLOMBIAN CATHOLIC MAFIA
ladyboys who are all cock and no balls?

Do you like the tough suck on their Babylonian whore tits whilst you listen
to rebellious {ie. Mary} mantras of sedition.

Or do you think that the Colombians are a diseased and perverse people who
are no better than copulating dogs and for whom sensuality is nothing more
than writhing in hatred and seething with the lust for a taste of firstborn
blood as murderous intent?

Nay they are bleeding scum as side-walk opportunists each and every one, so
pass them by and let them be for the dark of night is theirs...

I can hear their howls to the moon from here...

*THE* *RAPE* *IS* *RIGHT* (*DOLF* *IS* *JUSTICE*)

- http://www.deviantart.com/newest/?section=&global=1&q=dolf

BURN IN HELL YOU BABYLONIAN WHORES

THE SYCOPHANT POPE FRANCIS' HYPOCRITICAL ('AS IF HE STANDS UP FOR THE
RIGHTS OF WOMEN') CLAIM OVER THE WORD 'MOTHER' WHICH WAS SHAMEFULLY TIED TO
THE BULLET KNOWN AS MOAB {of his father} WHEN THE WORD 'FATHER' IS HERE
USED IN THE CONVEYANCE OF THE DIABOLICAL ACTIONS AS NECROMANCY AND
WITCHCRAFT BEING QUINTESSENTIALLY ROMAN CATHOLIC BELIEF WHICH IS DESCRIBED
BELOW AND WERE UNDERTAKEN BY THE COLOMBIAN CATHOLIC MAFIA IN THIS POPE'S
NAME AND NOW GIVEN HIS LATEST DISHONEST AND UNREMORSED PONTIFICATON, MOST
EVIDENTLY WITH HIS BLESSING

YOUTUBE: "Lourdes - Hail Mary, Gentle Woman"

-

A *DRAFT* REVISION OF THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE OBTAINED AS A PDF DOCUMENT FROM
THIS URL:

- https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzRmc7Bm7indRUVyRUNmc19yUE0

snip
Follow up set

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried

No, I didn't. Nor does history. Surprisingly, the only references to him
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.
snip

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod
This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

Can you remember the site &/or article title. I suspect it is apologetic,
such as biblical archaeology. But in case it is a real find, I would like
to verify it & read it.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
He was a bad bad boy.

Yes he was. The population was terrified of him. Some of the scholars
that have studied Nimrod and the epic of Gilgamesh are of the

Scholars, or apologetics. There is a major difference. I've never
encountered his name outside religious writings so I am interested.

Post by Rod
opinion that Nimrod wrote it. In the epic gilgamesh claims that

Gilgamesh was written by gilgamesh. He existed. Is some of it fiction,
beyond a doubt. What remains to be seen, is why did he write it. An
autobiography that early on is unique.

Post by Rod
he killed God...so I have to wonder just who the poor slob was that
he did kill. The writing styles in Nimrods written edics and the
epic are very close and come from the same period.

Given how few could write, that surprises you? Scribes went to school back
then.

Post by Rod
3 years to the day after Nimrod journeyed to the Cedar Mountian
he was killed by his uncle on the plains of mamre. His uncle took
him for some kind of an animal and put an arrow through his ticker.

I suspect you are thinking of ham. Rumor has it that is how he died. &
yet, he was to live forever.
snip

--
#5 / #6: Say NO to anonymous fascist propaganda every time.

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO[IOS] SAPIEN[T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO[IOS] SAPIEN[T] as
EXISTENCE.

- http://www.grapple369.com

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS."

[Rod]

Post by astarte
snip
Follow up set

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.

Did you know that Nimrod, the king of Babylon once tried

No, I didn't. Nor does history.

It does now. I have been reading the translations of tablets
found in the Iraqui desert. University of Houston has several
of them.




Surprisingly, the only references to him

Post by astarte
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.

Not any more. University of Houston to get current.

Post by astarte
snip

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod
This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

Can you remember the site &/or article title. I suspect it is apologetic,
such as biblical archaeology. But in case it is a real find, I would like
to verify it & read it.

Start at the university of Houston. I'll find the other sites and
post them for you.

Post by astarte

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
He was a bad bad boy.

Yes he was. The population was terrified of him. Some of the scholars
that have studied Nimrod and the epic of Gilgamesh are of the

Scholars, or apologetics. There is a major difference. I've never
encountered his name outside religious writings so I am interested.

Post by Rod
opinion that Nimrod wrote it. In the epic gilgamesh claims that

Gilgamesh was written by gilgamesh.

Perhaps, and perhaps not.



He existed.

Perhaps, and perhaps not.


Is some of it fiction,

Post by astarte
beyond a doubt. What remains to be seen, is why did he write it. An
autobiography that early on is unique.

Post by Rod
he killed God...so I have to wonder just who the poor slob was that
he did kill. The writing styles in Nimrods written edicts and the
epic are very close and come from the same period.

Given how few could write, that surprises you? Scribes went to school back
then.

Post by Rod
3 years to the day after Nimrod journeyed to the Cedar Mountian
he was killed by his uncle on the plains of mamre. His uncle took
him for some kind of an animal and put an arrow through his ticker.

I suspect you are thinking of ham. Rumor has it that is how he died. &
yet, he was to live forever.

I may be. I'll be back after I find the websites
and post them.

Post by astarte
snip

[astarte]

snip

Post by Rod

Post by astarte
No, I didn't. Nor does history.

It does now. I have been reading the translations of tablets
found in the Iraqui desert. University of Houston has several
of them.

Like these for gilgamesh?
<http://www.ancient.eu/gilgamesh/>
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gilgamesh>
<http://www.shmoop.com/gilgamesh/summary.html>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gilgamesh

Versus:
Nimrod
<http://www.liquisearch.com/nimrod/historical_interpretations>
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nimrod>
<http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod>

None of the above are a final authority. But nimrod references
predominately are apologetic sites.

Post by Rod
Surprisingly, the only references to him

Post by astarte
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.

Not any more. University of Houston to get current.

Not yet.
snip, & thanks for the help.

[Rod]

Post by astarte
snip

Post by Rod

Post by astarte
No, I didn't. Nor does history.

It does now. I have been reading the translations of tablets
found in the Iraqui desert. University of Houston has several
of them.

Like these for gilgamesh?
<http://www.ancient.eu/gilgamesh/>
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gilgamesh>
<http://www.shmoop.com/gilgamesh/summary.html>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gilgamesh
Nimrod
<http://www.liquisearch.com/nimrod/historical_interpretations>
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nimrod>
<http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod>
http://youtu.be/Q3hW83WHoKg
None of the above are a final authority. But nimrod references
predominately are apologetic sites.

Post by Rod
Surprisingly, the only references to him

Post by astarte
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.

Not any more. University of Houston to get current.

Not yet.
snip, & thanks for the help.

I wasn't much help, but here are some that I have been
reading;

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod

http://www.biblesearchers.com/ancients/patriarch/abram1.shtml

https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/nimrod.html


Gilgamesh is Nimrod
Author: Dr. David P. Livingston, Associates for Biblical Research.

How does Gilgamesh compare with “Nimrod?” Ancient historian Josephus
says of Nimrod,

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of
God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah-a bold man, and of
great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as
if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was
their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually
changed the government into tyranny-seeing no other way of turning men
from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon
his own power.

He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to
drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the
waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for
destroying their forefathers! (Ant. I: iv: 2)

What Josephus says here is precisely what is found in the Gilgamesh
epics. Gilgamesh set up tyranny, he opposed YHWH and did his utmost to
get people to forsake Him.

Two of the premiere commentators on the Bible in Hebrew have this to
say about Genesis 10:9,

Nimrod was mighty in hunting, and that in opposition to YHWH; not
‘before YHWH’ in the sense of according to the will and purpose of YHWH,
still less,… in a simply superlative sense… The name itself, ‘Nimrod’
from marad, ‘We will revolt,’ points to some violent resistance to God…
Nimrod as a mighty hunter founded a powerful kingdom; and the founding
of this kingdom is shown by the verb with consecutive to have been the
consequence or result of his strength in hunting, so that hunting was
intimately connected with the establishing of the kingdom. Hence, if the
expression ‘a mighty hunter’ relates primarily to hunting in the literal
sense, we must add to the literal meaning the figurative signification
of a ‘hunter of men’ (a trapper of men by stratagem and force); Nimrod
the hunter became a tyrant, a powerful hunter of men (Keil and Delitzsch
1975: 165).

“in the face of YHWH” can only mean ‘in defiance of YHWH’ as
Josephus and the Targums understand it (op. cit.: 166).

And the proverb must have arisen when other daring and rebellious men
followed in Nimrod's footsteps and must have originated with those who
saw in such conduct an act of rebellion against the God of salvation, in
other words, with the possessors of the divine promise of grace (loc. cit.).




References and Bibliography

Brown, F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs, C.A. (abbreviated to BDB), A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament.Oxford (Clarendon Press,
1962).
Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2 vols.
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964).
Frankfort, H., Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University Press, 1948).
Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels
(Chicago: University Press, 1963).
Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian Kinglist (Chicago: University Press, 1939).
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Books IIII (Cambridge MA: Harvard
University Press, Loeb Classics, 1998).
Kautzsch, E., editor, Genesius' Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon,
1910).
Kramer, S. N., editor, History Begins at Sumer (Garden City NY:
Doubleday, 1959).
Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, P. Commentary on the Old Testament,
vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975).
Pritchard, J., Ancient Near Eastern Texts and the Old Testament,
3rd edition (Princeton: University Press, 1969).
Roux, G., Ancient Iraq, 3rd edition (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, UK:
Penguin, 1992).
Thomas, D.W., Documents From Old Testament Times (New York: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1958).

[astarte]

Post by Rod

Post by astarte
snip

Post by Rod

Post by astarte
No, I didn't. Nor does history.

It does now. I have been reading the translations of tablets
found in the Iraqui desert. University of Houston has several
of them.

Like these for gilgamesh?
<http://www.ancient.eu/gilgamesh/>
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gilgamesh>
<http://www.shmoop.com/gilgamesh/summary.html>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Gilgamesh
Nimrod
<http://www.liquisearch.com/nimrod/historical_interpretations>
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nimrod>
<http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod>
http://youtu.be/Q3hW83WHoKg
None of the above are a final authority. But nimrod references
predominately are apologetic sites.

Post by Rod
Surprisingly, the only references to him

Post by astarte
are found in apologetic sites. A red flag for sure.

Not any more. University of Houston to get current.

Not yet.
snip, & thanks for the help.

I wasn't much help, but here are some that I have been
reading;
http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11548-nimrod
http://www.biblesearchers.com/ancients/patriarch/abram1.shtml
https://christiananswers.net/dictionary/nimrod.html

snip

Sad to say, those are apologetic sites. The Jewish Encyclopedia is good,
but has a religious bias. Do enough mythology research, & that becomes
obvious.

The best, if you can get it, says nothing about religion, just the myth.
The problem for the nimrod story, it's written to support the jewish
claims. You might try some midrash to see what I am saying. BTW, some of
those writers are rather good.

<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=download+legends+of+the+jews.&t=opera&ia=web>
will get you a free copy. & several of those sites have good reads on
mythology's from around the world. I hope you didn't think that only the
greeks had it.

You might also try some ginsburg ]translator] in association with others.
Legends of the jews comes to mind.

[General George]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 09:06:19 -0500, astarte <***@downtown.assyria> wrote:

|>I suspect you are thinking of ham. Rumor has it that is how he died. &
|>yet, he was to live forever.

Sounds like I read that story before, but from a much older account, it took
place when Cain's grandson mistook Cain for being a monster in the distance, and
threw a javelin and wounded his grandfather Cain. But Cain was cursed to roam
the earth and be a bigfoot and could not be killed. Cursed to roam the earth
until Abel had children upon another earth and they received their salvation.
Then the curse of Cain would then be removed. This is the oldest account of what
the mark of Cain was that Jehovah placed upon Cain for having been a rebellious
fool, a stooge of Satan, by murdering his brother Abel. You can read about it
in the book of Jasher, the Jews and Mormons still sell that book. The book is
called the book of Jasher and it is mentioned in the King James Bible (2 Samuel
1:18; Joshua 10:13; and 2 Timothy 3:8).

I think that the existence of God is mostly a matter of faith because God does
not reveal Himself to the faithless. I have already had too many visits by from
Satan to think that the opposite is not true. The opposite of Satan is God.

[astarte]

Post by General George
|>I suspect you are thinking of ham. Rumor has it that is how he died. &
|>yet, he was to live forever.
Sounds like I read that story before, but from a much older account, it took

Sounds like a midrash text. & thanks for the memory update.

Post by General George
place when Cain's grandson mistook Cain for being a monster in the distance, and
threw a javelin and wounded his grandfather Cain. But Cain was cursed to roam
the earth and be a bigfoot and could not be killed. Cursed to roam the earth

Yes, I recall. According to the myth, he took off to the land of nod where
he took a wife. Where the bigfoot & other planet came, I've no clue.

Post by General George
until Abel had children upon another earth and they received their salvation.
Then the curse of Cain would then be removed. This is the oldest account of what
the mark of Cain was that Jehovah placed upon Cain for having been a rebellious
fool, a stooge of Satan, by murdering his brother Abel. You can read about it
in the book of Jasher, the Jews and Mormons still sell that book. The book is
called the book of Jasher and it is mentioned in the King James Bible (2 Samuel
1:18; Joshua 10:13; and 2 Timothy 3:8).

That explains it. One of the books the council of jamea [90CE?] excluded
from the hebrew text. I can see why.

Post by General George
http://youtu.be/ODQd46ndP8k
I think that the existence of God is mostly a matter of faith because God does
not reveal Himself to the faithless. I have already had too many visits by from
Satan to think that the opposite is not true. The opposite of Satan is God.

I suspect you are right. Just a side note, the xian satan is not the
jewish one.


-- ++
God wanted to have a holiday, so He asked St. Peter for
suggestions on where to go.
"Why not go to Jupiter?" asked St. Peter.
"No, too much gravity, too much stomping around,"
said God.
"Well, how about Mercury?"
"No, it's too hot there."
"Okay," said St. Peter, "what about Earth?"
"No," said God, "They're such horrible gossips.
When I was there 2000 years ago, I had an affair with a
Jewish woman, and they're still talking about it."
—anonymous

[Miloch]

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day.

This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

He was a bad bad boy.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.

Many church goers will present being outside the church
as a problem when it isn't. Fellowship with other believers
in Christ's name is always available. As long as a person
conscious is clear he can take communion at any church or
among other believers.

Stay true of heart and you can dance naked down the street as far as God
is concerned.

Not according to the Pentecostals....speaking in tongues...ya...OK...dancing in
the streets without benefit of clothing...mmmmmm....NOPE.





*

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ

[Rod]

Post by Miloch

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day.

This story was found on one of the babylonian tablets found in the
desert of Iraq. Just thought to share it with a fellow believer.

He was a bad bad boy.

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.

Many church goers will present being outside the church
as a problem when it isn't. Fellowship with other believers
in Christ's name is always available. As long as a person
conscious is clear he can take communion at any church or
among other believers.

Stay true of heart and you can dance naked down the street as far as God
is concerned.

Not according to the Pentecostals....speaking in tongues...ya...OK...dancing in
the streets without benefit of clothing...mmmmmm....NOPE.

Barbie twins jugs bouncing around...I had always hoped that
I would be abducted and raped by them...but rape really is
a stretch...

Post by Miloch
*

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ

[Miloch]

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day. I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.
They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.
Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.
Michael Christ

Sounds like you and Jack Van Impe are kindred spirits...ya...he's a nuttball &
in his 80s...but still you both think alike.





*

[Michael Christ]

Post by Miloch

Post by Michael Christ
By the way, I saw you call yourself a Catholic the other day. I have
gained a reputation among the 'brethren' here on the newsgroups as
having, let us say, 'alternative beliefs'.
They have the idea that I am against religion. It is really not against
anything, I have no 'cause' to champion as such. I am not against
anyone being Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon,
JWs, Atheists, whatever; after all, we all come from something....I am
just for Jesus.
Incidently, I had a thought about Atheism this morning, in an
apologetics sense. I can see that laughter is something man has
enjoyed since the beginning of time. It isn't something that has
evolved, because laugher (or humour) is just laugher and it has always
been there.
Therefore it is another example of something eternal and unchanging,
pointing another finger at the existence of God. But the atheist, he
just ain't interested because the last thing he wants is to acknowledge
something greater than himself.
And that line has an uncanny similarity to religious zealots who cling
white-knuckled to their religious knowledge and theological bent.
Michael Christ

Sounds like you and Jack Van Impe are kindred spirits...ya...he's a nuttball &
in his 80s...but still you both think alike.

Shut up, you dickhead.

And...God bless.





Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 18:07:18 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Miloch
Sounds like you and Jack Van Impe are kindred spirits...ya...he's a nuttball &
in his 80s...but still you both think alike.

Shut up, you dickhead.
And...God bless.

You think that's funny. It only goes to show you how 2-faced you are.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Michael Christ]

Post by duke
On Mon, 8 May 2017 18:07:18 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Miloch
Sounds like you and Jack Van Impe are kindred spirits...ya...he's a nuttball &
in his 80s...but still you both think alike.

Shut up, you dickhead.
And...God bless.

You think that's funny.

Yeah. :-). But funny in 2 ways, its true. :-).





Michael Christ





It only goes to show you how 2-faced you are.

Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 06:45:51 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by duke
On Mon, 8 May 2017 18:07:18 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Miloch
Sounds like you and Jack Van Impe are kindred spirits...ya...he's a nuttball &
in his 80s...but still you both think alike.

Shut up, you dickhead.
And...God bless.

You think that's funny.

Yeah. :-). But funny in 2 ways, its true. :-).

Yes, an insult out of one side of our mouth and a fake love out the other side.

Yep, I understand. Just like you claim to love Jesus but follow satan.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 08:26:37 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years? Running around without a head to run earthly things (or
as Patrick puts it, menial tasks) for 300 years.

OK, you stand corrected.

See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by
St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
St. Damasus I (366-84) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
St. Siricius (384-99)

Post by Michael Christ
And if the present Pope is equivalent to Peter, like Duke says, then why
doesn't he write some more scripture like Peter, or at least speak with
the power and incredible depth of scripture?

Because Peter didn't make up his own stuff. All NT canonized scripture is fully
in accordance with what Jesus said and did.

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Rod]

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years?

The RCC's claim is disputed. Prominent academics accused the Vatican
of misleading the world over the fate of the man regarded as Jesus
Christ's closest disciple. In allegations that did spark controversy,
they accused the Church of fabricating a connection with the apostle to
validate giving ultimate power to the papacy.

The scholars did in fact prove their case. Simon bar jonah lies buried
in a first century mass graveyard for the poor in Jerusalem. Peter
wrote a letter to the church shortly before his death, in which he
spoke of his death as imminent. That letter was dated at 41 AD.

Peter did not in fact live long enough to serve as a pope of anything
nor would he cooperate with Rome.

[Rod]

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years?

The RCC's claim is disputed. Prominent academics accused the Vatican
of misleading the world over the fate of the man regarded as Jesus
Christ's closest disciple. In allegations that did spark controversy,
they accused the Church of fabricating a connection with the apostle to
validate giving ultimate power to the papacy.
The scholars did in fact prove their case. Simon bar jonah lies buried
in a first century mass graveyard for the poor in Jerusalem. Peter
wrote a letter to the church shortly before his death, in which he
spoke of his death as imminent. That letter was dated at 41 AD.
Peter did not in fact live long enough to serve as a pope of anything
nor would he cooperate with Rome.

Peters bones were in fact 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.

That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ

Post by Rod

Post by Rod

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter?

Catholics consider Peter to be the very first pope,
but in reality Peter does not know that and he wasn't
given a choice. The catholic church decided to make
that unsubstantiated claim.

Post by Michael Christ
I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Again...by catholics. But in reality peter had
no standing or involvement with the catholic
church until the third century. The catholic church
is a creation of Constantine, Rome, and not Christ
or Peter.

Okay. Well, that says heaps.
So, correct me if I am on the wrong track, the claim that Peter was the
first Pope is very odd, because what happened to the Church in the 300
hundred years?

The RCC's claim is disputed. Prominent academics accused the Vatican
of misleading the world over the fate of the man regarded as Jesus
Christ's closest disciple. In allegations that did spark controversy,
they accused the Church of fabricating a connection with the apostle to
validate giving ultimate power to the papacy.
The scholars did in fact prove their case. Simon bar jonah lies buried
in a first century mass graveyard for the poor in Jerusalem. Peter
wrote a letter to the church shortly before his death, in which he
spoke of his death as imminent. That letter was dated at 41 AD.
Peter did not in fact live long enough to serve as a pope of anything
nor would he cooperate with Rome.

Certainly!

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Okay.

Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God.
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.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.

Peter was the one with the greatest faith, of that I am sure, and that
is why Peter was chosen to lead, not for his person as such, but his
faith! Faith being the bedrock of man's connection with God. By faith,
by faith, by faith (Hebrews 11), for without faith it is impossible to
please Him.

I am also sure that he, his mantle, if we can call it that, does not sit
in the Vatican. He would not sit atop an institution highly exalted in
robed splendour being served day and night in opulent perfection. Why?
Because the greatest among you, Jesus said, is the servant of all. Now
I am reminded of this: Luke 16:17-31. That's just how I see it.

So, in light of that, I see that Peter is as distant to the Vatican is
as Duke is of becoming a Protestant, Miloch going straight, Robert being
who he says he is, or me becoming an atheist. :-).






Michael Christ





---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 07:16:09 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
I am also sure that he, his mantle, if we can call it that, does not sit
in the Vatican. He would not sit atop an institution highly exalted in
robed splendour being served day and night in opulent perfection. Why?
Because the greatest among you, Jesus said, is the servant of all. Now
I am reminded of this: Luke 16:17-31. That's just how I see it.
So, in light of that, I see that Peter is as distant to the Vatican is
as Duke is of becoming a Protestant, Miloch going straight, Robert being
who he says he is, or me becoming an atheist. :-).

I believe you do follow satan as you profess that love and actions are separate.

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Michael Christ]

You were given your way, Earl.





Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 07:49:28 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
You were given your way, Earl.

Too bad you don't know anything about "this Pope fella". If you had followed
scripture, you would have.

Post by Michael Christ
Michael Christ

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Michael Christ]

Post by duke
On Wed, 10 May 2017 07:49:28 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
You were given your way, Earl.

Too bad you don't know anything about "this Pope fella". If you had followed
scripture, you would have.

I said, you were given your way, Earl.





Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Fri, 12 May 2017 06:31:24 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ

Post by duke
On Wed, 10 May 2017 07:49:28 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
You were given your way, Earl.

Too bad you don't know anything about "this Pope fella". If you had followed
scripture, you would have.

I said, you were given your way, Earl.

You were given your's too, but you chose failure


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Michael Christ]

Bon appetititty.




Michael Christ

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 18:15:31 +1000, Michael Christ

Post by Michael Christ
Bon appetititty.

Yep, you're sick, cino.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[duke]

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome
One of the largest churches in the world, St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome’s Vatican
City was completed in 1626 and partly designed by Michelangelo. According to
tradition, the original church on the site was constructed in the fourth century
above the grave of Peter the Apostle, who was crucified around 67 A.D. during
the Roman emperor Nero’s persecution of Christians. While some historians
question whether Peter was ever in Rome to begin with, in 1968 Pope Paul VI
announced that excavations beneath the basilica had yielded the saint’s remains.
http://www.history.com/news/tombs-of-the-apostles-slideshow

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Rod]

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

No....he isn't. His bones are in Jerusalem @ Franciscan
monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

I heard a Rabbi say the other day that the 'Arc of the Covenant' is in Rome?

You'd think that it would have to be somewhere.




Michael Christ


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[duke]

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

The history of the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul is one which is
involved in considerable difficulty and confusion. The primary authorities to be
consulted are in opposition to one another, or at least appear to be so. There
is no doubt where the bodies now are — in the tombs of the Vatican and the
Ostian Way respectively — but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S.
Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and
the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether
there was only one or a double translation of the relics.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Rod]

Post by duke

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

The history of the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul is one which is
involved in considerable difficulty and confusion. The primary authorities to be
consulted are in opposition to one another, or at least appear to be so. There
is no doubt where the bodies now are — in the tombs of the Vatican and the
Ostian Way respectively — but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S.
Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and
the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether
there was only one or a double translation of the relics.
the dukester, American-American

Duke...the church needs to let go of relics! It isn't the relics that
heal, it's the faith of that person making them whole because that faith
is of God, from God.

This is like grown men and women needing a security blanket.
Touching the finger of a saint is not going to connect them to God
or get them any closer to Him..

[Michael Christ]

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

The history of the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul is one which is
involved in considerable difficulty and confusion. The primary authorities to be
consulted are in opposition to one another, or at least appear to be so. There
is no doubt where the bodies now are — in the tombs of the Vatican and the
Ostian Way respectively — but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S.
Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and
the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether
there was only one or a double translation of the relics.
the dukester, American-American

Duke...the church needs to let go of relics! It isn't the relics that
heal, it's the faith of that person making them whole because that faith
is of God, from God.
This is like grown men and women needing a security blanket.
Touching the finger of a saint is not going to connect them to God
or get them any closer to Him..

Good luck with that.



Michael Christ

[duke]

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod

Post by duke

Post by Rod
Peters bones were in fact 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.
That invalidates the churches claim that Peter served as first pope.

Peter is buried in the Vatican.

monastery site called, "Dominus Flevit" where they have
lain for 2,000 years. What else has the church lied about?

The history of the relics of the Apostles Peter and Paul is one which is
involved in considerable difficulty and confusion. The primary authorities to be
consulted are in opposition to one another, or at least appear to be so. There
is no doubt where the bodies now are — in the tombs of the Vatican and the
Ostian Way respectively — but there is another tomb at the Catacombs of S.
Sebastiano which also claims the honour of having at one time received them, and
the question is as to the period at which this episode occurred, and whether
there was only one or a double translation of the relics.
the dukester, American-American

Duke...the church needs to let go of relics! It isn't the relics that
heal, it's the faith of that person making them whole because that faith
is of God, from God.

Nobody said relics heal. That's like professing your deceased relatives should
be forgotten because they don't heal.

Post by Rod
This is like grown men and women needing a security blanket.
Touching the finger of a saint is not going to connect them to God
or get them any closer to Him..

How do you know such respect isn't part of loving God?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[Colonel Edmund J. Burke]

Post by Michael Christ
What is his association with Peter? I mean, is the Pope considered the
equivalent of Peter?

Michael, past popes have been the equivalent of peter eaters, is wot I know.