Is it not true that the Roman emperors held the title supreme pontiff?
If so then you would be correct in that Constantine was not the first pope.
Jacob Changed To James By Catholics
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Is it not true that the Roman emperors held the title supreme pontiff?
If so then you would be correct in that Constantine was not the first pope.
jsanford108
New member
Is it not true that the Roman emperors held the title supreme pontiff?
If so then you would be correct in that Constantine was not the first pope.
Roman Emperors did not hold that title until after the Catholic Church became the Holy Roman Empire. Constantine was not a pope. He also only legalized Christianity. His conversion would not come until some time later. And even then, he did not hold the position of pope at that time.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
The title of Pontiff Maximus was the title applied to the Emperor, but not to the papacy until the council of Nicaea.
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a104.htm
Here is a small source if you wish to pursue it.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
What is the difference? I mean supreme pontiff or pontiff maximus?
At any rate you just essentially verified the marriage of church and state.
So the church became the wife of Constantine and the Roman State. :chuckle:
From the book, “Jesus The Evidence,” by Ian Wilson. P. 144.
The Middle Ages, for the Jews at least, began with the advent to power of Constantine the Great. He was the first Roman Emperor to issue laws which radically limited the rights of the Jews as citizens of the Roman Empire, a right conferred on them by Caracalla in 212 AD. As (The so-called Christianity of Constantine’s church) grew in power it influenced the emperors to limit further the civil and political rights of the Jews.
But if times were again difficult for the Jews, for the Christian Gnostics and other fringe groups they were impossible. The books of Arius and his sympathizers were ordered to be burnt, and a reign of terror proclaimed for all those who did not conform with the new official (So-called) Christian line.
"Understand now by this present statute, Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulinians, you who sre called Cataphrygians. . . . with what a tissue of lies and vanities, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inextricably woven! We give you warning . . . .Let none of you presume, from this time forward, to meet in congregations. To prevent this, we command that you be deprived of all the houses in which you have been accustomed to meet . . . . and that these house should be handed over immediately to the catholic/ i.e. universal church."
Within a generation, hardly leaving a trace of their existence for posterity, the great majority of these groups simply died away as successive Christian emperors reiterated the politics that Constantine had pursued.
______________________________________________________________________________________-
During the Inquisition, the Roman Catholic institution killed millions. Why? Primarily to suppress any and all opposition to her heresies. Side "benefits" included taking the material wealth of its victims and showing the pope's power.*The Roman Catholic agents have tortured, crippled, burned, murdered, and imprisoned millions of people. Whatever happened to love your enemies (ref. Matthew 5:44)?*
Before we get to specific problems with Catholic doctrine, let's review how this bloodthirsty organization treated a man who simply wanted to get the Bible into the hands of the common people. In the late 1300s John Wycilf translated the scriptures from the Latin. About 44 years after his death, the Catholic institution dug up his bones and burned them calling him an arch-heretic. In the 1500's William Tyndale sought to translate the Bible into the language of the common people, English.*He could not gain approval from the Catholic institution, so he worked as an outlaw on the run in Europe, translating the Bible. He was eventually captured, condemned and executed in 1536. It is because of people like these men, Tyndale and Wycliffe, that we have the scriptures today.*If the Catholic religion had its way, we'd still be in ignorance about the Bible and enslaved to the pope.*
Mary was a virgin right up until the act by which she conceived her firstborn son Jesus, who was sired by Joseph ben Heli. See Luke 3: 23.
Isaiah 7: 14; Correct Jewish Translation: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the "YOUNG WOMAN" is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
The emphasis of this prophecy should be in the fact that the child would be called "IMMANUEL=GOD IS WITH US." For the man Jesus was the chosen earthly host body through whom the Lord would reveal himself to us. Jesus who was filled with the spirit of the Lord which descended upon him in the form of a dove, as the voice of the Lord was heard to say, “You are my son, ‘THIS DAY=TODAY’ I have ‘BEGOTTEN THEE=TODAY I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER’”.
Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous KJV Translation: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, "THE VIRGIN" shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
The Greek word parthenos used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous but the Hebrew term "Almah" that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as "virgin" is absolute, and according to Young"s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term "Almah," carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)
Go to "A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature," by David Jeffery.
There you will find written, "Many scholars consider the new Revised Standard Version of the King James translation, which is probably the most widely used version of the English bible today, and considered by most modern scholars to be to be the most accurate translation of the Old Testament. It follows the modern consensus in translating "Almah" as "Young Woman" in Isaiah 7: 14.
In 1973, an ecumenical edition of RSV was approved by both Protestant and Catholic hierarchies, called the common bible. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me, A New English Translation of the Bible, published in 1970 and approved by the council of churches in England, Scotland, Wales, the Irish council of churches, the London Society of Friends, and the Methodist and Presbyterian churches of England. And there in the RSV we read in Isaiah 7: 14; "A young Woman is with child, and she will bear a son." I also have before me The Good News Bible, catholic Study Edition, with imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon: and on turning to Isaiah 7: 14; It says here, "A young woman who is pregnant will have a son, etc."
Unlike the Greek language, which did not have a specific term for Virgin, the Hebrew did, and that word is ‘Bethulah’ a word the is used in the OT whenever a woman who had never experienced a sexual relationship with a man is referred to, and the word that the Lord would have had his prophet use, if he indeed wanted to convey the message that a virgin was pregnant, which obviously, he didn’t.
But even after being forced to admit that the prophet Isaiah never did say that a virgin would conceive etc, but rather, "A YOUNG WOMAN" who is pregnant will have a son," in Matthew 1: 22; concerning the birth of the child Jesus, they continue to lie by saying; "Now all this happened in order to make come true what the Lord had said through the prophet (Isaiah)" A virgin who is pregnant, etc” After having admitted that Isaiah never did say that.
In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an "Almah" an "unmarried female" is with child and will bear a son," into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for "virgin," the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word "Parthenos," which carries a basic meaning of "girl," or unmarried youth, and denotes "virgin" only by implication.
jsanford108
New member
Did you even read the article? The title was used to describe the Roman Emperor, who was the head of the state.
The term was not applied to a pope until after Nicaea. Completely different time and a completely different (Roman) state.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
jsanford108
New member
Your source is not even a history book, nor does it utilize accurate historical resources.
Inquisition: The Inquisition is usually a grouping of five different events, spanning 600 years. The first being in France, ran by individual bishops, but not the Catholic Church, itself. The inquisition in Rome, in which Galileo was tried, was in 1542. The one most notable is the one occurring in Spain, in 1478. This is the most violent of all and was to drive out Jews and Moors.
Even then, nowhere near millions died. Honest historians estimate a range of numbers, the highest being less than 3,000 deaths. That is quite a far stretch from "millions." Let us compare that to the witch trials of Protestant Germany, which sports a death toll of 100,000. Or the 30,000 in Britain. Such numbers do not justify the deaths of the Inquisition, but rather shows the false extrapolation, and the generally violent character of the time period itself.
Catholics were the first to translate the Bible for the common people. Also, in the 1500's, there was already a Greek translation. In the 1600's, English versions abounded. And Wycliffe translating from Latin?! That goes against even secular history, let alone Christian history. What about Origen in the 3rd century? What about Cyril, Charlemagne, and Methodius? All produced translations available to the common people. Let us also examine the literacy rates of the time. Even if english versions were produced, the mass populace could not read them anyway. Only the educated, who were already versed in Greek and Latin.
Rather than trying to portray the Catholic Church in a negative light, ignoring actual history, why not try to do legitimate research into the topics. Examine the history of the time periods. Look at all aggravating and mitigating factors. What seems to have occurred, is more akin to ignorant persecution rather than intellectual criticism.
Sources: Hayward, Fernand The Inquisition, 1965
Long, Kevin The Spanish Inquisition, 1982
Davies, R. Trevor The Golden Century of Spain: 1501-1621, 1937
Spielvogel, Jackson Western Civilization, 2008
1. who is the person you speak of that you say is Jacob and not James?
2. I think it pointless or ignorant to say that a group of people can not or does not pertain their own soveriegnty on the books they claim for themselves. Catholics compiled the first and only Bible. they have authority over their Book.
3. other points another has adressed well enough. since that had not been disputed Ill wait to see.
Last edited:
Same can be said for any human group through out history. Anyone can provide the names and years of individuals who acted as they wished - opposite to what they claimed.
for example, the thousands who murdered blacks, italians, hespanics, native americans, and irish for being of a "lower kind" whilst waiving a bible and a white hoodie.
What is important is understanding acts of individuals vs. acts of a church. Otherwise I may as well condemn christianity as a whole.
Sent from my LG-K330 using Tapatalk
Simcha Jacobovici called him James on his show that he used to promote the modern state of Israel. He is no apologist either. He was talking about the James Ossuary. He wanted to talk it up because it refutes the claims of the RCC. This and Peter (Simon Bar Jonah), as both of their bone boxes were right where they should be, waiting for the Lord's return.
Point being, he called him "James" not "Jacob".
Point being, he called him "James" not "Jacob".
A church IS individuals.
Anything a church preaches and does is preached and done by individuals of that church.
You cannot separate the two as if they exist independently.
The Church didn't favor the idea of layman having a Bible for the simple reason that they would be bound to produce heresy.
And they were right on that, because that's exactly what happened :chuckle:
That's why it is important to maintain orthodoxy- historically traditional churches, by definition, do not change much. Reformed churches, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and (most) Baptists- they aren't very different than they were centuries ago.
Contemporary Christianity- particularly these dispensationalists and so-called evangelicals, have a commitment to heterodoxy, and so they continually move away from not only actual orthodoxy, but even their own. They aren't the same as they were even a half century ago
And they were right on that, because that's exactly what happened :chuckle:
That's why it is important to maintain orthodoxy- historically traditional churches, by definition, do not change much. Reformed churches, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and (most) Baptists- they aren't very different than they were centuries ago.
Contemporary Christianity- particularly these dispensationalists and so-called evangelicals, have a commitment to heterodoxy, and so they continually move away from not only actual orthodoxy, but even their own. They aren't the same as they were even a half century ago
The Church didn't favor the idea of layman having a Bible for the simple reason that they would be bound to produce heresy.
And they were right on that, because that's exactly what happened :chuckle:
That's why it is important to maintain orthodoxy- historically traditional churches, by definition, do not change much. Reformed churches, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and (most) Baptists- they aren't very different than they were centuries ago.
Contemporary Christianity- particularly these dispensationalists and so-called evangelicals, have a commitment to heterodoxy, and so they continually move away from not only actual orthodoxy, but even their own. They aren't the same as they were even a half century ago
And the Roman church that was founded by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, is so far removed from the teachings of the Apostolic church of Jesus Christ, that it is destined for destruction.
Come out of her my people, do not share in her sins
You must not share her punishment, her Judgement day has come.
Her sins are piled to heaven and God recalls her evil ways,
She says, "I am no widow and I'll never mourn the days."
Because of that in just one day, disease will strike her down,
Plagues and famine she'll receive, til finally she'll be burned.
You must pay her back two fold for all that she has done,
Fill her cup as she filled yours, but make it twice as strong.
For all the glory she has claimed and all her luxury
Will be repaid this very age with pain and misery.....Revelation 18: 4.
You might like to add a few thousand witches to that count also. A man only had to accuse his wife of being a witch to the bishop of his area, and "ZAPO," a new and much younger woman he had his eye on, was his.
One of the greatest losses ever suffered by humanity occurred about 390 AD, when Theophilos, the Bishop of Alexandria, an anti-science fanatic, ordered the destruction of what was left of one of the Seven Wonders of the World. The great library in which one of the most comprehensive collections of the accumulated knowledge of man had been gathered, with departments on Astronomy, Astrology, History, Mathematics, Medicine, poetry and all the arts etc, etc.
This most evil action, which was an attempt to stop the truth of God from being known, was the introduction to one of the darkest ages of man. Afraid of the terrible persecution by the universal church against any and all who would indulge in the Pagan practice of the scientific study into the workings of the universe, which results of that unholy act of heresy challenged the authority of the church and brought into disrepute their infallible sacred teachings, such as, the fact that their flat earth that was the centre around which revolved the entire universe that was created only some ten thousand years ago and was created in six literal 24 hour days etc.
It was only when he was on his death- bed that Nicolaus Copernicus dared to publish his sun-centred model of the universe and Galileo Galilei, who was constantly in conflict with the church, skilfully arguing with the church authorities for Copernicus views, finally died under house arrest as a prisoner of the Inquisition.
She had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
jsanford108
New member
Too bad all the leading scientists were monks and priests. It really deflates your argument.
More Protestants hold archaic ideas (like six literal days) than Catholics do.
Paragraph 2 is the act of one man. Not a church. Should we judge any nation based on the acts of one man? Let alone, one who is not in charge of all? That is comparable to condemning the U.S. and accusing America of sexual assault because one senator decided to rape someone.
Also, paragraph 3 makes no sense. Once again, you have no evidence of this claim, which goes against historically accurate facts and evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Defend her all you like, but she must pay the penalty for her multitude of sins, and we all know what the penalty for sin is.
KJV Zechariah 11: 12- 17; And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD. 14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.
15 And the LORD said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. 16 For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.
17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Who do you think was the Shepherd that God rose up after he had been paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of silver?
Oh, you shepherd of the darkness who claim God sent you out
And even though we know that's true, that fact I wouldn't flout
For God commanded Zechariah, "Throw my wages cross the floor
Those thirty bits of silver for I'll guide this flock no more
A useless shepherd now I'll raise to guide that stubborn flock
And he will be a worthless one, of him I'll take no stock
For he'll not feed my little ones, nor search for them that's lost
But he eats the meat of the fattest sheep and their hoofs? He tears them off.
That worthless shepherd, he is doomed for abandoning my flock
His power will I destroy by war, his arm will wither dry, then drop
And his right eye will I turn blind that's why he's never seen
The passage where I speak of him, Zechariah eleven, twelve to seventeen.
The Apostolic church of Jesus Christ, not the Roman church of Emperor Constantine which was established some 300 years later.
In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: "From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of "GOD OUR SAVIOUR" and Christ Jesus "OUR HOPE."" The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.
In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, "You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us."
So, What was that other gospel, Way back in the days of Paul, that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?
That gospel was the word of the anti-christ that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.
Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve. But as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.
But still, there persisted the belief that their false Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and having to go to the toilet, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: "It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion." Satan must have been some sort of an idiot believing that this false Jesus of theirs, who had no need of food such as we human beings do, was starving hungry after a mere 40 days without food, who then tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread.
Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their false doctrines.
Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church of Emperor Constantine, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, (Which is not supported by scripture) who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, (Which is not supported by scripture) and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother's vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.(What utter unadulterated crap)
Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.
Erroneous and highly suspect, you can say that again, but by then the great lie had become so entrenched in the minds of the gullible that their heads were so mixed up and set as hard as concrete, one would need a sledge hammer to shatter that conglomerat and allow the light of truth to shine in.
Clement, who lived between 150"211 AD was expressing a belief that was already firmly established by those who had abandoned the Jesus as taught by the apostles.
The Lord now has need of some good children of God, to root out the weeds that were planted by the Famous Prostitute and her harlot denominational daughters who have been brought up on her spiritual rubbish
jsanford108
New member
You are reading your flawed opinion into the verses rather than from the verses.
Also, if we believe in Christ, are not our sins paid for? So by your doctrine, Catholics have no worries and are going straight to heaven. So the wages of sin are heaven, if your doctrines are true.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL