DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End

[iris89]

DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

INTRODUCTION:

Originally there was only one classification for genuine (true) followers of Christ, but after the great falling away that had been foretold early on in the Bible this changed drastically as now there became two definitions or classifications of Christians. Now look at the two definitions (1) and (2).

Christian = a term used in two very distinct and mutually exclusive ways.

(1) A genuine (true) worshiper who worships the true God (YHWH) of Abraham, Issac, Ishmael, Noah, Moses, etc., the creator of all there is, in strict conformity with Exodus 20:3, an absolute monotheist, a real follower of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ in practice and not just in name.

(2) One who belongs to any of the denominations and/or sects that fell away from genuine (true) Christianity after the passing of the apostles that was foretold by 2Thessalonians 2:3, “let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,” (American Standard Version; ASV), one who worships other god(s) not mentioned as a true god in the Bible such as the Trinity. [source for both definitions - An Important Point on False Religion,
religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=babylonthegreat&thread=1190172986 ]

This great falling away that occurred at the end of the first Century after the death of the last Apostle was foretold in the Bible in warnings given by the inspired writers as follows:

2 Timothy 2:3, “let no man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,” (American Standard Version; ASV).

[or as the (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB) renders it, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him. If we deny him, he will also deny us.” ]

Hebrews 3:12, “Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God:” (ASV).

[or as the (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB) renders it, “Take heed, brethren, lest perhaps there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, to depart from the living God.”]

The Bible then goes on to show those falling away would go on to make false prophets and teachers for themselves at 2 Timothy 4:3-4,

“For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;
4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.” (ASV).

[or as the (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB) renders it, “For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears:
4 And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.” ]

This falling away did not consist of just one group falling away, but those who fall away were many separate groups which became the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East), the Copts (Coptics), etc.

Various ones of these falling away groups claimed infallibility for their leaders based on Apostolic Succession or some other wrong concept, i.e., they behaved as cults in having a leader for whom infallibility was claimed on one false theory or another such as direct communication with a deity or ex Cathedra which will be later explained.

Let’s look, now, a little deeper into what constitutes a cult.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A CULT:

Let's first look at how the dictionary, Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, defines a CULT as follows: (noun)
1. A system of religious rites and observances; the cult of Aphrodite. 2. Zealous devotion to a person, ideal, or thing. 3. The object of this devotion.[source - Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary]

The distinguishing features of a cult that are exclusive to cults are:
1 - A charismatic or appointed leader or prophet for which infallibility, either all the time or under special conditions is claimed on the basis of direct communications with a deity or on the basis of ex Cathedra (from the chair of Peter).

2 - Zealous devotion/dedication to a point beyond reason where the end justifies the mean, and such atrocities as genocide, burning others at the stake, giving members or others poison to drink, vicious bombings, etc. are conducted at the leaders direction or instigation. These terrible actions are4 not seen as wrong by the true cultist of which many claim and believe they are winning God's (YHWH's) approval by such wicked acts; of course they are not.

3 - The rejection of the authority of the Bible in favor of their own writings by men and/or unauthorized additions to the Bible Canon of Apocrypha or other books and/or parts of books of very doubtful character such as the Book of Mormon, etc.

4 - The making of their own prophecies instead of sticking to and trying to understand the prophecies that God (YHWH) inspired and had over 40 faithful men write down per 2 Timothy 4:3-4 previously quoted.

5 - The prophesizing or predicting of dates for the culmination of the end times when even Jesus (Yeshua) was not given the date by his Father (YHWH), see Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." (American Standard Version; ASV).

6 - An unreasonable attention and/or demand for money without justification of need and amassing of property in excess of that needed for religious functions such as the ownership o***un factory in Italy that makes military rifles.

Unfortunately, there are those individuals that try and paint groups they do not like as cults when infact the group is NOT a cult. In other words, they use the term in a wrong manner to falsely accuse the innocent in complete violation of Jesus' (Yeshua's) statement at Matthew 22:37-40, "And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." (ASV)..

This anti-Christian act should not be a surprise to the true Christians, the obedient footstep followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ who look to him for their salvation. The Apostle Paul was falsely accused as shown at Acts 24:12-15, " and neither in the temple did they find me disputing with any man or stirring up a crowd, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city. 13 Neither can they prove to thee the things whereof they now accuse me. 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the Way which they call a sect, so serve I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are according to the law, and which are written in the prophets; 15 having hope toward God, which these also themselves look for, that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and unjust." (ASV); And at Acts 24:1-9, "Festus therefore, having come into the province, after three days went up to Jerusalem from Caesarea. 2 And the chief priests and the principal men of the Jews informed him against Paul; and they besought him, 3 asking a favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem; laying a plot to kill him on the way. 4 Howbeit Festus answered, that Paul was kept in charge at Caesarea, and that he himself was about to depart [thither] shortly. 5 Let them therefore, saith he, that are of power among you go down with me, and if there is anything amiss in the man, let them accuse him. 6 And when he had tarried among them not more than eight or ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and on the morrow he sat on the judgment-seat, and commanded Paul to be brought. 7 And when he was come, the Jews that had come down from Jerusalem stood round about him, bringing against him many and grievous charges which they could not prove; 8 while Paul said in his defense, Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar, have I sinned at all. 9 But Festus, desiring to gain favor with the Jews, answered Paul and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?" (ASV). So should true Christians be surprised when they are falsely accused, of course not at the Devil maneuvers those he has already ensnared to do his dirty work as shown at Ephesians 6:12, "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual [hosts] of wickedness in the heavenly [places]. " (ASV).

Therefore, all true footstep followers of the lamb, Jesus, should be ready to answer false accusers as shown at 1 Peter 3:15-18, "but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: [being] ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: 16 having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. 17 For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing." (ASV). Remember that the Apostle Paul foretold the end times would be difficult at 2 Timothy 3:1-3, "But know this, that in the last days grievous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, railers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 without natural affection, implacable, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, no lovers of good," (ASV).
Therefore true followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ will be subject to attack and false accusations by those controlled by Satan; in fact, this type of action will be an identifying feature of those mentioned at 2 Timothy 3:1-3, previously quoted. This is vividly shown at Mark 14:55-59, "Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. 56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. 57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. 59 And not even so did their witness agree together." (ASV). When this occurred to the savior of true Christians, the Son of God (YHWH), Jesus (Yeshua); so sure it will also occur to his true followers. In fact, the identifying feature of true Christians will be they will be subject to false accusations and persecution as testified to a 2 Timothy 3:12-13, "Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (ASV). Remember, what occurred to Stephen a disciple of Jesus (Yeshua) our savior as recorded at Acts 7:58-60, "and they cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [the Lord], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep." (ASV). This has always been the way of Satan and those who he has gained the mastery over as testified to at Psalms 27:12, "Deliver me not over unto the will of mine adversaries: For false witnesses are risen up against me, And such as breathe out cruelty." (ASV).

Now let’s look at one such well known cult, the RCC.

EXAMINATION OF THE FALSE INFALLIBILITY CLAIM OF ONE WELL KNOWN CULT:

One individual belonging to this cult said, <<<” Did Jesus not give his apostles infalliblity? Did they not write the infallible NT and pass the Truth down infallibly for 400 years before the bible was canonized?”>>>.

Clearly this individual did not know the difference between infallibility and inspired for a special and limited purpose as clearly shown by the post of one poster.

Now let’s look at being inspired for a special purpose rather than being given infallibility:

Some are obviously ignorant of the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Qur’an.

Being inspired to put the thoughts of Almighty God (YHWH) into the words of men in no way implies a general infallibility. General infallibility would require real direct two way communications with Almighty God (YHWH); whereas, being inspired for a special task would not.

But, now, let’s look at this cult’s claim for their leader using some of their own publications, in this case, The Catholic Encyclopedia:

<<<” Ex Cathedra
Literally "from the chair", a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable."[[Pope is infallibile when speaking ex Cathedra due to Divine redemmer willed that his church should…clearly a statement claiming direct guidance by a deity and this in their own publications]] [source - from the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm on 10/15/2007].

And,

<<<” Infallibility
In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. In this article the subject will be treated under the following heads: [[same claim of direct assistance by a divine person made by the Pastor of the Jonestown situation]] [source - from the Catholic Encyclopedia]

And,

<<<”ORGANS OF INFALLIBILITY

Having established the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecumenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecumenical councils and the pope.”
[source - the Catholic Encyclopedia].

All taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia – a source biased towards Roman Catholic Church (RCC), but
Clearly showing this group to be a cult since it has a leader for whom infallibility is claimed and/or ascribed.

FALSE CLAIMS BY MEMBERS OF CULTS:

One individual, a member of the RCC cult said,

<<<”the entire church believed in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist previous to the rise of satans helper martin luther.” it was unanimous throughout all of christendom.”>>>.

An outright untruth as at no time did the genuine (true) followers of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ ever believe in this.

See Part Two:

[iris89]

Part Two DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:



Now what is this false doctrine of the Eucharist that is nowhere mentioned in the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible? Let’s look at an RCC cult source for an explanation,

<<<” The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.
Other titles are used, such as "Lord's Supper" (Coena Domini), "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini), the "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini), and the "Holy of Holies" (Sanctissimum), to which may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning: "Agape" (Love-Feast), "Eulogia" (Blessing), "Breaking of Bread", "Synaxis" (Assembly), etc.; but the ancient title "Eucharistia" appearing in writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, has taken precedence in the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians. The expression "Blessed Sacrament of the Altar", introduced by Augustine, is at the present day almost entirely restricted to catechetical and popular treatises.

This extensive nomenclature, describing the great mystery from such different points of view, is in itself sufficient proof of the central position the Eucharist has occupied from the earliest ages, both in the Divine worship and services of the Church and in the life of faith and devotion which animates her members.
The Church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since for sublimity and incomprehensibility it yields in nothing to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. These three mysteries constitute a wonderful triad, which causes the essential characteristic of Christianity, as a religion of mysteries far transcending the capabilities of reason, to shine forth in all its brilliance and splendor, and elevates Catholicism, the most faithful guardian and keeper of our Christian heritage, far above all pagan and non-Christian religions. [[Note, mysteries is the term used for these false doctrines nowhere found in the Inspired Word of Almighty God, the Bible]].

The organic connection of this mysterious triad is clearly discerned, if we consider Divine grace under the aspect of a personal communication of God. Thus in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity, God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, communicates His Divine Nature to God the Son, "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18), while the Son of God, by virtue of the hypostatic union, communicates in turn the Divine Nature received from His Father to His human nature formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (John 1:14), in order that thus as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic Species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, as a tender mother, mystically cares for and nurtures in her own bosom this, her greatest treasure, and daily places it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls. Thus the Trinity, Incarnation, and Eucharist are really welded together like a precious chain, which in a wonderful manner links heaven with earth, God with man, uniting them most intimately and keeping them thus united. By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.[[It was the life force of Almighty God (YHWH) that was placed in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and not that of Almighty God (YHWH) per Matthew 1:18-25,

" Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), and Jesus (Yeshua) is shown as the Son of God per the following verses from the (DRCB),

Matthew 4:3 And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 8:29 And behold they cried out, saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark 3:12 Thou art the Son of God. And he strictly charged them that they should not make him known.
Mark 15:39 And the centurion who stood over against him, seeing that crying out in this manner he had given up the ghost. said: Indeed this man was the son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem and set him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence.
Luke 4:41 And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou art the son of God. And rebuking them he suffered them not to speak; for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw: and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 5:28 Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.
John 6:69 (6-70) And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
John 10:36 Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said: I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the Son of God may be glorified by it.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

And many more.]].

The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions "religio-historical parallels", corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
It is the Church alone, "the pillar and ground of truth", imbued with and directed by the Holy Spirit, that guarantees to her children through her infallible teaching the full and unadulterated revelation of God. Consequently, it is the first duty of Catholics to adhere to what the Church proposes as the "proximate norm of faith" (regula fidei proxima), which, in reference to the Eucharist, is set forth in a particularly clear and detailed manner in Sessions XIII, XXI, and XXII of the Council of Trent.
The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained. [source – The Catholic Encyclopedia]

A good reference for more details is Mainstream Religion More Influenced By Pagan Philosophers Than The Bible: [http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=christianity&thread=1178644270&page=1 on 10/15/2007]

Let’s take a more in-depth look at the differences between the two entirely different groups that are called Christian than that given in the introduction.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO CLASSIFICATIONS OF CHRISTIANS:

<<<” As usual, most posters show their ignorance with regard the two classifications of so called Christians.

While the Apostles were on earth, there was only one classification of Christian, but shortly after their departure a great many so called Christians fell away from being genuine (true) followers of Christ and this was foretold to pass at Romans 16:17, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them." (American Standard Version; ASV).

Let's look into this brake and its results,

Most religions of the world take a two part single path as they have some good and some bad. However, so called Christianity did NOT follow in the mold of other religions such as the Hindus, Islam, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, etc. Instead, so called Christianity took two different paths. These two paths are as follows:

[1] In 325 AD the greater part of the so called Christian faith went apostate to when the good favor of a pagan emperor, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. And this branch of apostate Christians went on to commit many atrocities such as the rape of Goa, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of individuals at the stake for disagreeing with them including one Bruno for simply saying that the earth revolved around the sun; whereas, they said the sun revolved around the earth.

[2] A second and much smaller group of Christians that remained genuine Christians and did NOT go apostate, but followed in the footsteps of Christ their leader and savior. These did NOT commit any atrocities.

Thus, as can be readily seen, Christianity did not take the same path as most other religions that of having some good and some bad, but instead had a bad large group, and a much smaller good group. The colonial powers, however, brought the bad group to India, Pakistan, the New World [most of South America and North America], and many of the islands of the sea; and they went on committing atrocities in all of these places. This was because the apostate Christians were actually doing Satan the Devils' work per 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); and John 5:19, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." (Authorized King James Bible; AV).

Wrong Opinion Held By Many:

Due to the wrong actions, atrocities, committed by the first group, the apostate Christians, "[1] In 325 AD the greater part of the so called Christian faith went apostate to when the good favor of a pagan emperor, a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun. And this branch of apostate Christians went on to commit many atrocities such as the rape of Goa, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the burning of individuals at the stake for disagreeing with them including one Bruno for simply saying that the earth revolved around the sun; whereas, they said the sun revolved around the earth." Many hold wrong opinions of ALL Christians. Why? Because they have generalized the actions and wrongs of the first group and incorrectly applied them to genuine footstep followers of Christ also, the "[2] A second and much smaller group of Christians that remained genuine Christians and did NOT go apostate, but followed in the footsteps of Christ their leader and savior. These did NOT commit any atrocities."

Of course this generalization results in a wrong understanding of Christianity on the part of many. One writer who did NOT understand the crucial difference between these two groups said,

"You use one bunch of Christians to expose the bullsh**t propagated by another bunch of Christians. All of the Christians are more than 50% crap."

Clearly showing he had no comprehension of the two different paths taken by so called Christianity.

Another writer, in this case a Hindu, showed the same lack of comprehension with respect the two different paths taken by so called Christianity and said.

"You just using counterfeit christianity as a tool to dissaccociate yourself from the same christians that commited the most horrendous attrocities, live with it, you all have blood stained on your hands, I admit I am ashamed of what the brahmins, what's dont is done, we are doing what we can to uplift the dalits."

Obviously this individual also does not understand that so called Christianity took two different paths, and is NOT being rational either as he has shown that he can not bear to hear the truth, the facts? Well let's look at the counterfeit side of Christianity and the atrocities they have committed, and maybe individual like these two will start to realize the truth with respect the two different paths so called Christianity took.

[source - Discourse on the Two Paths of So Called Christianity - The Genuine and the Counterfeit, [
religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=monetheist&thread=1163177849&page=1] on 10/15/2007].

THE RCC CULTS CLAIM OF APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION:

Let’s look at this untrue claim.

<<<” Now the Apostolic Succession false doctrine is that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the bishops as a group are said to be the successors of the apostles, and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is claimed to be the successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole church, but this is really not the case, and is NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BIBLE.

Let's take the first argument of the RCC that Peter was the 'rock' on which the church was built when in reality the 'rock' was Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Let's now consider whom the Apostles Peter and Paul understood to be the 'rock,' the 'cornerstone as shown at Acts 4:8-12, " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear. 9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: 10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible). And this is further testified to at 1 Peter 2:4-8, " Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: 5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set."(DRCB); And further affirmed that Jesus (Yeshua) is the 'rock' at Ephesians 2:20, " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:"(DRCB).

Last we look at Matthew 16:18 which the RCC tries to twist its meaning to be that Peter is the 'rock,' but as we have seen already, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the 'rock,' " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(DRCB) clearly affirming that he, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ was the 'rock' to Peter, so no apostolic succession here.

See Part Three of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

[iris89]

Part Three of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:



Let's see what Augustine had to say on it as reported in a Catholic source:

With respect the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Augustine had this to say per, "In this same period of my priestthood< I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said; 'Thou art Peter, and upo9n this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." [source="The Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, The Retraction," (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translation by Mary I Bogan, Booi I, p. 90. }

The Bible clearly states that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the head of the congregation, that he is alive, so why would he need a successor(s)?

Hebrews 7:22-25 clearly says in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, "By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: 24 But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood: 25 Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us. 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself. 28 For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath (which was since the law) the Son who is perfected for evermore."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

This is ratified at Romans 6:8-10, "Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ. 9 Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him. 10 For in that he died to sin, he died once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. "(DRCB); and further testified to at Ephesians 5:23-24, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."(DRCB). So the Bible shows that no successor is necessary as Jesus (Yeshua) is alive and needs no successor.

Now, i***roup really were as the RCC claims the successors to the apostles you would expect they would be adhering to the teachings and practices of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and his apostles. A Catholic Dictionary clearly states: "The Roman Church is Apostolic, because her doctrine is the faith once revealed to the Apostles, which faith she guards and explains, without adding to it or taking from it." [source = A Catholic Dictionary," by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold, page 176, published in London in 1957]. Now the question is one of fact, is this group really not adding to or taking from the faith as revealed by Jesus (Yeshua)and the Apostles, let's see:

Commentary on the Apostolic Succession which s a false tradition:

Now the Apostolic Succession false doctrine is that the 12 apostles have successors to whom authority has been passed by divine appointment. In the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), the bishops as a group are said to be the successors of the apostles, and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is claimed to be the successor of Peter. It is maintained that the Roman pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position and perform the functions of Peter, to whom Christ is said to have given primacy of authority over the whole church, but this is really not the case.

Let's take the first argument of the RCC that Peter was the 'rock' on which the church was built when in reality the 'rock' was Jesus (Yeshua) Christ. Let's now consider whom the Apostles Peter and Paul understood to be the 'rock,' the 'cornerstone as shown at Acts 4:8-12, " Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear. 9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: 10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole. 11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible). And this is further testified to at 1 Peter 2:4-8, " Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: 5 Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore it is said in the scripture: Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious. And he that shall believe in him shall not be confounded. 7 To you therefore that believe, he is honour: but to them that believe not, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is made the head of the corner: 8 And a stone of stumbling and a rock of scandal, to them who stumble at the word, neither do believe, whereunto also they are set."(DRCB); And further affirmed that Jesus (Yeshua) is the 'rock' at Ephesians 2:20, " Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:"(DRCB).

Last we look at Matthew 16:18 which the RCC tries to twist its meaning to be that Peter is the 'rock,' but as we have seen already, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the 'rock,' " And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."(DRCB) clearly affirming that he, Jesus (Yeshua) Christ was the 'rock' to Peter, so no apostolic succession here.

Let's see what Augustine had to say on it as reported in a Catholic source:

With respect the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Augustine had this to say per, "In this same period of my priestthood< I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said; 'Thou art Peter, and upo9n this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." [source="The Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, The Retraction," (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translation by Mary I Bogan, Booi I, p. 90. }

The Bible clearly states that Jesus (Yeshua) Christ is the head of the congregation, that he is alive, so why would he need a successor(s)?

Hebrews 7:22-25 clearly says in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible, "By so much is Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And the others indeed were made many priests, because by reason of death they were not suffered to continue: 24 But this, for that he continueth for ever, hath an everlasting priesthood: 25 Whereby he is able also to save for ever them that come to God by him; always living to make intercession for us. 26 For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: 27 Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself. 28 For the law maketh men priests, who have infirmity: but the word of the oath (which was since the law) the Son who is perfected for evermore."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

This is ratified at Romans 6:8-10, "Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ. 9 Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him. 10 For in that he died to sin, he died once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. "(DRCB); and further testified to at Ephesians 5:23-24, "Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."(DRCB). So the Bible shows that no successor is necessary as Jesus (Yeshua) is alive and needs no successor.

Have you ever wondered or considered whether the Apostle Peter was ever actually in Rome, and what the facts indicate? Rome is referred to in nine verses of the Word of God, and interestingly NOT one of these says that the Apostle Peter was there. In fact, 1 Peter 5:10-14 shows he was NOT in Rome, but in Babylon, " But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little, will himself perfect you and confirm you and establish you. 11 To him be glory and empire, for ever and ever. Amen. 12 By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, I have written briefly: beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand. 13 The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you. And so doth my son, Mark. 14 Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you who are in Christ Jesus. Amen."(Douay Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB). Now some claim this was a cryptic reference to Rome, but would this be consistent with his assignment to preach to the Jews as indicated at Galatians 2:9, " And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:"(DRCB), since there was a large Jewish population in Babylon. The "Encyclopaedia Judaica," Jerusalem, 1971, Volume 15, Column 755, when discussing production of the Babylonian Talmud, refers clearly to Judaism's 'great academies of Babylon' during the first part of the Common Era.

Now, i***roup really were as the RCC claims the successors to the apostles you would expect they would be adhering to the teachings and practices of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ and his apostles. A Catholic Dictionary clearly states: "The Roman Church is Apostolic, because her doctrine is the faith once revealed to the Apostles, which faith she guards and explains, without adding to it or taking from it." [source = A Catholic Dictionary," by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold, page 176, published in London in 1957]. Now the question is one of fact, is this group really not adding to or taking from the faith as revealed by Jesus (Yeshua)and the Apostles, let's see:

The Identity of God (YHWH):

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly says, "The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion." [source = "The Catholic Encyclopedia," 1912 edition, Volume XV, page 47. However the New Encyclopedia Britannica clearly states, "Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament....The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies." [source = " the New Encyclopedia Britannica," 1976, Micropaedia, Volume X, Page 126].

The New Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states, "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarinism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4 th. Century." [source = "The New Catholic Encyclopedia," 1967, Volume XIV, page 295].

Also, the very concept of the Trinity, is shown to be just a myth in the New Testament (NT) at many places such as at many places, for example at John 17:3-5, " Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 4 I have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 5 And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee." (Douay Rheims Catholic Bible: DRCB), etc. clearly showing Jesus (Yeshua) as a distinct individual separate and apart from his Father (YHWH) and subject to his Father (YHWH) and carrying out his Father's (YHWH's) will. Also, there are countless other scriptures clearly showing that the Trinity is nothing more than an impossible myth.

Celibacy of the Clergy of the Roman Church:

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical, "Sacerdotalis Caelibatus," (Priestly Celibacy, 1967 in English), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that 'the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles...does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers...Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities." [source = "The papal Encyclicals 1958-1981, published at Falls Church, Virginia, 1981, page 204]. The scriptures clearly show this NOT TO BE A RECOGNIZED PRACTICE AMONG THE APOSTLES in the 1 st. Century at 1 Corinthians 9:5, " Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas"; and at John 1:42, " And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone."(DRCB). And at Mark 1:29-31 where reference is made to the mother-in-law of Simon, " And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. 30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. 31 And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. "(DRCB).

And the specific instructions with respect to qualifications of those seeking responsible positions in the congregation at 1 Timothy 3:2, " It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, color](DRCB).

In fact, the requirement for Celibacy for priests, bishops, etc. is of pagan origin with the Buddist requiring it of their priest and monks before the Christian era per "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church, by Henry C. Lea, London, 1932, fourth edition, page 6. Even earlier, the higher orders of the Babylonian priesthood were required to practice celibacy, according to "The Two Babylons," by Alexander Hislop of the Scottish church, New York, 1943, page 219.

Interestingly 1 Timothy 4:1-3 says, " Now the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils,
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that have known the truth."(DRCB).

The Bible Shows Separateness from the World not Attachment to It:

Pope Paul VI, when addressing the United Nations in 1965, said: "The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace; We presume to present here, together with Our own, their tribute of honor and of hope." [source = "The Pope's Visit," New York, 1965, Time-Life Special Report, page 26.

But John 15:18-19 clearly shows true Christians do NOT belong to the world, " If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (DRCB); and James 4:4 says, " Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world becometh an enemy of God."(DRCB) clearly showing if the Pope was truly the successor of the Apostles he would not be saying, " the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace," but would recognize Jesus (yeshua) Christ was the actual last hope as clearly shown in the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible and in The New American Bible (Catholic).

Jesus (Yeshua) Clearly Showed That Christians Do Not Resort To Cardinal Weapons in Their Warfare:

Catholic historian E.I. Watkin writes: "Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war...Whatever the official theory, in practice 'my country always right' has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops." [source = "Morals and Missiles," London, 1959, edited by Charles S. Thompson, pages 57 and 58].

See Part Four of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

[iris89]

Part Four of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

Now, let's consider what the Bible clearly says at Matthew 26:52, " Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(DRCB); and 1 John 3:10-12, " In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil. Whosoever is not just is not of God, or he that loveth not his brother.
11 For this is the declaration which you have heard from the beginning, that you should love one another. 12 Not as Cain, who was of the wicked one and killed his brother. And wherefore did he kill him? Because his own works were wicked: and his brother's just."(DRCB).

Therefore, in the light of the foregoing, it is readily apparent that those who claim to be the successors to the Apostles are NOT because they are neither practicing what Jesus (Yeshua) and his Apostles did, NOR are they teaching what Jesus (Yeshua) and his Apostles were.

Now, the Catholic church claims "the keys" were entrusted to the Apostle Peter, but what does the Bible show with respect to the "the keys" and what they were? Let's go look at the Bible evidence on this subject. First, the Biblical verse in question so all will know what is being referenced to, Matthew 16:18-20," And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ."(DRCB). The Catholic church claims that when Jesus (Yeshua) said, "thou art Peter," and he was the 'rock' on which the church was to be built, but as previously shown, the 'rock' was Christ himself, and the expression 'thou art' was a common method of expression, then, as shown at John 1:49 and many other places, " Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel"(DRCB).

Revelation 3:5-8 actually makes certain just who "the key" is when Jesus (Yeshua) is shown as referring to the symbolic key used to open up privileges and opportunities to humans as himself, Jesus (Yeshua), and he only used the Apostle Peter as his agent to open up the way for the Gentiles, " He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. And I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. 7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength and hast kept my word and hast not denied my name."(DRCB). [Brief detail on the Law of Agencies which is basically as follows, "Jesus (Yeshua) was God's (YHWH's) appointed agent in accordance with the 'Biblical law of agency' described as, "Scripture mentions something being done by Person A, whilst another mentions it being done by Person B. This is best understood when we grasp the Schaliach Principle, or the Jewish Law of Agency, which is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." (The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder)].

Now, the Apostle peter was entrusted by Jesus (Yeshua) to open up to the Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, the opportunity to receive God's (YHWH's) spirit with a view to their entering the heavenly Kingdom as shown by Acts 21:14-39, " But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words. 15 For these are not drunk, as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day: 16 But this is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel: 17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord), I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy: and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And upon my servants indeed and upon my handmaids will I pour out in those days of my spirit: and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will shew wonders in the heaven above, and signs on the earth beneath: blood and fire, and vapour of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the great and manifest day of the Lord to come. 21 And it shalt come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know: 23 This same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. 24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was impossible that he should be holden by it. 25 For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved. 26 For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell: nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David: that he died and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present say. 30 Whereas therefore he was a prophet and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. 31 Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell: neither did his flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. 33 Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. 34 For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy enemies thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. 37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart and said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? 38 But Peter said to them: Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call."(DRCB); and Acts 8:14-17, " Now, when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. 15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them: but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands upon them: and they received the Holy Ghost."(DRCB).

And Acts 10:24-48 highlights this, " And the morrow after, he entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, having called together his kinsmen and special friends. 25 And it came to pass that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him and falling at his feet adored. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise: I myself also am a man. 27 And talking with him, he went in and found many that were come together. 28 And he said to them: you know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean. 29 For which cause, making no doubt, I came when I was sent for. I ask, therefore, for what cause you have sent for me? 30 And Cornelius said: Four days ago, unto this hour, I was praying in my house, at the ninth hour and behold a man stood before me in white apparel and said: 31 Cornelius, thy prayer is heard and thy alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. 32 Send therefore to Joppe: and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter. He lodgeth in the house of Simon a tanner, by the sea side.
33 Immediately therefore I sent to thee: and thou hast done well in coming. Now, therefore, all we are present in thy sight to hear all things whatsoever are commanded thee by the Lord. 34 And Peter opening his mouth, said: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons.
35 But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him. 36 God sent the word to the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all). 37 You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached. 38 Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem: whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. 40 Him God raised up the third day and gave him to be made manifest, 41 Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him, after he arose again from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God to be judge of the living and of the dead. 43 To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. 44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. 45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God. 47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days."(DRCB).

Now did heaven wait on Peter to make decisions and then follow his lead? Not hardly as clearly shown by Acts 2:4, " And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost: and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak." And Acts 2:14, " But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words."(DRCB). And Acts 10:19-20 follows up with, " And as Peter was thinking of the vision, the Spirit said to him: Behold three men seek thee. 20 Arise, therefore: get thee down and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them."(DRCB); and Matthew 18:18-19, " Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, that if two of you shall consent upon earth, concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them by my Father who is in heaven."(DRCB).

Now, is Peter the judge as to who is worthy to enter the Kingdom as claimed? Well 2 Timothy 4:1-2, explains that the judge is NOT the Apostle Peter, but Jesus (Yeshua) Christ, himself, " I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom: 2 Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine."(DRCB). This Biblical fact that Jesus (Yeshua) is the judge and not the Apostle Peter is highlighted even further at 2 Timothy 4:8, " As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice which the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day: and not only to me, but to them also that love his coming. Make haste to come to me quickly."(DRCB).” [source - Discourse on the False Doctrine of Apostolic Succession Claimed by Some: (http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=succession&action=display&thread=1164996145 on 10/15/2007)]


Now their untruth is revealed in other ways such as the Apostle Peter wrote the book of 1 Peter about 62-64 AD in Babylon and the book of 2 Peter about 64 AD in Babylon so he was obviously alive in 64 AD. Now with regard to exactly when and how he died there is much dispute and little real evidence. But it can be stated that in 64 AD, the Apostle Peter was still alive.

Some of the conflicting information about the Apostle Peter is as follows:

<<<”As author James Hardy Ropes states:
The tradition, however, that Peter came to Rome, and suffered martyrdom under Nero (54-68 A.D.) either in the great persecution which followed the burning of the city or somewhat later, rests on a different and FIRMER basis....It is UNQUESTIONED that 150 years after Peter's death it was the COMMON BELIEF at Rome that he had died there, as had Paul. The "trophies" of the two great apostles could be seen on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way...a firm local tradition of the death at Rome of both apostles is attested for a time NOT TOO DISTANT FROM THE EVENT. – [source - The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern Criticism. New York. 1908. Pp. 215-216.]>>>.

<<<”However in Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow:
There is no proof, Biblically speaking, that Peter ever went near Rome! The New Testament tells us he went to Antioch, Samaria, Joppa, Caesarea, and other places, BUT NOT ROME! This is a strange omission, especially since Rome was considered the most important city in the world![source – Babylon Mystery Religion by Ralph Woodrow]>>>.

<<<”Also in his book Ralph Woodrow said: Since the apostle Peter was known as Simon Peter, it is interesting to note that Rome not only had a "Peter," an interpreter of the mysteries, but also a religious leader named Simon who went there in the first century! This Simon, known to Bible Students as Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:9), is said to have later gone to Rome and founded a counterfeit Christian religion there! –[source - Babylon Mystery Religion: Ancient and Modern, by Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, Inc. Riverside, CA. 1992. P. 73.]>>>.

<<<”After the death of Simon Magus his followers saw a golden opportunity to "Christianize" the pagan theology that Magus promulgated in Rome during his lifetime. By associating the "Peter" or Grand Interpreter (Opener) of Rome with Peter the apostle they were able to fool the members of God's Church and have them think that the pope was the representative and successor of Peter the apostle. "And so," writes Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons, "to the blinded Christians of the apostasy, the Pope was the representative of Peter the apostle, while to the initiated pagans, he was only the representative of Peter, the interpreter of their well-known mysteries" (P. 210).[reference – The Two Babylons by Reverend Alexander Hislop]>>>.

<<<” Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church says: "The author or FIRST REPRESENTATIVE [POPE] of this baptized heathenism...is Simon Magus, who unquestionably ADULTERATED Christianity with PAGAN IDEAS AND PRACTICES, with the aid and with the sanction of Christianity (so called) to set up A RIVAL UNIVERSAL (OR CATHOLIC) RELIGION"[source – Hasting’s Dictionary of the Apostolic Church (Vol. 2, pp. 514, 566).]>>>.

<<<”This amalgam of paganism and Christianity mentioned above, was a result of Simon Magus witnessing the preaching of Philip and Peter in Samaria. He soon saw the awesome potential of Christianity as a TOOL for his own advancement. When Peter returned to Rome (just prior to his death) he "found the minds of the people strangely bewitched and hardened AGAINST the embracing of the Christian religion by the subtleties and magic arts of Simon Magus...." (Cave). By the middle of the second century, when Justin Martyr wrote his Apology (152 A.D.) "the sect of the Simonians appears to have been FORMIDABLE, for he speaks four times of their founder, Simon...." [source - Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. 4, p. 682]>>>.

But, one thing we can be absolutely sure of as previously mentioned is that the Apostle Peter was still alive in 64 AD even if we can not be sure when or where he died and/or how.

Now the RCC falsely claims that Linus succeeded him, a false claim NOT born out in the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH) – anywhere.

In fact even RCC documents kind of question this false claim as follows:

<<<” Pope Saint Linus (d. ca.79) was the second pope according to the Roman Catholic Church. According to Irenaeus[1], Jerome,[2] Eusebius,[3] John Chrysostom,[4] the Liberian Catalogue[5] and the Liber Pontificalis,[6] Linus was the second Bishop of Rome, succeeding Saint Peter and succeeded by Anacletus. Irenaeus identifies him with the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy,[7] although this identification is not certain. The Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis both date his Episcopate to AD 56–67 during the reign of Nero, but Jerome dates it to 67–78, and Eusebius dates the end of his Episcopate to the second year of the reign of Titus (80).

Other sources disagree on Linus's place in the succession of Popes. Tertullian[8] says that Peter was succeeded by Clement I. The Apostolic Constitutions[9] says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul, and was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter.
According to the Liber Pontificalis, Linus was an Italian from Tuscany, and his father's name was Herculanus. The Apostolic Constitutions names his mother as Claudia. The Liber Pontificalis also says that he issued a decree that women should cover their heads in church, and that he died a martyr and was buried on the Vatican Hill next to Peter. It gives the date of his death as 23 September, the date on which his feast is still celebrated.[10]” [source – The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.
So it is readily apparent that this false claim is just slippery conjecture not backed by fact, and clearly disputed by the Bible NOT mentioning any successor to the Apostle Paul.

This cult also claims that one Anacletus I succeeded Linus, but of course this false claim is not backed by the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH).

In fact even RCC documents kind of question this false claim as follows:

<<<”According to Irenaeus[1], Jerome,[2] Eusebius,[3] John Chrysostom,[4] the Liberian Catalogue[5] and the Liber Pontificalis,[6] Linus was the second Bishop of Rome, succeeding Saint Peter and succeeded by Anacletus. Irenaeus identifies him with the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy,[7] although this identification is not certain. The Liberian Catalogue and the Liber Pontificalis both date his Episcopate to AD 56–67 during the reign of Nero, but Jerome dates it to 67–78, and Eusebius dates the end of his Episcopate to the second year of the reign of Titus (80).

Other sources disagree on Linus's place in the succession of Popes. Tertullian[8] says that Peter was succeeded by Clement I. The Apostolic Constitutions[9] says that Linus was the first Bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul, and was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter.” [source – The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

So as can readily be seen this false doctrine of Apostolic Succession is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

See Part Five of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

[iris89]

Part Five of DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:

FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT MATTHIAS MADE BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE RCC CULT:

First, One member of this cult even falsely claimed that Matthias was a successor to the Apostle Peter even though the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH) clearly says of Matthias:

Acts 1:23, “And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.” (DRCB)

Acts 1:26, “And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.” (DRCB).

And even RCC documents deny this as follows:

<<<” The Greek Matthias (or, in some manuscripts, Maththias), is a name derived from Mattathias, Hebrew Mattithiah, signifying "gift of Yahweh." Matthias was one of the seventy disciples of Jesus, and had been with Him from His baptism by John to the Ascension (Acts 1:21-22). It is related (Acts 1:15-26) that in the days following the Ascension, Peter proposed to the assembled brethren, who numbered one hundred and twenty, that they choose one to fill the place of the traitor Judas in the Apostolate. Two disciples, Joseph, called Barsabas, and Matthias were selected, and lots were drawn, with the result in favour of Matthias, who thus became associated with the eleven Apostles. Zeller has declared this narrative unhistoric, on the plea that the Apostles were in Galilee after the death of Jesus. As a matter of fact they did return to Galilee, but the Acts of the Apostles clearly state that about the feast of Pentecost they went back to Jerusalem.

All further information concerning the life and death of Matthias is vague and contradictory. According to Nicephorus (Hist. eccl., 2, 40), he first preached the Gospel in Judea, then in Ethiopia (that is to say, Colchis) and was crucified. The Synopsis of Dorotheus contains this tradition: Matthias in interiore Æthiopia, ubi Hyssus maris portus et Phasis fluvius est, hominibus barbaris et carnivoris praedicavit Evangelium. Mortuus est autem in Sebastopoli, ibique prope templum Solis sepultus (Matthias preached the Gospel to barbarians and cannibals in the interior of Ethiopia, at the harbour of the sea of Hyssus, at the mouth of the river Phasis. He died at Sebastopolis, and was buried there, near the Temple of the Sun). Still another tradition maintains that Matthias was stoned at Jerusalem by the Jews, and then beheaded (cf. Tillemont, "Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire eccl. des six premiers siècles", I, 406-7). It is said that St. Helena brought the relics of St. Matthias to Rome, and that a portion of them was at Trier. Bollandus (Acta SS., May, III) doubts if the relics that are in Rome are not rather those of the St. Matthias who was Bishop of Jerusalem about the year 120, and whose history would seem to have been confounded with that of the Apostle. The Latin Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias on 24 February and the Greek Church on 9 August. [Note: After this article was written, the Latin Church moved the feast of St. Matthias to 14 May.]
Clement of Alexandria (Strom., III, 4) records a sentence that the Nicolaitans ascribe[source – The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

Second, some members of the RCC cult even claim that the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH) is not the only authentic source, clearly showing, His obviously ignorant of the fact that the Bible is NOT the product of one committee or strongman. It has over 40 individual writers who wrote under divine inspiration/guidance putting the thoughts of God (YHWH) into the words of men much as transcribing secretaries today taking transcription and then later typing it out. In other words one real author, God (YHWH), and many scribes each of whom wrote in his own style over a period of approximately 1,600 years. All of what people call or consider inconsistencies are really not such, but most often just a problem of translation and/or understanding, i.e., lack of understanding of what the original writer writing in his own language and culture meant/said in his original writing. What is remarkable, is the writers over such a period of time all wrote in harmony when even most posters on threads on this forum can not even stay on track or subject over a period of a few days and/or weeks at most with the original subject of the thread. This fact of harmony over a period so great as to almost stagger the imagination shows that it had one guiding force or author who divinely inspired its writers as humans of their own volition can not keep on track over short periods of time.

To wit, the Bible is the ONLY book God (YHWH) ever inspired men to write as his scribes. In other words, God is its author and men only put his thoughts given to them by divine inspiration into their own words, the words of men. Not only that, all the other writers of later so called religious guidance books borrowed from it and made changes in accord with their strong man or so called prophet. Take the example of Joseph Smith who borrowed from it to write the Book of Mormon, but failed to give credit or source to the Bible and twisted some borrowed things into bizarre distortions. Other examples are of course the bizarre writings of David Koresh the Prophet of the Branch Dividians of Waco, Texas; and the Quran, etc.

Third, members of this cult readily forget what the Bible says at 2 Peter 1:19-21, “And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts. 20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. 21 For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.” (DRCB); and 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” (DRCB).

CONCLUSION:

As Jesus (Yeshua) Christ said at John 5:31-39 that clearly shows how dumb the way of the RCC cult is,

“If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
32 There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.
33 You sent to John: and he gave testimony to the truth.
34 But I receive not testimony from man: but I say these things, that you may be saved.
35 He was a burning and a shining light: and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light.
36 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me.
37 And the Father himself who hath sent me hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38 And you have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him you believe not.
39 Search the scriptures: for you think in them to have life everlasting. And the same are they that give testimony of me.” (DRCB).

Also, John 10:35 says, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken; and the scripture cannot be broken:” (DRCB) which clearly shows the scriptures, the Bible, is the authentic Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH) for mankind to follow since it can not be broken.

Therefore, so much for the apostate (counterfeit) so called Christian groups that came into being by being part of the great falling away instead of remaining genuine (true) followers of Christ.

To learn more, go to, religioustruths.proboards59.com/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

[iris89]

Hi Everyone

One cultist on another forum is making a lot of noise and thunder over NOTHING with respect Augustine as in fact everything I said involving Augustine in by research product, “DOCUMENTARY on, The Great Falling Away At The End of The First Century:” which can be read at,
religioustruths.proboards59.com/index.cgi?board=none&action=display&thread=1192459630, is strictly from Catholic sources. It is NOT my responsibility to harmonize their lies and differences in what they say, but only to honestly report what they said and I have meant that criteria. Let’s look at the example that I believe he has been throwing bolts of thunder about,

Let's see what Augustine had to say on it as reported in a Catholic source:

With respect the false doctrine of Apostolic Succession, Augustine had this to say per, <<<"In this same period of my priestthood< I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus...In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said; 'Thou art Peter, and upo9n this rock I will build my Church," that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying; "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven." For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ," in confessing whom as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter." [source="The Fathers of the Church--Saint Augustine, The Retraction," (Washington, D.C.; 1968), translation by Mary I Bogan, Booi I, p. 90. ]>>>.

Now I am not surprised at differences claimed for what a cult member said by other members of the cult as I have during the course of my research run into many instances of this. I believe in many cases what they really said is now unknown.

The second mention of Augustine in my article occurred in the following,

<<<" The name given to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar in its twofold aspect of sacrament and Sacrifice of Mass, and in which Jesus Christ is truly present under the bread and wine.
Other titles are used, such as "Lord's Supper" (Coena Domini), "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini), the "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini), and the "Holy of Holies" (Sanctissimum), to which may be added the following expressions, and somewhat altered from their primitive meaning: "Agape" (Love-Feast), "Eulogia" (Blessing), "Breaking of Bread", "Synaxis" (Assembly), etc.; but the ancient title "Eucharistia" appearing in writers as early as Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus, has taken precedence in the technical terminology of the Church and her theologians. The expression "Blessed Sacrament of the Altar", introduced by Augustine, is at the present day almost entirely restricted to catechetical and popular treatises.

This extensive nomenclature, describing the great mystery from such different points of view, is in itself sufficient proof of the central position the Eucharist has occupied from the earliest ages, both in the Divine worship and services of the Church and in the life of faith and devotion which animates her members.
The Church honors the Eucharist as one of her most exalted mysteries, since for sublimity and incomprehensibility it yields in nothing to the allied mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. These three mysteries constitute a wonderful triad, which causes the essential characteristic of Christianity, as a religion of mysteries far transcending the capabilities of reason, to shine forth in all its brilliance and splendor, and elevates Catholicism, the most faithful guardian and keeper of our Christian heritage, far above all pagan and non-Christian religions. [[Note, mysteries is the term used for these false doctrines nowhere found in the Inspired Word of Almighty God, the Bible]].

The organic connection of this mysterious triad is clearly discerned, if we consider Divine grace under the aspect of a personal communication of God. Thus in the bosom of the Blessed Trinity, God the Father, by virtue of the eternal generation, communicates His Divine Nature to God the Son, "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18), while the Son of God, by virtue of the hypostatic union, communicates in turn the Divine Nature received from His Father to His human nature formed in the womb of the Virgin Mary (John 1:14), in order that thus as God-man, hidden under the Eucharistic Species, He might deliver Himself to His Church, who, as a tender mother, mystically cares for and nurtures in her own bosom this, her greatest treasure, and daily places it before her children as the spiritual food of their souls. Thus the Trinity, Incarnation, and Eucharist are really welded together like a precious chain, which in a wonderful manner links heaven with earth, God with man, uniting them most intimately and keeping them thus united. By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.[[It was the life force of Almighty God (YHWH) that was placed in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit and not that of Almighty God (YHWH) per Matthew 1:18-25,

" Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. 19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: 23 Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. 25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB), and Jesus (Yeshua) is shown as the Son of God per the following verses from the (DRCB),

Matthew 4:3 And the tempter coming said to him: If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written: That he hath given his angels charge over thee, and in their hands shall they bear thee up, lest perhaps thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 8:29 And behold they cried out, saying: What have we to do with thee, Jesus Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 And they that were in the boat came and adored him, saying: Indeed thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Mark 3:12 Thou art the Son of God. And he strictly charged them that they should not make him known.
Mark 15:39 And the centurion who stood over against him, seeing that crying out in this manner he had given up the ghost. said: Indeed this man was the son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said to him: If thou be the Son of God, say to this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem and set him on a pinnacle of the temple and said to him: If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself from hence.
Luke 4:41 And devils went out from many, crying out and saying: Thou art the son of God. And rebuking them he suffered them not to speak; for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all: Art thou then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw: and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Amen, amen, I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 5:28 Wonder not at this: for the hour cometh wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God.
John 6:69 (6-70) And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out. And when he had found him, he said to him: Dost thou believe in the Son of God?
John 10:36 Do you say of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world: Thou blasphemest; because I said: I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 And Jesus hearing it, said to them: This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God: that the Son of God may be glorified by it.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

And many more.]].

The modern science of comparative religion is striving, wherever it can, to discover in pagan religions "religio-historical parallels", corresponding to the theoretical and practical elements of Christianity, and thus by means of the former to give a natural explanation of the latter. Even were an analogy discernible between the Eucharistic repast and the ambrosia and nectar of the ancient Greek gods, or the haoma of the Iranians, or the soma of the ancient Hindus, we should nevertheless be very cautious not to stretch a mere analogy to a parallelism strictly so called, since the Christian Eucharist has nothing at all in common with these pagan foods, whose origin is to be found in the crassest idol- and nature-worship. What we do particularly discover is a new proof of the reasonableness of the Catholic religion, from the circumstance that Jesus Christ in a wonderfully condescending manner responds to the natural craving of the human heart after a food which nourishes unto immortality, a craving expressed in many pagan religions, by dispensing to mankind His own Flesh and Blood. All that is beautiful, all that is true in the religions of nature, Christianity has appropriated to itself, and like a concave mirror has collected the dispersed and not infrequently distorted rays of truth into their common focus and again sent them forth resplendently in perfect beams of light.
It is the Church alone, "the pillar and ground of truth", imbued with and directed by the Holy Spirit, that guarantees to her children through her infallible teaching the full and unadulterated revelation of God. Consequently, it is the first duty of Catholics to adhere to what the Church proposes as the "proximate norm of faith" (regula fidei proxima), which, in reference to the Eucharist, is set forth in a particularly clear and detailed manner in Sessions XIII, XXI, and XXII of the Council of Trent.
The quintessence of these doctrinal decisions consists in this, that in the Eucharist the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present for the nourishment of our souls, by reason of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and that in this change of substances the unbloody Sacrifice of the New Testament is also contained. [source - The Catholic Encyclopedia]>>>.

His abuse of me and posting of same on over ten (10) threads is clearly out of all bounds of ethics and fair dealings and therefore can be said to be done with malice of forethought. This is not what a forum should be fore.

Your Friend in Christ Iris89