The true origin of the Church of Rome, aka Roman Catholic.

[Nick M]

We know the claims, it is contrary to scripture. Peter's church fell. And Paul was raised up to take grace to the gentiles to drive Peter's church to jealousy. The self proclaimed Bishop's of Rome could be referred to in scripture.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Paul isn't saying that Peter saw, but others of the circumcision. Maybe those in Acts 15, where Luke says they are Pharisees that believe. Like Nicodemus? And of course Paul says more about Peter in the most "anti-Catholic" statement in the Bible, as some Catholics calls it. The irony to call the Bible and scripture "anti-Catholic".

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

I think this is the self proclaimed Popes. Wikipedia is of the devil, so they get the details on the Pope right. Just nothing else.

Some earliest references to the primacy of the bishop of Rome can be found in the writings of renowned Christian figures such as Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon. In their writings, these Church Fathers recognized the unique position of the church in Rome, which was believed to have been founded by Peter and Paul. Therefore, the bishop of Rome was regarded as the successor of Peter, who, in accordance with the New Testament, was designated by Jesus as the leader of his church.[3][4][5]

In addition, given the city's political and cultural importance as the capital of the empire, the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire further strengthened the bishop of Rome's authority. During the Council of Nicaea in 325, the bishop of Rome was specifically recognized as having special authority, and subsequent ecumenical councils like Constantinople I (381) and Chalcedon (451), affirmed the bishop of Rome as the first among equals among the church's patriarchs.[6]

And of course this is contradicted by scripture. And I think Paul refers to it.

At least by the late second century, belief that Jesus granted Peter jurisdiction over the church is reflected, when Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Who is the Rich man that is Saved? The blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, [who] quickly seized and comprehended the saying" (Ch. 21), referring to Mk 10:28. Tertullian,[10] while examining scriptural teachings, legal precedents, and dogma surrounding monogamy and marriage (post AD 213), says of Peter, "Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him..."

More of it. This parallels Paul's letter and rebuke of trying to put people into circumcision. It is all right in front of us. I know I am not the only one that thinks it. As Paul preached to the proselytes in his letter to the Romans.

 

[Idolater]

​

We know the claims, it is contrary to scripture. Peter's church fell. And Paul was raised up to take grace to the gentiles to drive Peter's church to jealousy. The self proclaimed Bishop's of Rome could be referred to in scripture.

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage), 5 to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter

Paul isn't saying that Peter saw, but others of the circumcision. Maybe those in Acts 15, where Luke says they are Pharisees that believe. Like Nicodemus? And of course Paul says more about Peter in the most "anti-Catholic" statement in the Bible, as some Catholics calls it. The irony to call the Bible and scripture "anti-Catholic".

11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?

I think this is the self proclaimed Popes. Wikipedia is of the devil, so they get the details on the Pope right. Just nothing else.


And of course this is contradicted by scripture. And I think Paul refers to it.



More of it. This parallels Paul's letter and rebuke of trying to put people into circumcision. It is all right in front of us. I know I am not the only one that thinks it. As Paul preached to the proselytes in his letter to the Romans.

The surprising thing, if you're right, is something you bolded above, "false brethren". That part is surprising. Because under Mid Acts, if Mid Acts is true, then these aren't false brethren, but flesh-and-blood relatives of Christ and all the Apostles, who are under and practicing the New Covenant—not the Old Covenant anymore, but the New one. So how are these "false brethren"? How are these heretics?

They can only be heretics if they are teaching the wrong thing, and that means they are teaching a disfigured New Covenant, not the actual New Covenant, because otherwise, they could not be false brethren. They can only be false brethren if they're teaching the wrong thing, which is what heresy is. So if "those who were of the circumcision" are false brethren and heretics, then it means their 'take' on the New Covenant is wrong.

So therefore what they're teaching is not the New Covenant, but it is some disordered and distorted version of the truth but not the truth in any sense.

If "false brethren" wasn't there your case is much stronger, I think it's that big of a deal. "False brethren" is surprising if "those who were of the circumcision" are participants in the New Covenant. That would make Peter and James false brethren too, and I don't think any Mid Acts thinks that.

 

[Nick M]

So how are these "false brethren"? How are these heretics?

You can ask the Lord Jesus Christ when you give him an account. Paul's letters are direct revelation from him. And the answers are always in the text. Except when they aren't.

The author of the Gospel of Luke, also wrote Acts of the Apostles.

1And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.

According to Luke, did they have dissension with James?

Back to the testimony.

5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”

They are following what the Lord Jesus Christ stated in his earthly mission to his children, the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do...

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Paul called them false because Israel was cut off, and gentiles did not have to go through Israel to approach God. And they were trying to bring gentiles into their church, against the directions of the risen Lord Jesus Christ. And Peter was to be blamed too. This is the Church of Rome and their idiot claims about Peter and Paul being Bishops, but Peter have the authority based on testimony to Israel. When it is 2 different churches, and one does not exist right now. Peter's church. They are gentiles that listened to the circumcision after the fall.

 

[Nick M]

You can ask the Lord Jesus Christ when you give him an account.

We all have to give an account, even those who are not destined for "hell fire". I don't know about you, but I have no excuse.

 

[Nick M]

If "false brethren" wasn't there your case is much stronger, I think it's that big of a deal.

False brethren is what makes the case. They have no authority to bring in gentiles. James might have sent the spies.

 

[Derf]

​

The surprising thing, if you're right, is something you bolded above, "false brethren". That part is surprising. Because under Mid Acts, if Mid Acts is true, then these aren't false brethren, but flesh-and-blood relatives of Christ and all the Apostles, who are under and practicing the New Covenant—not the Old Covenant anymore, but the New one. So how are these "false brethren"? How are these heretics?

They can only be heretics if they are teaching the wrong thing, and that means they are teaching a disfigured New Covenant, not the actual New Covenant, because otherwise, they could not be false brethren. They can only be false brethren if they're teaching the wrong thing, which is what heresy is. So if "those who were of the circumcision" are false brethren and heretics, then it means their 'take' on the New Covenant is wrong.

So therefore what they're teaching is not the New Covenant, but it is some disordered and distorted version of the truth but not the truth in any sense.

If "false brethren" wasn't there your case is much stronger, I think it's that big of a deal. "False brethren" is surprising if "those who were of the circumcision" are participants in the New Covenant. That would make Peter and James false brethren too, and I don't think any Mid Acts thinks that.

But at least he's admitting that their gospel was a false one, which is assured if they are false brethren preaching a gospel different from Paul's.

 

[Nick M]

The reason to have the Church of Rome is of course to pervert the gospel of grace. And discredit the Bible. Here is what some say regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and the garden tomb.

Neither is legit. St Helena found what she set out to find because of course she would. She’s Constantines mother. Expect truth from someone like that? Don’t be silly. His body was dumped into a mass grave. The whole story of Jesus is mostly if not all fiction

This is the strategy. Tell people a mountain on the peninsula is Sinai, when it is impossible to be the site, to discredit the Bible. If you want to watch some of the propaganda, it is here.