I challenge you to find a single reputable historian, Christian or secular, that agrees with your absurd fantasies.Bibliocentrist said:I am not wasting anymore time/effort. You are seemingly using common tactics of ignoring, dismissing, evading and covering-up etc, and no one else seems to care or be interested in our discovery (or else they do not see how stark the matches are (maybe because i have not presented it well enough)). Obviously God doesn't want your Julian/Caesarean/Praetorian ("Jesuit/Christian/Cephas/Petrine") papacy exposed yet so i won't push it lest he punishes me and lest they easily destroy me. And really it doesn't matter because there are many other liars and enemies in the world too.
It is not just "some overlap" the matches are quality and qauntity throughout, matching in names, meanings, details and dates.
Can you deny that "pope" Zephyrinus matches Severus in name, meaning, details & date?
Can you deny that "pope" Alexander matches Trajan who was a fine soldier and extended the empire and is stated in history book to have been "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" when he was in Charax, and has pretty much the same date?
Can you deny that "pope" Fabian matches either/both Balbinus &/or Pupienus in name and date?
Can you deny that "pope" Pius 1 matches Antoninus Pius in name and date?
"Who killed the first 30 popes"? It doesn't matter &/or we have proven that the first 30 popes are really the Roman Emperors. Some of them were the killers of Christians; some of them died various ways. What historical evidences/sources/proofs are there for the 1st 30 "popes" and their alleged martyrdoms?
"Rebelion" smacks of Roman/Imperial/Caesarean claim to rule the whole Empire/Europe.
I am no able to waste any more time studying the alledged "biblical proofs" of Petrine pope. And they don't matter anyway because we have proven that the first 40+ "popes" and "Peter" are really Roman emperors and so the Petrine succession is lie/false/fake/fraud. Some "biblical" maybe false interpreations. The bible is true; the popes down to at least 461 or at most 1048 (or at absolute most 1191?) are semi-fake.
All humans are bad. I have not physically killed anyone as far as i know. I have been poisoned etc most of my "life". Cain killed Abel not v-v. Some claims of various people are lies.
POPE'S OFFICE IN THE BIBLE
- Thread starter epostle1
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bible says call no MAN father....Matt 23:9 (NIV). The Greek here is used of God, as the Father of man by creation, preservation, etc., and peculiarly as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Doesn't really matter whether one uses Father or Pope, it's against scriptural command.
In the same fashion, Paul taught that there is only ONE mediator between God and man. 1 Tim 2:5 (NIV). Hence confessionals are against that teaching as well.
In the same fashion, Paul taught that there is only ONE mediator between God and man. 1 Tim 2:5 (NIV). Hence confessionals are against that teaching as well.
StanJ said:
Are you saying Jesus has no authority to appoint subordinate mediators? The Sacrament of Reconciliation is totally biblical, and has nothing to do with 1 Tim. 2:5, which does not trump "alter Christus". Your spiritual ancestors abolished the sacrificial NT priesthood which may be why you don't get it.
You don't understand confession because of your limited scope of the Incarnation.
The Sacrament of Penance has evolved over the years, always in harmony with its biblical roots.
.John 20:23 - After his Resurrection, Jesus told the apostles,, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained." In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear.
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins. read more here
Catholics are not in error, Stan.
Confessing one’s sins to someone designated by the Church reaffirms our belief that God can act through created things and through people. That belief helps us understand Jesus’ Incarnation and the sacraments.
During his earthly life, Jesus was a visible sign, a sacrament, of God’s love. After Jesus’ Ascension, the Church continues that sign, although imperfectly this side of heaven. The Sacrament of Penance flows from Jesus’ Incarnation and his followers’ sense of communion with God and each other.
read more here
POPE'S OFFICE IN THE BOOK OF ACTS
St. Peter is quite obviously the visible head of the Church in Acts. When you consider the inspired author of Acts was St. Luke, a companion of St. Paul, it is quite telling that for the first 15 of 28 chapters, Peter is the center of attention rather than Paul. Why this focus on Peter?Let's take a look.
1. Acts 1:15-26: It is St. Peter who is clearly in charge in choosing and ordaining a new apostle to replace Judas when he gives an authoritative interpretation of Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. And I might add that these texts do not have an obvious interpretation. Psalm 69:25, for example, speaks of the messiah’s persecutors (plural) who “give him gall for (his) food and sour wine to drink” – in Psalm 69:21. Then in verse 25 it says “May their (plural) camp be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents.”
There is never a question from the rest of the apostles, “Hey, Peter, that’s a pretty shaky interpretation of those two texts. What hermeneutical principles are you using, anyway?”
2. Acts 2:14-41: It is St. Peter who is in charge at Pentecost and preaches the first sermon whereby 3,000 are baptized.
3. Acts 3:1-4:4: It is St. Peter who performs the first miracle in Acts, healing the man with withered feet and ankles. He then preaches again and, this time, 5,000 are converted in chapter 4:4.
4. Acts 4:3-12: When St. Peter and St. John are arrested and called before the Sanhedrin, it is St. Peter, in verse 8, who speaks for both and preaches boldly of Christ and the name of Jesus.
5. Acts 5:1-29: It is St. Peter who is in charge of the Church in collecting funds for world evangelism and pronounces God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira. It is then, in verse, 15, the people desire St. Peter’s shadow to pass over them that they may be healed. Then, in verse 29, after the apostles were arrested and miraculously set free by the angel of the Lord, they are before the Sanhedrin for the second time. St. Luke records:
Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather than men.”
St. Peter is set apart. It's "Peter and the apostles."
6. Acts 8:14-24: We see St. Peter leading (listed first) when he and St. John confirm new converts in Samaria after the evangelistic efforts of St. Phillip. And it is St. Peter who pronounces judgment on Simon the sorcerer who wanted to buy the power to convey the Holy Spirit.
7. Acts 9:32,40-43: Here we have an interesting little passage most pass over too quickly.
As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda (NAB).
Here we have St. Peter making his pastoral rounds. To what part of the Church? All of it! He then proceeds to do another first. He raises Tabitha from the dead in Joppa.
8. Acts 10-11:18: It is St. Peter to whom God gives a vision to lead the Church in allowing the gentiles to be baptized and enjoy full membership in the Church. This was a radical move! If you think we have a problem with racism in the 21st century, we have nothing on first century opinion of the gentiles! Notice, after the other apostles and other disciples heard Peter declare what God had done, they say, in 11:18:
When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”
They heard St. Peter speak and the question was settled.
9. Acts 12:1-17: St. Peter is arrested again. Notice that the entire Church then goes to “earnest prayer” (vs. 5) and into the night (vs. 6, 12) until he is released miraculously. This is not recorded to have been the case when St. James or any others were arrested.
10. Acts 15-16:4: We read of an enormous problem in the early Church, the heresy of the Judaizers. They taught believers in Christ must not only believe and obey the New Testament law as given by Christ and the apostles, but they must keep the Old Testament law given by Moses as well, especially circumcision.
Notice, St. Paul and Barnabas could not quell the upheaval.
Even more importantly, however, is the manner in which the problem is dealt with. Do they get out their Bibles and start arguing passages? No! They respond decisively, but not in the way a “Bible Christian” would today. They respond to the difficulty in obedience to the command of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-18. Jesus gives us authoritative instructions on what to do in the case of a disagreement over doctrine or discipline in the Church. First, go to your brother. Second, if he won’t hear you, take two or three witnesses with you. If he won’t hear them, the final arbiter of the situation will be the Church.
The Christians in Antioch, no doubt, tried to handle the problem on a local level first. That is what the text indicates. But they couldn’t take care of the dispute. Then they brought in the big guns—Paul and Barnabas—a pretty formidable “one or two” to employ!
It did not work!
This problem was so enormous, St. Paul could not even settle it. Where do they go then? Just as our Lord said, they “take it to the Church.” The church at Antioch obeys our Lord and takes it to the Church in Jerusalem. Whence cometh the first Church Council.
Do you notice how sola scriptura is nowhere to be found here?
Peter or James?
But now we need to answer another question. Some Bible Christians will say, “Was not James the true leader of the early Church and not Peter?”
If you examine the text of Acts 15 carefully, you will see this is not the case. In verses six and seven, we see all of the apostles and elders gathered together and doing what? Disputing!
Notice, it is Peter who speaks first, in verses 7-11. After so much disputing in Antioch that St. Paul and Barnabas could not settle the difficulty:
And afterthere had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them... "But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will." And all the assembly kept silence...
"After much debate” here at the Council, Peter declares the truth and then—“the whole assembly fell silent” in verse 12. The issue was settled.
This speaks volumes.
And notice as well: Peter uses the first person personal prounoun in the plural. "We believe..." Peter does not speak just for himself. He speaks for all.
However, there was still a pastoral issue. How are we going to bring about unity, in a pastoral sense, between the Jews and Gentiles? The Jewish Christians were worshipping in a Jewish manner which involved many Old Testament practices. St. Paul himself acknowledged the validity of this manner of worship, and participated in it himself in Acts 21:15-26. Many of these Jews wanted to make their rules the universal norm for everyone and even believed it necessary for salvation. The question: How do we unify the Gentile and Jewish Rites without compromising the truth? The Church could not say Gentiles had to keep what were peculiarly Old Testament practices in order to be saved, but the Church also wanted to respect some of the ancient practices of the Jews.
St. James stands up in Acts 15:13-23, and gives his pastoral opinion on the matter:
My brothers, listen to me. Symeon has [declared] how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name... It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter avoid [1] the pollution from idols, [2] unlawful marriage, [3] the meat of strangled animals, and [4] blood. Then the apostles and presbyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... This is the letter delivered by them: “The apostles and the presbyters, you brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings..."
Two Key Points:
1. When James stands up to speak, the first thing he says after getting the attention of the Council is, “Symeon has related…” In other words, Peter has spoken… He repeats what Peter has already said definitively. Then, rather than speaking for all, St. James says, "It ismy judgment..."
A little over 400 years after this proclamation by St. James, the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon would similarly declare, “Peter has spoken through Leo, the question is settled” after hearing a written declaration of St. Peter’s successor, Pope St. Leo the Great, read at that great Ecumenical Council. In AD 451, the issue was concerning the monophysite heresy and the nature of the God-man Jesus Christ. But both times, the same Principle was in effect. God spoke definitively through the authority He established on this earth to Shepherd his people.
2. When St. James gives his pastoral judgment, in verse 19, his judgment was that the Church ought to bind the Gentiles to four laws:
... abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood.
But notice what happens immediately thereafter, in verses 22-28:
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas... with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling to your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us in assembly to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul… We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things…”
Three sub-points:
1. When Peter speaks in Acts 15:7-11, just as we saw in Acts 10-11:18, the question was settled. St. Peter’s authority is unique. He has the keys of the kingdom and as such speaks for Christ with or without the consent of the others (Matthew 16:15-19).
2. When James gives his pastoral judgment concerning how to deal with an extremely difficult situation, the apostles, elders and the whole church had to agree before an epistle could be written to be sent out to the troubled churches. Why? Because the other apostles’ authority is depicted in a collegial manner. Jesus gave Peter and all the apostles the authority to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:15-18. Notice, it was all the apostles with Peter that acted in sending out the decree to the troubled churches. James and the apostles authority was exercised as a college. Only St. Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom. Only St. Peter acted alone in the context of all of the apostles at the Council.
3. Notice the nature of the letter sent out by the Church. When the Council of Jerusalem sends out the decree, the Church declares:
It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell. (Acts 15:28, NAB)
As St. Paul and Silas traveled about delivering the decree of the Church, the Scripture records:
As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem.
Catholic trivia point:
The Greek word for decisions there is "dogmata" in Greek.
One Final Note:
When St. Paul and Barnabas went to Antioch (this was where the trouble started according to Acts 14:26-15:2) immediately after the Council and delivered the teachings, the people “were delighted with the exhortation” (see Acts 15:30-31). The dispute was settled. However, not everyone was obedient. Judging from the letters of St. Paul to the Galatians and Romans, and the letter to the Hebrews, we can clearly see that there were rebels then just as there are now who will not listen to the Church.
St Irenaeus gives us some interesting insight as to one problem person who would not obey the Church. He was the seventh deacon who is listed among the first deacons ordained in Acts 6:5. You’ll notice that among the seven, he is listed last. According to St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, Bk. 1, ch. 26, para. 3, he was one of the leaders of the rebellion against the Council. Scripture records Nicolas the deacon was a “convert from Antioch.” Antioch is where all the trouble started.
The final point I want to make here is that Jesus himself has very strong words for these Nicolaitanes! These were basically anti-nomians who thought they did not have to obey the laws of the Church. When Jesus gives a personal message to St. John in the beginning of the Book of Revelation, he has a special message for those who would disobey the Church.
Remember then from what you [the church in Ephesus] have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. Yet this you have, you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate (Rev. 2:5-6).
I have a few things against you [the church in Pergamum]: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality. So you also have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth (Rev. 2:14-16).
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be on the side of folks whose deeds are “hated” by the Lord. I will remain on the side of the Church!
If you want to remain on the side of the Church, you must remain with the Vicar of Christ, St. Peter, and his successors the Popes.
source
That does not prove/disprove anything. New re/discoveries take time to be verified by contemporary "peers", and so far no "reputable historian" has disagreed with ours.kepha31 said:
I am an unrecognised reputible historian myself, some of my definite and some of my seeming possible discoveries include Atlantis (Tiahuanaco/South America), "(King) Arthur's" 12 battles sites (Saxon Shore forts), "Nennius'" Wonders of Britain, Moses in Egypt (Sithathoryunet pectoral etc), Joseph in Egypt (Sekhemhet/Djoserty-Ankh), Nazareth (Nabratein)?, Jack the Ripper (Mary Jane Kelly, not Kosminsky), Brunaburh (near Carlisle)?, Maserfield (Wigan area), the first 50+ popes (Roman emperors), the answer to water fluoridationist claims (sugar, cleanliness, diet, etc), one of the Shugborough insciriptions?, some Indus Valley seals?, some of the table of nations of Genesis 10?, Antipas of Revelation?, Judge Crater (he his his postmortem "widow")?, etc etc. See some in my blog (link in my profile). My Atlantis article is at lifetradition.webs.com , my Arthur's battles ebook is in allempires forum ebooks.
I challenge you to prove the earliest/frist historically verified "pope" (person/name).
If the list in post 34 (and the couple/few more details of a few like Alexander/Trajan of latter posts) is not evidence enough then that is too bad as i don't have the time or health or situation to do even better proofs.
The popes definitetly match the emperors from "Peter" / Nero down to at least Leo Magnus / Julius Majorian. It sounds like you do know the truth. But i will not be pursuing this anymore after this post (except i want to find out the earliest historically verified pope, but i won't be doing anymore hopefully,) because i have other things i need and want to do, and because i fear either/both God and man.
p.s. i found a few possible matches even after 800 ad, but they are dubious.
118 Leo 5 ~ Leo 6 (Byzantine)? Louis 3 the Child?
121 Lando ~ Conrad (HRE)?
128 Marino/Marinus 2 ~ Romanus 1 (Byzantine)?
133 John 13 ~ Ioannes 1 Tzimisces (Byzantine)?
141 John 18 (Phasinus/Fasano) ~ Basilius 2 (Byzantine)?
142 Sergius 4 (Pietro Buccaporca/Boccadiporco) ~ Bulgaroctonus (Basilius 2, Byztantine)? Sancho 3?
144 John 19 (Romanus) ~ Romanus 3 (Byzantine)?
146 Sylvester 3 ~ Constantine 9 (Byzantine) (compare Sylvester 1 matches Constantine 1)?
161 Gelasius 2 (Gaeta) (John Coniolo/Giovanni Gaetani) ~ John Comnenus (East)?
163 Honorius 2 (Romagna HRE) ~ Henry 5 (HRE)??
187 John 21 (Pietro Rebuli-Giuliani / Hispanus, Portugal) ~ Peter 3 (Spain)?* Jeanne 1 (Spain)?
"give to Caesar/"Kepha" what is Caesar's and to G'd what is G-d's"
Peter was martyred, and died circa 68AD almost 3 centuries before the pagan based Roman church was ever started...(circa 4th century Constantine)..but typical of Rome they distort and twist scripture to try and give them some credibility. This is typical of satan's attempt to control planet earth by lies and deception..he did it in the beginning, in the garden, and sitll continues through his counterfeit Roman/Babylonian church/religious system..
Bibliocentrist said:
It proves you are a revisionist.
New re/discoveries take time to be verified by contemporary "peers", and so far no "reputable historian" has disagreed with ours.
That's because your " re/discoveries" are falsehoods. Real historians don't jeopardize their reputation verifying absurd fantasies.
"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed."
The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue"
(Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue"
(Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).
http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html
There is only ONE mediator, subordinate or otherwise. Please try to stay away from RCC vernacular.kepha31 said:
This is nothing more than a self serving and condescending denial.
Repentance has ALWAYS been one dimensional, making a 180 degree turn and following Jesus.
John 20 is talking about not carrying spite in your hearts by actually forgiving those that wrong you, not the power to forgive sin.
Only Jesus has that power to provide forgiveness. 1 John 1:7-9 (NIV) and 1 John 2:1-2 (NIV)
The RCC IS.
The RCC had NO power to override Jesus' commands and directions.
Jesus WAS/IS God, not a sign.
I would suggest you assimilate more of the Bible and less RCC doctrine.
Best not to listen to allegation. The Bible says all we need to know about God, Jesus and HIS church.kepha31 said:
Kepha yoy really should look into the history of your church than understand why jesus said,
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
If you really believe Jesus would allow , murder, rape, torture, lies, seelling of salvation at a price, sending men into battle with teh promise of salvation if they died in battle, torure, and on the list goes,
Than you really have serious problemsw.
God is love....
But its ok all religion is guilty and all of it will be judged and found guilty, you wont be alone.
Joh 8:39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
If you really believe Jesus would allow , murder, rape, torture, lies, seelling of salvation at a price, sending men into battle with teh promise of salvation if they died in battle, torure, and on the list goes,
Than you really have serious problemsw.
God is love....
But its ok all religion is guilty and all of it will be judged and found guilty, you wont be alone.
I am not a revisionist, i am merely a seeker of the truth. And i don't see why/how being a revisionist is so bad or that it dis/proves anything.
No one has disproven any of our discoveries, or proven that any are "falsehoods".
Thats right "real historians" don't care about the truth only about reputation/funding/mammon/pride/elitism. Any "real historian" should seek the truth and objectively consider the evidence(s).
There is no point arguing words, only arguing the actual evidences/matches; and i said that i was willing/wanting to not pursue it anymore anyway, except for wanting to find out what the earliest historically verified pope/b.o.r person/name is/was (which you have not answered).
So far we have not found any substantial historically attested popes before the 300s ad. The possibly earliest historically attested pope(s) we have found so far:
- Eusebius wrote histories [not sure he is same as the pope of same c 310 date(s) though?].
- Mark compile stories of martyrs c 330s. (Believed he founded 2 churches.)
- Siricius letters/decretal/decree c 390.
- Leo 1 wrote the Tome c 450. (Council Chalcedon. Supposedly met Attila the Hun.)
- Gelasius letters/essays 490s.
- Gregory prolific writer c 600. (Employed titles. Gregorian chant. Augustine.)
- edict of the Emperor Phocas, in a.d. 606, constituting Boniface III.
- Adeodatus 615-8 lead seals on documents/bulls.
- Honorius 1 correspondence with Sergius of Constantinople c 630. (Anathemised by Council of Constantinople.)
- Vitalian earliest recorded use of pope in English mid-10th cent.
Though some still maybe don't actually historically attest the person/name as genuine (and not just like a pseudonym) outside of church literature.
(That is excluding:
- "Peter/Kepha(s)" mentioned in Matthew 16 & 1 Clement. Via Appia archaeological evidence [but may be Paul's house not Peter's house].
- "Linus" in NT [but doesn't mention him as pope/bishop/succesor].
- "Clement" issued '1 Clement' c 90s [but it is spurious].)
The only way to dis/prove would be to address actual evidences one at a time e.g. pope Alexander = Trajan who was "a fine soldier" and extended the empire, and who is stated in history book to have been "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" when he was in Charax, and who has pretty much the same date(s)?
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it
and eventually they will believe it.”- Adolf Hitler
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” -Lenin.
"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mohandas Gandhi
"They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth."
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~ George Orwell.
'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' - Pilger's law.
"The greatest homage to truth is to use it" ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie" - 'Romans'.
"When the world is pregnant with lies, a secret long hidden will be revealed". - an Odinist prophecy.
"we have not believed cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet 1:16).
"for god shall send them strong deluison that they should believe a/the lie" (2 Thess 2:11).
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" ~ Philip K. Dick.
"The truth will set you free" - Bible.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer.
"New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." - George Bernard Shaw.
"4 stages: denial, anger, panic, acceptance" - 'the Simpsons'.
I am sorry i did not mean to upset/annoy you. I have tried to be as objective/open as possible, and you made me even more open/objective until i discovered the popes/emperors matches, and it is a pity as it would have been cool if pope was legit rep. I just hate making discoveries and have no one to share them with. I will withdraw (because i fear God &/or devil &/or man), just as soon as i can find out who the earliest historically verified pope (person/name) was (outside of the bible and spurious church literature) just for my own personal interest/info. No one seems to be interested in my discovery anyway.
No one has disproven any of our discoveries, or proven that any are "falsehoods".
Thats right "real historians" don't care about the truth only about reputation/funding/mammon/pride/elitism. Any "real historian" should seek the truth and objectively consider the evidence(s).
There is no point arguing words, only arguing the actual evidences/matches; and i said that i was willing/wanting to not pursue it anymore anyway, except for wanting to find out what the earliest historically verified pope/b.o.r person/name is/was (which you have not answered).
So far we have not found any substantial historically attested popes before the 300s ad. The possibly earliest historically attested pope(s) we have found so far:
- Eusebius wrote histories [not sure he is same as the pope of same c 310 date(s) though?].
- Mark compile stories of martyrs c 330s. (Believed he founded 2 churches.)
- Siricius letters/decretal/decree c 390.
- Leo 1 wrote the Tome c 450. (Council Chalcedon. Supposedly met Attila the Hun.)
- Gelasius letters/essays 490s.
- Gregory prolific writer c 600. (Employed titles. Gregorian chant. Augustine.)
- edict of the Emperor Phocas, in a.d. 606, constituting Boniface III.
- Adeodatus 615-8 lead seals on documents/bulls.
- Honorius 1 correspondence with Sergius of Constantinople c 630. (Anathemised by Council of Constantinople.)
- Vitalian earliest recorded use of pope in English mid-10th cent.
Though some still maybe don't actually historically attest the person/name as genuine (and not just like a pseudonym) outside of church literature.
(That is excluding:
- "Peter/Kepha(s)" mentioned in Matthew 16 & 1 Clement. Via Appia archaeological evidence [but may be Paul's house not Peter's house].
- "Linus" in NT [but doesn't mention him as pope/bishop/succesor].
- "Clement" issued '1 Clement' c 90s [but it is spurious].)
The only way to dis/prove would be to address actual evidences one at a time e.g. pope Alexander = Trajan who was "a fine soldier" and extended the empire, and who is stated in history book to have been "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" when he was in Charax, and who has pretty much the same date(s)?
“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it
and eventually they will believe it.”- Adolf Hitler
“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” -Lenin.
"What is history but a fable agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." - Mohandas Gandhi
"They must find it hard to take Truth for Authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth."
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" ~ George Orwell.
'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' - Pilger's law.
"The greatest homage to truth is to use it" ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie" - 'Romans'.
"When the world is pregnant with lies, a secret long hidden will be revealed". - an Odinist prophecy.
"we have not believed cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet 1:16).
"for god shall send them strong deluison that they should believe a/the lie" (2 Thess 2:11).
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" ~ Philip K. Dick.
"The truth will set you free" - Bible.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident" ~ Schopenhauer.
"New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths." - George Bernard Shaw.
"4 stages: denial, anger, panic, acceptance" - 'the Simpsons'.
I am sorry i did not mean to upset/annoy you. I have tried to be as objective/open as possible, and you made me even more open/objective until i discovered the popes/emperors matches, and it is a pity as it would have been cool if pope was legit rep. I just hate making discoveries and have no one to share them with. I will withdraw (because i fear God &/or devil &/or man), just as soon as i can find out who the earliest historically verified pope (person/name) was (outside of the bible and spurious church literature) just for my own personal interest/info. No one seems to be interested in my discovery anyway.
I don't know what bible you are reading.StanJ said:
John 20 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Yes, Catholics know that. But you don't understand how it works. The Lord "breathes" on the apostles, and then gives them the power to forgive and retain sins. The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. You already flatly denied this. In order for the apostles to exercise this gift of forgiving sins, the penitents must orally confess their sins to them because the apostles are not mind readers. The text makes this very clear. Yet you ignore it and think Catholics are in error.
1 John 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
A mere intellectual confession? Where is that in the bible? That notion was totally foreign to the Christian Jews.
Num. 5:7 - this shows the historical practice of publicly confessing sins, and making public restitution.
Neh. 9:2-3 - the Israelites stood before the assembly and confessed sins publicly and interceded for each other.
James 5:16 - James clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” not just privately to God. James 5:16 must be read in the context of James 5:14-15, which is referring to the healing power (both physical and spiritual) of the priests of the Church. Hence, when James says “therefore” in verse 16, he must be referring to the men he was writing about in verses 14 and 15 – these men are the ordained priests of the Church, to whom we must confess our sins.
Stan, it is impossible for you to "follow the Bible" on this matter; being hyper-critical of those who do is unwarranted.
Confession of sins to a priest is not for you, it's for Catholics and it is very private and personal. The priest does not act as a sole mediator, that is fundie misrepresentation. You should leave it alone because you don't know what you are talking about. "9 If we confess our sins..." It's a verbal action, and requires a physical ordained listener. Don't misunderstand me, confessing directly to God is fine and dandy, but the reason you are so critical of confession is that your spiritual ancestors unbiblically abolished the NT priesthood. Instead you have pastoral counselling.
Right, and the Bible fell out of the sky.
Chapter and verse, please.StanJ said:
Jesus never promised that every member of the Church would go to heaven. Yes, there have been sinners in it. But being surprised to find sinners in the Church is like going to a hospital and being surprised to find sick people in it. "murder, rape, torture, lies, seelling of salvation at a price, sending men into battle with teh promise of salvation if they died in battle, torure, and on the list goes," were never condoned by the Church. You don't realize that Muslims had over run the Holy Land, and the Crusades was a defensive war, and the Church issued spiritual benefits to those who would fight. If terrorists were to take Jerusalem again, evangelicals like yourself would be the first to be screaming to the UN for intervention. Don't give me your protty propaganda about the Crusades, it won't work.mjrhealth said:
Jesus never gave any man permisiion to build any churches, neither did he give any authority to any one church or any one man. We either serve Christ or men!! All you do in all your posts is glorfy the pope and your religion, the Glory belongs to God and He will share it with no man. Of course than their is saints, see we become saints when we come to Christ, as we are "sanctified" by the washing of the blood. We dont become saints because of the deeds we do, as your church proclaims, neither does it have any authority to make anyone a saint. Tha belongs to God alone, again something you church has usurped."stolen".
In all His Love
In all His Love
Actually we all pray for Israel, God is their defender not the UN, teh 6 day war, was fought with israel and God, no UN involved no catholics needed, ended up the same as all battles where the enemy got confused and Gods army won. Israel doent need anyone it has God on its side. Both the muslims and the catholics and most religions would love to have israel, they all seem to think it will somehow make them the strongest army on earth.
Sorry i really did/do mean/want to quit but i just have to post this as i just happened to found that some of my correspondences were wrong and now we have much more correct, strong and seeable matches. There can be totally no dount now that the first 46 popes defintiely match the Roman emperors in names, meanings, details and dates or order. I wish i could finish re/doing the rest down to 1000 ad but i simply do not have the time and health and situation. Nevertheless this proves that the Peter keys & succesion claim is false since the first 46 popes are emperors not really Peter's successors. A few may still be wrong, but there is no doubt that the general matches discovery/thesis is right. I haven't found any historically verified popes before Constantine. Please note that the first 4 (John Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Linus) are in quote marks because i do not mean the bible is untrue, only that the popes list is untrue.
Notes: Sorry i can't add dates for the emperors and popes. They were very clever giving very similar names, it would be like emperor Sean being called pope Seamus. It looks like the first 5 emperors were paralleled with the next 5 in line with Domitian being considered a reincarnation of Nero.
1 Augustus ~ Nero (1 Peter/Cephas)
2 Tiberius ~ usurpers Otho/Galba/Vitellius (na/2 Linus)
3/4 Gaius/Caligula & Claudius ~ Vespasian & Titus (na/3/4 Anacletus & Cletus)
4/5 Nero & Domitian (2/4/5 Clement).
Popes ~ Roman Emperors.
00 "John the Baptist" (Baphomet) ~ Gnaeus Pompeius?
0 "Jesus Christ" (J.C., trinity, crucified, cross, baptised, bc/ad calendar, 30 yrs, condemned by 70/72 sanhedrim, virgin-born, successor/rep Cephas) ~ Julius Caesar (J.C., deified, triumvir, crucified pirates, cross rubicon, , calendar, assasinated by 60+2 in senate, Gallia/Gaul, aimed at kingship, reform, Venus, successor Caesar Augustus, laurel wreath)?
1 "(St/Simon) Peter/Petrus/Cephas/Kep(h)a" (upsidedown cross, 66 y.o., Hermes' house, Caesarea Philippi) ~ Nero(n) Caesar (antichrist 616/666)? &/or Caesar Augustus (1st, heir of Julius Caesar)? &/or Praetorian? &/or Paul (Paul's house)? [Simon Magus?]
na/2 "Linus" ~ usurper(s Galba & Otho &) Vitellius? &/or Tiberius (2nd)?
na/3/4 Anacletus &/or Cletus (Greece) ~ Titus Flavius Vespasian(us)? (&/or Titus Flavius Domitian?) &/or Claudius?
2/4/5 Clement/Clemens I ('1 Clement', knew Timothy) ~ Titus Flavius Domitian(us) (reincarnation of Nero, persecution policy/declaration, Timothy)? &/or Nero (5th)?
5 Ev-aristus (Bethlehem) ~ Nerva? (&/or Trajan (sound admin, improved social conditions, modest)?) [&/or good birth? &/or Eucharist?]
6 Alexander I ~ Trajan (fine soldier, extended empire, "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" in Charax, Ignatius)?
7 Sixtus/Xystus I ~ 12 Caesars? or legio Sextae? (or Lucius Artorius Castus?)
8 Telesphorus ~ ?
9 Hyginus/Yginos (Athens) ~ Hadrian(us)/Adriatic (Ignatius)? (&/or Antoninus Pius?)
10 Pius I ~ Antoninus Pius?
11 Anicetus/Anicitus (Emesa) ~ Titus Aurelius Antoninus Pius (138/139)? or Lucius/Marcus Aurelius Verus? or M Aurelius Antoninus Commodius?
12 Soter((i)us) ~ M Aurelius Verus (Stoic/study)? or Sothis/Sirius (Antoninus Pius 138/139)?
13 Eleutherius/Eleuterus (Nicopoli, Christian king Lucius) ~ L(ucius) Aurelius Verus? (or Helvius Pertinax? or Commodius (pleasure, Hercules)?) [&/or Lucius Artorius Castus?]
14 Victor I (Africa) ~ civil wars 193-197? &/or military commanders (African emperors)? or Severus (commander of legions, military despotism, army)? or Marcus Aurelius (campaign against Germans)? or Commodius (Hercules)?
15 Zephyrinus ~ Septim(i)us Severus?
16 Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus I ~ Caracalla?
16-19 antipope Hippolytus ~ Heliogabalus/Elagabalus (Baal)?
17 Urban(us) I ~ Publius Septimus Geta? &/or M Opellius Macrinus? (or M Aurelius Severus Alexander??)
18 Pontian(us) ~ Pupienus? or Gordianus 1/2? [Gordian knot & Pontus?] (or Bassianus??)
19 Anterus ~ Alexander Severus? &/or C Julius Verus Maxim(in)us Thrax? (or M Antonius Gordianus?)
20 Fabian(us) (7) ~ (Pupienus? &/or) Balbinus?
21 antipope Novatian(us) ~ Volusianus (Hostilianus)? (or Latinius Postumus?)
21 Cornelius (hardship) ~ Gordianus 3/2/1?
22 Lucius I ~ Lucius Domitius Aurelianus? (or Lucius Aelianus? or P Licinius Valerianus or P Linicius Egnatius Gallienus? (or Volusianus??))
23 Stephanus/Stephen I ~ Ulpia Severina? (or Hostilianus??) or Valerian (martyrs)?
24 Xystus/Sixtus II (Athens) ~ Tacitus/Tegid?
25 Dionysius ~ Probus (farming)?
26 Felix I ~ Florianus? (or Valerianus? (or Philippus??))
27 Eutychian(us) (Luni) ~ Numerianus? (or Tacitus?)
28 Caius/Gaius (martyred, Dalmatia) ~ Caius Aurelius Diocletian(us) (persecution)? (&/or Carus &/or Carinus?)
29 Marcellinus ~ Marcus Aurelius Maximianus? &/or Maximinus? (&/or Licinius?)
30 Marcellus I ~ Maximinus? &/or Marcus Aurelius Maxentius? &/or Galerius? (or Marcus Aurelius Maximianus?)
31 Eusebius (Sard) ~ Severus?
32 Miltiades/Melchiades ~ Maximinus Daia? &/or Maxentius?
33 Silvester/Sylvester I (Nicea, St Croce) ~ Constantine I the Great (cross, Milvian)? [maybe compare pope Sylvester 3 ~ emp Constantine 9?]
34 Marcus/Mark ~ Maxentius? &/or Magnus Magnentius?
35 Julius/Iulius I Rusticus ~ Julian the Apostate? (&/or Julius Constans &/or Julius Constantius 2?)
36 Liberius ("sign heretical creed") ~ Jovian? or Julian the Apostate? or Licinius (pagan)?
36b antipope Felix II ~ Valens (east)?
37 Ursicinus/Ursinus ~ Vetranio? or Theodosius (brown bear)? &/or Aurelius Ursicinus (Hoxne hoard)? &/or general Ursicinus? or Arcadius?
37 Damasus I (Portugal) ~ Theodosius (christianity)? [St James/Iago?]
38 Siricius/Sicirius ~ Gratian(us)?
39 Anastasius I ~ Arcadius?
40 Innocent(ius)/Innocens I (Visigoths) ~ Valentinian 1/2?
41 Zosimus/Zosimas ~ Theodosius 1/2?
42 Eulalius ~ Eugenius? or Flavius Claudis Constantine 3? &/or Flavius Constantius 3? &/or Flavius Honorius? or Alaric/Arian?
42 Boniface/Bonifacius I ~ Honorius? (or Eugenius?)
43 Celestine/Caelestinus I ~ Constantine 3? (&/or Constantius 3? &/or Valentinian 3? or Honorius (Coloseum)?)
44 Sixtus/Xystus Tertius/III ~ Avitus?
45 Leo I Magnus (Huns 451) ~ (Petronius Maximus? &/or) Julius Majorianus (fine soldier, peace treaty Vandals 461)? &/or Livius Severus? &/or Leo 1 (Byzantine)?
46 Hilarius (Sard) ~ Oylbrius? &/or Glycerius? (&/or Honorius (Telemachus)??)
p.s.
Someone may need to check the meanings of the names as there may be meanings matches rather than names matches for some (a common mistake i have kept initially making in our theses). Telesphorus means "acommplisher, bringer of completion" which might match Hadrian's Wall (and the dates seem to roughly coincide). But i may not be able or willing to do anymore myself for the reasons i gave (not have time/health/situation, other things i need/want to do, fear of God/devil/man).
Notes: Sorry i can't add dates for the emperors and popes. They were very clever giving very similar names, it would be like emperor Sean being called pope Seamus. It looks like the first 5 emperors were paralleled with the next 5 in line with Domitian being considered a reincarnation of Nero.
1 Augustus ~ Nero (1 Peter/Cephas)
2 Tiberius ~ usurpers Otho/Galba/Vitellius (na/2 Linus)
3/4 Gaius/Caligula & Claudius ~ Vespasian & Titus (na/3/4 Anacletus & Cletus)
4/5 Nero & Domitian (2/4/5 Clement).
Popes ~ Roman Emperors.
00 "John the Baptist" (Baphomet) ~ Gnaeus Pompeius?
0 "Jesus Christ" (J.C., trinity, crucified, cross, baptised, bc/ad calendar, 30 yrs, condemned by 70/72 sanhedrim, virgin-born, successor/rep Cephas) ~ Julius Caesar (J.C., deified, triumvir, crucified pirates, cross rubicon, , calendar, assasinated by 60+2 in senate, Gallia/Gaul, aimed at kingship, reform, Venus, successor Caesar Augustus, laurel wreath)?
1 "(St/Simon) Peter/Petrus/Cephas/Kep(h)a" (upsidedown cross, 66 y.o., Hermes' house, Caesarea Philippi) ~ Nero(n) Caesar (antichrist 616/666)? &/or Caesar Augustus (1st, heir of Julius Caesar)? &/or Praetorian? &/or Paul (Paul's house)? [Simon Magus?]
na/2 "Linus" ~ usurper(s Galba & Otho &) Vitellius? &/or Tiberius (2nd)?
na/3/4 Anacletus &/or Cletus (Greece) ~ Titus Flavius Vespasian(us)? (&/or Titus Flavius Domitian?) &/or Claudius?
2/4/5 Clement/Clemens I ('1 Clement', knew Timothy) ~ Titus Flavius Domitian(us) (reincarnation of Nero, persecution policy/declaration, Timothy)? &/or Nero (5th)?
5 Ev-aristus (Bethlehem) ~ Nerva? (&/or Trajan (sound admin, improved social conditions, modest)?) [&/or good birth? &/or Eucharist?]
6 Alexander I ~ Trajan (fine soldier, extended empire, "thinking aloud of Alexander the Great" in Charax, Ignatius)?
7 Sixtus/Xystus I ~ 12 Caesars? or legio Sextae? (or Lucius Artorius Castus?)
8 Telesphorus ~ ?
9 Hyginus/Yginos (Athens) ~ Hadrian(us)/Adriatic (Ignatius)? (&/or Antoninus Pius?)
10 Pius I ~ Antoninus Pius?
11 Anicetus/Anicitus (Emesa) ~ Titus Aurelius Antoninus Pius (138/139)? or Lucius/Marcus Aurelius Verus? or M Aurelius Antoninus Commodius?
12 Soter((i)us) ~ M Aurelius Verus (Stoic/study)? or Sothis/Sirius (Antoninus Pius 138/139)?
13 Eleutherius/Eleuterus (Nicopoli, Christian king Lucius) ~ L(ucius) Aurelius Verus? (or Helvius Pertinax? or Commodius (pleasure, Hercules)?) [&/or Lucius Artorius Castus?]
14 Victor I (Africa) ~ civil wars 193-197? &/or military commanders (African emperors)? or Severus (commander of legions, military despotism, army)? or Marcus Aurelius (campaign against Germans)? or Commodius (Hercules)?
15 Zephyrinus ~ Septim(i)us Severus?
16 Callistus/Cal(l)ixtus I ~ Caracalla?
16-19 antipope Hippolytus ~ Heliogabalus/Elagabalus (Baal)?
17 Urban(us) I ~ Publius Septimus Geta? &/or M Opellius Macrinus? (or M Aurelius Severus Alexander??)
18 Pontian(us) ~ Pupienus? or Gordianus 1/2? [Gordian knot & Pontus?] (or Bassianus??)
19 Anterus ~ Alexander Severus? &/or C Julius Verus Maxim(in)us Thrax? (or M Antonius Gordianus?)
20 Fabian(us) (7) ~ (Pupienus? &/or) Balbinus?
21 antipope Novatian(us) ~ Volusianus (Hostilianus)? (or Latinius Postumus?)
21 Cornelius (hardship) ~ Gordianus 3/2/1?
22 Lucius I ~ Lucius Domitius Aurelianus? (or Lucius Aelianus? or P Licinius Valerianus or P Linicius Egnatius Gallienus? (or Volusianus??))
23 Stephanus/Stephen I ~ Ulpia Severina? (or Hostilianus??) or Valerian (martyrs)?
24 Xystus/Sixtus II (Athens) ~ Tacitus/Tegid?
25 Dionysius ~ Probus (farming)?
26 Felix I ~ Florianus? (or Valerianus? (or Philippus??))
27 Eutychian(us) (Luni) ~ Numerianus? (or Tacitus?)
28 Caius/Gaius (martyred, Dalmatia) ~ Caius Aurelius Diocletian(us) (persecution)? (&/or Carus &/or Carinus?)
29 Marcellinus ~ Marcus Aurelius Maximianus? &/or Maximinus? (&/or Licinius?)
30 Marcellus I ~ Maximinus? &/or Marcus Aurelius Maxentius? &/or Galerius? (or Marcus Aurelius Maximianus?)
31 Eusebius (Sard) ~ Severus?
32 Miltiades/Melchiades ~ Maximinus Daia? &/or Maxentius?
33 Silvester/Sylvester I (Nicea, St Croce) ~ Constantine I the Great (cross, Milvian)? [maybe compare pope Sylvester 3 ~ emp Constantine 9?]
34 Marcus/Mark ~ Maxentius? &/or Magnus Magnentius?
35 Julius/Iulius I Rusticus ~ Julian the Apostate? (&/or Julius Constans &/or Julius Constantius 2?)
36 Liberius ("sign heretical creed") ~ Jovian? or Julian the Apostate? or Licinius (pagan)?
36b antipope Felix II ~ Valens (east)?
37 Ursicinus/Ursinus ~ Vetranio? or Theodosius (brown bear)? &/or Aurelius Ursicinus (Hoxne hoard)? &/or general Ursicinus? or Arcadius?
37 Damasus I (Portugal) ~ Theodosius (christianity)? [St James/Iago?]
38 Siricius/Sicirius ~ Gratian(us)?
39 Anastasius I ~ Arcadius?
40 Innocent(ius)/Innocens I (Visigoths) ~ Valentinian 1/2?
41 Zosimus/Zosimas ~ Theodosius 1/2?
42 Eulalius ~ Eugenius? or Flavius Claudis Constantine 3? &/or Flavius Constantius 3? &/or Flavius Honorius? or Alaric/Arian?
42 Boniface/Bonifacius I ~ Honorius? (or Eugenius?)
43 Celestine/Caelestinus I ~ Constantine 3? (&/or Constantius 3? &/or Valentinian 3? or Honorius (Coloseum)?)
44 Sixtus/Xystus Tertius/III ~ Avitus?
45 Leo I Magnus (Huns 451) ~ (Petronius Maximus? &/or) Julius Majorianus (fine soldier, peace treaty Vandals 461)? &/or Livius Severus? &/or Leo 1 (Byzantine)?
46 Hilarius (Sard) ~ Oylbrius? &/or Glycerius? (&/or Honorius (Telemachus)??)
p.s.
Someone may need to check the meanings of the names as there may be meanings matches rather than names matches for some (a common mistake i have kept initially making in our theses). Telesphorus means "acommplisher, bringer of completion" which might match Hadrian's Wall (and the dates seem to roughly coincide). But i may not be able or willing to do anymore myself for the reasons i gave (not have time/health/situation, other things i need/want to do, fear of God/devil/man).
Sorry just found a correction: 2nd pope Linus ("flax-coloured hair") actually matches emperor T Flavius Vespasian (Flavian "yellow-coloured hair"). That pretty much gives the final proof.
No Pope could possibly be an emperor. No emperor could possibly be a pope. Emperors often killed popes, that is a historical fact. You are wasting your time with your absurd fantasies. Check the history section of any library for a dose of reality.
So true. The popes have never pretended to be emperors. They merely used emperors / kings/ queens to force submission. That way they could feign innocence '''their image would not be tarnished by the blood of their victims, they could just blame it on the state power or the "barbarism of the times" . Yet God knows exactly who is truly guilty of the genocide of millions of His conscientious children throughout the dark ages. The woman riding the beast is the papal power...the state supports the church with her arms and the church holds the reins directing her puppet minions to do her bidding. To be honest, I am not sure if prophecy portrays whether the pope will be both civil and religious head of the coming NWO, but what is abundantly clear is that religious legislation will be enacted on a global scale and such legislation will be a civil demand with civil consequences for disobedience. In other words, a global version of the dark ages in Europe, where to reject papal authority meant death.kepha31 said:
Sure, some emperors and individuals rebelled and refused to bow to the papal tyranny...thus we ended up with a millenia of war...bloodletting...savagery and persecution which the Lord of glory witnessed and will avenge when He comes. Best to come out of her Kepha before you also partake of her sins and her plagues.
Similar threads
