Has the jury reached a verdict?
Has the jury reached a verdict?
Asher Gray
Zachary Reed
yes, they're deluded Luciferians
Mason Reyes
...
Charles Evans
too small
Alexander Evans
full screen it in a separate tab
Sebastian Kelly
ok but first, would you like to tell me who you believe compiled the bible
Angel Gomez
I don't think we really know, I suspect God worked through the faithful in the early history of the Christian movement in order to collect and organize the canon, and as this knowledge spread, the RCC sequestered & controlled it through terrorism within the ensuing generations.
but we do know that the Vatican has engaged in rampant revisionism (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus) throughout their history so I don't trust the "early Church" documents collected by the Vatican as they're prima facie liars in almost every regard.
They speak for themselves, here's a vault of their own quotes and Vatican sanctioned books, essays, decrees, and official statements that amount to blasphemy.
remnantofgod.org
Matthew Roberts
>Proof one
Actually he was commissioned to be both. In fact it was decided that specifically BY HIS LIPS the Gentiles would hear the message of God.
Acts 15:7 "After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe."
>Proof Two
Again, read Acts 15:7. No one can deny Paul's work among the Gentiles, but it's clear from Acts 15:7 that God chose Peter among them to be minister to the Gentiles. You could argue that they were equal ministers rather than Peter being in charge, but either way Peter was a minister to them.
>Proof Three
1 Pet. 5:13 “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark”
Also there is a glut of historical evidence from the first three centuries AD, before Constantine "founded" the "luciferian Catholic Church" under most Protestant beliefs, which point to Peter having lived and died in Rome.
Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s"
And in AD 100 Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop of Antioch in the first century AD(he was near death at AD 100) and a martyr(in Rome no less), wrote of Peter AND Paul preaching in Rome. Ignatius was born in 35 AD, he was an adult by the time Peter was in Rome.
>Proof Four
Paul visited other cities where there had been an existing Christian population
>Proof Five
Peter may not have been there at the time, but again there is a glut of historical evidence that point him to having been in Rome and having been martyred there.
The Apostles all travelled around a lot.
>Proof Ten
We just believe he founded a Church there and was martyred there.
Landon Wilson
Peter is not the same guy as Cephas. They're two different people with the same name. Remember, Peter was the one chosen by God to be minister to the Gentiles in Acts 15:7. He led the Church at their council on the Gentiles. Why would he suddenly turn against Gentiles for seemingly no reason?
It just doesn't make sense, and all early Church historians and Christian figures from the first few centuries AD hold that Cephas was just a different guy with the same name.
Also more evidence that Peter was in Rome
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said Matthew wrote his Gospel "while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome."
Dionysius of Corinith, about A.D. 170, referred to "the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome."
Jonathan Fisher
As a minor side note just for kicks, Catholic aesthetic is quite a grotesque abomination - when they're not incorporating age-old pagan idols & symbols into they're architecture, they're constructing creepy shit like this.
youtube.com
Chase Myers
So your whole argument rests on the basis that you deny history. We know that the Gospels were only written decades after Christ's death, late in the Apostles lives, and that they were only compiled together centuries after that.
When Timothy says "for from thou infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings" he cannot be referring to the New Testament because it didn't even exist yet. And it certainly didn't exist from their infancy, as many of the people he was writing to were as old or even older than Christ.
If you want to posit that there was secretly a true and agreed upon Bible, then back it up with historical evidence.
Aaron Jones
Paul VI was a freemason, a Jew and a heretic above all.
Sebastian Gray
The Bible was never illegal to own in Latin. This was entirely to prevent nefarious mistranslations. As Latin was a dead language, the meanings never changed as the language didn't evolve.
While yes, you may say, "but then people had to learn Latin to read the Bible!" but what Protestants don't seem to realise is that the vast majority of people weren't literate in their native language back then.
In fact, more people were fluent in Latin than in their own languages. All nobles and well to do bourgeois learned Latin, along with anyone who went to a monastic school or university. It was the language of communication and education.
So saying the Bible must be kept in Latin was in no way preventing people from reading it. If you were literate at all, you were literate in Latin.
Henry Hill
Catholicism fulfills Daniel 7 in changing the times & laws ordained by God.
in the catechism the RCC removed the 2nd Commandment, mutilated the 4th, then split the 10th in two in order to preserve the number "10"
youtube.com
I'm crunched up in bed atm almost passing out, I could get up grab my harddrive and just start dumping stuff and tying out lengthy back & forth replies but its almost 3am, not sure if its worth it to have another 90 minute spam fest
Michael Davis
>Catholic aesthetic is quite a grotesque abomination
I will find you and I will kill you
Isaac Martin
How very Catholic of you.
Jacob Rodriguez
Pretty hard to take you seriously because the point becomes rather moot.
Even iif you accept that the RCC compiled the Bible, then they clearly didn't read it and in fact they avowedly diminish its centrality, while actively asserting invented human tradition to a supreme status. (quotes in first post)
and yes, the RCC admits forgeries are teeming within their libraries
The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries, spurious epistles, spurious sermons, spurious miracles, spurious relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the existence of thousands of forgeries and divides the works of nearly every Father into (1) genuine, (2) dubious, and (3) spurious. Roman inventions as Peter’s martyrdom at Rome (2nd cent.), Assumption of Mary (6th cent.), Temporal power of the bishop of Rome (8th cent.), Primacy of Rome (11th cent.), Seven Sacraments (13th cent.), etc., can only be proved by forgeries. Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest MSS read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction,” we now have texts which read: “The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter.” The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585).
1/3
Aiden Jones
Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy in the Middle Ages, the papal letters grew enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). “There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion” (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that “the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent,” a “multitude of unquestionably spurious relics” (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds: the origin of the Rosary and the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe, the Sabbatine Privilege, etc. Yet these same scholars are bound to confess that the written Word of God is not superior to these Roman traditions. The life stories and writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic Encyclopedia often admits under their names. The earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed to Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).
When scholars speak of an authentic work they do not imply that the text has come to us in its original form. Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings and expressions were altered, while so-called “heretical” teachings were allowed to become extinct.
2/3
William Hernandez
As early as the fifth century Augustine accused and convicted Pope Zosiums for having falsified the 5th canon of the Council of Nice (Mansi 4, 515; Migne, P. L. 50, 422). Canon laws of the Roman Church are based on “The Apostolic Constitutions,” a 4th century forgery purported to be a collection of apostolic writings collected by Clement I. When Protestants exposed this fraud, the fallible Church of Rome admitted the errors: “The Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation . . .As late as 1563. . .it was contended that it was the genuine work of the apostles” (C.E. 1, 636). Framing “divine” laws and falsifying the Word of God is not the work of innocent Christian leaders. Example: “We, the twelve Apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these Divine Constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being present with us Paul, the chosen vessel, our fellow apostle, and James the Bishop and the rest of the Elders and the seven Deacons” (Migne, P.G. 1, 1070).
“The Donation of Constantine” was originally an 8th-century forgery which gave the pope temporal power and possessions, and regal honors and privileges. Pope Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery. Pope Leo IV (1054) rewrote the text and used it to prove his primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known. Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy.
Alexander Ramirez
The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The Clementine Forgeries, The Liber Pontificals (Biographical book of the popes), The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works are either spurious or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the bulk of Roman traditions originated. Catholic scholars admit one forgery after the other, but the Council of Trent upheld these forgeries as genuine “traditions” to which the written Word of God is not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they themselves falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to win converts. As neither the majority of the people nor the lower clergy could read or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that the Roman hierarchy itself corrupted and falsified the true traditions. It is clear that Rome’s traditions did not originate from the lips of Christ or the apostles!
damn this is why screenshots are better
Luke Hernandez
Are Catholics Christians?
The answer...
NO
They are demonic heretics.
youtube.com
The Bible tells us to expose error (Ephesians 5:11, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."). And to expose error we must make righteous judgments. Christians must judge in order to: 1. Try the spirits to see if they are from God, for many false prophets are in the world. (1 John 4:1). 2. Mark & avoid false teachers, slaves of their own bellies, deceiving many with their smooth & flattering speech (Romans 16:17-18). 3. Rebuke false teachers, rebellious men, & deceivers who subvert whole families with their false doctrine. (Titus 1:9-16) 4. Have no fellowship with immoral, impure, or covetous men. (Ephesians 5:5-7) 5. Receive not deceivers who do not abide in the teaching of Christ into our homes, nor giving them any greeting. (2 John 7-11) 6. Be wary of those who preach another gospel. (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:6-9) Even David, who feared touching one of God's anointed, did not hesitate to judge & expose Saul's sin before the world. "Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness." (1 Samuel 24:10, 12-13) Thus, shouldn't true Christians, following the Biblical standards laid down, judge & expose the sins of false teachers, prophets & immoral brothers in the church; all those who would pollute the truth with perverted doctrines or watered-down teachings which tickle the ear? (2 Timothy 4:2-5, "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with [a]great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry."
Mason Campbell
it's just too incredible
In one of the descriptions of the false whore Church, Revelation 17:4 states.... And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
which is funny cuz the official colors for Catholic cardinals is scarlet and bishops is purple, furthermore Catholicism is renowned for it's vast secret wealth and golden pomp & ceremony
Cameron Bailey
miracolieucaristici.org
Not a mere symbol.
Anthony Brooks
>Why would he suddenly turn against Gentiles for seemingly no reason?
Diffrent time frame ... member the vision peter had about the gentiles he did not accept them then
Hudson Cruz
>I will find you and I will kill you
Like a true papist
Blake Edwards
i Still do not understand why the protestants did that.... They protested the catholic church and slowly they copied the same church they protested , how of all denominations only the seven day adventist do it right