torsdag 14. mars 2013

Nr. 468: KS and others, both Christian and non-Christian newspapers. All media follows Pope election with eagle eyes, what's happening? They write almost completely uncritical and does not match what the Catholic church really stands for, why it is to lead people deceived by failing to tell the whole truth!

Nr. 468:

KS and others, both Christian and non-Christian newspapers. All media follows Pope election with eagle eyes, what's happening? They write almost completely uncritical and does not match what the Catholic church really stands for, why it is to lead people deceived by failing to tell the whole truth!

The old whore never change. Inge Pope will be appointed without being approved by jesuittgeneralen. The Pope has always a Jesuit confessor. (This was written before the new pope was elected himself a Jesuit and the first pure Jesuit priest). The white pope, the black pope (Jesuit) as co-regent. Everything is under Babylonian occult principles. These days it becomes very clear how powerful RKK both politics, religious and economic. It is dangerous to be too gullible when studying what happens in here that are really occult and Satanic! Here is Anne Gustavsen as editor is responsible for leading thousands upon thousands deluded Pentecostals and other friends out in error TO NOT TELL AND TEACHING ABOUT THE REAL AND UNCOMFORTABLE TRUE HOOD of the Catholic Church and the papacy!

When I was newly saved, I thought exactly this is happening now, but I thought that the Free Church should not be dragged into the undertow of Babylon (Rome).

The real truth is that Peter never was in Rome, much less was the first pope there, this is a lie orchestrated by demons and Satan.

Where Peter spent most of his time after twelve years in Palestine?

The Greek historian Metaphrastes says that "Peter was not only in these western areas"? The Western Mediterranean? "But specifically that he was there for a long time." Here we see Peter's thesis in his work for the ten lost tribes. ". . . A long time in England, where he converted many nations to the faith. "(See margin note on page 45 in Caves Antiquitates Apostolicae.)

Peter preached the gospel in England and elsewhere, not in Rome. The true gospel was not proclaimed publicly in Rome before Paul arrived in the year 59 AD Paul never mentions Peter in his letter to the brethren in Rome? Most of these had been converted at Pentecost in 30 AD Not even the Jews in Rome had heard the Gospel be preached before Paul arrived.

Here we find Luke's inspired account of Paul's arrival to Rome: "After three days he called [Paul] together the leading men among the Jews in that city" (Acts 28.17). And again: "They said to him: We have not received any letters from Judea concerning you. Nor is there come brothers here who has reported or said anything bad about you. But we want to hear what you think, because we know that this sect everywhere meet contradiction. After they had appointed him a day, came even more to him at his lodging. He then laid out for them and testified the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and the prophets, from morning till evening "(Acts 28.21? 23).

Here are decisive proofs that the Jews of Rome had never heard the apostle Peter preach.

But it had been a "Peter" in Rome? From Claudius Caesar days. This Peter sat in a prominent position. He was the top leader of the Babylonian mysteries. His ministry was to be a "Peter"? An interpreter, or one that allows for secrets. In Babylonian and Hebrew means Peter "an opening", therefore, the term used in Hebrew for "first born, one that first opens the womb."

This Peter in Rome was also called Simon? Simon Magus, Simon Magus (Acts 8). He was the leader of the conspiracy was hatched by the priests of the Babylonian-Samaritan mysteries.

These conspirators tried to use Jesus' name as a cloak for their diabolical religion. They founded what today parading as a false "Christian religion" (see 3 John.). Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus, was in England and not in Rome. It was in England he preached the gospel of the kingdom of God. The fact that Peter preached in the British Isles is in itself a proof that the ten lost tribes of Israel were already there. Simon Peter had been asked to go to the lost ten tribes. And striking enough began more inner warrior to strike England around the year 60 AD This is what James warns in his letter (chapter 4, verse 1) to the twelve tribes of Israel. Can history be clearer?

Where did Peter and Paul buried?

For several hundred years, the Christian world has taken for granted that Peter and Paul were buried in Rome. It seems that no one has thought to challenge tradition. We know that Paul was brought to Rome in 67 AD He was beheaded and buried on the road to Ostia. But are his remains still there? The usual tradition holds that the apostle Peter was brought to Rome during Nero's time and was martyred about the same time. There are a number of ancient literature? something false, and something real? confirming that Simon Magus, the false apostle who paraded as Peter, also died in Rome. The question is: Which Simon is that today are buried under the Vatican? Is there evidence that the remains of the apostles Paul and Peter were moved from Rome? And where in which case they are located today? There is a reason that the Vatican has been so reluctant to claim that the tomb of the Apostle Peter is found. They are aware that it is Simon Magus, the false Peter, who is buried there, and the apostle Peter. Here's what happened: In the year 656 AD Pope decided Vita Lian that the Roman Catholic Church was not interested in the remains of the Apostles Peter and Paul. The Pope therefore ordered the remains sent to the English King Oswy. Here is part of the Pope's letter to King Oswy:

"We have therefore ordered that the blessed gifts of the holy martyrs, that is, the relics of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by the Holy Martyrs Laurentius, John, Paul, Gregory and Pancratius, should be left to those who voted carries this letter, that they should hand them to Your Excellency "(Bede's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 29 Can anything be more astounding? Pope sent the bones of Peter and Paul (termed" relics "in the Pope's letter) from Rome to England? To the "Land of Israel".

Approx. 150 years earlier Constantius of Lyons took the relics of all the apostles and martyrs from Gaul and buried them in a special tomb in St. Albans, England (see Life of St. Germanus).

The papacy is totally unbiblical when one does not find any support for it in the word of God, on the contrary. God's word warns against such a foolish hierarchy and want us all to be brothers who serve God and each other with the gift have been obtained.

Where in God's word says that Peter has the keys literally? It is spiritual, that by confessing Jesus as the Son of God, Savior and Messiah. So we have all the "keys", not a person or office. Everything that the Catholic church stands for in terms of the Papacy is delusion. Why give it such attention?

Pope empire real roots

Anders Piltz looks papal history of the church's view that self-evident. The Apostle Peter was bishop of Rome and thus the first pope. Popes is the successor of Peter, the symbol of unity in the church. "There is an uninterrupted list of the names of the bishops of Rome after Peter, Linus, Clemens, etc., etc., until John Paul II," he writes.

The Apostle Peter's alleged trip to Rome and his deeds as bishop of this city is nothing more than a pious legend. And even if it were true, says neither Jesus nor any other word for "successor of Peter", which according to Catholic faith, have taken over key power after the great apostle. This force, which consisted of binding and loosing, was not only Peter, but also the other apostles. You know anyone who reads the Gospels.

Any attempt to find a biblical basis for the papacy is doomed to fail. But there are many things in God's word speaks against the papacy and the Catholic Church. Jesus himself said: "Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 23:9). Peter himself writes: 1 Pet. 5. 1. The elders among you I exhort that medeldste and witness the sufferings of Christ, as the one and share in the glory that shall be revealed: 2 Watch the flock of God which is among you, and supervise it, not by compulsion but willingly, not for filthy gain, but of willing heart, not three, as those who rule over their congregations, but so that I will model for his flock; 4 and when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive honor uvisnelige wreath. 5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves under the older, and you all should you Put on humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Peter saw himself not as a prince of the church in any way. He does not seem to be the boss of the other apostles. Paul mentions three pillars of the church in Jerusalem, namely, John, James and Peter. They are all three at the same level (Gal 2:9). When important decisions were apostles and the elders and the whole church is involved (Acts 15:22). Peter obeyed the orders of the Assembly. Along with John, he was sent to Samaria to help new believers (Acts 8:14). When Peter went to Cornelius' house to preach the Word of God, Cornelius fell at his feet. Peter then said quickly: "Stand up, I too am a human being." The other day I saw Cardinal Lustiger Paris fell on his knees before the new pope and kissed the big ring on the hand. The Pope had been the successor of Peter, he would have said, "Get up, I too am a human being."

But that's not all. The Apostle Paul wrote one of his last letters, when he was accused and imprisoned in Rome. There we read these words: "When I first stood for justice. None came up to help me, but all deserted me (2 Tim. 4:16).

Can anyone believe that if Peter really was a Bishop of Rome, he would have left his friend and brother Paul? In the letter to the Romans, Paul says hello to 27 different people, and mention them by name, but Peter was not mentioned. What did the Apostle Paul to "forget" Peter? Or is there no connection here is that both Peter and Paul worked in Rome? It is only Paul who worked in Rome, Peter never put their feet in there, much less among the Gentile Christians there when he was not working within its de Gentile Christians but only within its 10 tribes people + the 2 tribes still living in Israel.

No, hang all the papal theory on shaky ground?! And Anders Piltz also know that in the historical review is a question mark after the number two in the "Pope" list, namely Linus. Historical documents on him missing. As well all know, the bishops of Rome had to fight for centuries, to achieve power they later came into the possession of the Roman state church. Full power they never had, for the eastern part of the universal Church would never submit to Rome. That's why we still today the Orthodox Church, which accepts not papal authority. (There were violations in ca. 1000.) The Great Schism (Greek skhisma, 'Sharing / burst') is a term for the split in the Christian Church in 1054. At the Patriarchate of Rome and Constantinople parted, originated the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church as two different entities.

Pope's rich history is in many ways frightening. Some historians have invented a new word to describe the darkest chapters in history. It is the word "pornokrati". It is used for the period in the history of the popes, as bawdy women of nobility exercised so much influence on the popes to complete moral decay occurs. Sometimes ruled two and three popes simultaneously. Popes who bore the name Borgia is particularly notorious. They had virtually no spiritual kinship with the apostle Paul. How anyone can consider papal institution with its bloody and ugly story of Christ representative on earth is really a mystery?!

Protestant historieløshet will be their downfall

Some Protestants are saddened that ecumenism has stopped. It is hoped that the new pope must be sufficiently clear for a fruitful dialogue. This just shows that Protestants have come away from their spiritual roots and become seduced by Roman propaganda. Pave the church succeed today portray itself as a defender of human rights and freedom. This seems to succeed, is also something of a mystery. They account for total unfreedom with its hierarchy and by hiding massive assault.

The ambiguity is always something that characterized the Roman Church. It was Pope Pius XII who uttered the following: "None of those outside the Church's visible body can have assurance of eternal salvation, they are still in the absence of help and divine grace that exists only within the Catholic Church.." In other words, "no salvation without past the church,".

A papal statement on such important questions must necessarily reliable and stridently. But how do you get it to understand that the Pope and the Catholic church that reaches out "brotherly hand" to all religions? He speaks very generous about Islam, Hinduism, Pentecostals and Woodo cool. Being admired by many for this, while conservative Catholics were shocked Pope syncretism (religion mix).

In fact, the Catholic Church in recent times lost its position as the dominant state church in many countries. This new form of Ecumenical, openness and tolerance is just a new tactic and a new approach, adapted to our time. The goal is always to enhance the church's position. The world has changed so much in 150 years that the new strategy was necessary. But no pope church known for its openness and tolerance throughout history. In 1865, two official documents from the Vatican. One was called "Syllabus" and was a quick "delusion of our time," as it was then called. This document declaration "anathema" (curses) of those with opposing views. We quote only two of these papal curses:

"Cursed is every person is free to follow their own convictions and not Krik learn. Cursed is the one who says that Protestantism is just another form of the true Christian religion, in which one can please God as well as in the Catholic Church. "

Such would not hear today. Dave Hunt tells us that many American publishers and editors refuse to publish or write slightest criticism of the Catholic Church. It is the same in our latitudes. The Church has changed, cries of our day ekumener. But as long as the holy church claim to have an infallible Magisterium has, however, no real change occurred. For those who still do not have clear spiritual vision, do not understand the Catholic Church as a religious chameleon and a lie masterpiece.

How should we understand the Catholic canonization?

Author Peter Halldorf recently written an article about the Pope of Padre Pio, who is considered one of the 1900s most spiritual men. Padre Pio was born 1887 and died 1968. He was canonized 34 years after his death, 2002. When it comes to canonization or canonization of this remarkable person writes Peter Halldorf (translated from Swedish): "canonization seems somewhat strange in a Protestant environment. Properly understood it just means that the Church gives testimony to a man who distinguished himself with a life of holiness. The Saints are "models" for radical life of every Christian is called to live. They are examples that challenge and inspire. "Having worked in a Catholic country for nearly 50 years, spoke with many Catholics and read a lot of history and Catholic literature, I am convinced of one thing (this printer Stig Andreasson about Catholicism as part of This article is taken from our site Smyrna Oslo). It is that if this is the correct understanding of the Catholic saint explanation, when most Catholics a completely wrong understanding of the issue. "Saints" is undoubtedly a very different place in Catholic piety, but to just be models that challenge and inspire.

Canonization statement in the Catholic Church is the defender Halldorf here, as if he was a Catholic. A Catholic priest and theologian, who is specially trained to teach in a Protestant country, would probably have expressed himself in a similar manner as Peter Halldorf. There is a big difference in the Catholic way to convey their message in a Protestant environment and in the land of ancient Catholic culture and tradition. My conclusion is therefore:

Whether Peter Halldorf will give us an embellished picture of the Catholic Church, or he does not understand what the Catholic saints include, or will not understand?!

Final Comment: It is unfortunately more and more delusion that spreads. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation apart by the Catholic Church. It's as if I would say the opposite, all Christendom if it is the Catholic and prosthetic part is so errant been that they are about to approach each other more and more. Finally, they embrace each other and accept, not Christ. But the false prophet and the Antichrist who will pretend to be God which Jesus never did, and they will worship him as God. But Israel will not because they know that only the Father and none other that is the only true God.

2. Tess. 2. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way! for first the rebellion occurs and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself in the temple of God and gives himself out to be God.

The translation of 2011 says: 2a Do not be so easily bring his composure. It's so important not to be brought out of the composure or be deceived. We know that the Catholic Church is and remains a harlot church. Everything that is done just to decorate the facade, it will never change until the Antichrist and the False Prophet comes to hold judgment on it that they will take over its role in the world and all other religious role. (See my commentaries Revelation especially chapter 17 and 18).

Joh. AD 17 3a And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, (it is only and only God the Father, God of Israel is the true God, no other, Hallelujah, Amen). But by accepting the Son and our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, we get access to the throne of God and become His children, glory be to God and the Lamb!

1 Tim. 2. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6a who gave himself as a ransom for all. (Taken from 2011 review that emphasizes that God is not a triadegud but one God and that Jesus, a man came out from the only true God, the Father).

Related links:

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar