Carlo has some balls for sure. He's been poking a very large bear for quite a while. Hopefully God protects him & gives him and extra large room with a great view when the time comes.
There is easy proof of faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Mt 16:18–19]. On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep [Jn 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?
Cyprian of Carthage, Unity of the Catholic Church (Treatise 1:4) (A.D. 251)
This is a good example of how the early Roman Catholic Church abused the original text, for the purpose of gaining power.
You have to read the entire passage, not just the one or two verses.
Jesus is talking to His disciples and asks who they think He is.
Some say He is John the Baptist or other prophets.
But Simon correctly says He is the Son of God.
Jesus is pleased by this, because Simon knew it from his knowledge of the prophecy, and no man had to tell him.
Jesus then says that Simon is "Peter" ("petros" in the original Greek), a small stone, because he is just one man who understands the scripture, and Jesus would build his ministry on the great bedrock foundation of the Earth ("petra" in the original Greek), so that all would know as Peter does.
Petros and Petra are two different concepts, with similar-looking words.
He was not saying that Peter would be the Pope of the Catholic Church. That was a lie by the Catholics. One of many.
Cyprian of Carthage (~200 years removed from Jesus) > tool (~2000 years removed from Jesus)
Early Christians are clear, Peter is the rock.
Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church - Origen of Alexandria, Homilies on Exodus 5:4 (c. A.D. 249)
As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the only house where the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten . This is the Ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails - Jerome of Stridon, Letters 15:2 (A.D. 376)
Peter his name in Greek means little stone, pebble. Jesus Christ said upon this rock and pointed to himself. The ROCK of ages. Peter disappeared from the bible after an argument with paul who did go to Rome and got imprisoned. No record of Pete ever going.
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church - Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 189).
You tug at strings, pretty soon you realise, the whole conception of God is wrong. AND that fact is right there in the first LINE of the Bible, which talks openly of Gods - plural (Elohim).
The awakening is a long drop from there. (But it's OK)
It's OK. Thanks for sending the link, interesting and useful to know. I do see that explanation as metal gymnastics, but it's OK for you go on believing it. Good to see you looked into it.
Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness"
This is clearly the grammar of more than one entity - and the bible does have the vibe of more than one personality acting. Not warn man of flood coming - vs - also help one of them to build an ark. It suggests more than one actor.
Then there is the big problem of pre-bible stories matching the bible, proving the bible to be real, but being different just in the number of Gods. A single God is not the god of all bible stories in the bible, the conclusion is inescapable, given the evidence.
Doesn't mean there is not one primary God, just that the bible is about more than one character playing god, it could be none of them are the ultimate one primary god.
Yes, these are both valid points, until you notice earlier written traditions have the same characters (usually with very different names, due to being in a different language) playing out essentially the same stories during the same time periods, except they render the story with multiple characters.
The earliest known writing is from the Sumerians, and their creation "myth" is virtually the same as Genesis (eden/adam/eve/serpent/god) except it's not a serpent but another "god" and there are many other gods too. The plural carried over into the bible. Then traditions that followed (Babylonian/Egyptian/Hittite/Medes - even Mayan) all used the very same multiple characters.
At the time of the ancient Greeks - still multiple gods. Then the bible is compiled and it still contains the plural. 4000 years later people are certain it refers to a single entity.
Now, take all the traditions from the first to the last and they all have multiple gods, the bible even uses the plural and talks openly of "We will make man in our image" which is word-for-word almost perfect translation of the earliest writing in existence, from Sumerians (pre flood and after). You have to wonder, you really really have to wonder.
The Sumerians even have stories that match Noah and the ark, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - in writing - the oldest existing writing. Their cosmology is even now in accordance with modern science. For a long time modern science had not discovered the chain of events they wrote about before 4000bc - like the origin of Earth being due to a celestial battle (collision)
No need to panic about the loss of the simple "one supreme" god scheme though - the gods of the old testament bible are basically not gods or God, just extremely advanced humanlike entities. God, the ultimate singular, must have created them, ultimately. I still see Jesus as the messenger of that God above all others, and not much changes because it is still a new arrangement that supersedes all the others, as it should.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Is the context that we were given only plants and fruits to eat?
I dont take that meaning. Next is animals - they eat the green plant for food but they are also food. Later in the Cain an Abel story God prefers the offering of meat... which is a clear endorsement of meat eating. (Genesis 4:4)
I have always adored this man/saint.
Carlo has some balls for sure. He's been poking a very large bear for quite a while. Hopefully God protects him & gives him and extra large room with a great view when the time comes.
https://twitter.com/CarloMVigano/status/1722949755146317838
Francis is a heretic.
climate change is a real comm though :)
global warming is almost over
Oops, many Catholics in here... Sorry guys, your "church" is a satanic shithole.
Surely he can't believe this corruption isn't as old as the popes position. It was born in corruption spawned by the devil himself.
Expose the RCC as the root of all evil, Vigano. Don't play fucking gatekeeper games. Tabula Rasa.
This is a good example of how the early Roman Catholic Church abused the original text, for the purpose of gaining power.
You have to read the entire passage, not just the one or two verses.
Jesus is talking to His disciples and asks who they think He is.
Some say He is John the Baptist or other prophets.
But Simon correctly says He is the Son of God.
Jesus is pleased by this, because Simon knew it from his knowledge of the prophecy, and no man had to tell him.
Jesus then says that Simon is "Peter" ("petros" in the original Greek), a small stone, because he is just one man who understands the scripture, and Jesus would build his ministry on the great bedrock foundation of the Earth ("petra" in the original Greek), so that all would know as Peter does.
Petros and Petra are two different concepts, with similar-looking words.
He was not saying that Peter would be the Pope of the Catholic Church. That was a lie by the Catholics. One of many.
Cyprian of Carthage (~200 years removed from Jesus) > tool (~2000 years removed from Jesus)
Early Christians are clear, Peter is the rock.
There is NO POPE in the Bible.
End of debate.
Origen of Alexandria (200 years away from Jesus) > some random guy (2000 years away from Jesus)
Alexandria has nothing else that agrees with it.
Two witnesses make a fact, per the Bible, not one.
Peter his name in Greek means little stone, pebble. Jesus Christ said upon this rock and pointed to himself. The ROCK of ages. Peter disappeared from the bible after an argument with paul who did go to Rome and got imprisoned. No record of Pete ever going.
You tug at strings, pretty soon you realise, the whole conception of God is wrong. AND that fact is right there in the first LINE of the Bible, which talks openly of Gods - plural (Elohim).
The awakening is a long drop from there. (But it's OK)
EDIT: I love Vigano
I thought the first line of the bible is "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
That's right. That's the English translation. In Hebrew the word translated as God is "Elohim" which is the plural of Eloah.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/oneness-of-god-the-meaning-of-elohim
This first paragraph states "In biblical Hebrew, many singular abstractions are expressed in the plural form, e.g., rachamim, “compassion”"
It's OK. Thanks for sending the link, interesting and useful to know. I do see that explanation as metal gymnastics, but it's OK for you go on believing it. Good to see you looked into it.
Genesis 1:26 "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness"
This is clearly the grammar of more than one entity - and the bible does have the vibe of more than one personality acting. Not warn man of flood coming - vs - also help one of them to build an ark. It suggests more than one actor.
Then there is the big problem of pre-bible stories matching the bible, proving the bible to be real, but being different just in the number of Gods. A single God is not the god of all bible stories in the bible, the conclusion is inescapable, given the evidence.
Doesn't mean there is not one primary God, just that the bible is about more than one character playing god, it could be none of them are the ultimate one primary god.
Yes, these are both valid points, until you notice earlier written traditions have the same characters (usually with very different names, due to being in a different language) playing out essentially the same stories during the same time periods, except they render the story with multiple characters. The earliest known writing is from the Sumerians, and their creation "myth" is virtually the same as Genesis (eden/adam/eve/serpent/god) except it's not a serpent but another "god" and there are many other gods too. The plural carried over into the bible. Then traditions that followed (Babylonian/Egyptian/Hittite/Medes - even Mayan) all used the very same multiple characters.
At the time of the ancient Greeks - still multiple gods. Then the bible is compiled and it still contains the plural. 4000 years later people are certain it refers to a single entity.
Now, take all the traditions from the first to the last and they all have multiple gods, the bible even uses the plural and talks openly of "We will make man in our image" which is word-for-word almost perfect translation of the earliest writing in existence, from Sumerians (pre flood and after). You have to wonder, you really really have to wonder.
The Sumerians even have stories that match Noah and the ark, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah - in writing - the oldest existing writing. Their cosmology is even now in accordance with modern science. For a long time modern science had not discovered the chain of events they wrote about before 4000bc - like the origin of Earth being due to a celestial battle (collision)
No need to panic about the loss of the simple "one supreme" god scheme though - the gods of the old testament bible are basically not gods or God, just extremely advanced humanlike entities. God, the ultimate singular, must have created them, ultimately. I still see Jesus as the messenger of that God above all others, and not much changes because it is still a new arrangement that supersedes all the others, as it should.
The truth would put 99% in the hospital...
No I'm open minded. I know people have probably subverted the original. I have no hard beliefs on this subject.
Interesting I'm reading that chapter now.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
Is the context that we were given only plants and fruits to eat?
I dont take that meaning. Next is animals - they eat the green plant for food but they are also food. Later in the Cain an Abel story God prefers the offering of meat... which is a clear endorsement of meat eating. (Genesis 4:4)