Logic, man! Not your self-serving lies in place of Biblical History

4/25/2015 31 Comments

History written only within the capacity of man is not always reliable. 

Take the history of the Assyrian empire. In the entire history of the empire, there was no mention of King Sargon. However, the Bible mentioned a man, whom the Bible called King Sargon of Assyria recorded in the book of Isaiah.

ISAIAH 20:1 
In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;

But to confirm the historicity of the Bible, very recently, proofs of the reign of King Sargon was revealed. A myth he was for a long time, now archeology is helping Biblical truth prove his existence.

Sargon II was considered a Biblical myth throughout modern history until the archaeological excavations of the French scholar, Paul Emile Botta. Botta unearthed Sargon’s mighty palace at Dur Sharrukin (Khorsabad), just north of Nineveh near the Tigris river. This remarkable discovery had inscriptions on palace walls which proved many events in history and those mentioned in the Bible.

One of the inscriptions reads: "At the beginning of my rule, in the very first year I reigned…I set siege to and conquered Samaria…I carried away into captivity 27,290 persons who lived there; I took fifty fine chariots for my royal equipment." 


Thus, when it comes to relating history, the Bible is quite different from other books available on this planet. History in the Bible is not just the recounting of what has passed. It is not linear but circular. Thus, it is made by looking forward to a foretold event in the form of a prophecy, and then after it was fulfilled, it is to look back into the past (the future foretold). 

The events comes full circle, tying the future, past and present so that often, we read of the expression, “I have told you before….” The connotation is that there is always the involvement of The Almighty in the order of things who is the “of Him, through Him and to Him are all things.” This is where the Bible is outstanding.

ISAIAH 46:9-10 
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

JOHN 13:19 
Now I tell you before it come, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he.

An account of the alleged history that under the St. Peter’s Basilica there were graves found with inscriptions “Buried near Peter.” This is surely self-serving! After all, a pope was the one who allegedly revealed it. But is this actual history with tangible evidence investigated to be true? Notice this lie where in the first place Peter had never been in Rome. Here’s an excerpt -

What about the archaeological evidence? In the middle decades of this century scientists conducted digs under St. Peter's Basilica to verify or disprove the tradition that the church had been constructed over Peter's tomb.

And what do you think they found? That's right: the tomb. Pope Paul VI was able to announce that conclusive proof had been discovered--for instance, neighboring crypts on which were written grafitti such as, "Buried near Peter." 


Peter could not have been a pope in Rome. Why? The assignment in Biblical context is clear.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

We must remember that earlier the original twelve were forbidden to go to the places of the Gentiles.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

It was when the Apostle Paul and Barnabas were called, that there were legitimate apostles destined to Gentile nations.

THE ACTS 13:46-47 
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 
47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

THE ACTS 13:1-2 
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. 
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

THE ACTS 26:17-18 
17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 
18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

It would be very unbecoming of Peter, who was destined to the Israelites, to sit as a reigning pope in the territory of the Gentiles. It is not only unbecoming but also illogical. It is against the will of the Lord. The Lord, who destines or designates, chose Paul to be an apostle to the Gentiles, including Rome. So why will Peter substitute himself for Paul, chosen by the Lord Himself? 

It is not very easy to tell and relate the truth. Because of this blog, I have received not a pocketful but a bucketful of defamations from Catholic defenders. 

Still and all, despite what defamers can do to me, no history - biblical or otherwise - will back up the claim that Peter stayed in Rome as the first pope. The history written in the Catholic encyclopedia by Catholics themselves, that the word “pope” was just invented in 521 AD used by Ennodius 400 years after the death of Peter, is a very clear proof of the fallacy of that claim that Peter was the first Pope! 

The apostles may augment the shortcomings of each one because it is a law of Christ. They were told to help each one meet the deficiencies of the other.

Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Peter, sometime, because of the proximity to the place of necessity, was sent to witness unto a Gentile by the name of Cornelius - but not be an Apostle to the Gentiles.

THE ACTS 10:1-3 
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always. 
3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

The God of the Bible is an exact God. He made Paul and Barnabas to be Apostles to the Gentiles - not so with Peter. So why will Peter go to Rome, reign as a pope, be crucified in the inverted manner, and die in Rome, while it was not his place of authority and designation? In fact, the Apostle Peter himself was submissive to the wisdom and ability of the Apostle Paul in administering the churches of the Gentiles.

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision. (Cephas is Peter.)

In his farewell letter to Timothy, when his days were counted, the Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy the second letter, written in Rome in 65 AD, tasking Timothy to come to him the earliest possible time.

6 For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. 
7 I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: 
8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. 
9 Do thy diligence to come shortly unto me:

The tone suggests a clear possibility that the Apostle Paul would be dying in Rome where he was at that time. In the spirit, in practice, and history of the Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church Peter could not have been a pope! Here are four reasons: 

First, Peter was married. As a supposed Pope, Peter would prohibit his successors to marry. As a married man in reality, would he do that when he, himself is married? Would it not be unfair? It most certainly is unfair.

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, 
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? 
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
(Cephas is Peter.)

Second, the character of Peter is such that he will not allow his subjects, being the highest authority, to call him “Pope,” because he is an obedient apostle. Pope means “papa” or Father.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The word “pope” was never used by this apostle. The fact that “pope” is not written in the New Testament is an evidence against it as bright as the noonday sun. Third, the Apostle Peter will not allow his constituents to bow down before him as the Popes have been practicing for the past centuries. This is a form of idolatry.

THE ACTS 10:25-26 
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. 
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

The practices of the popes now, accepting the praises and the kneeling down of people before them, is a clear indication that they are not successors to Peter. 

Fourth, Peter is not power-hungry. He cannot be, from the start, a bishop of Rome that eventually rose to the power of being the overall leader of the Catholic Church. Consider power and the greed for more power as described below - 

Why not Peter? Because biblically speaking, Paul was the bishop of Rome - considering places of assignment. Paul established the church in Rome and was the caretaker of the church in Rome. How can Peter be the bishop in Rome? Peter would never compete with Apostle Paul. It is reflective in Peter’s letter that tells the first century Christians his respect for the wisdom of Paul.

II PETER 3:15-17 
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. 
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.

THIS IS THE TRUTH!!!! Biblical history, logic, and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ together deny the alleged papacy of Peter. 

More to come, God willing. 

God bless you.


Never a Pope, Never in Rome, was Apostle Peter

4/18/2015 57 Comments

Peter was never a pope, more so, in Rome. 

Pope means father. Notice what is written for the subject, “The Pope,” in the Catholic Encyclopedia (Herberman, Charles G. et al., ed. 1907. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 1: Aachen–Assize. New York: Robert Appleton Company.) 

A backgrounder on this encyclopedia says it is “an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic Church.” 

The preface explains that the first volume appeared in March 1907 and the last three volumes appeared in 1912. In 1914 a master index volume followed and supplementary volumes later on. It was designed "to give its readers full and authoritative information on the entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine.” 

Now, on the subject of “The Pope” is a blatant error in that St. Peter is erroneously involved where he is not mentioned in the Bible as such. 

Note: The pencil marks here mean discussions will not include these items on St. Ennodius and the Western Church. On the title, “Pope” and other titles that clericals use, we refer to biblical examples - -Pope-1(The Catholic Encylopedia) 
Giving orders and discipline to His apostles said, the Lord Jesus Christ said -

MATTHEW 23:8-10 
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

None of the apostles ever affixed the word "Father" to their names. Nowhere in the Bible can we find "Father Paul" or "Father Peter.” They were addressed as "brothers" or "brethren" in conformity with the order of the Lord Jesus Christ that "all ye are brethren."

THE ACTS 2:37 
Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

In this particular verses, the apostles were addressed as "brethren" not "fathers.” 

A simple equation and analysis will reveal the great lie being propagated by the Catholic Church, saying that Peter was the first pope! 

The word "pope" was invented by Catholic authorities only in the 6th century. papas 
How can Peter be a pope when the Office of the Pope and the title were created by the Catholic Church five hundred years after the death of Peter! This is laughable stupidity! 

The Apostle Paul called Timothy, Titus, and other Christians as his "own sons in faith" but never instructed neither Timothy nor Titus to call him "Father.”

Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

TITUS 1:4 
To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior.

Let us read again Matthew 23:9.

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ are spiritual.

JOHN 6:63 
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

When He said, "Call no man your father upon the earth,” He refers to spiritual matters of faith. Spiritually speaking, we must call only one person "Father," and that is the Father in heaven. There is a person on earth we can call our father but carnal and not spiritual.

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Catholic priests and popes are neither our carnal fathers nor spiritual fathers. They have no right whatsoever to be called "Father" in any angle of truth! But why do Catholic priests love to be called "father" by their constituents? Spiritual Father-MCD Remember, we have only one person to be addressed as "Father" spiritually, and that is the Father in heaven. This honor is being grabbed by the false teaching of Catholic priests and authorities! To prove that they are lying, they use mistranslated scriptures. They justify their Father titles with this one -

I CORINTHIANS 4:15 (English Standard Version) 
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

However, if we consult the interlinear Greek translation of the scriptures, the phrase "I became your father" in the preceding verse is not found.

1Co 4:15 ForG1063 thoughG1437 ye haveG2192 ten thousandG3463 instructorsG3807 inG1722 Christ,G5547 yetG235 have ye notG3756 manyG4183 fathers:G3962 forG1063 inG1722 ChristG5547 JesusG2424 IG1473 have begottenG1080 youG5209 throughG1223 theG3588 gospel.G2098

The word used and translated in English as "begotten" is γεννάω, meaning, "be born".

From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

Consider that by using 1 Corinthians 4:15-16, the Catholics in their official website did not use the authorized Roman Catholic Bible which is the Douay-Rheims Version. They used another version that is not a Catholic Version to mislead people so they can cling on to their “Father” tradition.

I CORINTHIANS 4:15 (Douay–Rheims Version) 
For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

See? “I have begotten you” is worlds apart from “I became your father.” It is easily noticeable that in the authorized version of the Catholic Church, the word "father" does not appear in the verse but the phrase " I have begotten you,” forcing them to use a version of the Bible which they do not normally use. 

What exactly is the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the use of other translation of the Bible? Notice the sanctions mentioned in the following publications –

The Catholic Encyclopedia, under "Scripture,” notes that the Synod of Tarragona (1233/4) issued a prohibition, similar to that of the Synod of Toulouse. It also "ordered all vernacular versions to be brought to the bishop to be burned." [Source: Antony Stockwell (2014) “A Corrupt Tree, An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit.]

King Ferdinand II of Aragon (called “the Catholic”) and Queen Isabella I “prohibited all, under the severest pains, from translating the sacred scripture into the vulgar tongues, or from using it when translated by others” (M’Crie, p. 192). [Source: Thomas M’Crie. History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reformation in Spain in the sixteenth century, page 192.]

In 1408, the Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury, demanded: We therefore decree and ordain that no man shall, hereafter, by his own authority, translate any text of the scripture into English, or any other tongue, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part or in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial. [Source: Antony Stockwell (2014) “A Corrupt Tree, An Encyclopaedia of Crimes committed by the Church of Rome against Humanity and the Human Spirit,” pages 474-475]

To escape from the consequence of their invented teaching that Catholic priests are spiritual fathers, they use an unauthorized version of the Bible! 

This one is worth considering. Using their invented title "Father,” they do not simply use it! To show the height of their stupidity and arrogance they go beyond, affixing several adjective phrases like "Reverend Father,” "Most Reverend Father,” "Most Holy Father," “The Very Reverend,” “Right Reverend,” and the like. These are titles that are most blasphemous, because when they invoke the name of the Father in heaven in prayers, they just say "Our Father" not "Reverend Father,” not "Very Reverend Father,” when it is certainly biblical that only the Father in heaven must be addressed "Reverend.”

PSALMS 111:9 
He sent redemption unto his people: he hath commanded his covenant forever: holy and reverend is his name.

The word ירא , translated as "reverend" in English, was used in only one instance in the Bible to show the greatness of the name of God. But the Catholic Church, time and again, have used and misused this word for themselves. Truly, the Great Babylon and the Beast in the Bible is full of blasphemous names!

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

Peter could not have been a pope, let alone in Rome! Why? Because he is Apostle to the Israelites and not to the Gentiles!

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Thinking wisely and justly, will it be possible that the Apostle Paul be renting a place to live for two years and never seeing Peter in Rome? If indeed "Pope Peter" was in Rome, why did he never visit Paul in his rented apartment? Both of them are Apostles with the same commission; if staying in the same area, would their behavior be one of avoiding each other?

THE ACTS 28:16, 30-31 
16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. 
30 And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, 
31 Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

If Peter was in Rome allegedly being the first pope, it will be very unbecoming of a senior apostle not to show any act of compassion to his co-apostle, who is under house arrest, renting a place to live for two years! 

What can explain all these injustices done by a senior apostle to a co-apostle? Answer: the lies of the Roman Catholic Church! 

More to come. May God bless you. 

Brother Eli


The Shaky Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church

4/11/2015 30 Comments

For almost two millennia, no attacks on the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church were humbly accepted by their leaders. Neither was there any explanation for their beliefs or correction for their flaws. For example, time and again, they insist that Peter is the "rock" foundation of the church and therefore, was the first pope that gave the right to succeeding popes to rule over spiritual, political, and economic matters of the church. Is this correct? Are they even checking where their beliefs come from? 

This goes back to the problem of their dictionary that is supposed only to define, being a dictionary. But the Modern Catholic Dictionary goes beyond defining. The supposed dictionary arrogates unto itself the right to include many other myths and false stories that directly oppose the teachings of the Bible and attaches them to the word being defined. The effect is more propagation of falsities. The following information explains why. 

The publisher, Amazon, introduces the Modern Catholic Dictionary (1980) by John Hardon as “A compilation of five thousand concisely defined terms which deal directly and indirectly with Catholic faith, worship, morals, history, and spirituality, supplemented by The Credo of the People of God as pronounced by Pope Paul VI.” 

The source of their teachings contained in their dictionary is clearly not the Bible but tradition, history, popes. Hardon is an American Jesuit priest who was born in 1914
and died in 2000. 

In the Modern Catholic Dictionary, the Apostle Peter is incorrectly referred to as “the rock” and claims that, that is the meaning of Matthew 16:18 in the Bible. 

It is also the foundation of the false belief that there is continuity of power emanating from the chair of Peter up to now. The chair of Peter represents the power to teach infallibly ex-cathedra according to them.

This belief attracted almost all kinds of people from all walks of life to adhere to the alleged genuineness of the Roman Catholic Church. But the Bible refutes every angle of this doctrine, and let me show you how. 

First, Peter is not the foundation rock of the true church. 

Let us refer to the teachings of the Bible. In Matthew 16:18, the word used as foundation is "petra".

Feminine of the same as G4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): - rock.

Petra in the feminine gender is clearly not "petros" in the masculine gender that they presume to be Peter.

Apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than G3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. Compare G2786.

MATTHEW 16:18 
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The use of the word "upon" or "ἐπί (epi)" means it is the foundation. Christ is the foundation laid by God Himself.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Time and again, Christ being the corner stone, is repeated in the Holy Scriptures.

THE ACTS 4:10-12 
10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 
11 This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

PSALMS 118:22 
The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

The concluding and the sealing truth is that even Peter was founded upon this foundation. It is also logical that a mere human being cannot be the foundation or corner stone of truth upon which to build a church.

And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The foundation even of Peter is Christ! PERIOD! 

A human being like Peter cannot be the foundation of truth. Only someone divine or God can be, as only God does not lie.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

TITUS 1:2 
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Someone divine like Christ is worthy of being the foundation of the truth and the true church.

15 So that if I am delayed, you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 
16 Truly great is this divine mystery of righteousness; it is revealed in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached to the Gentiles, believed on in the world, and received up into glory.

Christ – not Peter - by His power is worthy to be the foundation of every great and fragile truth!

That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ
3 In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

As the Word of God, Christ – not Peter - is the foundation of faith.

JOHN 1:1 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

MATTHEW 7:24-25 
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 
25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock.

Christ is the foundation of creation.

JOHN 1:1-3 
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
2 The same was in the beginning with God. 
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Christ is the foundation of faith.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The faith of Christ – not Peter’s - is the model faith of every Christian.

JAMES 2:1 
My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

The RCC claim that someone sitting and speaking from the throne of Peter is infallible. 

This claim is not substantiated by facts and history! 

One simple truth is about two hundred sixty (260) popes speaking ex cathedra of limbo and purgatory. But one pope speaking ex cathedra, denies limbo. 

Can you not see this very simple contradiction? Majority of popes speaking "ex cathedra" said that "there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." 

Later popes speaking ex cathedra said that salvation can be attained outside the Catholic Church. 

Here is what the Modern Catholic Dictionary has to say on Ecumenism. Popes from the Vatican Council pronounced ex cathedra in Ecumenism the belief that they must be one with other churches. 

And yet you can still hear them hammering on their man-made truth that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. 

There are yet the many lies coming out of their having made Peter their rock of their salvation. Many of their believers have been beguiled and robbed of their salvation. To begin with, building your foundation upon a human being is bound to make a mountain of lies. Even Peter would not agree since he is a true follower of Christ. 

More to come. May God bless you.


More Inventions of the Roman Catholic Church: Limbo and Purgatory

4/04/2015 43 Comments

It is interesting to note how people invent lies to make people believe in them just so money keeps dropping to their coffers and reassure their hold on power. The concepts of Limbo and Purgatory are two among them, created by the Roman Catholic Church and now deeply embedded in their non-biblical beliefs. 

Limbo is not biblical in concept - in spirit and in letters. It is not found in the Bible. The braveness of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger or Pope Benedict XVI, to declare that Limbo does not exist contradicting almost all previous popes before him is a heroic act. We do not know if this was the reason why he later relinquished his post being the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Maybe he was pressured by other authorities, maybe not! Only God knows the whole story. 

Two decades before this, way back in June 1985, the “Ratzinger Report” was published. It was an exclusive interview on the state of the Church written by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. It has Vittorio Messori as co-author, the Italian journalist that interviewed him. Ratzinger states that he is "speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation, and that “I would abandon Limbo since it was only a theological hypothesis." (Ratzinger Report, p. 147, www.amazon.com). 

When Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, the following year in October 2006 he announced that limbo does not exist. [In February 2013, Benedict XVI resigned from his position as pope]. 

However, in that Ratzinger Report, Benedict asserted that "if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it." (P.146). 

There are many secrets in the Roman Catholic Church written and archived, or spoken - after which the speaker is silenced. The history of the inquisition knows better than anyone of us living today. To murder more than 300,000 people at a given time carry with it 300,000 secrets and stories unrevealed. 

But the story on how purgatory came into existence in the minds and belief of all Catholics is one of the deepest secrets of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a secret because it is not a teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ or of the apostles. The prophets did not mention any idea of purgatory! But what is purgatory? 

Here’s what the Modern Catholic Dictionary says on Page 452. Take note that it does not simply define the word, “Purgatory,” but supplies a load of non-biblical beliefs connected to this Catholic concept. Purgatory is not found in the Bible, and the beliefs attached to this doctrine contravene a lot of biblical injunctions. 

• After death there’s a stopover for purification before going to heaven.
• This stopover provides temporary suffering or misery.
• The dead person’s condition is tied to people on earth who will have to do things for this person.
• At the same time the dead can intercede for the people on earth and that is why those living are encouraged to invoke the aid of the dead.
• The duration of suffering and misery is not the same for all.
• The suffering and misery will continue until one is free from all guilt and punishment.
• “Immediately upon purification, the soul is assumed into heaven.”
• The poor are assured of going to heaven.

The problem with this dictionary is that it claims power to declare man-made truth. By whom, it is not clear. It is not also clear under whom it is subject to. 

The practices of the Catholics are obviously pegged on these beliefs. That is the reason why they forever pay their church for so-called masses for the dead though their dead have been gone several decades ago. That is the reason they talk to the dead and think these have power to intercede for them. That is also the reason why they celebrate the birthdays of the dead as though they were still alive. In contrast, the Bible makes it clear that once dead, the remains of the individual are in the hands of God. 

The Catholic Church has created a lot of counterfeits, removing the power from God and ascribing authority to Mary, who is herself dead. It has also ascribed power to the dead to intercede for those alive. And in between, it has placed many stories to take away righteous judgment from God. The result is a sham and they make people go through motions of paying, paying and forever paying – for such kind of salvation. 

The Philippine National Hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, certainly knew the non-existence of the purgatory when he wrote his book, "Noli Me Tangere". 

Dr. Rizal read the entire Bible and said, "Neither Moses nor Jesus Christ make the slightest mention of purgatory." 

The soul of a just person need not be purified in purgatory. The sanctifying power and grace in the blood of Christ is sufficient and never wanting for just souls to merit entry in the kingdom of God!

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

The souls of the just are in heaven while waiting for the judgment - not in purgatory!

9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The place called "under the altar" in heaven cannot be purgatory because it is a place where the souls of the just "rest" and not a place of temporal punishments and atonement, mentioned in the doctrine of purgatory! Under the altar in heaven is not a place of suffering. Surely, the souls of the just "rest" under the altar! 

Purgatory is a moneymaking doctrine for the Catholic Church! For souls to be taken out of suffering in purgatory, prayers and masses are needed. Almost all masses held every day in the Catholic Church are paid for by the faithfuls. The more you love your dearly departed relative, the more you will ask for masses and prayers. In prayers, you have to provide yourself with a rosary that is commercially available in all Catholic stores. [Note: We have earlier discussed that the rosary is a joke, a sham, a mere invention.] 

Cheaper rosaries are made of beads and woods, and this is an easy choice for the poor. For the middle class, there are rosaries made of silver and copper and other cheaper materials. But for the luxurious rich, there are rosaries whose beads are 5 carats diamonds! 

Purgatory is a doctrine conniving with rosary, novenas, masses, and "bula de composicion." Titled “To the Young women of Malolos,” this was written by Dr. Jose Rizal, Philippine’s National Hero, and edited by Teodoro M. Kalaw; published by the National Library, Manila, 1932. Rizal was one of those they were not able to deceive. Here’s an excerpt. 

This is the reason why Dr. Jose Rizal was put to death by firing squad by the then Catholic government of the Philippines influenced by Spanish friars. 

No human knows at what point in the depth of oblivion the doctrine of purgatory emerged! It is really a deep secret of the Catholic Church! 

In the Bible, there are two real places mentioned as final destiny of man: the kingdom of God, and eternal fire.

MATTHEW 25:32-46 
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 
35 For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 
42 For I was hungry, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Conclusion: There is no purgatory in the Bible - in spirit, and in reality!