John 14:6

[Jane.Doe]

Jane Doe.... I hope all is well.. It is cooler here because of all the forest fire smoke! It has been very hot!
This is from a non Catholic web! Proving I don't make this stuff up!

The fourteen fundamental articles or beliefs of Mormons | Recovery from Mormonism (exmormon.org)
3 - The origin of Jesus Christ
Jesus was begotten by physical union of God and Mary. Since God has a body of flesh and bones, he really had literal sex with Mary. The product of this union was Jesus, part man and part God. We believe Jesus was the first born in heaven by heavenly father and mother who created his spirit and our spirits using our "intelligences" as a foundation for our spirits. Our "intelligences" were floating around in the universe and needed to be organized into spirits. Since he was the first born spirit, and according to the Book of Abraham, his "intelligence" was better than the other "intelligences" out there, he is the most important spirit creation. When Jesus received his physical body by the union of God and Mary, his spirit was put into his body like our spirits were put into our bodies. His body was special though because his father was a god. The rest of us have only regular dads.

Again, a few Mormons wrote saying they do not believe this and I am misrepresenting the church's position. Actually the quotes from the early leaders are stranger than I could create from my imagination. Here are a few references:

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 1, Page 51 1852, "Jesus our Elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853, "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be a very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children..."

I didn't say that you're "making stuff up". You are however, copy/pasting from junk websites with zero discernment on your part, and blatantly ignoring actual explanations / scriptures.

As it's name implies "Exmormon.org" is gathering place for angry ex-Mormons and beyond biased. Just like an ex-Catholic site is full of angry ex Catholics that will paint Catholicism as nothing more than a den of pedophile priests. And no, "Journal of Discourses" is not actually LDS Christian doctrinal source.

If you want to know what Catholics believe: ask Catholics & listen. If you want to know what LDS Christians believe: ask LDS Christians & listen.

 

[Dogknox20]

Hello Jane Doe... I hope all is well...
I found this ....at a Mormon site... (below)
..............................................................................
"Mormons believe that God had physical sex with Mary":
This is false.
Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon state that Christ was conceived this way.[1] Since Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Ghost is a spirit[2] this is impossible in Mormon doctrine.
....................................................................................
I found this.... in a EX-Mormon site.... (below)
................................................................
Again, a few Mormons wrote saying they do not believe this and I am misrepresenting the church's position. Actually the quotes from the early leaders are stranger than I could create from my imagination. Here are a few references:

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 1, Page 51 1852, "Jesus our Elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853, "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be a very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children..."
..................................................................
Jane Doe It is easy to see the conflicts in the teachings of LDS church!
I can only gather that Mormons were NOT Christians is 1853 or will you deny these Journal of Discourses?

Christian
The one God is a Spirit who is the personal, eternal, infinite Creator of all that exists. He is the only God and necessary for all other things to exist. He exists eternally as a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (see Deut. 6:4; Isa. 43:10; 44:6-8; Matt. 28:19; John 4:24; 17:3)
Mormon
God (Heavenly Father) is an exalted man with a physical body of flesh and bone. LDS founder Joseph Smith said, “If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). The trinity is denied with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost seen as three separate entities. “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 130:22).

Christian
Jesus Christ was the virgin born God incarnate who existed in all time with the Father and Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity. As a man He possessed two natures -human and divine. He lived a sinless life and willingly died on the cross as a sacrifice for the sin of all humanity. (see John 1:1-18; 8:56-59; Phil. 2:6-11; Col. 1:13-22; Heb.1:3; 13:8)
Mormon
Jesus was the spiritual “first born” Son of God in the preexistence. “Every person who was ever born on earth was our spirit brother or sister in heaven. The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ, so he is literally our elder brother” (Gospel Principles [GP], p. 11).”And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn” (D&C 93:21). He is also the “only begotten” physical offspring of God by procreation on earth. “Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal father. That is why he is called the Only Begotten Son” (GP, p. 64). His atonement (death and resurrection) provides immortality for all people regardless of their faith. “Christ thus overcame physical death. Because of his atonement, everyone born on this earth will be resurrected . . . This condition is called immortality. All people who ever lived will be resurrected, ‘both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous’ (The Book of Mormon [BOM], Alma 11:44)” (GP, p. 74). (See GP, pp. 11, 17-19, 61-77.)

Christian
Human beings are created in God’s image, meaning they have personal qualities similar to God’s. Every person is a unique, precious being of dignity and worth. (see Gen. 1:26-27)
Mormon
People are the preexisted spiritual offspring of the Heavenly Father and Mother. “All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity . . . Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal (physical) body” (Joseph F. Smith, “The Origin of Man,” Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pp. 78,80, as quoted in GP, p. 11).They are born basically good and are “gods in embryo.” A commonly quoted Mormon aphorism (attributed to fifth LDS president Lorenzo Snow) says “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”

Christian
Human beings have chosen to sin against God, rejecting His nature and pursing life opposed to His essential character and revealed law. (see Rom. 3:23; 7:14-25; 1 John 1:8-10)
Mormon
People sin by disobedience to God’s laws. Adam’s fall, a part of Heavenly Father’s plan, caused a loss of immortality, which was necessary for mankind to advance, (see GP, pp. 31-34). As Eve declared according to LDS scripture, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have . . . known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient”(PGP, Moses 5:11; see also BOM, 2 Nephi 2:22-25). Each person is responsible for his or her own sin.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Hello Jane Doe... I hope all is well...
I found this ....at a Mormon site... (below)
..............................................................................
"Mormons believe that God had physical sex with Mary":
This is false.
Mormons believe Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon state that Christ was conceived this way.[1] Since Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Ghost is a spirit[2] this is impossible in Mormon doctrine.
....................................................................................
I found this.... in a EX-Mormon site.... (below)
................................................................
Again, a few Mormons wrote saying they do not believe this and I am misrepresenting the church's position. Actually the quotes from the early leaders are stranger than I could create from my imagination. Here are a few references:

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 1, Page 51 1852, "Jesus our Elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."

Brigham Young speaking in the Journal of Discourses Vo1 15, Page 770 1853, "Now remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost... if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be a very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children..."
..................................................................
Jane Doe It is easy to see the conflicts in the teachings of LDS church!
I can only gather that Mormons were NOT Christians is 1853 or will you deny these Journal of Discourses?

In Catholicism, you cannot just take a few cherry picked quotes from a church leader and declare that to always be "Thus Saith the Lord! Catholics believe _____". No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements. That helps you grasp the big picture of what's going on, the theological background, etc. And to be forward: all leaders are imperfect humans and sometimes get things off and then saying X doesn't automatically make X "thus saith the Lord!".

Likewise with LDS Christian beliefs. But such a fallacy is that's exactly what the anti-Mormon sources you're quoting are doing. They take imperfect non-doctrinal non-scripture source (like the "Journal of Discourses"), cherry pick a few sentences, and then try to sell it as "Thus Saith the Lord". It academically dishonest, lazy, and a huge strawman.


I want to get this aspect clear before moving on to other topics.

 

[pearl]

I check websites most all point out this Mormon belief

Ok. I mistakingly thought you were stating a Catholic belief.

 

[Dogknox20]

In Catholicism, you cannot just take a few cherry picked quotes from a church leader and declare that to always be "Thus Saith the Lord! Catholics believe _____". No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements. That helps you grasp the big picture of what's going on, the theological background, etc. And to be forward: all leaders are imperfect humans and sometimes get things off and then saying X doesn't automatically make X "thus saith the Lord!".

Likewise with LDS Christian beliefs. But such a fallacy is that's exactly what the anti-Mormon sources you're quoting are doing. They take imperfect non-doctrinal non-scripture source (like the "Journal of Discourses"), cherry pick a few sentences, and then try to sell it as "Thus Saith the Lord". It academically dishonest, lazy, and a huge strawman.


I want to get this aspect clear before moving on to other topics.

Hello Jane Doe. I hope all is well with you.. Here the smoke is giving us a cooler day!

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
NOTE.... Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near his home. They told him that all the creeds of the Christian denominations were abominable, that those who believed them were corrupt, and that the true Church, having died out completely shortly after it began, was to be restored by Smith.
Jane Doe. >>>>>Died out completely!<<<<<< ????????

Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Jane Doe. How could it be that Christ would promise that his Church wouldn’t be overcome if he knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was he mistaken? No.

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jane Doe. These verses (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
Jane Doe. Did you see it? FOREVER!

Jane Doe. This verse (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
Jane Doe. This verse (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Hello Jane Doe. I hope all is well with you.. Here the smoke is giving us a cooler day!

I'm glad!

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
NOTE.... Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees near his home. They told him that all the creeds of the Christian denominations were abominable, that those who believed them were corrupt, and that the true Church, having died out completely shortly after it began, was to be restored by Smith.
Jane Doe. >>>>>Died out completely!<<<<<< ????????

Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

Jane Doe. How could it be that Christ would promise that his Church wouldn’t be overcome if he knew full well a great apostasy would make short shrift of it in a matter of decades? Was Christ lying? Obviously not. Was he mistaken? No.

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jane Doe. These verses (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—
Jane Doe. Did you see it? FOREVER!

Jane Doe. This verse (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Your words.. No, you need to look at the fuller picture, especially scriptures and official church statements.
Jane Doe. This verse (below) could NOT have been addressed to LDS church it was not around for another 1900 years!
1 Timothy 3:15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

As I just said: I want to finish talking about what we have been talking about before moving on to other topics.

 

[Dogknox20]

I'm glad!

As I just said: I want to finish talking about what we have been talking about before moving on to other topics.

.
I reply:
Right... The LDS teach Mary was a virgin and she had not had sexual intercourse with God! History proves you wrong!
............................................................
Bruce Bracken
Logan, Utah 84321

Dear Brother Bracken:

We are very much concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.

You asked about the Immaculate Conception of the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about “sexual intercourse” between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject by Luke 1:34-35:

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”

Remember that that being who brought about the Immaculate Conception was a divine personage. We need not question his method to accomplish his purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For us the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until he sees fit to tell us more.
......................................................
Jane.Doe The Immaculate Conception is a belief Mary was conceived without original sin! Mary's parents had a baby born without original sin! Mary was conceived by her parents in her mothers womb without original sin: is the teaching of Immaculate Conception! Clearly Bruce Bracken has confused Immaculate Conception with "the Virgin Birth!"
Clearly Bruce Bracken has twisted the two beliefs up.. He does not know what he is talking about!
.........

Jane.Doe deny all you want.... This is historical teaching of the Mormon church! (below) It cannot be a mstake on the part of the church there are too many sorces that say "God the Father came overshowed Mary" not the Holy Spirit!

Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As cited here by McKeever and Shafovaloff)
• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:27]
• Heber C. Kimball: “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it.” [Journal of Discourses vol. 8:54]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]
• Orson Pratt: the Holy Ghost gave her[Mary] strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called 'the Only Begotten of the Father;' that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father. There were millions of sons and daughters who he begat before the foundation of this world, but they were spirits, and not bodies of flesh and bones [The Seer, 158.]
• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS 'General Authority'): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. … When the Virgin Mary conceived the Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost… What a learned idea' Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:8]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST … Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! ... They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement.” [Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” [Religious Truths Defined, 44.]
• Ezra Taft Benson (Mormonism's 13th presiden-prophet): “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” [The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7.]

• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus was not the son of any mortal man. His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things.” [The Restoration of All Things, 61.]
• James Talmage: “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.” [Articles of Faith, 466.]
• Melvin J. Ballard (Mormon apostle): “as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded. … And if God the Eternal Father is not the real Father of Jesus Christ, then are we in confusion; then is he not in reality the Son of God. But we declare that he is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. … No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men--the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.” [Deseret News, 23 Dec 1923; Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, 166-167.] (As cited,but in full, here by McKeever and Shafovaloff)

 

[Dogknox20]

Ok. I mistakenly thought you were stating a Catholic belief.

Hello pearl...
The Mormons deny it is there teaching. They say Mary did not have sex with God.. NOW today BUT...!

pearl but Historical documents say different!

The whole point is.. "Mormons are NOT Christian they have a different god then the Christian!"

 

[Jane.Doe]

.
I reply:
Right... The LDS teach Mary was a virgin and she had not had sexual intercourse with God! History proves you wrong!

*sigh*
@Dogknox20 , I'm sorry but you seem to be downright bragging about your lack of ears to hear and rejoicing in misrepresenting others. It's getting to be beyond ridiculous and my patience for such juvenile un-Christian un-scholarly behavior is gone.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20



1) WHAT MAKES ONE OPINION MORE CREDIBLE AND LOGICAL AND HISTORICALLY COHERENT THAN ANOTHER OPINION
dogknox20 said : “Clear every thing you write is OPINION!” (post #259)

Clearly, much of what all individuals write is opinion and of varying credibility.
What makes one opinion more credible than another is the degree of supporting data and logic that supports our opinions.

DOGMATIC OPINIONS VS HISTORICAL OPINIONS
For example,
Bare Dogmatic opinions are also merely opinions but they lack supporting data and they lack logic and they lack relevance and they lack historical coherence.
Bare Historical opinions are different in that they are accompanied by supporting data and by logical conclusions and by historical coherence. This is why historical opinions are more credible than mere dogmatic opinions.

When your opinions are irrational, irrelevant and lack historical coherence and historical support they lack credibility.

For example, in supporting your claim that the bishops of later centuries in the roman religious movement had authority, you offer that :
“Jesus established one Church, he placed Peter in charge giving ONLY Peter the keys!” (Dogknox, post #259)

The problem is one of relevance and logic and historical coherence.

Your congregation was simply one of many and your congregation is different than that of the original church of Christ. The “one Church” claim does not apply to rome any more than it applies to the original Church in Jerusalem, or the church of Christ in Antioch, or in ephesus. To simply apply this statement to the roman congregation is historically incoherent.


Your dogmatic opinion that :
“he placed Peter in charge” (dogknox20, post #259) can be supported somewhat but the problem is how to make that relevant to the later roman Christian movement.

While Peter had certain keys, historically, he never passed his keys of apostleship on to the roman Christian movement.
Thus it is irrelevant historically that peter had special keys, since he never gave those keys to your organization.
The roman congregation was in the same position, historically, as all other early Christian movements in regards to lack of apostolic authority.

The historical opinion that Peter had keys and Peter (and other apostles) ordained bishops can be supported historically, it is relevant and logical and is historically coherent.
The problem is that while Jesus may have given Peter and other apostles specific keys, you must somehow make a historical connection as to how the later bishops of the roman religious movement obtained those keys to authority.

Since, historically, Peter never gave apostolic level authority to any bishop in the roman religious movement, the roman congregation was in the same position as other Christian congregations were in once the apostles died. They no longer had apostolic level authority.



dogknox20 said :Clear Prove the ONLY Church Jesus established was NOT the Catholic Church with Peter being the chief Shepherd! (post #259)


History doesn’t work by assuming a proposition "happened" unless proven false, but instead, history is created by accumulating historical data that supports a proposition did happen or is true. THEN it becomes "historical".

for examples :

The evidence shows that the later roman religious movement was of a different character with different goals and different policies than the original Churches of Christ.
The later roman movement sought for political power, while the church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement sought for worldly riches, while the church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement sought to obtain these things through oppression and slavery and theft, while the early church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement was lead by evil individuals who did evil (which you also admit to) while the early church was not.
The later roman movement created administrative offices which did not have a line of authority while the early church of Christ did have a line of apostolic authority.
The later roman movement was given authority by it's adherents and by fraud which the early church of Christ was given authority by delegation from God in truthy.
The later roman movement abused authority it was given by the people while the early church of Christ did not abuse this authority.
These are all examples of evidence that the roman movement had different characteristics from the original Church of Christ.


2) REGARDING SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EARLY CHURCHES OF CHRIST AND THE LATER ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION

EXAMPLES OF UNRIGHTEOUS POLICIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF THE AUTHENTIC CHURCH OF CHRIST

Clear said :
Among the clergy, the bishop had all priority, and “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673)

Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the judgment of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

Such aspirations of individual bishops for power and riches and authority is clearly seen through the rules coming out of synods they held. To decrease inter-bishopric antagonism, in 314 the council of Arles passed a rule that “no bishop should annoy another bishop”

Council of Nicaea, 325 :
Canon 15 Because of great disorder and rioting it will be necessary to abolish the old custom of allowing a bishop, priest, or deacon to move from one city to another. If any presumes to do this , he shall be sent back to the city in which he was ordained.

Canon 16 Priests, deacons, or others living under the canon who frivolously and irresponsibly leave their churches will be forced to return to them by all possible means. If they refuse to return they shall be deposed. If anyone steals a cleric against a bishop’s will and ordained him to serve in his own church, the ordination shall be void.”


Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

Canon 9 Bishops in every province must understand that the bishop in the metropolis has charge of the whole province because all who have business to transact come from all directions to the metropolis.

Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…

Canon 16 When a bishop seizes a vacant seat without the okay of a full synod, he must be deposed, even though the people have elected him.

Canon 18 A bishop who cannot take over a church because the congregation will not have him must remain in honor and office but may not meddle in the affairs of the church where he is forces to remain.

Sardika a.d. 347
Canon 1 No bishop ever moves from a larger to a smaller city but only in the other direction (the size of the city increasingly become the measure of ambition and domination).

Canon 2 If it can be proven that a man has bribed parties to stir up a clamor for him as bishop “so to make it seem that the people are actually asking him to be their bishop,” he shall be excommunicated. (the reason such a rule had to be established should be obvious)


END OF POST ONE

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

Epaon, a.d. 517
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.

Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.

Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)


Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.


Macon. A.d. 585
Canon 15 Whenever a layman meets a higher cleric, he must bow to him. If both are mounted, the layman must remove his hat. If the layman alone is mounted, he must dismount to greet the cleric.


Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.


Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.


Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)


Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave



Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”


Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.


Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.


Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years ande must marry Christians. P 130


Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.


Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.


Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….

Dogknox20 : It is my opinion that we have no historical evidence that the apostle Peter whom you said was in charge of the church, would have come up with such evil policies that were intended to gain power and wealth by the mechanisms of slavery, removing children from their families, thievery, fines, etc.

Is it your opinion that there is historical evidence the apostle Peter (who was in charge) would have initiated such evil policies in a church he was "in charge of"?



MORE SILLY AND IRRATIONAL CLAIMS
dogknox20 said :To deny this you MUST reject the scriptures thus God! (dogknox20, post #259)

This is a good example of a very silly dogmatic claim without logical, rational, relevant evidence.

While many, many, many, Christian churches believe and even deny that the roman religious movement is the same as the Church Jesus established with the same doctrines and practices as the original church, they do not reject the Scriptures, but instead, love and honor these sacred historical texts.

In short, your claims are so often irrational, illogical and irrelevant and historically, incoherent.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by the pope and Catholic bishops. This is an inescapable fact, no matter how many people wish to escape from it.

This is irrelevant.

Any religious movement may create it's own canon of books it will hold sacred
While the roman religious movement can determine it’s own canon of 73 books that need not affect any other organization or individual.
The protestants are still free to determine their own canon of 66 books.
The eastern Orthodox are free to determine their canon will have 81 books.
Orthodox Judaism are free to determine their canon will be only the Tanakh. Individuals are further free to determine what texts they will hold sacred or not.
Historians are still free to try to determine what books were sacred and used by early Jews and early Christians.


We are still left with your original claim that Christians who do not believe as you do are not really Christians completely unsupported by any rational, logical and historically coherent supporting data.

Clear
φιτζειφυω

 

[Dogknox20]

POST ONE OF TWO

Hi @Dogknox20



1) WHAT MAKES ONE OPINION MORE CREDIBLE AND LOGICAL AND HISTORICALLY COHERENT THAN ANOTHER OPINION
dogknox20 said : “Clear every thing you write is OPINION!” (post #259)

Clearly, much of what all individuals write is opinion and of varying credibility.
What makes one opinion more credible than another is the degree of supporting data and logic that supports our opinions.

DOGMATIC OPINIONS VS HISTORICAL OPINIONS
For example,
Bare Dogmatic opinions are also merely opinions but they lack supporting data and they lack logic and they lack relevance and they lack historical coherence.
Bare Historical opinions are different in that they are accompanied by supporting data and by logical conclusions and by historical coherence. This is why historical opinions are more credible than mere dogmatic opinions.

When your opinions are irrational, irrelevant and lack historical coherence and historical support they lack credibility.

For example, in supporting your claim that the bishops of later centuries in the roman religious movement had authority, you offer that :
“Jesus established one Church, he placed Peter in charge giving ONLY Peter the keys!” (Dogknox, post #259)

The problem is one of relevance and logic and historical coherence.

Your congregation was simply one of many and your congregation is different than that of the original church of Christ. The “one Church” claim does not apply to rome any more than it applies to the original Church in Jerusalem, or the church of Christ in Antioch, or in ephesus. To simply apply this statement to the roman congregation is historically incoherent.


Your dogmatic opinion that :
“he placed Peter in charge” (dogknox20, post #259) can be supported somewhat but the problem is how to make that relevant to the later roman Christian movement.

While Peter had certain keys, historically, he never passed his keys of apostleship on to the roman Christian movement.
Thus it is irrelevant historically that peter had special keys, since he never gave those keys to your organization.
The roman congregation was in the same position, historically, as all other early Christian movements in regards to lack of apostolic authority.

The historical opinion that Peter had keys and Peter (and other apostles) ordained bishops can be supported historically, it is relevant and logical and is historically coherent.
The problem is that while Jesus may have given Peter and other apostles specific keys, you must somehow make a historical connection as to how the later bishops of the roman religious movement obtained those keys to authority.

Since, historically, Peter never gave apostolic level authority to any bishop in the roman religious movement, the roman congregation was in the same position as other Christian congregations were in once the apostles died. They no longer had apostolic level authority.



dogknox20 said :Clear Prove the ONLY Church Jesus established was NOT the Catholic Church with Peter being the chief Shepherd! (post #259)


History doesn’t work by assuming a proposition "happened" unless proven false, but instead, history is created by accumulating historical data that supports a proposition did happen or is true. THEN it becomes "historical".

for examples :

The evidence shows that the later roman religious movement was of a different character with different goals and different policies than the original Churches of Christ.
The later roman movement sought for political power, while the church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement sought for worldly riches, while the church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement sought to obtain these things through oppression and slavery and theft, while the early church of Christ did not.
The later roman movement was lead by evil individuals who did evil (which you also admit to) while the early church was not.
The later roman movement created administrative offices which did not have a line of authority while the early church of Christ did have a line of apostolic authority.
The later roman movement was given authority by it's adherents and by fraud which the early church of Christ was given authority by delegation from God in truthy.
The later roman movement abused authority it was given by the people while the early church of Christ did not abuse this authority.
These are all examples of evidence that the roman movement had different characteristics from the original Church of Christ.

Hello Clear your post goes on and on with OPINION on what opinion is!
Fact is.. No other church has the Historical documented history then the Holy Catholic Church!
FACT: Jesus established ONE CHURCH! Jesus gave all of God' authority to his Church TEACH all nations. This means the Holy Catholic Church has Gods authority today!
Jesus promised to be ALWAYS WITH his One Holy Universal Church! ALWAYS WITH means Jesus is still with the ONLY Church he established! ALWAYS WITH means Jesus could not, he CAN NOT be with your man made Church, your Church rejects the Body of Jesus his Holy Catholic Church!
FACT: The scriptures tell you; The Holy Spirit will guide Jesus' holy Church FOREVER! This means the Holy Spirit cannot be guiding your church your church rejects the one Church the Holy Spirit is guiding FOREVER GUIDING!

FACT: You reject the Church Jesus established, means you reject God! This verse cannot work in the reverse your Church was NOT around when Jesus promised this!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Clear FACT: The early Church baptized infants as she still does today! There is NO scriptures that say.. Do not baptize infants!
Irenaeus
“He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Augustine
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

Clear You have a lot of accusations and opinion but NO facts! Prove beyond all doubt.. The One and Only Church Jesus built on ROCK not sand; failed!
Prove that Satan had somehow overpowered Jesus and Satan TOOK Jesus' holy body from Jesus!
Prove your man made church has AUTHORITY to teach all nations that your church is being guided by the Holy Spirit!
Prove the One Holy Catholic Church does NOT make disciples baptizing them!?
Prove that rejecting the ONLY Church Jesus established is NOT the pillar and the foundation of truth!

Accusation and Opinion.... are all you have!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Dogknox20


1) OPINIONS THAT HAVE HISTORICAL SUPPORT VERSUS OPINIONS THAT HAVE NO HISTORICAL SUPPORT - WHICH ARE MORE CREDIBLE?

When I pointed out that the policies of the roman congregation that involved enslavement, theft, oppression and persecution of the jews, you reply : "... You have lots of OPINION! This is just YOUR OPPINION and accusation!”

The problem is that your replies are also opinions, but your opinions they lack the data that historical opinions have and, as dogmatic sound bites, they lack relevant explanation.
For example,
Are you saying the policies which originated in the roman organization (which you and I both agree are evil policies) are fictitious?
If so, WHY do you think these evil policies involving theft, oppression and slavery were fair?
If you think these evil policies are morally good, then WHY do you think these policies are canons represent authentic gospel principles such as mercy and kindness?
Are you saying the original Churches of Christ would have developed such policies of greed and pride and oppression?
If I am quoting the actual canons and policies written by the roman religious organization, then why do your written policies simply represent my "opinions"?
Can you explain?


dogknox20 said : "Hello Clear your post goes on and on with OPINION on what opinion is!"
You response is, of course, YOUR opinion.

You still have not explained why your dogmatic claim lacking data and historical coherence is to be preferred over a historical claim that is supported by historical data and has historical coherence.
Your responses are irrational and irrelevant.
For example, the evil canons of the roman organization clearly demonstrate that the roman religious movement did not have the same characteristics as the ancient church of Christ
but, your reply is simply another dogmatic sound bite : "FACT: The early Church baptized infants as she still does today! There is NO scriptures that say.. Do not baptize infants!"

this response is irrelevant and it is merely another dogmatic sound bite.


WHY IS OPINION BASED ON DOGMA TO BE PREFERRED OVER OPINION BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA?
Can you explain why your opinion based on dogma is to be preferred over an opinion based on historical data?

For example, why do you label the evil historical decrees of your church as my “opinion” rather than as historical data?
I did not come up with these decrees, your church produced them.

My opinion is that slavery and oppression and thievery are not characteristics of the Church of Christ.
Is it your opinion that they are?
Can you explain?


dogknox20 said : "Fact is.. No other church has the Historical documented history then the Holy Catholic Church!"
The difficulty is that this history we've discussed so far of the roman church is one of slavery and oppression of it’s adherents and of Jews and of thievery as the policies of the roman congregation demonstrate.
Do you have any historical evidence that the roman congregation with it’s admittedly evil policies is the same church as the Church of Christ?
Do you have any historical evidence that the apostle Peter gave any apostolic level religious authority to the later bishops of the roman congregation?



dogknox20 said : "FACT: Jesus established ONE CHURCH!"
That was never the issue. The issue was whether the evil roman congregations later organization was that specific church.

While there was one great general cosmic gathering, (the ecclesia καθολικος - i.e. the universal gathering) which historically, includes all individuals in the world who are part of the invitation, the roman congregation itself, was simply one congregation among many such as the congregation at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.


dogknox20 said : "Jesus gave all of God' authority to his Church TEACH all nations."
Yes, he did.
However, the roman religious congregation was not that church and the evil policies of the roman movement regarding slavery, punishment of Jews, oppression and thievery is not “teaching all nations” the gospel.


dogknox20 said : "This means the Holy Catholic Church has Gods authority today!
Of course it doesn’t mean this.
This is simply a dogmatic soundbite.

IF you think the roman congregation received apostolic level authority, then give us some historical reason demonstrating how this can possibly be so.



dogknox20 said : "“…your Church rejects the Body of Jesus his Holy Catholic Church!

This is another silly claim.
I love the original and authentic Catholic (καθολικος) church and am a member of it.
I do not hate the church that I love.

Your claim is simply another irrelevant ad hominem and, ad hominems is not something the holy spirit typically guides chiristians to do.


PLACING A SPIN ON HISTORY RATHER THAN OFFERING AUTHENTIC HISTORICAL CONCLUSIONS

You have incorrectly claimed that the roman religious organization “gave us” it’s canon.

I have replied that your organization did not produce a single page of scripture, it simply took from the texts developed in earlier centuries and identified it’s own canon which it received and gave examples of several other canons (protestant, easter orthodox, Jewish, etc) which are different.

The Nicene Council tells us that “…it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod.”

This declaration tells us specifically which books are “received by THIS synod”.
Protestants and orthodox and Jews and all others are still able to tell us what books are received by THEIR respective movements.



dogknox20 said : "FACT: You reject the Church Jesus established, means you reject God!

This is a delusion that you tell yourself in order to justify feeling like your religion is superior to others.
FACT: I certainly do not recheck the Church Christ established but I love the church.
I do not reject God but instead love and honor him.
This is simply another ad hominem attack. I think they are counterproductive since the readers that are Christian and who love and honor God but who reject your church know that they have not rejected God by simply believing in a different theology than you have adopted.

Like them, I have NOT rejected the Church Jesus established.
I have accepted the original Catholic (universal) church and simply rejected your movement as the church of Christ.


You have already agreed that slavery and thievery and oppression are evil.
The canons of your organization created policies which supported the quest for power and authority and riches using the mechanism of slavery and thievery and oppression.
You have given readers no historically coherent and rational reason to accept your religious movement as having the authority of the apostles nor any justification for believing the evil policies of your organization represent the original gospel.



Clear
φιτζσεσεω

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @Dogknox20


1) OPINIONS THAT HAVE HISTORICAL SUPPORT VERSUS OPINIONS THAT HAVE NO HISTORICAL SUPPORT - WHICH ARE MORE CREDIBLE?

When I pointed out that the policies of the roman congregation that involved enslavement, theft, oppression and persecution of the jews, you reply : "... You have lots of OPINION! This is just YOUR OPPINION and accusation!”

The problem is that your replies are also opinions, but your opinions they lack the data that historical opinions have and, as dogmatic sound bites, they lack relevant explanation.
For example,
Are you saying the policies which originated in the roman organization (which you and I both agree are evil policies) are fictitious?
If so, WHY do you think these evil policies involving theft, oppression and slavery were fair?
If you think these evil policies are morally good, then WHY do you think these policies are canons represent authentic gospel principles such as mercy and kindness?
Are you saying the original Churches of Christ would have developed such policies of greed and pride and oppression?
If I am quoting the actual canons and policies written by the roman religious organization, then why do your written policies simply represent my "opinions"?
Can you explain?


dogknox20 said : "Hello Clear your post goes on and on with OPINION on what opinion is!"
You response is, of course, YOUR opinion.

You still have not explained why your dogmatic claim lacking data and historical coherence is to be preferred over a historical claim that is supported by historical data and has historical coherence.
Your responses are irrational and irrelevant.
For example, the evil canons of the roman organization clearly demonstrate that the roman religious movement did not have the same characteristics as the ancient church of Christ
but, your reply is simply another dogmatic sound bite : "FACT: The early Church baptized infants as she still does today! There is NO scriptures that say.. Do not baptize infants!"

this response is irrelevant and it is merely another dogmatic sound bite.


WHY IS OPINION BASED ON DOGMA TO BE PREFERRED OVER OPINION BASED ON HISTORICAL DATA?
Can you explain why your opinion based on dogma is to be preferred over an opinion based on historical data?

For example, why do you label the evil historical decrees of your church as my “opinion” rather than as historical data?
I did not come up with these decrees, your church produced them.

My opinion is that slavery and oppression and thievery are not characteristics of the Church of Christ.
Is it your opinion that they are?
Can you explain?

You have incorrectly claimed that the roman religious organization “gave us” it’s canon.

I have replied that your organization did not produce a single page of scripture, it simply took from the texts developed in earlier centuries and identified it’s own canon which it received and gave examples of several other canons (protestant, easter orthodox, Jewish, etc) which are different.

The Nicene Council tells us that “…it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one’s mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod.”

This declaration tells us specifically which books are “received by THIS synod”.
Protestants and orthodox and Jews and all others are still able to tell us what books are received by THEIR respective movements.

dogknox20 said : "FACT: You reject the Church Jesus established, means you reject God!

This is a delusion that you tell yourself in order to justify feeling like your religion is superior to others.
FACT: I certainly do not recheck the Church Christ established but I love the church.
I do not reject God but instead love and honor him.
This is simply another ad hominem attack. I think they are counterproductive since the readers that are Christian and who love and honor God but who reject your church know that they have not rejected God by simply believing in a different theology than you have adopted.

Like them, I have NOT rejected the Church Jesus established.
I have accepted the original Catholic (universal) church and simply rejected your movement as the church of Christ.


You have already agreed that slavery and thievery and oppression are evil.
The canons of your organization created policies which supported the quest for power and authority and riches using the mechanism of slavery and thievery and oppression.
You have given readers no historically coherent and rational reason to accept your religious movement as having the authority of the apostles nor any justification for believing the evil policies of your organization represent the original gospel.
Clear
φιτζσεσεω

.
Clear to your words (below) I say this.... "it is your opinion!" I say.. "Point out to me an historical evil police"!
...............................
The problem is that your replies are also opinions, but your opinions they lack the data that historical opinions have and, as dogmatic sound bites, they lack relevant explanation.
For example,
Are you saying the policies which originated in the roman organization (which you and I both agree are evil policies) are fictitious?
If so, WHY do you think these evil policies involving theft, oppression and slavery were fair?
If you think these evil policies are morally good, then WHY do you think these policies are canons represent authentic gospel principles such as mercy and kindness?
Are you saying the original Churches of Christ would have developed such policies of greed and pride and oppression?
If I am quoting the actual canons and policies written by the roman religious organization, then why do your written policies simply represent my "opinions"?
Can you explain?
.............................

I am saying: Jesus established his Church on ROCK as the scriptures clearly tell you!
I tell you; the Catholic Church is 2000 years old!
I already previously pointed out scriptures you MUST reject to believe your OPINION!
Clear you must reject theses words of God as lies.. "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time!" Jesus established the Holy Catholic Church it's an historical fact!
Clear you must reject theses words of God as lies.. "I give you the authority of God to teach ALL NATIONS"!
Clear you must reject theses words of God as lies.. "I will send the advocate to you to guide you into ALL TRUTH"!
Clear you must reject theses words of God as lies.. "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—"
Clear Jesus loves the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

List of popes(below) in an unbroken linage from Peter to Francis!

• Saint Peter (67)
• Saint Linus (67-76)
• Saint Anacletus (76-88)
• Saint Clement I (88-97)
• Saint Evaristus (97-105)
• Saint Alexander I (105- 15)
• Saint Sixtus I (115-36)
• Saint Telesphorus (125-36)
• Saint Hyginus (136-40)
• Saint Pius I (140-55)
• Saint Anicetus (155-66)
• Saint Soter (166-75)
• Saint Eleutherius (175-89)
• Saint Victor I (189-99)
• Saint Zephyrinus (199-217)
• Saint Callistus I (217-22)
• Saint Urban I (222-30)
• Saint Pontianus (230-35)
• Saint Anterus (235-36)
• Saint Fabian (236-50)
• Saint Cornelius (251-53)
• Saint Lucius I (253-54)
• Saint Stephen I (254-57)
• Saint Sixtus II (257-58)
• Saint Dionysius (259-68)
• Saint Felix I (269-74)
• Saint Eutychian (275-83)
• Saint Gaius (283-96)
• Saint Marcellinus (296-304)
• Saint Marcellus I (308-9)
• Saint Eusebius (309)
• Saint Miltiades (311-14)
• Saint Silvester I (314-35)
• Saint Mark (336)
• Saint Julius I (337-52)
• Liberius (342-66)
• Saint Damasus I (366-84)
• Saint Siricus (348-99)
• Saint Anastasius I (399-401)
• Saint Innocent I (401-17)
• Saint Zosimus (417-18)
• Saint Boniface I (418-22)
• Saint Celestine I (422-32)
• Saint Sixtus III (432-40)
• Saint Leo I (440-61)
• Saint Hilary (461-68)
• Saint Simplicius (468-83)
• Saint Felix III (483-92)
• Saint Gelasius I (492-96)
• Anastasius II (496-98)
• Saint Symmachus (498-514)
• Saint Hormisdas (514-23)
• Saint John I (523-26)
• Saint Felix IV (526-30)
• Boniface II (530-32)
• John II (533-35)
• Saint Agapitus I (535-36)
• Saint Silverius (536-37)
• Vigilius (537-55)
• Pelagius I (579-90)
• Saint Gregory I (590-604)
• Sabinian (604-6)
• Saint Boniface IV (608-615)
• Saint Deusdebit I (615-18)
• Boniface V (619-25)
• Honorius I (625-38)
• Severinus (640)
• John IV (640-42)
• Theodore I (642-49)
• Saint Martin I (649-55)
• Saint Eugene I (654-57)
• Saint Vitalian (657-72)
• Deusdebit II (672-78)
• etc
• etc
• Pope Francis .. 265 popes in an unbroken linage back to Peter!

 

[Dogknox20]

*sigh*
@Dogknox20 , I'm sorry but you seem to be downright bragging about your lack of ears to hear and rejoicing in misrepresenting others. It's getting to be beyond ridiculous and my patience for such juvenile un-Christian un-scholarly behavior is gone.

.
**Jane.Doe I state fact.... Mormon people taught in the past "God the father had sex with Mary!" I am NOT making this up! You deny the truth for the lies of LDS!
LOOK.. these have dates and were they can be found in Mormon documents!

Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “The Father came down and begat him, the same as we do now…” [The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321; February 16, 1849, Salt Lake City] (As cited here by McKeever and Shafovaloff)

• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father …Jesus is the only person who had our Heavenly Father as the father of his body” [Family Home Evening Manual (1972), 125, 126.]

• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS 'General Authority'): “…our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers … There is no need to spiritualize away the plain meaning of the scriptures. There is nothing figurative or hidden or beyond comprehension in our Lord's coming into mortality. He is the Son of God in the same sense and way that we are the sons of mortal fathers. It is just that simple” [Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468.]

**Jane.Doe did you see it stated... "MORMON DOCTRINE"! (above)
**Jane.Doe >>>>>>DOCTRINE<<<<<<!

• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. … When the Virgin Mary conceived the Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost… What a learned idea' Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.” [Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:8]

• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST … Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! ... They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement.” [Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit” [Religious Truths Defined, 44.]

**Jane.Doe did you see it stated... "RELIGIOUS TRUTHS DEFINED"! (above)

• Ezra Taft Benson (Mormonism's 13th presiden-prophet): “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” [The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7.]

**Jane.Doe did you see it stated... "nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost"! (above) The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7

• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “Jesus was not the son of any mortal man. His biological father was God, the Father. As Son of God, Jesus represents the Father and acts as his agent in all things.” [The Restoration of All Things, 61.]
• James Talmage: “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.” [Articles of Faith, 466.]

**Jane.Doe (look below) tell me honestly Mormons did not teach "God had sex with Mary"!
Family Home Evening Manual (1972)
The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 1, p. 321 February 16, 1849
Mormon Doctrine, 456-547, 466, 468
Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:8]
Religious Truths Defined, 44.
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7
The Restoration of All Things
[Articles of Faith,

 

[Jane.Doe]

.
**Jane.Doe I state fact.... Mormon people taught in the past

The following are two very different things:
1) Explaining what the beliefs and teachings of a the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are.
2) Copy/pasting a few quotes somebody else cherry-picked out-of-context

The fact that you still try to pass one off as the other at this point you just being willfully ignorant & arrogant. And the fact that you're coming from a Catholic background where there's CENTURIES of ecclesiastical leaders being flawed sinners whom we could cherry-pick from makes you a hypocrite as well.

Your behavior is a downright disgrace unbefitting a disciple of Christ. And frankly, my patience for your sinfulness is done.

 

[Dogknox20]

The following are two very different things:
1) Explaining what the beliefs and teachings of a the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are.
2) Copy/pasting a few quotes somebody else cherry-picked out-of-context

The fact that you still try to pass one off as the other at this point you just being willfully ignorant & arrogant. And the fact that you're coming from a Catholic background where there's CENTURIES of ecclesiastical leaders being flawed sinners whom we could cherry-pick from makes you a hypocrite as well.

Your behavior is a downright disgrace unbefitting a disciple of Christ. And frankly, my patience for your sinfulness is done.

Jane.Doe cherry picking? There are many quotes... Not only one!
Many quotes over the years by noted Mormons!

God having sex with Mary is NOT the only teaching Christians reject about the Mormon church!
There are the many teaching that contradict Christian belief!

Department of Christian Defense, apologetic ministry
(1) The Book of Mormon teaches that little children are not capable of sin because they do not have a sinful nature (Moroni 8:8). In contrast, the Bible in Psalm 51:5 clearly teaches that we have a sinful nature from birth: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (NIV). (This does not mean that those who die in infancy are lost.**)

(2) The Book of Mormon teaches that the disobedience of Adam and Eve in eating the forbidden fruit was necessary so that they could have children and bring joy to mankind (2 Nephi 2:23-25). In contrast, the Bible specifically declares that Adam’s transgression was a sinful act of rebellion that unleashed the power of sin and death in God’s perfect world (Romans 5:12; 8:20-21). There is no Biblical support for the view that Adam and Eve could only fulfill the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) by disobeying God’s command regarding the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17). The Book of Mormon teaching that these divine commands are contradictory, and that God expected Adam and Eve to figure out that in reality He wanted them to break the latter command (“of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it”) in order to keep the former (“be fruitful and multiply”), has no basis in logic or the Biblical text, and attributes equivocation to God.

(3) The Book of Mormon teaches that black skin is a sign of God’s curse, so that white-skinned people are considered morally and spiritually superior to black-skinned people (2 Nephi 5:21). In contrast, the Bible teaches that God “made of one blood all nations of men” (Acts 17:26, KJV), that in Christ distinctions of ethnicity, gender and social class are erased (Galatians 3:28), and that God condemns favoritism (James 2:1). [NOTE: See our article, Mormonism and Black Skin, for an documented and expanded look at the LDS views both delineated in the LDS scriptures and by way of sermon or statements by LDS General Authorities (LDS Presidents, Apostles, etc.) regarding people with dark skin, which the LDS has seen, for almost 200 years, as “cursed”].

Jane.Doe I am NOT making this up.... This is a teaching (above) that you a Mormon believe and Christians reject!

Or how about the Mormons teaching of "Many Gods"!?
Christians have ONE God as the scriptures state there are NO others!

 

[Jane.Doe]

@Dogknox20 , when you have the personal and spiritual maturity to discuss matters of belief without sinfully misrepresenting what others believe, let me know.

Until then, I will not be responding to your posts as I find your behavior to be nothing but an disgrace to Catholicism (a faith I actually greatly respect).

 

[Clear]

1) DOGKNOX20 REQUESTS EXAMPLES OF EVIL POLICIES CREATED BY THE ROMAN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT

Clear said to Dogknox20 :
The problem is that your replies are also opinions, but your opinions they lack the data that historical opinions have and, as dogmatic sound bites, they lack relevant explanation.
For example,
Are you saying the policies which originated in the roman organization (which you and I both agree are evil policies) are fictitious?
If so, WHY do you think these evil policies involving theft, oppression and slavery were fair?
If you think these evil policies are morally good, then WHY do you think these policies are canons represent authentic gospel principles such as mercy and kindness?
Are you saying the original Churches of Christ would have developed such policies of greed and pride and oppression?
If I am quoting the actual canons and policies written by the roman religious organization, then why do your written policies simply represent my "opinions"?
Can you explain?


Dogknox20 said : Clear to your words (below) I say this.... "it is your opinion!" I say.. "Point out to me an historical evil police"!



EXAMPLES OF UNRIGHTEOUS POLICIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ORGANIZATION THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF THE AUTHENTIC CHURCH OF CHRIST

1) THE POLICY OF SHIELDING OF CHURCH CLERGY FROM RIGHTEOUS OPPOSITION AND FROM JUSTICE WAS AN EVIL POLICY
Clear said The policy where “any cleric who opposes a bishop in anything must be deposed with all his followers, as having attempted to seize power: he is a rebel. All the laymen who follow him must be excommunicated.” (127 canons of the Apostles 2.22, in PO 8:673) was used to shield evil practices and in those cases, the policy itself was evil.
The concept that a bishop, especially those who were doing evil things, could not be "opposed in anything" and the opposer simply labeled as someone who is attempting to seize power (simply because he opposes an evil bishop) is evil.
Do you disagree?
For example, do you think that a clergy who is raping small boys or women in the congregation should not be opposed?
Should the people who oppose such evil practices be punished?

2) THE POLICY OF SHIELDING CHURCH CLERGY FROM JUSTICE OF SECULAR LAWS WAS AN EVIL POLICY FOR THE SAME REASON. For example, the policy which Almost immediately, they shielded themselves from normal laws by use of their power and position. “Bishops are to be judged by God,” not by men. They are above all human law.” (Pius I, Epistola 1.2, in PG 5:1121. “Laymen are not to be heard if they bring charges [against bishops]….“No bishop may be refuted or accused of anything by the people or by vulgar persons.” “anyone who says a word against [a bishop], the eyese of the Lord, is guilty of the crime of lesemajeste…Those who accuse bishops are slain not by human but by divine agency.” “There is no worse crime than to bring a charge against a priest. The priest may be guilty, but even so, he must be left entirely to the judgment of God. For if all crimes are to be punished in this world, there will be nothing left for the exercise of divine judgment!” Such religious rules rendered the higher orders of priesthood immune to the normal responsibilities and retribution for evil acts.

3) THE ROMAN ORGANISATIONS POLICY WHERE MURDER OF A WIFE REQUIRES MERE "PUBLIC PENANCE" BUT DISOBEDIENCE TO A BISHOP IS WORSE IS AN EVIL POLICY.
“Anyone who kills his wife,” a letter of Pius I avers, “and does so entirely without reason must do public penance; but if he is disobedient toward a bishop, let him be anathemized.” (Pius I, Etis, in PG 5:1127)

4) THE ROMAN ORGANISATIONS POLICY PROHIBITING A PRIEST OR DEACON FROM HAVING TO WORK FOR A BISHOP AGAINST THEIR WILL AND BEING PUNISHED FOR LEAVING AN EVIL OR BAD BISHOP IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Council of Encaeniss (Antioch), a.d. 341
Canon 3 A priests or deacon who moved permanently to another place and ignores his bishop’s appeal to return must lose the right to all office; if he goes to work for another bishop he must be punished to the bargain for breaking church law.

5) PREVENTING A CLERGY FROM ANY MEETING WITH THE EMPEROR WITHOUT FIRST RECIEVING PERMISSION FROM A CHURCH METROPOLITAN AND BEING PUNISHED BY EJECTION FROM HIS CHURCH IS EVIL
Canon 11 Any bishop, priests, or any churchman at all who dares to go to the emperor without a letter from his metropolitan shall be ejected utterly, not only from his church, but from his priesthood…


Epaon, a.d. 517
6) TO ACT AGAINST A KING WHO IS ACTING AGAINST AN EVIL BISHOP IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Canon 3 If the king acts against us, all bishops will withdraw to monasteries, and no bishop shall stir out again until the king has given peace to each and all bishops alike.

7) THE ROMAN ORGANIZATIONS POLICY PREVENTING THE JUST ARREST OR QUESTIONING OR PUNISHING OF AN EVIL BISHOP IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Canon 20 No layman may arrest, question, or punish a cleric without okay of the church. When a cleric appears in court, it must be with okay of his bishop, and no sentence may be passed without the presence of his spiritual superior.

8) THE ROMAN ORGANIZATIONS POLICY OF ENSLAVEMENT OF FREE INDIVIDUALS WHOSE ANCESTORS WERE SLAVES IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Canon 32 Descendants of church slaves who have found their way back to the original place of their ancestors must be brought back to the church slavery, no matter how long or for how many generations they have been free. (Increasingly, the canons will favor the accumulation of money, property and individual lives)

9) THE VARIOUS POLICIES OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION WHICH ARE INTENDED TO ACCUMULATE WEALTH REGARDLESS OF LAWFUL TRANSFER OF WEALTH OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH WERE EVIL.
Paris, a.d. 557
Canon 1 No one may hold that church property changes political denominations : no one can claim that church property ever passes under another ruler “since the dominion of God knows no geographical bounderies.” No one may claim that he holds as a gift from the king property that once belonged to the church. All property given by King Chlodwig of blessed memory and handed down as an inheritance must now be given back to the church.


10) THE FACT THAT "MANY BISHOPS" OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION BURDENED THEIR CLERICS WITH "INTOLERABLE COMPULSORY (SLAVE) SERVICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS, OR THE FACT THAT MANY CLERICS WERE "CRUELLY OPPRESSED" IS AN EVIL (UNWRITTEN) POLICY.
Toledo, a.d. 589
Canon 20 Many bishops burden their clerics with intolerable compulsory services and contributions. Clerics thus cruelly oppressed may complain to the metropolitan.


11) TO BEAT A SUBDEACON WHO DOES NOT HOLD A CURTAIN OR DOOR FOR ANOTHER CLERGY IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Nabonne, a.d. 589
Canon 13 Subdeacons must hold curtains and doors open for superior clergy. If they refuse to do so they must pay a fine; lower clergy who refuse must be beaten.

POST ONE OF TWO ENDS HERE

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO

12) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH THAT FORBIDS SELLING A CHURCH SLAVE INTO FREEDOM IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Reims, a.d. 624-625
Canon 13 No one, not even a bishop, may ever sell the property or slaves of the church.(such a rule would mean that the church can only continue to gain property and financial value but it can never decrease it’s holdings.)

13) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH THAT FORBIDS FREEING SLAVES OF THE CHURCH WITHOUT GIVING THE CHURCH MONEY IS AN EVIL POLICY..
14) THE POLICY THAT A BISHOP CAN REINSLAVE A PRIOR SLAVE THAT WAS FREED WITHOUT PAYMENT TO THE CHURCH IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Toledo, a.d. 633
Canon 67 Bishops may not free slaves of the church unless they reimburse the church out of their private fortunes, and the bishop’s successors can reclaim any thus freed.

15) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH THAT STIPULATES ANY SLAVE FREED WITHOUT PAYING MONEY TO THE CHURCH MUST PROVIDE TWO SLAVES IS AN EVIL POLICY.
16) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN CHURCH THAT STIPULATED ANY PRIOR SLAVE THAT COMPLAINS ABOUT CHURCH SLAVERY MUST BE REINSLAVED IS AN EVIL POLICY.
Canon 68 A bishop who frees a slave of the church without reserving the patrocinium [financial holdings] for the church must give the church two slaves in his place. If the person freed makes any complaint about the way he was treated while he was a slave, he must again become a church slave


17) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION SUPPORTING THE BANNING OF JEWS FROM SPAIN WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Toledo a.d. 638
Canon 3 Thank God for the edict of King Chintila banishing all Jews from Spain, with the order that “only Catholics may live in the land…Resolved that any future king before mounting the throne should swear an oath not to tolerate the Jewish Unglauben [unbelief]…If he breaks this oath, let him be anathema and maranatha [excommunicated] before God and food for the eternal fire.”

18) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION THAT ALLOWED FOR NAIVE MINORS TO INDENTURE THEMSELVES TO LIFE LONG SERVICE BEFORE THE AGE OF UNDERSTANDING WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Toledo a.d. 656
Canon 6 Children over ten years of age may dedicate themselves to the religious life without consenting their parents. When smaller children are tonsured or given the religious garment, unless their parents lodge immediate protest, they are bound to the religious discipline for life.

19) THE UNWRITTEN HABIT OF PRIESTS WHO TORTURE CHURCH SLAVES IS EVIL.
Emerita a.d. 666
Canon 15 It often happens that priests who fall sick blame church slaves for their condition and torture them out of revenge. This must cease.

20) THE UNWRITTEN HAVIT OF BISHOPS WHO STEAL FROM THE OFFERINGS OF THE CHURCH MEMBERS IS EVIL.
Canon 16 Bishops must stop taking more than their third. They must not take from the church’s third for their private use.

21) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION DENYING JEWS FROM THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICE WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
22) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION THAT TOOK YOUNG JEWISH CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES AND FORCED THEM TO MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR BELIEFS WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Toledo a.d. 694
Canon 8 Jews must be denied all religious practice. Their children must be taken from them at seven years ande must marry Christians. P 130

23) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION THAT PUNISHED MAKING FUN OF CHURCH AUTHORITIES WITH THE PUNISHMENT OF EXILE WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Boniface a.d. 745
Statute 13 Pasquil [jokes about the authorities] must be severely punished, even with exile.

24) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION THAT PUNISHED NON-CHRISTIANS (PAGANS) WITH FINES AND IMPRISONMENT AND SLAVERY WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Paderborn a.d. 785
Canon 21 anyone engaging in pagan rites must pay a heavy fine. If he cannot pay, no matter what his station, he becomes a slave of the church until he has paid up.

25) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION OF MAKING CHURCH SLAVES FROM SOOTHSAYERS AND FORTUNE TELLERS WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Canon 23 Soothsayers and fortune-tellers shall be given to churches and priests as slaves.

26) THE POLICY OF THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION OF STEALING THE PROPERTY OF THOSE ACCUSED OF HERESY (BELIEVING DIFFERENTLY) WAS AN EVIL POLICY.
Lateran IV, a.d. 1215
Canon 3 All condemned heretics must be turned over to the secular authorities for punishment…Their property must be confiscated by the church. Those who have not been able to clear themselves of charges of heresy are excommunicated and must be avoided by all. If they remain a year under the ban, they must be condemned as heretics. All civic officers must take a public oath to defend the faith and expel from their territories all heretics. Whoever, when ordered to do so by the church, does not purify his district or domain of heretics will be put under the ban. If he does not give satisfaction within a year, he must be reported to the pope, who will absolve his vassals from all duty to him and declare his lands open to legitimate conquest by Catholics : those who participate in the attack will receive the same privileges as regular crusaders. …. Anyone who preaches without the authorization of a bishop is excommunicated…A bishop must inspect his diocese. His officers are authorized to have all inhabitants swear an oath to expose to the bishop all sectarians that can be discovered…anyone who refuses to take the oath automatically makes himself a traitor. ….


Dogknox20 : It is my opinion that we have no historical evidence that the apostle Peter whom you said was in charge of the church, would have come up with such evil policies that were intended to gain power and wealth by the mechanisms of slavery, removing children from their families, thievery, fines, etc.

Is it your opinion that there is historical evidence the apostle Peter (who was in charge) would have initiated such evil policies in a church he was "in charge of"?

Does ANY reader think that evil policies such as these represent policies which Jesus or his apostles of the church of Christ would have generated?

IF they are NOT policies which represent policies of the original church of Jesus and the apostles, then logically they are policies which do NOT represent policies of the original church.



2) THE REPEATED BUT ERRONEOUS CLAIM THAT THE ROMAN ORGANIZATION CREATED THE BIBLE AND THE CANON FOR THE WORLD

Dogknox20 claimed : The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by the pope and Catholic bishops.

This is irrelevant. The roman movement was certainly entitled to create a list of books that it would include in it's canon just as other religious movements have created different canons for their religion.

Any religious movement may create it's own canon of books it will hold sacred
While the roman religious movement can determine it’s own canon of 73 books that need not affect any other organization or individual.
The protestants are still free to determine their own canon of 66 books.
The eastern Orthodox are free to determine their canon will have 81 books.
Orthodox Judaism are free to determine their canon will be only the Tanakh. Individuals are further free to determine what texts they will hold sacred or not.
Historians are still free to try to determine what books were sacred and used by early Jews and early Christians.


3) THE ERRONEOUS HISTORICAL CLAIM THAT THE APOSTLE PETER WAS A STANDING BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CONGREGATION

Dogknox20 said : List of popes(below) in an unbroken linage from Peter to Francis

• 
  
  • Saint Peter (67)
  • Saint Linus (67-76)

Again this is yet another dogmatic claim that has no historical reality.

Your list has the apostle Peter as a standing Bishop of Rome.
Historically, the Apostle Peter was never a standing bishop of Rome.

The dogma that the Apostle Peter left his traveling ministry and served as a Bishop of rome was a "back claim" made in later centuries when Rome was vying for supremacy over other cities (like antioch )which had greater claims to primacy than did the congregation in rome.
The importance of such a claim was that IF Peter had been a bishop of rome, then the roman movement had fingerhold on a claim that rome had greater authority than other congregations.
However,

There is no authentic historical data to support that silly historical claim and a lot of reasons why Peter was NOT a standing bishop of rome.

Some catholic historians spent their entire career looking for some way to make and support this specific claim and were never able to do so.

Clear
φιειτζσεω